Flightblogging.com

June 17, 2007

Want to expand an airport? Think about mitigation, mitigation, mitigation.

Whatever has gone wrong with Coventry Airport’s attempts to open up a new terminal, and offer flights for upto 2 million passengers each year, there is no point in trying to find a scapegoat. Considering that the airport’s current owners took over the lease from TUI on the apparent understanding that the second public inquiry would be a formality, this ruling must come as a tremendous blow to them.

Infact, Coventry Airport’s managing director, Chris Orphanou, has not exactly minced his words when commenting on the decision to the Coventry Evening Telegraph:

“I’m not from Coventry, but had I been from Coventry, I would probably have been creating World War Three today”

Well, I’m not sure if I’d say I’m from Coventry either - I happen to live here, but I’d consider myself to be “from” that other town just up the road - Leamington Spa, or Royal Leamington Spa to the snobs out there. So having seen this argument from both sides of the fence, I think that this is the crux of the problem.

Poor Coventry is surrounded by affluent Warwickshire, which will only deal on its own terms - just look at the history of Warwick University, for more details on this. Meanwhile, just up the road is Birmingham, which is still trying to cling to its claim of being Britain’s second city. Sorry Brum, but in terms of culture, sport, and of course transport, you lost that one to Manchester many moons ago. So time for a quote from my favourite band, with whom I share my name, and who also happen to eminate from Britain’s real second city:

“Stop stop talking about who’s to blame, when all that counts is how to change.” - James, Born of Frustration.

The decision has been made, and we have to live with it. For anyone directly employed at the airport, or who’s business depends on the airport, this is a hard blow to take, especially as we approach what should be a busy summer, not to mention the excitement of the new flights to Poland.

I have lived in this area for 29 of the 31 years I have spent on this planet. Prior to moving to Coventry, I lived in north Leamington. I also took a substantial interest in green issues when at university, so I think I can see this debate from most angles. 

I have repeatedly pointed out that Coventry Airport needs an intelligent surface access (ie ground transport) strategy. They need to innovate, and to turn this obvious weakness into a strength - just laying on a couple of buses doesn’t do this. They need to look at the shared taxi system used by Chiltern Trains at Bicester North (where parking constraints are a real problem), or they need to investigate whether or not Thomsonfly’s customer database can be used to offer this service as an add-on (hey, potential revenue earner here too).

I don’t buy the argument that mitigation wasn’t sufficient. If this was the case, surely the inspectorate could have imposed greater restrictions on the airport. This is to be expected anyway, as environmental concerns continue to grab more headlines. Let’s not forget that 1 million departures each year would have sent £10m to the treasury, yet nimbys tend to go strangely silent when asked if some of that income should go towards mitigation schemes.

Noise and air pollution will be a problem at any airport, but it doesn’t take a genius to glance at a map, and see that the residential areas around Birmingham Airport are a great deal more dense than those around Coventry.

I still believe that this difference in noise footprint more than equates for any alleged lack of public transport at Coventry Airport - especially as most of Coventry’s passengers are on leisure trips anyway. Let us not forget that, for all Birmingham’s talk about having a station on site, 4 out of 5 people using it still arrive there by private transport or taxi. As with many other UK airport’s, Birmingham’s proximity to the main London to Birmingham railway line can be put down to an accident of geography, rather than any deliberate foresight. However much I would like to see more people getting to and from airports by public transport, this should never be a reason for an airport to be refused the opportunity to expand.

So I think that the environmental reasons for the refusal of planning permission can and should be challenged, however much of a whipping stick the media like to beat the aviation industry with. Once those are given a fair weighting, I think that the case for moderate, controlled and mitigated expansion at Coventry - which is all anyone has ever asked for - is entirely reasonable, and consistent with the needs of the Midlands as a whole.

2 Comments »

  1. Thank goodness Coventry Airport seems to be in decline.
    The low flights over South Warwickshire have been both alarming and distressing for so many. There was simply no need for a new terminal catering for 2m people, fuelled simply by greedy property and business developers seeking to create a market where none previously existed. Let’s hope the runways start to crumble and we see the first signs of green shoots coming through the tarmac before too long!
    Peace reigns again - we all want it to stay that way. It must stay that way - there’s already enough noise from Bham airport, carrying way down to the northern Cotswolds.

    Comment by Roger — June 30, 2009 @ 3:07 pm

  2. The low flights you talk about were almost certainly going into Birmingham, which handles 9.6 million passengers per year, compared to Coventry’s best ever year total of about 0.6. So Birmingham isn’t greedy because it is owned by local councils? They are the ones who wanted to monopolise the local market - if you look at Coventry Airport’s management over the last few years, disorganised would be a much more appropriate word to describe them than greedy. Far too many changes at the top, local powers that be didn’t know who they were dealing with, local press speculation combined with a ridiculous suggestion of Coventry handling 9 million pax per year in the govbernment’s own White Paper whipped up hysteria where none was due.

    As for green shoots, an airport is about as good as it will get, other suggested uses for the site have included gravel extraction and housing, both would generate far more traffic.

    Comment by ja — August 25, 2009 @ 2:46 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

Powered by WordPress