大象传媒 - Coventry and Warwickshire Talk

My concern is solely for road safety, if someone were hurt as a result of drivers slowing down to read the signs, and the enforcement officer at Rugby BC had not carried out his legal duties, then should the local authority be held responsible or those who post illegal notices without the correct planning permission?

My fear is that the local authority would, and all of the council tax payers would end up footing an expensive legal battle for compensation.

Rugby BC have already wasted 拢500,000 championing failed causes (namely the western by-pass), now they want to champion the NO airport/jobs/development/progress for Rugby agenda.

Posting notices on the sides of roads is policed by a combination of the police (if they spot them and they have had complaints, they'll take action) and the Highways Agency (if they spot them when doing a sweep, they'll remove them) unless the notice is on private land.

I haven't been to Rugby for a while (getting on for 8 months) but I'm guessing the locals have plastered the A45 in Anti-airport notices? No doubt some of the farmers along there have also put up hay-bales with notices attached (it happens here with by-pass requests, why not in Rugby?). I've heard something from friends about using the Cement works as a notice board.

People will use whatever they can to get the message across - legal, illegal, direct, indirect or whatever. If you need to clamp down on this sort of thing, surely it indicates that enough people to cause major distraction are unhappy about the plans...

Phil,

I have complained to Rugby Borough Council.

I received quite a curt reply:

"Dear Mr Kellow
We are currently only removing signs obscuring road traffic signs and and junctions that may cause a hazard. I have been instructed by Ian Davies not to remove any other signs until further notice

Barry Rose
Enforcement officer"

Now whilst I can understand their position, I watched a small family car nearly go under the wheels of a Rugby Cement (oh the irony) truck because they were reading the Hoarding that has appeared at Church Lawford.

As an interlude to the seriouness of it all too, my wife noticed a sign on the way home from Birmingham today, and said

"That needs to be changed"
"eh?"
"The sign, it shouldn't be Welcome to Coventry, the City in Shakespeares county, it should be the City in Shakespeares Airport!"

We are having this debate on-line, various villages and interest groups are organising meetings in the area, all of this is to be encouraged, but, isn't posting notices on the side of the highway ILLEGAL?

What are the mechanics of getting planning permission to advertise on the side of the road? Who polices them?

Doesn't it invalidate peoples argument if they have to resort to breaking the law to try to get their point across, especially when there are so many forums for all to join in with.

Perhaps the only specialist interest group not to form any legal or illegal campaign are those quietly in favour!

A few thoughts associated with the new Warwickshire airport proposals:

- I wondered if Gaydon was considered at all in the various reviews? Just as many drawbacks as any other location so far as NIMBYs are concerned, but not bad infrastructure already and one BIG airstrip, albeit unused today. M40 is better than the M1 as the key life-line. Probably not quite enough space I guess. The same applies to Upper Heyford.

- No midlands location has a hope of success without a true high speed rail link direct to the centre of London with no more than 15 minutes between shuttles - ideally less than 10 minutes. The vast majority of potential users need to get down further south or London itself.

Nothing less than a 125mph + shuttle would be acceptable with such a distance between this proposed 'Central England' location and the capital. No genuinely high speed link and the whole thing is utterly pointless. Forget about the motorway - road traffic will only ever get worse and the travel time from Rugby to London by road will become riduculous from an international traveller's point of view - hardly a 'London' airport.

- The residents of Church Lawford and Kings Newham would almost certainly recieve hugely inflated prices in compensation for the destruction of their properties.

As a speculative buyer in the Rugby area, I'd buy up property there today in the hope that any compulsory purchase order compensates me two or even three fold the true value; a not unprecedented benchmark. I really wouldn't worry about house prices there.

Here is a question with regards to the proposed option three.

How many people in the areas affected have read the document as published by the DOT??

I have, its 204 pages of print, of which 202 are numbered.

The "Possible development of a new site to be located between Coventry and Rugby" is option three.

Option 1 - Extend Heathrow and uprate regional airports

Option 2 - Extend Birmingham and East Midlands, uprate the London airports

Option 3 - Close Birmigham upon successful build of a new "National" airport. This single airport is to take passengers from all over the UK, and not be a glorified regional airport such as Heathrow/Gatwick.

Now, here's the question, which one do you think the DOT wants to put forward??

Well, here's what I think - they want option 2.

Why, well option 3 will cause so much public outrage (as it is) that it won't be possible to carry out. Option 1, whilst being very attractive, is useless for the country. Option 2 - thats the puppy.

So, rather than being bloody stupid about the whole thing, wake up, and start to support the Birmingham bid.

Oh and for the record, I would support the Airport - 60,000 or so jobs directly with countless indirect positions - sounds like a winner for the area to me!

Matthew, my multiple postings are merely a reply to multiple postings taking a different stance. This is call DEBATE and encouraged by this host, namely the 大象传媒.

I am not a lone voice, check out the uk.local.warwickshire newsgroup which is also populated by educated warwickshire people, one family in particular live in Wolston, which would arguably be worse off than Church Lawford & Kings Newnham, as they would not be rehoused at the taxpayers expense and have to live in the closest proximity, but they also have reasoned in their mind the matter and can see the advantages would outway the disadvantages.

Offering to insult me for my independent stance is only likely to encourage me to offer more common-sense, always accept there will be those who differ from you, that doesn't make them wrong or you right.

Mr Shepherd,
Posting multiple messages in reply does little to bolster your argument. Take a look at the replies to this forum - you are virtually the only person in favour of this development. Anyone would think you had something to gain by it.

Yes, Rugby has got 1000's of young people needing jobs in the near future. No doubt they'll do what quite a lot of currently employed people from Rugby do: commute. They'll hop on the train or in their cars and go off to the hurly-burly of Birmingham, Coventry, Leicester or even London, so that when they get home in the evening they'll have escaped the noise of the city. Put an airport just outside a town, and they won't be able to escape, and then they're much more likely to leave the area entirely.

I know people in education in Rugby. Most of them want to either leave (go to London, mainly) or stay and commute. They don't want an airport.

Richard's points about noise are also valid: you can hear the difference between even smallish cities and towns like Rugby - the only differences are in the levels of traffic for some, but you can hear it. Birmingham is a noisy place - the airport there is much less noticable than it would be, in a quiet countryside area.
If Mr Shepherd wants an airport so much, then

I suggest he goes and moves to Heathrow - I'm sure he'll enjoy the constant overflights, building work and convenience.

I reply to varying comments by Phil Shepherd.

- Loss of a major section or country side, you want Warwickshire to become a concrete jungle. Build an Airport here and 'they will come', more housing, roads, business parks etc and so no more cherished countryside.

- The disturbance to MORE than a couple of villages in a beautiful area of England.

- The out of the way location that does not directly feed any major city without a further commute by passengers begs the question of the eventual usage of the airport.

- 100,000 Birmingham people against the estimated 11,000 people to be effected in Warwickshire. Moving the problem of noise does not solve it. Why should the country side suffer the New noise, when a major city, full of noise anyway, has been used to it for years.

- As for local train noise, I think you might find planes travelling a few hundred feet above your head a little more disturbing.

This is a copy of an email sent to the following:

Mr King; Mr Cunningham; Ms Lynne; Mr Bushill-Matthews

Following my messages to you and Mr Caulfield, I increasingly wonder whether the fundamental premise of massive long-term air traffic expansion at the rate discussed by the Department of Transport is simply misguided.

If that is wrong, then everything else falls. I suggest that, not only should the Foreign Office be consulted over possible long-term terrorist threats, but that a simple extrapolation of previous long-term trends may be inadequate.

We are at present in an enormous and ongoing Bear Market. The American public, crucial in everything, seems to have largely lost its appetite for both international air travel and investment. One must also wonder how many younger people anywhere, struggling with busy jobs, bringing up families, etc, will have time to travel at the rate foreseen.

The cruise ship market could mop up many retired people. Extra "environmental taxes" on aircraft fuels could be relevant. So could the example of ludicrous over-estimates of mobile telephone sales. There must be a finite limit on demand for anything, including air travel, and I increasingly wonder whether an estimate of up to three times present levels is realistic for the UK.

I certainly do not know what will happen. But what soundings did the Department take with their counterparts in other countries, especially the USA, Germany; France and Japan? Are those countries also forecasting such massive increases?

A friend has also mentioned the possible effect of a recent European ruling on entitlement to undisturbed sleep. I do not know the details, but this present proposal seems yet another example of the four desirable concepts of security; human rights; economic growth and environmental protection clashing.

Matthew in York! You; along with most of the hysterics, have SO missed the point of the SEAC option, which is to consider building between Rugby & Cov.

Firsty, it is only a remote option at this time.

Secondly, the proposal IS for a new International airport.

Thirdly, over 100,000 people in the area currently suffer excessive noise pollution around BHX & COV, the new option would affect only 11,000 and BHX & COV would have to close. This has to be a net gain of 89,000 people suffering less. Hurrah!

Fourth, Rugby & Cov are to the side (east & west) of the runways and would not be affected as much as the villages north & south of the runways on the approaches.

Fifth, Marconi in Cov. are shedding staff like autumn leaves, Rugby has 1,000's of young people going through education at present who will all be looking for employment, here is a wonderful opportunity to meet the future needs of the young.

Finally, and I'm tired now, look at Rugby's location and history (Canals, Railways, Motorways) we've always been the winner, all of these came at a price, but in the long term it's worth it.

The list really does go on, but the negative band wagon is rolling along and can only end up either, without homes or without jobs, my attitude can only bring prosperity to all in the region.

Matthew, my points do not add to yours.

If you wish to keep abreast of the national strategic developments, then do not read the loacal papers; they are full of NIMBY's and not open debate, better to read the DfT's SEAC report, here you will find well framed dispassionate arguments, taking into account ALL of the facts.

Based on this you may well consider moving your position to a less immotive one.

In addition, Rugby has enjoyed three ages of prosperity, just after the canals were built, just after the railways were built, just after the motorways were built.

All of the above had an environmental impact on a houses and fields, but the long term gain far outwayed the costs.

Fair point from Phil then. On the other hand, it adds to the argument against this location.

From what I can tell, bearing in mind that I do not receive the local news on this issue at the moment (I'm in York for the year), adding this proposed airport would require increased transport routes, so _more_ trains at night then.

There is too much air traffic in the UK for the system to cope with at the moment. Adding a new airport _anywhere_ wouldn't help that really. On the other hand, we can't stem the increase of air traffic easily.

Smaller airports which specialise might help, but we have plenty of small airports already - we don't need to add new ones.

Why not move more traffic from Gatwick and Heathrow? The key problem is that they are too busy.
If they were designated "International Only", it would cut the air traffic to them. Provide good, reliable, frequent rail links to London City for rapid people who want to fly on to Glasgow or Edinburgh, and fast reliable pleasent connections (I'm thinking GNER White Rose now) to the rest of the UK for those who aren't time critical, and the problem is reduced substantially.

Edward Burke's comments about the numbers of airfields at the end of WWII don't ring true anymore - planes at the time were smaller, less powerful and most importantly, less noisy. Also, none of those airfields were anything as large as this proposed one.

As for Phil Shepherd's comments, does he by any chance live in Hillmorton? He certainly can't be one of the people who would have to put up with low flying aircraft at all times of day and night, else he surely wouldn't be so enthusiatic.

I think that the major problem with the scheme is that it ignores where the majority of people coming into the UK want to be: the south-east. Why not expand Luton, Stansted and Southend, instead of trying to make long haul travellers take a further 2 or 3 hour journey upon arriving.

I believe it is highly unlikely that an airport will ever be built near Rugby. As Ian of Coventry has already pointed out following his research on the DETR website, a huge number of conditions need to be met first.

The biggest assumption is that passengers and all of the major airlines will not want to fly into the South East and the London area, which is extremely unlikely given the constant battle for Heathrow landing rights.

London will always remain the prime site for international flights into the UK. Just like a national sports stadium was always going to be built at Wembley, runway expansion will take place in the southeast.

When they built the Channel Tunnel they demolished 3 villages, many more homes than are planned for Rugby/Coventry.

All the residents protested at the time, but for the National good they were sacrificed.

I bet most of those folk have used the Chunnel for holidays, cheap plonk or just days out from their nice new homes in and around Kent, all funded by the taxpayer.

Stop winge-ing and let the National Interest prevail.

Businesses large and small are in favour of the new development, the 88,000 people living around Birmingham airportand another 10,000+ around Bagington airport must be in favour too as both of these would close if the proposed new midlands airport takes off.

To build an efficient airport on a green field site that can handle all of the midlands air traffic would cost two small villages. In the grand scheme of things they are merely pawns ... sorry but its true.

I read the report into the proposed new airport at Rugby last night on the DETR web-site. This also has a map showing the layout and location of the proposed airport if anyone wants to see.

The proposed airport site requires 1600 hectares of land (1400 of which is greenbelt), demolition of the village of Church Lawford, the closure or extensive re-diversion of the A428 between Coventry and Rugby, removal of several hectares of 'ancient woodland' and hedgerows of significant ecological significance. It requires a change in the planning process and may infringe European and UK legislation related to the environment.

The airport will effectively close the gap between Coventry and Rugby making one big conurbation with an airfield at its centre. Is this any different to what is at Bham now?

The report notes that certain conditions are required for it to be economically viable.

No airport expansion in the south east
Provision of new High Speed Rail Link
Upgrading the West Coast Main Line (which runs straight through the middle of the site.)
Birmingham and Coventry Airports being closed

It seems that the report has weighted the argument based on too many assumptions.

No mention is made of increased traffic flows and the effect on the A45 or that in creating 59,000 new jobs, the closure of Bham and Coventry may result in job losses.

If taken on/transferred to the new airport instead of redundancy then traffic flows on the A45 will increase and I suspect JC6 M42, the residential areas of Coventry and Tollbar island along this route could not cope.

This in turn generates noise and traffic pollution affecting more people than the current use of Birmingham Airport does, estimated in the report as 88,000.

I think they need to ensure that the assumptions have been resolved before asking people to comment before the closure of the consultation period in November 2002.

How can anyone make an informed decision with little if any hard facts to support their views about the airport one way or the other?

The site of the proposed airport is between the M6 and the A45, between Coventry and Rugby. We're currently hunting for a map showing the exact details so you can see it on the website.

The area needed for the new proposal would be huge - the same size as Heathrow - hence the difficulty in finding an area that wouldn't mean demolishing homes.

I'm keen to hear what other people think about the proposal in general and about Mrs Shepherd's suggestion of an alternative site.

Mail your comments and thoughts to us.

Please help me. I'm a little confused. The local news is reporting that the planned airport is going to be between the M6 and A45. However in the local newspaper it has been reported the white paper states the airport will be between the M6 and the M45.

This makes a huge difference, as the M45 doesn't start until you are south of Rugby.This would make the proposed site for the airport on the other side of Rugby which would actually make more sense!

On the other side of Rugby an airport would be situated right on the junction of the M1, next to the new Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal (DIRFT) and situated very near to both of the mainline rail links to London.

There is also an obvious site for the airport on the presently BT owned Radio mast site which is in the process of being decommissioned.

I personally do not want an airport within 20 miles of Rugby but if we do have to have one wouldn't this make more sense than destroying 2 historical and very picturesque villages?
Who is right? The reporters who are repeating what Andy King has told them or the letter in the local newspaper from somebody quoting the White Paper?

	大象传媒 Homepage

禄	Sites near Coventry Related 大象传媒 Sites 听
	Contact Us