| QUESTION |
PROPOSED ANSWER |
REASONS |
|
| unnumbered (on page 1) |
Both
questions require a personal choice of answer |
A
standard question in all Government consultations. Answer as appropriate. |
|
| 1a |
UK
wide constrained |
Only
choice which guarantees no new Rugby/Coventry Airport |
|
| 1b |
South East Constrained |
Both would make
the new airport more likely |
|
| |
Facilitating
Growth |
|
|
| 2 |
It
would minimise the environmental impact of aviation in the Midlands |
All
the others favour expansion. This answer best reflects true future aviation
requirements and not the excessive forecasts that have been made. There is no need for any new airport. |
|
| 3 |
Neither
of them |
Concentrated
growth would lead to the new airport. Fly local is too vague. |
|
| 4a |
Support
in part |
Guarantees
no new airport here but does not increase environmental problems. |
|
| 4b |
Heathrow Gatwick Stansted
Luton |
The
least bad option: lessens new airport risk but accepts limited and spread
expansion if necessary. |
|
| 5a |
No
(to all) |
Do
not encourage domestic air transport. Rail preferred. |
|
| 5b |
Current
number adequate |
There
are no scheduled flights at the moment. |
|
| 6abc |
leave
blank - do not answer |
Answer
to 5 means this does not have to be answered |
|
| 7 |
Acceptable for: |
Acceptance of
overseas hubs reduces need for |
|
| |
Amsterdam |
new airport |
|
| |
Brussels |
|
|
| |
Copenhagen |
Note: This
question is not fully applicable because |
|
| |
Frankfurt |
there is no
current access by air. |
|
| |
Paris |
|
|
| |
Unacceptable for all others |
|
|
| 8 |
Yes,
high speed rail links would be an adequate alternative |
Reduces
need for air transport. |
|
| 9a |
None
of these |
Consistent
with constraint. Does not encourage expansion. |
|
| 9b |
None
of these |
Consistent
with constraint. 'Local Airports'
could include new airport. |
|
| 10a |
Do not tick any Benefits. |
Current
capacity meets need, growth only has |
|
| |
Tick all Disadvantages |
disadvantages |
|
| 10b |
Do
not support |
Consistent with
constraint |
|
| 11a |
Birmingham |
Least
bad option. 'None of these' could
imply a new airport |
|
| 11b |
Birmingham |
Best to develop
existing airports to avoid new site |
|
| |
East Midlands |
|
|
| 11c |
For Birmingham & East Midlands, tick: |
Develop those
ticked in 11b, but new runway not required. |
|
| |
improved terminal facilities |
|
|
| |
better rail links |
|
|
| |
better bus/coach services |
|
|
| |
improved road access |
|
|
| |
additional car
parking |
|
|
| |
Do not tick : increase in runway capacity |
|
|
| |
Do not tick any
other boxes |
|
|
| 12a |
New
Site and Coventry |
Key
Question to say no new Rugby/Coventry airport developments |
|
| 12b |
Do
not tick any box for: |
Our top priority
overrides everything else |
|
| |
Birmingham |
|
|
| |
East Midlands |
|
|
| |
For New Site tick no
new runway/runway extensions only |
If no new
runway, no new airport and no extension |
|
| |
For Coventry tick all
boxes |
To reject
inappropriate development |
|
| 13a |
Full
Service Scheduled Flights |
Major
carriers only - no high growth carriers |
|
| 13b |
None
of these |
see
13a |
|
| 14 |
Not
very important |
Only
slight value is close to airport, not for whole Region. |
|
| 15 |
Not
very important |
Current
capacity meets need, little value to whole Region |
|
| 16 |
Tick
all except 'No, none' |
All
are unacceptable in Rugby/Coventry area.
If you wish to, next to 'other' write part or all of: 'loss of green
belt land', 'compulsory purchase', 'destruction of villages and farmland',
'destruction of rural communities', 'flooding'. |
|
| 17 - 25 |
according to
personal circumstances |
If you are
under 16, tick 16-24 box in question 24 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
![[Company Logo Image]](images/hmsky.jpg)
