Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
#1719504
Reading between the lines, it would seem that Take Flight have managed to upset the landowners more than the other businesses.

It doesn't take much for this sort of stuff to get personal.

I'd imagine the understanding between Stratford DC and the Littlers is along the lines of 'come to some arrangement that allows your tenants to continue aviation activity in the interim, and in return you'll get a decent deal on the CPO rather than a shafting'.

Don't forget that Stratford DC won't want the Littlers handing out meaningful new leases to the tenants. When the CPO goes through they'll want to start with a clean slate, not with sitting tenants on leases that they had no input into.
KeithM liked this
#1719505
Apologies, not shut shortly, but have suggested the only reason the landlords are doing this is to shut the Airfield in an easier manner.

Has anyone seen the MOU? Maybe that would shed more light on any intentions.

As to why they are the only tenants not to be offered. I wouldn’t know. You would need to ask the owners.

I will comment no further on this.
#1719506
Pat R wrote:I was led to believe they have a base at Oxford


Yes, they do. A small office. One aeroplane usually kept there.

The boss will have his reasons for being there but I would guess that operating costs would be higher at Oxford even if there was an opportunity, and it was commercially viable, to move the whole Wellesbourne operation which might not be the case.

Anyway, I fail to see what that has to do with the issue of Wellesbourne Airfield’s future except for the fact that fewer businesses operating at Wellesbourne would decrease the revenue which, in turn, could reduce the viability and the land’s asset value.
#1719608
Secondly, Take Flight, the leading campaigner and fund raiser is, interestingly, the only business to have not been offered a “deal” by the landowner and is still subject to an eviction notice.


How landowners still have this entitlement in today's infrastructure is well and truly shocking.
KeithM liked this
#1719627
defcribed wrote:Are you suggesting that the granting of a lease is not (or should not be) at a landlords discretion?

Should they be obliged to offer a new lease to a tenant even if they don't wish to continue doing business with that person or organisation?


Would you not agree that “don’t wish” has to be based on reasonable grounds, though?

I accept, however, that one person’s “reasonable” might be another’s “unreasonable” and that the devil will always be in the detail.

Maybe that’s one reason for the Landlord and Tenants Act, indeed, the reason for a legal system?
James Chan liked this
#1719636
KeithM wrote:
defcribed wrote:Are you suggesting that the granting of a lease is not (or should not be) at a landlords discretion?

Should they be obliged to offer a new lease to a tenant even if they don't wish to continue doing business with that person or organisation?


Would you not agree that “don’t wish” has to be based on reasonable grounds, though?

I accept, however, that one person’s “reasonable” might be another’s “unreasonable” and that the devil will always be in the detail.

Maybe that’s one reason for the Landlord and Tenants Act, indeed, the reason for a legal system?


A quick Google of Section 25 notices will give some insight into the rights afforded the parties to commercial leases, and the basis on which landlords can refuse to renew. They aren't entirely unreasonable - even if one might query the motives here.

Of course, the parties to a lease can elect to contract out of the 1954 act altogether.

I have no idea which of theses circumstances apply to this particular tenant, but reading a little about the legal underpinnings may be interesting to those who would opine on whether or not the law seems fair.
#1719657
As a starting point, I would probably take a view that the law should not compel one party to do business with another. If I don't wish to let my property to you I should not be made to, and I should not have to give a reason for not wanting to. It should be at my absolute discretion to do business with someone else instead, or not to do business at all.

Renewals of course, will be different. The need for reasonable security of tenure should be balanced somehow against not compelling the other party to enter into a business arrangement that they may not desire. I would think the balance is better achieved by agreeing longer terms in the first place as opposed to automatic rights of renewal, but I don't make the law and other views are equally valid. A prudent business operator in leased premises should always keep in mind and plan for the fact that their tenancy may not last indefinitely, for any number of reasons.

On the one occasion I have spoken to an aviation tenant at Wellesbourne about the whole debacle, I was told that a major part of the problem was that one, some or all of the tenants didn't actually have written leases! Make of that what you will, but it isn't a sensible situation to end up in - for either the tenant or the landlord.
KeithM liked this
#1719727
deltacharlie wrote:Take Flight Aviation has started a petition to Stratford District Council to ask them to protect all the businesses at Wellesbourne Airfield. Details here: http://democracy.stratford.gov.uk/mgEPe ... aspx?id=58


Thanks. You beat me to it!

The key question here, as I see it, concerns to what extent the two key parties involved here, i.e. the landowner and SDC are committed to the long term future of the airfield in terms of the declared core strategy.

One could perhaps fully understand the landowners’ current position as one of an interim negotiating one but it does not, however, seem to provide any evidence or sufficient reason, at this point in time, to justify any withdrawal of the CPO option if, indeed, that is now being considered by SDC.
#1719780
I think that a significant factor in one current resident being singled out is that the owner of the company involved was a prominment member of the "Save Wellesbourne" campaign.

It does seem that the site owning family are doing everything they can to thwart the viability of the airfield. It appears that they have not only been refused planning permission to build houses, they have been told they will never get it. Stratford District Council have initiated a CPO in respect of the site in order to keep it as an operation airfield. It is a worry that the family concerned also own XM655 the Vulcan that is rated for high speed taxiing. In the light of all this furore one wonders what lies in the future for this historic aircraft.
#1719783
dawdler wrote:I think that a significant factor in one current resident being singled out is that the owner of the company involved was a prominment member of the "Save Wellesbourne" campaign.


And he still is, because it is still unclear whether or not the airfield has, in fact, been “saved”.

Having just read through the entire Old Sarum thread it all seems not a little depressing with some common aspects.
#1719819
KeithM wrote
...it is still unclear whether or not the airfield has, in fact, been “saved”.


Indeed. It almost seems as if the current owners are determined there will be no infrastructure left when they vacate the site.
#1719828
dawdler wrote:It almost seems as if the current owners are determined there will be no infrastructure left when they vacate the site.


Currently, it seems that it might be a matter of “if” rather than “when”, SDC having stated that this is a landlord/tenant issue.

The question is whether or not it should be a future landlord/tenant issue, assuming that SDC still intends to issue a CPO which now appears to be in some doubt.
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8