[Pat R]

It is only surmised that the Airfield is closing. There is no proof that it is!

[Overflight]

it needs changing at a higher level,

Cue the Secretary for Transport, The Rt Hon Grant Shapps MP

I understand that, as a part of a raft of proposals his dept is looking at, Statutory Safeguarding of Aerodromes is being considered.

At the moment there are only 28 aerodromes on that list.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/safeguarding-aerodromes-technical-sites-and-military-explosives-storage-areas/the-town-and-country-planning-safeguarded-aerodromes-technical-sites-and-military-explosives-storage-areas-direction-2002

Interesting, especially in the context of this discussion, to note the presence of both Coventry and Oxford on that list.

This is Technical Safeguarding - it has nothing to do with protecting the airport from closure by the owners of that airport, for redevelopment for anything else.

i.e.:

....Certain civil aerodromes, selected on the basis of their importance to the national air transport system, are therefore officially safeguarded, in order to ensure that their operation and development are not inhibited by buildings, structures, erections or works which infringe protected surfaces, obscure runway approach lights or have the potential to impair the performance of aerodrome navigation aids, radio aids or telecommunication systems; by lighting which has the potential to distract pilots; or by developments which have the potential to increase the number of birds or the bird hazard risk.....

[KeithM]

It is only surmised that the Airfield is closing. There is no proof that it is!

I thought we had now moved on from that specific early concern, bearing in mind the recent tenancy offer to all but one of the tenants and the SDCs recently restated commitment?

To be, perhaps, a little pedantic, I’m not sure that anyone has ever stated or “surmised” that the airfield “IS” closing but have merely expressed the view that closure was a possibility, even a strong possibility.

Some might still have reason to believe that such a possibility still exists and, if so, I’m sure that both they, and we, would wish things to turn out otherwise.

[CloudHound]

The list dates back to the WW2 so Coventry May have been added due a/c production.

Farnborough was the last to be added only a few years ago.

[KeithM]

Overflight,

I must confess, I didn’t read the entire document!

Yep, I see your point!

It would probably explain why some have been on the list since World War Two!

For a brief moment, I thought we were onto something.

Damn!

[Pat R]

I believe TFA are actually ‘surmising’ the Airfield is going to close soon. Certainly appears that way from their press releases, even though both owners and SDC have said different. Surely it’s better an Airfield stays open regardless of one company being left out?

[KeithM]

I believe TFA are actually ‘surmising’ the Airfield is going to close soon. Certainly appears that way from their press releases, even though both owners and SDC have said different. Surely it’s better an Airfield stays open regardless of one company being left out?

I have noted that what you are now saying is not what you originally said and are now, more reasonably, using the words “believe” and “appears” as opposed to making a general and non-specific assertion, as previously.

Words matter, especially in cases of this nature.

I totally agree that it’s better an airfield stays open regardless of who is “being left out”. Your question mark might infer that it has been suggested otherwise.

It should also be remembered that at one point, none of the businesses were able to secure extended tenancies and all were facing probable eviction. In addition, not all of the businesses stayed to take up the subsequent fight.

I say again that some ( maybe even some who have accepted the recent offer) might still harbour concerns about the airfield’s long term future. If so, it might, from their point of view and with their greater knowledge and involvement, be a justified outstanding concern, especially at this point in time when a process is ongoing rather than completed.

As for Take Flight Aviation, the loss of such a business from the airfield would, in the short term at least, mean a further reduction in airfield income unless such loss were to be immediately subsidised or replaced.

Maybe there’s a plan to cover that and maybe there isn’t?

I would be surprised if SDC were exactly happy about the situation despite their apparent inability to intervene.

[KeithM]

Latest communications received states that SDC have now agreed, under the aforementioned MoU, “mixed use development” and, presumably, may not now be pursuing the CPO.

Seems that the proposed development poses a perceived threat to both runways, one likely to be closed and the main one possibly shortened and thereby limiting the types of aircraft and, potentially, the numbers of aircraft, that will be able to use the airfield in future.

Once again, concerns are being expressed that Wellesbourne Airfield could be vulnerable to a slow death despite the past pronouncements of SDC.

In view of this recent information a public meeting has been set up for this coming Wednesday, at the hotel in Charlecote, and the long standing, and original, group “Wellesbourne Matters” will also be discussing the issue at their forthcoming AGM in November.

Needless to say, I intend to attend both.

[deltacharlie]

Please keep us informed Keith. I can't get there myself.

[KeithM]

Please keep us informed Keith. I can't get there myself.

Wilco!

[KeithM]

Having attended the public meeting last night, I am pleased to report that the meeting was very well attended and seemed to include many local residents and the local press. With the exception of one or two angry outbursts from the floor, the meeting was largely well ordered and mutually respectful. The Deputy Leader of SDC, Daren Pemberton was there to outline SDCs position and answer questions, which were numerous! Copies of the MoU were made available, a document which, in itself, raised, and still raises, a number of questions! A number of points were made identifying where it was believed that the Landowners were in breach of the MoU and it was also suggested that SDC was in breach, perhaps inadvertently, of its own policies! A document had been prepared by a member of the recently formed Pilot's Group and a copy of this was handed to Daren Pemberton.

It was again explained to the meeting that whilst SDCs position had not changed in terms of protecting the airfield, they were legally obliged to follow a process of dialogue with the Landowners before a CPO could be pursued. He also agreed, in response to a point made by one contributor, that the parties involved needed to demonstrate "good faith" and that evidence of failure to do so would be given serious consideration.

To his credit, Daren Pemberton, having offered to stay behind after the meeting to answer further questions, did so and was still very much engaged when I left at about 9.30pm!

Outstanding concerns include, but may not be limited to:

An apparent intention (according to the MoU) to "retain" R18/36 but at 750m x 18m rather than the existing 917 x 23m (not referenced in the MoU).

An apparent "rumoured" intention to close R05/23.

The imminent eviction of TakeFlight, the largest single contributor to the airfield's income and flying activity with 300 members and 16 aircraft on its books.

A suggestion of failure, under the terms of the MoU, to involve Take Flight in appropriate discussions.

A possible significant reduction in income for both the maintenance facility and the cafe.

Loss of income to the airfield as a whole due to reduced traffic thereby reducing its long term viability.

The nature and terms of the leases that have been offered to both owner pilots and businesses.


Finally, following the disappearance of TakeFlight's own on-line SDC petition a few weeks ago, an alternative one has been recently set up and which can be accessed via the following link:

https://www.change.org/p/stratford-dist ... e_petition

[ArthurG]

Thanks for all your efforts keeping us updated on Wellesbourne, Keith. It's an airfield I'm very fond of and it would be a tragedy to lose it. Keep fighting!

[KeithM]

Thanks for all your efforts keeping us updated on Wellesbourne, Keith. It's an airfield I'm very fond of and it would be a tragedy to lose it. Keep fighting!

Just doing my bit for the cause and it hardly needs repeating that Wellesbourne is yet another worrying example of the continuing threat that exists to our GA infrastructure.

I think it would be fair to say that Daren Pemberton fully appreciated and acknowledged the point made by several of us concerning the apparent current powers of local planning authorities versus the apparent power of “big money” where the motivations of the latter were perfectly clear and not without precedent.

Removal, within the next four days, of TakeFlight’s eviction notice would certainly be a key step in the right direction in restoring some confidence in the airfield’s future.

Insofar as removal of TakeFlight’s premises is concerned, the necessary planning permission has, apparently, at the time of writing, yet to be granted.

Make of that what you will!

Finally, readers are, of course, welcome to sign the petition!

[CloudHound]

Latest communications received states that SDC have now agreed, under the aforementioned MoU, “mixed use development” and, presumably, may not now be pursuing the CPO.

That seems like a very big deal and yet hasn't attracted much discussion.

Is the local authority rowing back on its commitment?

[KeithM]

Latest communications received states that SDC have now agreed, under the aforementioned MoU, “mixed use development” and, presumably, may not now be pursuing the CPO.

That seems like a very big deal and yet hasn't attracted much discussion.

Is the local authority rowing back on its commitment?

That was certainly the overwhelming impression prior to the meeting but seemed to be considerably less so after the meeting had ended.

On reading the MoU, copies of which were circulated at the meeting it was, and remains, my "non-expert" view that the document contains inaccurate and misleading information, and at least one possible omission, which should render it invalid and, at the very least, subject to amendment and further discussion before further signature.

In addition, it is being suggested that the provisions of the agreement may have been breached by the landowner. If that case is made it could provide grounds for termination under an included clause.

The saga continues.