[KeithM]

Sooty25, it might be that Mike Roberts, as a business man, is simply seeking evidence of a somewhat more committed approach to the future of both his business and the site on which it is currently located.

It would be great if your suggestion could achieve that but, bearing in mind the whole history of this matter, I very much doubt it.

It also now seems to me, in fact, and somewhat ironically, that the only hard evidence of a long term commitment is/was Mike Roberts’ plans for a new and enhanced premises, plans approved by the very body who, it seems to me, might now be rowing back, for some reason, from their previous position.

I would think it unlikely that a knock on Mr. Littler’s door and a bottle of booze will get those plans back on track.

Also, eviction notices aside, I could well understand a reluctance, on the part of any business, to commit to such plans to “retain and enhance” a facility under a tenancy arrangement containing a 28-day cancellation notice clause!

But, of course, SDC are apparently unable to intervene in landlord/tenant issues!

[KeithM]

Is the CPO going forwards or has the council got cold feet? If it's going forwards, how long do these things usually take and can to be speeded up if the length of the process was likely to damage the very thing that the CPO was meant to protect (if that makes sense)?

Indeed, Paul!

Many of us have exactly the same thoughts as you do.

[Sooty25]

@KeithM Mike Roberts may well be a business man, but at the moment he has got his back to the wall and he needs to buy himself time.

The CPO may take months/years, god knows how long once the solicitors get their teeth into it, so a lease extension with a 28 day clause may just buy TFA another 3 or 4 years in which to re-home or exist until the CPO goes through. As it stands TFA have nothing, eating a little humble pie and being human might just be enough.

It's just an opinion.

[Sooty25]

Oh, and just so you know, my family were subjected to a CPO some years ago. We spent years fighting it and we eventually won. It isn't set in stone that it will even succeed.

The damage it did to health and finances, suggests we lost though.

[KeithM]

Sooty25,

You may have a point but, on the same basis, would it not be equally valid to suggest that the landlord might have acted in a less discriminatory fashion. If nothing else, it might have served to adjust perceptions.

As for Take Flight’s MD buying himself some time, unless I have misunderstood, and as has been previously stated, he, unlike the other businesses, and for whatever reason, is, apparently, not being offered any opportunity to buy some time.

And let’s not forget that it now seems less clear what the current position is regarding the CPO, i.e. a change of land ownership.

If SDC have decided not to proceed, or are now seriously considering doing so then “buying time” pending a CPO would, by definition, be pointless.

Also, a short term arrangement with the current landlord might suit the business strategy of some but not others whilst also still not necessarily resolving concerns about the airfield’s future.

[Overflight]

For those effected directly at Wellesbourne, rather than speculate as to what SDC's current intent is regarding the CPO and the likely timescales therein, write/e-mail/call Tony Perks, the council's Head of Service but directly involved in the project. Whilst they set-aside well over a million or so for the consultation and legal fees to just pursue the CPO, you wonder how deep SDC's pockets will be to actually pay for the land at the end of the day - many millions more out of the council's coffers and a very ill-defined potential return on the investment without developing every nook and cranny they can for non-aviation purposes whilst keeping the (main) runway operational. Of course the Littler family would do that themselves if planning was granted, so SDC can't negotiate price on basis of it being a green, light GA aerodrome alone and then turn it themselves into a built-up commercial/industrial park that happens to have a slither in the middle for a runway and associated aviation-related amenities - not without paying compensation to the previous owner.

[KeithM]

Overflight, some interesting points there and ones that have certainly crossed my mind as well.

At least the landowners’ plans seemed to be more specific than those of SDC despite the former being perceived as detrimental to the airfield and the latter entirely supportive.

[dawdler]

An email issued on behalf of Tony Jefferson, Leader of SDC contains the following...
"The Council has signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the owners. This maintains flying operations at the airfield and has enabled lease extensions to be offered to all tenants with whom dialogue is constructive. The legal advice we have received is that the Council is not in a position to offer tenancies itself and cannot force the owners to do so where dialogue is not constructive.
We are, at the moment, taking legal advice on whether we can publish the MOU. We have to be extremely careful not to jeopardise the CPO process and this means taking legal advice every step of the way.
We are absolutely committed to retaining flying activities at the airfield."

My bold.

[KeithM]

Good to hear SDC’s commitment to maintaining flying activities, whatever that means.

As for other related matters.......?

[Boxkite]

An email issued on behalf of Tony Jefferson, Leader of SDC contains the following.................has enabled lease extensions to be offered to all tenants with whom dialogue is constructive. ......[/b]"[/i]

My bold.

This is the interesting bit.

[KeithM]

An email issued on behalf of Tony Jefferson, Leader of SDC contains the following.................has enabled lease extensions to be offered to all tenants with whom dialogue is constructive. ......[/b]"[/i]

My bold.

This is the interesting bit.

As is “We have to be extremely careful not to jeopardise the CPO process”.

[Stu B]

Whose call is it to determine whether a tenant is one "with whom dialogue is constructive"?
Unless SDC have some say it does not sound good news for TFA?

[Sooty25]

Whose call is it to determine whether a tenant is one "with whom dialogue is constructive"?

the landlord, regardless of whether he is justified or not. You can challenge him in Court if you want or you can modify you own dialogue to suit him, but ultimately it is his land you are renting!

Unless SDC have some say it does not sound good news for TFA?

SDC have no formal say as they don't own it.

TBH, if TFA triggered SDC's attempt at the CPO, I doubt the landlord is going to change his mind about TFA. Unless you are the freeholder, your rights are as per your lease, if the landlord is entitled to evict, he can.

It doesn't mean I support the landlords decision or that I want to see Wellesbourne lost, of course I don't. The sad thing is there is a demand for housing, brownfield land values have soared as a result and airfields are not protected.

Individuals and forums are not going to change that, it needs changing at a higher level, alternatively the aviation community needs to find a way of buying and securing airfields. Has anybody asked the Littlers what they would sell the site for, as is? I'm guessing no.

[CloudHound]

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

I've long argued that any aerodrome licensed or certificated should enjoy the level of planning protection afforded. However, if I hear right that any place where aviation takes place could be included that might be a problem.

[KeithM]

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.

I seem to recall, in particular, Coventry having had a somewhat chequered history including, similarly, development and planning issues and concerns about its sustainability.