[defcribed]

...signed up to a written Memorandum of Understanding with SDC only to then immediately fail to comply with its terms!

My understanding is that the terms required them to enter into negotiations with the tenants, no more. If the negotiations did not produce an offer of tenancy that was acceptable to Take Flight... so be it.

At the end of the day you cannot make someone accept your custom if they really don't want to.

[kanga]

.. and, I guess, a private landowner cannot be forced to allow nor continue to allow activity on the land without a CPO, even with pressure from a Government Minister. In the wider scheme of things within a free society, this might be seen by many as a Good Thing. Forcing a cessation of use is not a Change of Use, I assume, even if it appears 'unfair'.

But I have no pertinent, eg legal or planning, expertise.

[WingsOff]

There's a distinct lack of noise from Stratford District Council on the CPO process and progress to date. You'd almost think they've got cold feet, realising they will have a hell of a hard time justifying the sort of money they'll need to compensate the current owners. They set aside some £1,125,000 in the 2019/2020 budget just for the legal costs alone to pursue the CPO. No idea what they have in mind to offer the Littler family out of the coffers - SDC council tax payer's money. Of course there will be a huge difference between what SDC would like to pay and what the Littlers think it's worth - but initially they have to have that negotiation before the CPO process kicks in - when those negotiations stall. Anyone got any clue about the sort of numbers being banded around? Where exactly have SDC got to in the process at this stage?

[defcribed]

Of course they will have different ideas of the value, but the big gap will be based on planned future use.

The Littlers will want compensating on the basis of the value of the land for housing. Clearly they won't get that - if the CPO goes ahead then the general idea is that they get the fair market value for the airfield with a slight premium for the compulsory aspect of things.

The gap between that and their desired housing value will be enormous, and if they know they're going to be CPOd then the incentive really is to improve the profitability of the airfield so as to increase its value.

I suspect the CPO will stall. If flying continues under the present arrangements then SDC can just continue to refuse all planning applications for housing on the site and thus the airfield is kept going without them having to spend taxpayers money.

SDC is really quite well run compared to some. When I lived in their area I was genuinely impressed with them, certainly compared to Cherwell.

[KeithM]

...signed up to a written Memorandum of Understanding with SDC only to then immediately fail to comply with its terms!

My understanding is that the terms required them to enter into negotiations with the tenants, no more. If the negotiations did not produce an offer of tenancy that was acceptable to Take Flight... so be it.

At the end of the day you cannot make someone accept your custom if they really don't want to.

You are correct in terms of your understanding.

However, subsequent to signing the MoU with SDC the landowners did not, apparently, comply and “enter into negotiations” with TakeFlight, have made no offer and have merely maintained their original position regarding TakeFlight’s eviction, one which is now imminent.

[Pat R]

https://www.stratford-herald.com/106203 ... field.html

[defcribed]

However, subsequent to signing the MoU with SDC the landowners did not, apparently, comply and “enter into negotiations” with TakeFlight, have made no offer and have merely maintained their original position regarding TakeFlight’s eviction, one which is now imminent.

That's hearsay. TakeFlight would hardly be a reliable, objective source on that matter. We don't know if the MoU required negotiation with all tenants, and it's extremely unlikely that it required LiL to change their negotiating position or make an offer with respect to one particular tenant. Chances are that any required dialogue would have been for show.

The newspaper article and statement from LiL makes things clear. They don't want anything to do with TakeFlight under any terms. Trying to put myself in their shoes, I don't think I'd want anything more to do with a customer who'd spearheaded a legal action against me.

Apart from some very limited and specific circumstances, you just cannot force Party A to do business with Party B if it doesn't want to.

[KeithM]

However, subsequent to signing the MoU with SDC the landowners did not, apparently, comply and “enter into negotiations” with TakeFlight, have made no offer and have merely maintained their original position regarding TakeFlight’s eviction, one which is now imminent.

That's hearsay. TakeFlight would hardly be a reliable, objective source on that matter. We don't know if the MoU required negotiation with all tenants, and it's extremely unlikely that it required LiL to change their negotiating position or make an offer with respect to one particular tenant. Chances are that any required dialogue would have been for show.

The newspaper article and statement from LiL makes things clear. They don't want anything to do with TakeFlight under any terms. Trying to put myself in their shoes, I don't think I'd want anything more to do with a customer who'd spearheaded a legal action against me.

Apart from some very limited and specific circumstances, you just cannot force Party A to do business with Party B if it doesn't want to.

On the “hearsay” point, I, and many others, have a copy of the signed MoU in which there is no exclusion clause regarding TakeFlight or any other tenant despite which it was, nevertheless, signed up to by the landowner’s representatives and those of the SDC. Furthermore, the other comments you make would tend to confirm my understanding that TakeFlight were, indeed, not contacted by the landowner subsequent to the MoU being signed.

So, yes, you are probably indeed correct in saying that any dialogue would have “been for show” if the landowner didn’t “want anything to do with Take Flight under any terms” which again begs the question as to why the MoU was signed.

As for being unable to force any party to do something it doesn’t wish to do therein, presumably, lies the central reason for the existence of Compulsory Purchase Orders and, in this case, the reason behind SDC’s decision to instigate such proceedings against the landowner. It might be reasonably assumed from this that SDC were, and might remain, somewhat unconvinced by the landowner’s apparent commitments towards maintaining the aviation activity.

Whether or not CPO powers should exist at all, if that is what is in question, is a matter for an entirely separate debate concerning whose interests (i.e. private or public) should take priority.

Finally, who wouldn’t, if it was felt necessary and if possible to do so, resort to taking legal action against a perceived threat and, in this case, a perceived threat to yet another GA airfield?

[Pat R]

The loss of one of the now three flying schools will not close the Airfield. As the article states that SDC were aware that TFA would not be offered a lease before they and the owners signed the MOU. The MOU also states that CPO procedure is on hold whilst the MOU is in place.

[KeithM]

The loss of one of the now three flying schools will not close the Airfield. As the article states that SDC were aware that TFA would not be offered a lease before they and the owners signed the MOU. The MOU also states that CPO procedure is on hold whilst the MOU is in place.

Hmmm, wonder why SDC didn’t, apparently, convey that information to TakeFlight?

Purely speculating, here...

Maybe somebody has, in the event, been “sacrificed” to appease the landowner whilst, at the same time, allowing SDC some time to reconsider what it does with local taxpayer’s money?

If so, I would question whether SDC’s previous commitment to “maintain and enhance” is, therefore, also “on hold” (or scrapped) along with the CPO, having perhaps accepted the imminent departure of the largest portion of the airfield’s activities and aviation related income?

Perhaps, if a “personal spat” was the reason (or excuse) for TakeFlight’s imminent eviction , the landowner and/or SDC, or others, will be keen to promptly seek other aviation related parties to fill the aviation related income and activity gap?

I wonder if any aviation business with a long term plan would be interested under the current circumstances?

Perhaps time will tell on both counts?

As for the airfield closing, I think that the concern has been, and remains, one of a slow death rather than a quick one and many feel that the former is both possible and probably intentional.

[defcribed]

Keith, you're clutching at straws and messing around in irrelevant detail - I'm really not sure what your agenda is.

A tenant (TakeFlight) fell out with a landlord (LiL) to such an extent that the landlord wants nothing more to do with them. What's so hard to understand about that?

SDC wants Wellesbourne to continue as an airfield. TakeFlight are not essential to that and there is no reason for SDC to seek to protect TakeFlight in particular. SDC have sat down with LiL and reached an agreement for Wellesbourne to continue as an airfield, and as part of that agreement they looked to ensure that, to some degree, existing aviation tenants were able to continue - not least because if none of them continued then LiL would have a good non-viability argument. If the deal they reached was the rest can stay but TakeFlight have to go then yes, I think SDC would take that and view it as a decent outcome.

Doubtless LiL still wish, long term, to close the airfield and build houses.

If you want to really understand what's happening then you have to try and understand the motives of each party and drop the 'for the good of GA' and 'fairness' filters that you're viewing it through.

[KeithM]

Defcribed,

No particular agenda, merely expressing a view, as you are, and not sure what straws I am supposedly clutching at nor what detail is supposedly irrelevant.

I can, and do, appreciate the various interests and motives involved, whether assumed, perceived or actual and, contrary to your suggestion otherwise, I also fully understand how personal animosities might and do arise and have said nothing to the contrary. Indeed, in many cases it would seem inevitable and unavoidable.

The “filters” that you also ascribe to me and suggesting that I should drop are, as I understand it, factors that are central to a current national political initiative to protect the wider GA infrastructure from unnecessary or unjustified development of which Wellesbourne is but one example or, at least, arguably so.

It is interesting to note that whilst TakeFlight were granted planning permission, some time ago, for new premises at Wellesbourne, the landowner has, apparently, been refused planning permission to remove TakeFlight’s soon to be vacated premises!

Whether or not that situation changes, in due course, is yet another question!

[Paul_Sengupta]

A tenant (TakeFlight) fell out with a landlord (LiL) to such an extent that the landlord wants nothing more to do with them. What's so hard to understand about that?

I don't think it's irrelevant. The "falling out" was because the landlord wants to build houses on the airfield and TakeFlight led the campaign to save it, and thus are not welcome by the landlord.

The end game is more than likely to want to build houses on it, and we lose a fantastic resource.

"Proving" that the airfield is unviable financially is one part of the process.

[Pat R]

landlord wants to build houses on the airfield and TakeFlight led the campaign to save it, and thus are not welcome by the landlord.

Actually it was Wellesbourne Matters that led the fight against the housing issue. TFA stepped in when the fight for the tenancies set in.

[defcribed]

Defcribed,

No particular agenda, merely expressing a view, as you are, and not sure what straws I am supposedly clutching at nor what detail is supposedly irrelevant.

I can, and do, appreciate the various interests and motives involved, whether assumed, perceived or actual and, contrary to your suggestion otherwise, I also fully understand how personal animosities might and do arise and have said nothing to the contrary. Indeed, in many cases it would seem inevitable and unavoidable.

The “filters” that you also ascribe to me and suggesting that I should drop are, as I understand it, factors that are central to a current national political initiative to protect the wider GA infrastructure from unnecessary or unjustified development of which Wellesbourne is but one example or, at least, arguably so.

It is interesting to note that whilst TakeFlight were granted planning permission, some time ago, for new premises at Wellesbourne, the landowner has, apparently, been refused planning permission to remove TakeFlight’s soon to be vacated premises!

Whether or not that situation changes, in due course, is yet another question!

The irrelevant detail is who was supposed to do exactly what under the memorandum of understanding, or at least your take on it. SDC are clearly ok with what LiL have done regarding the tenants.

What national political initiative?

The situation around the TakeFlight's building is obvious. LiL have got them out and want to demolish so as to further the overall case for non-viability. SDC say oh no you can't - you can kick them out if you want but the buildings have got to stay so that the airfield can remain viable.