Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
#1747569
Paul_Sengupta wrote: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.


That part isn't irrelevant at all.

Of course the end game is houses and of course they want to work towards apparent non-viability, that much is obvious. SDC are pushing back by (a) not granting planning, (b) making them offer leases to most of the existing aviation tenants, and (c) not letting them demolish buildings that would only be of use to an aviation tenant. The only of of these that requires a quid pro quo is (b), and the quid pro quo is that they stop the CPO process for now.
#1747655
defcribed wrote:
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.


I fail to see how “who was supposed to do exactly what” could possibly ever be regarded as “irrelevant” but rather essential in terms of any form of written and signed document. As for SDC being “clearly ok” (a) that is not clear and (b) I would suggest that it might have been more a matter of reluctant acceptance of a situation that they were powerless to prevent, something that they had previously indicated in an earlier communication regarding the landlord/tenants relationship.

What national political initiative?


Assuming that was a serious question, I was referring to the NPPG and Grant Shapps.

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.


Exactly. And this is not the first demolition threat/intent to have been opposed by SDC.
#1748049
Interesting that on TFA’s website the owner states ‘My main business is commercial property, with a portfolio that I have built from scratch which is managed from the Take Flight office.’
So clearly the aviation side is not his main income!
#1748093
Pat R wrote:Interesting that on TFA’s website the owner states ‘My main business is commercial property, with a portfolio that I have built from scratch which is managed from the Take Flight office.’
So clearly the aviation side is not his main income!


Indeed it isn’t, to the best of my knowledge.

Makes you wonder, then, considering the hassle, stress and the legal costs, why he hasn’t just rolled over and quit doesn’t it?

Notwithstanding necessarily shrewd business considerations, maybe he actually really cares about the future of both GA in general and Wellesbourne, in particular?

And who was it that said “If you wish to make a small fortune from aviation, you need to start with a large one?”

GA needs people like Mike Roberts, if certain airfield owners don’t, especially those owners with an agenda within which a successful and growing tenant business represents a hindrance rather than a help!
kanga, flybymike liked this
#1748161
Pat R wrote:Interesting that on TFA’s website the owner states ‘My main business is commercial property, with a portfolio that I have built from scratch which is managed from the Take Flight office.’
So clearly the aviation side is not his main income!

So a competitor of LiL's then ?
And another commercial business resident of the airfield bedsides the the flight school. Is that the point of his statement; that he needs to continue using the offices on site?
#1748200
Boxkite wrote:
Pat R wrote:Interesting that on TFA’s website the owner states ‘My main business is commercial property, with a portfolio that I have built from scratch which is managed from the Take Flight office.’
So clearly the aviation side is not his main income!

So a competitor of LiL's then ?
And another commercial business resident of the airfield bedsides the the flight school. Is that the point of his statement; that he needs to continue using the offices on site?


Hardly a competitor of LiL as Gladmans are, technically, the interested developers and not the landowner who wishes to dispose of the land for development.

I would also suggest that MR’s property business is somewhat smaller than that of Gladmans and whilst they may each be in the same business, they are certainly not in the same league, it seems, in terms of scale and financial muscle!

As for MR needing the office, I would also guess that it is simply more convenient and practical for him to run his two businesses from one premises and less so, for both him and his TakeFlight staff and customers, to have TakeFlight aeroplanes in one location and the TakeFlight office in another!

Currently, it would appear that whilst one party is keen to relinquish certain aviation related business interests, the other seems equally determined to do the opposite despite, as pointed out, aviation not being the latter’s sole source of income.
#1751458
Pat R wrote:Drove past Wellesbourne today and it looks like TFA have vacated.


Yes, they now have but hope of a return, at some point, remains and TF is still active, albeit at the Oxford base.

The irony is that the Wellesbourne premises remain TF property and, apparently, the landowner has no power to either reuse or remove them under the terms of the recently signed agreement with Stratford District Council!

If it wasn’t so sad, one might laugh.

P.S. It also poses the question, in terms of “maintaining the infrastructure”, as to who, if anybody, will be maintaining the vacated premises?
Last edited by KeithM on Tue Mar 10, 2020 1:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
#1751462
KeithM wrote:
.... the landowner has no power to either reuse or remove them under the terms of the recently signed agreement with Stratford District Council!



Not long until the mysterious fire then?

Rob P
flybymike, KeithM, defcribed and 3 others liked this
#1751468
Rob P wrote:
KeithM wrote:
.... the landowner has no power to either reuse or remove them under the terms of the recently signed agreement with Stratford District Council!



Not long until the mysterious fire then?

Rob P


There were some burglaries a while back that were described as “mysterious”.
#1751471
Further to my previous post, in case any confusion has been caused, or might be....

TF were due to commence Oxford operations on March 16th but may have vacated Wellesbourne earlier to allow for the logistics of the move.
#1756635
From Facebook...
The Directors of Littler Investment Limited, owners of Wellesbourne Mountford Aerodrome, have graciously granted all their tenants on the aerodrome a full refund of their April rents in support of the businesses due the present pandemic and the cessation of all flying operations on site. We shall remain ever grateful for the kind gesture.
flybymike, G-BLEW liked this
  • 1
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12