Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
#1711764
How did we end up with so many of our national assets controlled by petulant five year olds???


Maybe because many of our GA ancestors let it happen or accidentally sleepwalked into it. The whole saga looks like a repeat of Panshanger.

It’s another rude awakening of the power of landowners when there are no laws or lax laws for transport infrastructure to be protected and regulated.

Aerodromes being sold on from one party to another and then eventually someone becomes bored enough to not bother with it running anymore.
#1711785
James Chan wrote:
How did we end up with so many of our national assets controlled by petulant five year olds???


Maybe because many of our GA ancestors let it happen or accidentally sleepwalked into it. The whole saga looks like a repeat of Panshanger.

It’s another rude awakening of the power of landowners when there are no laws or lax laws for transport infrastructure to be protected and regulated.

Aerodromes being sold on from one party to another and then eventually someone becomes bored enough to not bother with it running anymore.


Because government policy for decades has been to let the market control everything. The concept of national assets simply doesn't any longer exist, unless they are national parks or preserved by Historic England who don't appear to be much interested in aviation.
kanga, Cowshed liked this
#1711858
I’ve said it before that whilst I appreciate the notion of personal possessions and associated rights, land ownership has to be dealt with differently for pretty obvious reasons. Such rights can, therefore, never be sacrosanct because all land is, ultimately, a limited national asset.

Planning controls exist for a reason and should never be allowed to be undermined by entirely private or entirely selfish interests.

In this case, the controlling authority, as it is required to do, has apparently previously considered all aspects and interests, has had its future plans approved and has now been compelled to issue a CPO. This appears to have come about as a result of a protracted and expensive legal process concerning tenancies, in the interim, which might appear to have been a tactic to attempt to thwart the wishes and intentions of the planning authority.

So, whilst the airfield infrastructure is currently wounded one can only hope that with continued support, especially from the council, that both the airfield and the associated businesses will be able to recover from their injuries and be able to move forward in not only restoring operations but also in enhancing the facilities.

Who knows, Wellesbourne, possibly under a new and visionary management, could perhaps once more find itself in receipt of an “Airfield Of The Year” award?
Cns416, UpThere, Cowshed and 2 others liked this
#1711865
Look on the bright side! With the owners allowing the place to sink into decay, listed hangars become a liability....devalue the property.......derelict and unkempt runways....more liabilities....devalue.

empty and disused former industrial and maintenance- units? more liability....devalue.
A property with a revenue-stream is an asset. Without, it's a liability, needing Public-liability insurance, securing, Rates, standing charges on utilities.........
- should be a cheap CPO if they don't reach a quick deal to the satisfaction of most parties. :twisted:
KeithM, kanga liked this
#1711990
If the tenancies in question had provisions for the terminations as made, the court cannot stop them. The landowner is not required to run the airport as a business, or as anything at all. But they should be prevented from selling the airport as a different class of asset. If you buy a Ford, you can’t sell it on as a Ferrari..........
I don’t know what the solution is to this problem. People who own things need the freedom to keep or sell as their position demands. They also want to will things to their relatives/friends. It seems like vanishingly few people see a need for an airport or want to operate one. The tax system where offshore owners got capital gains tax free probably didn’t help. Commercial property sales by offshore entities are now taxed in the UK so the gains may not be so enticing when compared to an ongoing income.
Unfortunately we always have the situation that a bunch of politicians are trying to outthink people with more money, more experience and better accountants/lawyers - these people have greater motiviation to find the loopholes than the government have to close them. And most legislation is pretty knee-jerk and badly thought through at the best of times.
Maybe the club model is a good one but no club can afford to pay building costs for a field with a runway. I still think that the flyin community model could have an application here because it blends the two and puts ownership into the hands of people with an interest in flying. Add in a bit of outside use and some income from hangarage/cafe and it would only have to cover its costs. The problem is (again) the planning system.
Flyin'Dutch', ChampChump, Stu B and 1 others liked this
#1711994
I don't think I am a sandal wearing tree hugging lefty who does not appreciate ownership of assets but I also understand that there are some things that need to be sorted out for the communal greater good.

Infrastructure being one of those things whereby we are better off if it is organised without a need to deliver a direct return of investment.

A country needs power generation, roads, ports, airports, water supplies, education, a defence force, the police, a postal and health service etc also in places where the beneficiaries are not the millions in the large conurbations.

We are all poorer if the only religion is 'the market' and everything is slaughtered on the altar of 'profit'
KeithM, Flyingfemme, PaulB and 11 others liked this
#1712025
Flyingfemme wrote:People who own things need the freedom to keep or sell as their position demands. They also want to will things to their relatives/friends. It seems like vanishingly few people see a need for an airport or want to operate one


Some things, yes. But some things are not in the same category as a Ford or Ferrari and cannot be directly compared. As said, land is a limited communal asset and there has to be some oversight and/or control in respect of how it is obtained, used and disposed of. Yes, landowners should have the freedom to keep or sell as their position demands but only up to a point, hence the existence of CPOs.

As for wanting to will things to relatives and friends, that’s fine too, but we can’t always have we want, especially where other wider interests are involved.

Central to this case was a judgement in the landowners favour based on a “reasonable prospect of development”, housing development being the intention. This was contrary to the position of the authority responsible for any granting of permission for such development, hence the view that the original judgement was perverse.

And as for the landowner no longer wishing to run an airfield, in this case there are those who are and who are supported by the planning authority and a national planning framework which is supposedly in support of protecting our airfields.

And, unless I’ m very much mistaken, this was not a social housing project with communal interests at heart, either!
#1713087
Speaking to Wellesbourne today in order to get approval for the GREAT FLYER FORUM FLYIN on the 28th of September, they were quite adamant that FLYER Magazine had over-dramatised the threat in its coverage, and that flying in some form will continue from the airfield after September, despite the termination of the leases of various based firms. This was a message they were very keen to get circulated...
kanga, PaulB, flybymike liked this
#1713094
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:
We are all poorer if the only religion is 'the market' and everything is slaughtered on the altar of 'profit'


I have printed this out and tucked it in with my medical ready for next year ;)

Rob P
Sooty25 liked this
#1713136
2Donkeys wrote:Speaking to Wellesbourne today in order to get approval for the GREAT FLYER FORUM FLYIN on the 28th of September, they were quite adamant that FLYER Magazine had over-dramatised the threat in its coverage, and that flying in some form will continue from the airfield after September, despite the termination of the leases of various based firms. This was a message they were very keen to get circulated...


I was there yesterday and was discussing the current situation.

I hope that you are right, however, I’m not sure that the business tenants would agree on the over dramatisation point!

Difficult to see how a flying school or club could operate, though, with their aeroplanes in one location and the personnel and office equipment possibly miles away in another!

Hard to see, also, how a maintenance business could work on aircraft with no premises to work in or from.

As for private owners who park outside on the grass that, of course, might not be an issue, because they are not necessarily business tenants with premises. For them
it just means that with the cafe closed, they would need to bring a packed lunch and a flask, perhaps or eat and drink somewhere else. I’ve no idea what their position is.

I did learn yesterday, however, that the tower is, apparently, a separate entity so, if so, that might explain things but only up to a point.

My current understanding is that due to a request for an appeal hearing having recently been rejected the business tenants are now obliged to vacate by September 30th. Hope still seems to exist that this will not happen whilst confidential negotiations are taking place between the landowner and the council but it seems to me to be precisely that, a hope.

It is also my understanding that no buildings can be demolished without planning permission even if the tenants leave! The landowner has been prevented from doing that previously!

It’s that old “common sense” versus “legalities” issue again.

To me, as a mere lay observer, the whole saga seems ridiculous and has, thus far, resulted in an unnecessary waste of time and money in addition to the stress that has no doubt been inflicted upon some or maybe all of those involved together with a potential loss of livelihoods.

All that said, I hope that I’m wrong and will be advised, (and rightfully embarrassed) that I have misunderstood the situation.

End of latest rant.

:)
#1713163
2Donkeys wrote:
KeithM wrote:I hope that you are right



I am definitely right Keith! What I have relayed is what I was told today. I have not offered any evaluation of it though - something you seem keen to provide.


Perhaps you misunderstand me.

I am not challenging what you were apparently told but merely puzzled by what you were told, and genuinely intrigued by the phrase “flying in some form” and what that means, exactly. It would be of little comfort if it meant a couple of kids flying a kite! On the other hand, it might provide a hint that things might now be moving in a positive direction which would be good news.

Also, as you may have guessed, I am a member of one of the flying organisations affected and have been kept pretty well informed throughout by word of mouth, e-mails and articles in the press.

I cannot agree that anything that I, at least, have read has been over dramatised or, for that matter, inaccurate and I might pose the question as to whether such criticism, if valid, has been raised with the publishers of any such reports? If so that, too, would be news to me.

Finally, it’s great to see that we will be having a gaggle of forumite visitors soon and I hope that the weather will be kind to you all on the day. I am sure that your visit will be much appreciated. Hopefully, you will have an opportunity to talk to some people, should you choose to do so, who are more directly involved in the politics than I am and who are best qualified to provide any information.