Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
#1718280
Have just received some further information.

I am advised that not all tenants have received an offer and that the offer is not a tenancy extension in line with the Landlords and Tenants Act but, apparently, some form of “license” with a 28 day notice of cancellation clause within it.

Particularly interesting is that the leading campaigner and the largest business with the largest number of aircraft, the MD of which is also a private owner, has received no offer nor, as yet, any indication of withdrawal of his eviction notice.

So, the airfields future is still not secured, it seems, and the most recent actions of the landowner, in my view, would seem to be, to put it tactfully, somewhat curious.

Select “Updates” on the website:
http://www.savewellesbourneairfield.com
#1718478
As an outsider, given the background, I'd speculate:-

A quick redevelopment profit is out of the question.
It would seem that based aircraft are unwanted, judging by the comment ,re- no withdrawal of termination.
The owners would be liable for all the empty-property rates.
The site would be worth less with liabilities only and no revenue.
Keeping the site vacant and derelict could be held to be wilful obstruction of the CPO / It's aims
Keeping parts occupied increases it's asset value to the Local Authority.....reduces Policing needs, generates revenue and employment, adds amenity-value as a local-community leisure-resource.

IMHO the family has taken the decision to remove the loaded shotgun from their foot and decided to try kite-flying. :wink:
KeithM liked this
#1718528
Further to my most recent post, the MD of Take Flight Aviation has written an open letter of enquiry to Stratford District Council.

Again, this can be found on the Crowdfunder page under “Updates”.

http://www.savewellesbourneairfield.com

Curiouser and curiouser, especially in view of, as referred to in the letter, the previous granting of planning permission, by SDC, to Take Flight Aviation for the building of a new, improved business facility. If I’m not mistaken, this was also granted by SDC despite the landowner having notified an intention in respect of tenancy renewals.

So, the precise nature of the airfield’s future might, at this point in time, still seem to be somewhat unclear.
#1718989
Pat R wrote:Unfortunately, most of that is personal issue and a lot is not true and misinformed


In matters of this nature “personal issues” are, sadly, an inevitable and understandable consequence but it, nevertheless, also represents just one element feeding an ongoing concern regarding the long term future of the airfield as a whole.

It seems to me that, irrespective of any personal issues, recent initiatives by the landowners would seem to fall short of the previously stated aims of the SDC, the clear implication of which was to not only protect the existing infrastructure but also to enhance it.

How an eviction, on October 29th, of a very successful, vibrant and award winning business with over 300 customers/members operating some 15 aircraft, with planning permission in place for a new premises, would fit into that philosophy, or any business philosophy, is somewhat puzzling.
#1719494
Pat R wrote:What puzzles me is: if it’s such a bad deal and TF feel the Airfield is going to shut very soon (according to them). Why do they want to stay?


Where else would they go? Not many airfields left to use that aren’t already occupied by flight schools.
#1719501
Pat R wrote:What puzzles me is: if it’s such a bad deal and TF feel the Airfield is going to shut very soon (according to them). Why do they want to stay?


Firstly, I note that you have failed to respond to the question put to you by “flybymike”, so I, too, would put the same question to you and look forward to your response.

Secondly, Take Flight, the leading campaigner and fund raiser is, interestingly, the only business to have not been offered a “deal” by the landowner and is still subject to an eviction notice.

Thirdly, with reference to point one, could you please provide the source of your quote, attributed to Take Flight, that the “airfield is going to shut very soon”. Failing that, with reference to your previous comments about truth and misinformation, I would suggest that you withdraw it.

Fourthly, if you were the owner of a very successful and established business with a previously agreeable arrangement in an agreeable location would you fight to remain or just roll over?

Perhaps you could come back to this forum when your house, or business, faces a similar threat and with no compensation being offered?

Finally, do you really think that Stratford District Council would ever have even considered a CPO if the airfield’s future was not in doubt?

In that specific context, the question currently being asked is whether or not the recent offer of “temporary” residence (with a 28 day notice clause in it) to all but one of the existing businesses and the pending eviction of the other (a current major contributor to the airfield’s income and viability) is in line with the previously stated policy aims of the SDC.

It doesn’t look like it is, to me.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8