[CloudHound]

Oi! Less of the “old”

[skydriller]

Out of interest, was the skydiving operation limited previously? By which I mean its hours of operation, number of flights, and the track of where they climbed to height etc?

The link wont work for me anymore, but I recall it said something like "expand to fulltime para-ops center" or something...?? The cynic in me wonders if this might be a ploy by the owners to start a nimby campaign? I like watching aeroplanes as much as any pilot, but even I have been known to get irritated on a sunday afternoon if our local paradrop plane circles over the same bit of sky all afternoon at full chat climbing/diving to/from FL nosebleed, when by local agreement he is supposed to be varying his track...
Im thinking that 3 years of that, when local residents have been used to the aerodrome possibly having a local environmental noise plan previously, might change local perceptions enough that there is then support for housing...

[tomshep]

An area we have now to avoid because it is a DZ takes sky away from us as well as ground.

[Ben K]

An area we have now to avoid because it is a DZ takes sky away from us as well as ground.

Presumably, Tom, you would be happier if there was nothing at all to avoid overhead Old Sarum Airfield - because it had completely ceased to exist?

[Ben K]

Also, it had a fairly busy DZ before it shut, as well as an ATZ....so you don't have to worry about avoiding anything extra

[Gustosomerset]

Well I suppose the 'skydiving centre' answers my earlier confusion about how the owner was going to solve the planning requirement that he: "... retains and safeguards flying activity from the airfield."

It sounds as if this has been part of the plan all along (I can't help but wonder why Go Skydive won't talk to the local press) but still not sure how excluding GA benefits the owner or improves his chances of getting planning permission.

[TheFarmer]

It’s a privately owned airfield. They can do what they like. It still amazes me how people think that airfields like thIs will still be open to GA in the future. They won’t. It’s a no brainer

[Flasheart]

I'm aware that the skydiving outfit is linked with the flight school GoFly who were/are based there. Have they moved out to another location?

If they are one and the same entity will they remain at the airfield so it becomes a paradrop and flying school airfield only?

[ThePipster]

It’s a privately owned airfield. They can do what they like. It still amazes me how people think that airfields like thIs will still be open to GA in the future. They won’t. It’s a no brainer

@TheFarmer has it correct. The owner decided how he wants to best use his asset, and like it or not, that is his right.

I am disappointed that the change has come about but that’s life.

If as a community we want more control over airfields then as has previously been mentioned we need to dig deep, either to buy airfields or to make their operation sufficiently profitable to make them an attractive proposition to their owners.

Regarding having to avoid the DZ, with the exception of wanting to take photos of Salisbury city centre, I can’t really see how the location of the DZ is going to adversity affect most passing traffic.

Pipster

[defcribed]

The cynic in me wonders if this might be a ploy by the owners to start a nimby campaign?

Absolutely. This much is obvious. It would seem Old Sarum had previously operated with some sort of voluntary restrictions on operations.

1. Exclude all except para-dropping - after all the para-dropping will have been the lion's share of the income anyway.
2. Annoy the **** out of the local populace.
3. Council comes back to the table seeking an agreement on noise abatement etc.
4. Tell council that the price of any agreement is planning permission for houses.

It's simple enough, and as the Farmer says it belongs to them and (within the law) they can do what they like with it.

The end goal of any landowner is housing, particularly airfield landowners. Almost no exceptions. I can't get my head around why some people think the landowners might have an interest in running an airfield. If a straightforward planning application fails then the landowners will maneuver however they think best to force the council's hand, and that usually involves causing disruption and pissing people off. Same at Wellesbourne.

[johnm]

If our planning system wasn't completely broken and corrupt then airfields would be zoned for industry and green wildlife space and everyone could be happy with a serious amount of quality employment, aviation activity and happy hedgehogs and chums.

[defcribed]

If our planning system wasn't completely broken and corrupt then airfields would be zoned for industry and green wildlife space and everyone could be happy with a serious amount of quality employment, aviation activity and happy hedgehogs and chums.

It's not just the planning system that's completely broken. Building houses on your land should be as risky as any other business venture you might conduct upon it rather than a licence to print money.

[David Wood]

If our planning system wasn't completely broken and corrupt then airfields would be zoned for industry and green wildlife space and everyone could be happy with a serious amount of quality employment, aviation activity and happy hedgehogs and chums.

It's not just the planning system that's completely broken. Building houses on your land should be as risky as any other business venture you might conduct upon it rather than a licence to print money.

....And it is. One could argue that nowhere are those risks more apparent than at Old Sarum. The owners purchased the site many years ago on the basis, one assumes, that one day they would be able to develop all or some of it, thereby obtain a return on their investment. Nothing wrong with that in principle. Their aspirations have been prevented by the planning process with, one assumes, a consequential loss to the owners. So, it's a pretty clear example of the way risk operates in such a business, I'd suggest.

[defcribed]

....And one could argue that nowhere are those risks more apparent than at Old Sarum. The owners purchased the site many years ago on the basis, one assumes, that one day they would be able to develop all or some of it. Nothing wrong with that in principle. Their aspirations have been prevented by the planning process with, one assumes, a consequential loss to the owners. So, it's a pretty clear example of the way risk operates in such a business, I'd suggest.

No, sorry, I mean that once one has carte blanche to do anything one likes (within reason) with a piece of land, building houses and trying to sell them should have the same sort of risk & reward profile as any other venture such as running an airfield or building a theme park. The fact that it does not is why land such as airfield attracts speculators.

The planning system is what limits housing speculation to those who have (a) deep pockets to start with, and (b) a willingness to battle councils and play a long game.

[PeterMa]

I strongly think that the continued operation of ANY sort of flying cant be a bad thing . Being a regular visitor I do feel the jump aircraft ( C208) are actually quieter than a lot of traditional GA types - so the noise issues for local wont be any issue - the jump aircraft are doing very quick cycles anyway before it 'closed' - the jump ops are biggest in Europe ( ?) so if not had complaints so far I cant see they suddenly will start .

I can see it is any land owners prerogative to make a return any way they ( legally ) can . Be this from housing (Wellesbourne) or a really nice airfield ( Compton Abbas) playing the longer game ,and running some cost along the way but knowing this will all be paid off by the eventual sale / build etc is just part of the way the modern world works .

However the more flying the better form any site cant be bad thing versus a simple closure.