[Dave W]

It certainly wasn't agricultural land in 2016!

It possibly was in 1916, but not the following year, when it became an airfield.

[PlaneStupid]

..... and why won't Go SkyDive talk to the press?

because they don't have to discuss their private business in public, regardless of what social media may demand!

I suppose the next question is, who is now picking up the £25k per annum business rates bill now? Although, again none of our business. However, if the site starts to cost the landowner money, he could boot GoSkydive out as well and return it to the agricultural land it was in 2016!

Don’t confuse the landowner, with the owner of Old Sarum. They are two entirely different people.

[chevvron]

I do not remember it having been agricultural land in 2016. I seem to remember it having been a licenced airfield and have the logbook entries to verify this.

The airfield was opened in August 1917.
It was RAF until 1971, (my ATC Squadron went to summer camp there in 1970) then transferred to the Army until 1979, then in 1982 a 999 year lease was sold to Edgeley Aircraft Ltd.
I take this to mean the lessor is still MoD.

[Sooty25]

I do not remember it having been agricultural land in 2016. I seem to remember it having been a licenced airfield and have the logbook entries to verify this.

sorry, wrong century, I meant to type 1916!

[flybymike]

Don’t confuse the landowner, with the owner of Old Sarum. They are two entirely different people.

Does this mean that the “owner” of “Old Sarum” is a tenant of “the landowner?
Can you identify these people for us?

[Gustosomerset]

I fully appreciate that GoSkyDive are not obliged to talk about their business to anyone, but it's odd that they don't want to, given the enormous expansion opportunities now, apparently, before them.

The link kindly posted by tomshep to the strange local press article again raises more questions than it answers:

"A statement from Old Sarum Airfield Ltd said it would “henceforth operate on a long-term commercially contracted basis, with unrestricted flying as a unique selling point” but it would “remain closed to all private and recreational flying”.

This, it said, would “provide a positive return to the owners instead of the substantial operating losses caused by the need to severely restrict operations”. The deal will allow GoSkydive to make “unrestricted commercial use of the airfield, operating seven days each week with expanded hours of operation”.

What does 'unrestricted flying' mean? And how is it 'a unique selling point', to whom?

How will these theoretical 'long-term commercial contracts' provide a better return than private and recreational flying?

Who or what caused 'the need to severely restrict operations' formerly?

Is there really sufficient local demand for skydiving to support operating seven days each week with expanded hours of operation?

If there is, how many other commercial contracts will be able to operate around the resultant deluge of parachutes?

Again, I guess bewildering press releases could be a symptom either of a clever cover story....or, less excitingly, simple stupidity.

[PlaneStupid]

Don’t confuse the landowner, with the owner of Old Sarum. They are two entirely different people.

Does this mean that the “owner” of “Old Sarum” is a tenant of “the landowner?
Can you identify these people for us?

Indeed.

The landowner/freeholder is a Graham Horder

The tenant/s is/are Blanefield Ltd/Old Sarum Airfield Ltd.

[tomshep]

My understanding is that the airfield is leased from the MOD by a company owned by Matthew Hudson. If this is not the case, what is and why are there so many differnt versions of the story?

[PlaneStupid]

The freehold was sold by the MOD in the late 80s/ early 90s to a group of individuals called Megastream Ltd which subsequently folded. The freehold was then taken over by four individuals who eventually sold their holdings to Mr Horder. The MOD no longer has direct a interest although there are several conditions remaining regarding the use of the Airfield.

If you visit the Wiltshire Planning website application no: 15/04004/out, there is the full details of the ownership history.

This link provides some very general background too:

http://www.laverstock-ford.co.uk/news-and-events.html

[CloudHound]

Is that the Graham Horder of Cheyne Motors and owner of SIAI SF260 Marchetti G-MACH?

[Gustosomerset]

Yes it is.

Evidently Mr Horder, made it clear (in November 2017) that he wished to make representations at the appeal brought by his tenants, Old Sarum Airfield Ltd against the refusal of planning. It would be interesting to know what he said - I can't immediately find that.

I wonder if, following latest developments, he'll be allowed to fly his plane in and out of the land he owns?

Again, apologies if, as I suspect, others here are way ahead of me on this - but the story appears so surrounded by disinformation, factual inaccuracy and obfuscation that it seems to me to encourage a bit of digging through what is in the public domain.....

[tomshep]

I don't see the point. Another GA airfield has closed to the private and recreational flyer. Move on. The lighting system has, I understand, been rather crudely removed ostensibly to deter souvenir hunters. I compiled a manual for the system. I hope that they haven't lost it because if they attract, say, a training organisation that would require night flying, they are going to need it; I'm a very busy chap.

[Gustosomerset]

Each to his own of course, but having read the planning and appeal reports I think it's not out of the question that, should the developers come back with a revised application (which one would surely expect), the planners might seek to include the re-opening of the airfield to the private and recreational flyer as a condition of consent. This would be in line with the obvious intention of the local planning strategy.

On that basis, and on the basis that the developers appear to be - shall we say - not very bright, it seems to me slightly premature to assume the story is over. But, as ever, you know more about it than I do...

[tomshep]

Sure, Landing fee £150. Sorted.

[Gustosomerset]

Though not sorted if, for example, the conditions prescribe affordable landing fees, to ensure reasonable GA access obviously. Overall, my impression is that the developers seem still to imagine that the threat of noise from 'unrestricted flying' (which has always been permissible in any case) will somehow cause everyone (locals, planners, appeal judges, judiciary) to change their minds about their current application. That's obviously not going to work - so it's now just a question of how long it takes them to figure that out and think up a new plan. On the evidence, admittedly, it may be a surprisingly long wait.