Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 26
User avatar
By tomshep
#1708989
It is all there in the thread.
The airfield was run profitably by the flying club until Blanefield bought the lease on the field, took the canteen revenue, the landing fees, and the hangarage revenue and the lady who ran the airfield could no longer keep it solvent. It went downhill from there. The plan was always to have the housing estate so the infrastructure was allowed to decay.

Good people, many of whom who have become friends over the last few years will lose their livelihoods and those responsible will blame those elected councillors who wouldn't just roll over and rubber stamp all that luvverly council tax because they had higher motives.

It isn't just the greed - it is the vengeful nihilism that goes with it that Grenville
Hodge and Blanefield will be remembered for if this goes ahead.

To those who have helped me, fed me, made sense of my radio calls, kept the airwaves clear during the adventurous arrivals (a Pan and a MAYDAY, the latter before I had even gone solo,) taught me, tolerated me, laughed with me and encouraged me, I am ever gratefully in your collective debt. You know who you are. Good luck to you all. It has been a privilege beyond words or price to have flown from EGLS.
Last edited by tomshep on Fri Aug 02, 2019 7:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By Gustosomerset
#1708992
Following the appeal, it's evident that they can't get the development plan they wanted, but "Inspector, Frances Mahoney, said that "on the face of it the heritage harm would be enough to reject the proposal at this stage" but she was "conscious that the development plan supports the principle of new development at the airfield" under core planning policy." IMHO that translates as "give us few affordable houses and some money towards a school and we'll nod it through next time..." Terrible shame.
By Robin500
#1709001
What a terrible shame. What will happen to the museum exhibits?

Is there absolutely no possibility of this decision being reversed?
User avatar
By tomshep
#1709003
As for the noise levels, these were raised quite deliberately by making the circuits to the South and at 800 feet instead of to the North at 1000.
Turnip Pilot liked this
User avatar
By Kemble Pitts
#1709071
A sorry tale.

I headed the group that obtained the first civil aerodrome licence for Old Sarum in 1985. At that point it was an absolute time capsule, beautiful place.

I worked at Edgley Airctraft/Optica Industries and one or two of the key players at Old Sarum today worked at the Company. They were not very savoury nearly 35 years ago.

As the Jesuits say 'give me the boy to the age of seven, and I will show you the man'.
User avatar
By David Wood
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1709076
It is a very sad outcome, but with a sad inevitability about it. I've been flying at Old Sarum for 20 years or so and it's undeniable that over that period it has gone from a bustling GA centre to a shadow of its former self. There are, however, lots of factors at work in that decline and I simply don't know enough about the motives, plans and actions of the owners and other parties to be able to comment authoritatively upon them.

It is pretty clear, however, that the airfield was purchased by investors as a long-term property play and that, for such a play to return anything at all, some development at some point had to be part of that equation. The issue was always going to be how much and at what impact. It seems to me from my distant and partial view point that, notwithstanding the merits or otherwise of any scheme, there evolved over time a situation in which each of the parties came to distrust anything that the other parties said. In that context it was always going to be difficult to come up with a balanced solution that benefits everyone despite there being an opportunity, and apparently a desire, so to do. It's a shame.

I have no idea how realistic compulsory purchase is. I suspect that the process would take years, even if there was a will. And in any case, the fact remains that the airfield still requires a very considerable investment to bring it up out of dilapidation, and I just don't see where that investment will come from or, just as importantly, where the return on that investment will come from.

Some at Old Sarum claim it to be the second-oldest continuously-operated airfield in the country. Sadly that seems unlikely to be the case much longer.
Turnip Pilot, Ben K liked this
User avatar
By Kemble Pitts
#1709081
Opened in 1917, mostly built by German PoWs I seem to recall (not first hand knowledge BTW!!)

Might have been disused between 1979 and 1983 when Edgley Aircraft bought the 999 year lease off MoD so continuous use is debatable.
Turnip Pilot liked this
User avatar
By David Wood
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1709084
It always struck me as a slightly dubious claim. In a strange twist of fate, as a very very young :shock: platoon commander in 1980 I remember digging-in at Old Sarum to defend it as part of one of those enormous cold-war military exercises. I don't recall any aeroplanes there then.
Turnip Pilot liked this
User avatar
By PaulSS
#1709086
They say in that letter that operations were deliberately reduced (helicopters etc) and the loss of income accepted, to reduce the noise nuisance and, therefore, make the prospect of building the houses more likely.

Now the Council has said 'no', instead of closing down operations all together, why don't they just increase the operations back to historical levels (as they can because of the time the airfield has been in use) and increase their income?

It certainly sounds like a big flounce to me and instead of getting more money, as they could, they're just sulking and using the 'no' decision to take the easy way out and, of course, sell off the whole place to developers anyway.
AshleyFlynn23 liked this
User avatar
By Flasheart
#1709100
It's a real shame that Old Sarum looks likely to close. I had all my PPL training there, from first flight to flight test (with Mr D.Wood!) and always enjoyed the airfield.

It's surprising that they see no profit in the airfield as the parachute business there appears to be thriving all through the year. With not only the meatbombs themselves, but families sat around the cafe for hours eating/drinking etc. I suppose if that money goes elsewhere it makes no difference.

Also I'll be losing my regular fuel stop from the Isle of Wight back to Kemble! Given the history there as well, it's very sad.
User avatar
By tomshep
#1709117
My aircraft is now sold and I shall hang up my headset. Cheerio, everybody and thanks for all the fun.
By cockney steve
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1709125
A load of claptrap in the pious, crocodile-tears letter, re- closure.

The airfield was long-established before any volume of private housing was extant. Given the noise of Military aircraft, (from the inception of WW2, to the present jet-age) I'd venture that the level nowadays, is considerably lower. These properties were built in the full knowledge that there was Aviation noise, which could alter in volume,pitch and duration as aircraft design and propulsion developed.
to suggest that operators have a moral obligation to reduce their activities in order to enhance the property- values and "quality of life" of the incumbents of speculative housing, is a specious argument. Likewise the stamping-press vibrations....remind us, who was the landlord who granted this and happily collected the rent?

Perhaps,other than the suggested CPO, ,the fringe-areas suitable for development, could maybe be used for hangar-homes, thus creating a resident/ based /visitor mix of traffic. Whilst the homes would not generate a hangarage- revenue from single-aircraft residents, an annual standing-charge would ensure a solid revenue-stream .increasing revenues from an traffic stream and altering approach/departure profiles to minimise disturbance should not be beyond the wit of a competent operator....to reduce circuit-height and align it over a more densely- populated area, smacks not of incompetence, but deliberate provocation.

I have no knowledge or interest in the airfield but I detect a strong odour of fish in this issue :evil:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 26