Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
User avatar
By tomshep
#1750822
The plan appears to be one of becoming a neighbour from Hell. Although it has been said that the lights have been reinstated, I think that will only be the cones which carry the lamps. I do not think the warnings of night flying are anything but empty threats. The council aren't stupid and will be keeping an eye on them but compulsory purchase is out of the question as is action from the leaseholder who hasn't the money to fight the company. The land is leased so the houses could not be sold freehold. This issue has now become prominent with buyers and will limit both desirability and margins. I expect the developer was planning to have a post build income stream as a result. Greed is limitless.
User avatar
By James Chan
#1750855
Regionwide transport network...from OS?! Which AOC holder would be providing said transport and how, exactly?


I wasn't exactly thinking of passenger carrying commercial flights.

It'll be mostly GA operations at this level - some commercial: e.g. medical transfers, scientific research, flight training, survey, etc., and some non-commercial: forumites visiting people from afar, getting on with business, tourism, access to outlying islands, etc.

Every aerodrome forms part of a network so people can go places - it cannot just exist on its own.

The key to transition I think is whether local residents have found OS to be of value to their community in which is someone might put forward a proposal to protect it. Or whether this has been operating a like a private members leisure club, similar to a local swimming pool or golf club, in which it probably won't.
User avatar
By Ben K
#1750909
James Chan wrote:
Regionwide transport network...from OS?! Which AOC holder would be providing said transport and how, exactly?


I wasn't exactly thinking of passenger carrying commercial flights.

It'll be mostly GA operations at this level - some commercial: e.g. medical transfers, scientific research, flight training, survey, etc., and some non-commercial: forumites visiting people from afar, getting on with business, tourism, access to outlying islands, etc.

Every aerodrome forms part of a network so people can go places - it cannot just exist on its own.

.


If OS ever is a hub for medivac flights/island hopping flights/flight test and research, I will be very pleasantly surprised.

The CAT factored performance figures barely worked for sightseeing PA28s, I think.
User avatar
By Ben K
#1751194
PlaneStupid wrote:Came across this article today from 19 years ago. Clearly shows there has been intention to develop Old Sarum for years. So much for the reasons given by the leaseholders that they had no alternative way of raising funds except by building to keep it flying. That was just the most recent justification for their greedy scheming.

https://www.gazetteandherald.co.uk/news ... -airfield/


Isn't your axe sharp enough now, PS?
PlaneStupid liked this
User avatar
By Gustosomerset
#1751215
tomshep wrote:The land is leased so the houses could not be sold freehold. This issue has now become prominent with buyers and will limit both desirability and margins.


This seems to me to be crucial. It suggests that even if they did get planning consent - for a more modest residential development - they'd struggle to sell the leasehold houses. One can't help wondering how much pressure they must have put (or be putting) on the freeholder to sell. It would be great to hear what he thinks....
By PlaneStupid
#1751465
Ben K wrote:
PlaneStupid wrote:Came across this article today from 19 years ago. Clearly shows there has been intention to develop Old Sarum for years. So much for the reasons given by the leaseholders that they had no alternative way of raising funds except by building to keep it flying. That was just the most recent justification for their greedy scheming.

https://www.gazetteandherald.co.uk/news ... -airfield/


Isn't your axe sharp enough now, PS?


I clearly need to keep it well honed as we might have won the battle, but we haven’t the war. :wink: The leaseholders will be back for another bite of the cherry, as their history has proven.
User avatar
By Flyingfemme
#1771016
How are they going to do that with one flying tenant - the skydivers - who cannot operate at the moment , or for the foreseeable?
By Red
#1771029
So this bit about having to increase flights and even have night flying if not allowed to build houses, should it even be taken seriously?.
I thought it was up to the planning authority to decide how many flights could be allowed under its planning permission
User avatar
By Rob P
#1771033
Night skydiving sounds a bit hard-core :o

Rob P
User avatar
By Iceman
#1771041
They certainly applied for those at Dunkeswell in the past (along with 24000 ft drops), but I’ve never heard of either of them being done there so I guess they weren’t approved by the CAA.

I wonder if the skydivers must wear nav lights :lol: ?

Iceman 8)
kanga liked this
  • 1
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26