Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
User avatar
By FlarePath
#1709806
Nobody expects motorways to be closed and houses built on the land


Same with the national railway, as a state asset they are just as protected albeit there are ways to close down parts of the asset but they are lenghty and protracted.
By cockney steve
#1709859
^^^^^^^OOH, -I dunno,- Dr. Beeching did a fair job of screwing-up the far-flung corners of this septic isle , when he wielded his axe. many a mile of former railway -route has been chopped-up with piecemeal developments, thus ensuring that people out in the sticks are dependent on the roads forever. :?
Sooty25 liked this
User avatar
By Grelly
#1709876
Flyingfemme wrote:Nobody expects motorways to be closed and houses built on the land


Actually, I think that is a great idea. :D
townleyc liked this
By PlaneStupid
#1710185
I understand there was a meeting at OS last night about the way forward. Anyone attend and know what the future holds?
User avatar
By tomshep
#1710191
The management of the airfield is engaged in a dialogue with interested parties. It was agreed at the meeting that due to the delicate nature of the situation, neither side would comment at present for the good of all.
kanga, Dave W liked this
User avatar
By tomshep
#1711154
It amazes me how other people have a better idea of my mental state, circumstances or reasons for making my decisions than I do. That they feel the need to pass comment on my business is just downright rude. Given the logistics of the situation I was placed in, I made the choice which was right for me although unpalatable. Anything you may have heard through whatever cast iron source you believe in is by no means authoritative, see my last post on the matter.
By Nomad63
#1711168
Met some bloke at Lundy who managed to find another base nearby, but he didnt want to move there unless he had no choice, he seemed to be holding out a slim possibility that something could be worked out

I hope so, Old Sarum is one of the few handfull of places I visit often, its just got something special.
By EGHF
#1711172
It is very sad news if this does go ahead and fingers crossed all gets worked out and its hopefully just a shot across the bow for Wiltshire council.

With the mindset that it is going down the hopeless route, if anyone from Old Sarum is looking for a serious option for relocation please get in contact with the EGHF Solent Airport Manager at airportmanager@solentairport.co.uk.

We can offer grass or limited hard parking initially with the landowners plan of additional hangars being built over the coming months.

We are a CAA Licensed aerodrome, located on the South Coast of England at Lee-on-the-Solent. Operated by Regional & City Airports Ltd, and boasts a resurfaced asphalt runway, available for use all year round, AGL installation within the next 12 months, and upcoming FISO transition.

By way of supporting your move the first month of grass parking would be at 50% discount.

http://www.solentairport.co.uk
Ben K, flybymike liked this
User avatar
By Sooty25
#1711185
this and the Wellesbourne thread, really do highlight the need for those in aviation to find a way to come together and buy their own airfields.
Aerials liked this
By johnm
#1711330
Sooty25 wrote:this and the Wellesbourne thread, really do highlight the need for those in aviation to find a way to come together and buy their own airfields.


That may be a manageable damage limitation strategy in some quarters, but the volume of people in aviation doesn't make it a practical overall strategy. We need modifications to planning policy and the APPG, AOPA and other lobbying groups need more vocal and practical support to that end.
kanga liked this
User avatar
By Flyingfemme
#1711343
Sooty25 wrote:this and the Wellesbourne thread, really do highlight the need for those in aviation to find a way to come together and buy their own airfields.

Maybe, and maybe not.

It’s a bit like saying that we all need to come together and buy farms so that food may continue to be grown. Our planning system allows for bits of land to be defined according to their use. An overhaul of that system to make building (decent) housing in suitable areas (and there are plenty of big gardens and infill sites around) mops up the outstanding demand and allows other areas to be used for farming, transport and leisure. We all flyaround the UK and know that it is nowhere near “full up”.

The current system only really benefits the developers, who love wide, open sites that are easy/cheap to cover in ticky-tacky boxes that they can sell at a vast premium. Open it up so that small building firms and individuals can build better homes in smaller quantities and offer more choice, as well as bring down the prices for a better quality of life.

Am I holding my breath? No way!
seanxair liked this
By PlaneStupid
#1711626
https://www.salisburyjournal.co.uk/news ... -airfield/

I would point out that John Glen MP is incorrect in stating, “Many local residents do not want significant housebuilding on the site but are also unhappy with excessive use of the airfield by light aircraft. The ideal scenario for many local residents is relatively moderate use of the airfield by aviation “

Almost without exception, the residents would welcome a far more active airfield than a housing estate - which would ultimately bring about its demise anyway. I’ve lived on the fringes of OS for 25 years and seen it wound down from a busy hub to a shell of its former self. There have been very few complaints over the years, apart from one individual 15 years ago who tried to organise a petition, didn’t get anywhere and moved away. Why I asked to see copies of the complaints log, it took the manager ages to cobble together and the wording on the few that eventually provided seemed so similar, one might almost think they were written by the same person...


The words below are copied and pasted from a comment someone has made about the situation in the article. They’re very succinct and hit the nail on the head exactly about the issues at OS:


John Glen's comment that "the owners of the airfield are business people and looking for a return on their investment" is true but it doesn't follow that it's incumbent upon airfield users and the residents of Laverstock and Ford to ignore their own interests and help them make that 'return' an excessive one. We do not have a civic duty to help property speculators make a profit.
If a development company 'invests' in an airfield it takes a gamble, weighing up the risks in its decision, the same as any other business has to do when investing for its future. We don't hear talk of having a duty to bale out every business that makes an unwise decision. Unless it's a bank, of course”

“ I do not understand what is wrong with the idea of 'many local residents' not wanting 'significant' housebuilding on the site. It's an airfield - the clue's in the name. It's a historic conservation area. Not a housing estate. And an independent government inspector has ruled hat the current development proposals would cause 'inordinate' harm to its setting. That's fairly strong language for an inspector to use.
lAll the Save Old Sarum protesters that I have spoken to say they would welcome some increased flying as long as it's not at unreasonable hours of the night. They accept that there will be some development on the site. Their argument is that this should be no more than is strictly required to subsidise the continued operation of the airfield. Pretty much, I'm sure, what the council intended us to think when it wrote its badly-worded core policy without saying how many houses would be acceptable.”
There needs to be much more detailed information in the public domain about what it costs to run the airfield, what has been done to try to increase its income, and why it has so few pilots now compared with a decade or so ago while other nearby airfields are booming, if the developers are to persuade a sceptical public that everything possible has been done to support flying.
Turnip Pilot liked this
User avatar
By PeteSpencer
#1711636
When Ipswich airport (which adjoined a huge housing estate) was put up for sale for development in the early 90s, there was a massive outcry from the local residents who virtually unanimously did not want development but wanted the airport to remain open . There were protests, petitions but despite their fervour they got nowhere and airport was sold and a mix of housing and industrial units built The 1930s airport building was listed and preserved.

The Friends of Ipswich Airport still has annual meetings to this day.

I still fly over it for old times sake and the cruel irony is that the site was only half developed: There remains ample land for a decent sized airfield

Peter
kanga, Turnip Pilot liked this
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8