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.