Pat R wrote:What puzzles me is: if it’s such a bad deal and TF feel the Airfield is going to shut very soon (according to them). Why do they want to stay?
Firstly, I note that you have failed to respond to the question put to you by “flybymike”, so I, too, would put the same question to you and look forward to your response.
Secondly, Take Flight, the leading campaigner and fund raiser is, interestingly, the only business to have not been offered a “deal” by the landowner and is still subject to an eviction notice.
Thirdly, with reference to point one, could you please provide the source of your quote, attributed to Take Flight, that the “airfield is going to shut very soon”. Failing that, with reference to your previous comments about truth and misinformation, I would suggest that you withdraw it.
Fourthly, if you were the owner of a very successful and established business with a previously agreeable arrangement in an agreeable location would you fight to remain or just roll over?
Perhaps you could come back to this forum when your house, or business, faces a similar threat and with no compensation being offered?
Finally, do you really think that Stratford District Council would ever have even considered a CPO if the airfield’s future was not in doubt?
In that specific context, the question currently being asked is whether or not the recent offer of “temporary” residence (with a 28 day notice clause in it) to all but one of the existing businesses and the pending eviction of the other (a current major contributor to the airfield’s income and viability) is in line with the previously stated policy aims of the SDC.
It doesn’t look like it is, to me.