[Sooty25]

we seem to be seeing a steady flow of airfields closing or in trouble.

Either being repurposed by the owners, like Bruntingthorpe

Closed out of spite, like Old Sarum

Occupants chased out due to local hassle, like Bentwaters

and now Monewden at the hands of planners and local Nimbys.

Obviously not a conclusive list!

The only way I see of defending our sport from these issues is airfield ownership, something most of us can't do individually, but jointly, we must be able to create some kind of business that purchases and operates airfields as an investment product.

We all buy shares, which is then used to raise the first commercial mortgage, and so on.

I know 90% will say "the first airfield isn't near me, why should I invest", but look at the bigger picture, the second might be your airfield.

We must be able to find a way...

Starter for one.. https://www.walkersestates.co.uk/property-for-sale/ingatestone-stock/cm4-9pd/1333936

[James Chan]

The only way I see of defending our sport from these issues is airfield ownership, s

I disagree. Acquiring ownership only transfers it to people providing they remain interested.
When they're not and want to sell on or move on, then the same problem is at risk of re-occurring.

My position is that we need to go a step further - and ensure that local/national transport/planning laws should stipulate that a designated network of aerodromes must always remain open and accessible to the general public (within reason).

[James Chan]

The other thing is also to have appropriate oversight to protect FBOs (e.g. flight schools, maintenance companies, etc.) fairly so that owners/operators cannot choose favourites to pick, or leases to terminate, depending which side of the bed they wake up.

[johnm]

There are two very simple things that could be done if the will was there.

The first is to clarify the "brownfield " development curtilage to exclude runways and a suitable distance round them. This would then support sensible development ( such as at Gloucester where one of the 3 runways will close to permit industrial development to assist sustainability of the other 2) while discouraging other development.

The second is to designate at least one airfield in every county as critical national infrastructure to support GA transport and related activities, redundant military facilities could be chosen where practicable..

[flyingearly]

As I said on the other thread, flying is an expensive hobby anyway; if every landing fee was to include a £1 'donation' that went into a communal fund to support/subside the costs for smaller airfields, it's easy to see how we could distribute £5k to the most 'at need' each year (which, as discussed, would at least cover one of their costs, like insurance, or security etc).

My other questions would be:

What legal support do airfields have? On issues like planning/NIMBYs, are they responsible for funding their own legal advice?

As above, a communal fund could provide some level of legal advice and support for airfield operators.

I agree with the other posted though: the only long-term solution here is a firm pushback and protection of airfields. We've heard time and time again situations where NIMBYs complain about noise from an airfield that has been there decades longer than their property, so why can we push for some kind of protected status there?

I sympathise and get it if someone buys a house and then an airstrips opens next door, but we're at risk of some of the main, busiest airfields in the country going if we're not careful. Surely one of the bellweathers here is going to be Redhill, if Tandridge DC get their long-term way?

As I mentioned on the other thread, as a newly qualified NPPL I'm finding it a bit mad that I live slap bang in the middle of the South-East but I have to drive 45 minutes to the nearest airfield - and when I get there, where can I fly to?

On Saturday I flew a passenger from Headcorn and (ignoramus that I am), having never flown from there on a weekend, I was taken back by the dozens and dozens - possibly over a 100 - members of the public all parked up, eating picnics on the grass, watching planes take off.

So, why is it that some places are 'doing it well', but others are being torn to shreds by locals who can't tolerate the slightest bit of noise?

[Sooty25]

The only way I see of defending our sport from these issues is airfield ownership, s

I disagree. Acquiring ownership only transfers it to people providing they remain interested.
When they're not and want to sell on or move on, then the same problem is at risk of re-occurring.....

.

I probably wasn't clear enough. Lets say 200 people all bought £2000 worth of shares in "UK Airfields Ltd" and that company then bought the Ingatestone airfield in the link, using the £400k raised as funds to raise a commercial mortgage.

IF share holders are restricted to say 5% holding, so no individual can take control, nobody will be able to sell it! If a share holder needs out, they sell their shares on. As more people join the scheme, capital is raised to buy further airfields as they come on the market.

Loads of details to consider, management, alternative incomes, blah, blah, blah,

[robert79]

The only way I see of defending our sport from these issues is airfield ownership, s

I disagree. Acquiring ownership only transfers it to people providing they remain interested.
When they're not and want to sell on or move on, then the same problem is at risk of re-occurring.....

.

I probably wasn't clear enough. Lets say 200 people all bought £2000 worth of shares in "UK Airfields Ltd" and that company then bought the Ingatestone airfield in the link, using the £400k raised as funds to raise a commercial mortgage.

IF share holders are restricted to say 5% holding, so no individual can take control, nobody will be able to sell it! If a share holder needs out, they sell their shares on. As more people join the scheme, capital is raised to buy further airfields as they come on the market.

Loads of details to consider, management, alternative incomes, blah, blah, blah,

Does the CEO get to live in the house?
I'm not sure you'd get a commercial mortgage on an airfield like that - it's clearly a private house with a very large garden. Would you be able to generate enough income to make the payments?

[Joe Dell]

I remember that ad from quite some time ago. Didn't appeal then or now.

[Sooty25]

this is exactly why nothing happens, this was all thrown up as a suggestion, using the very first result in Google for "airfield for sale UK" as an example. I've not done a business plan or any other research, I was merely putting up the concept and principle.

This one may not be suitable, it is an example.
However, it is an airfield with planning permission, and that is the key detail.
It has existing hangars and space for more, even possibly leasing plots for DIY McGregor type hangars.
There is the income from the fishing lakes to be considered as well.
Rent the house out.

Form a flying club and let them manage the airfield bit, but protect its future.

[Robin500]

Private/farm stripping is the way to go. As far as I can make out this sector is thriving. Future proofing fuel supplies is my concern.

[Pete L]

Some of this is just because the country is getting more crowded. It does affect other space consuming leisure activities. When we arrived in our village nearly 30 years ago there were at least half a dozen houses with stabled horse ridden on the road, possible more. We're now down to one.

Enlightened farmers are the only available solution - no-one else can commit 800x15m to remain free from inconvenient obstacles. Only Roserrow to my knowledge managed to incorporate a strip into the golf course and it's not as usable as it was.

[Flyingfemme]

Ingatestone has been for sale for a long time and the price has decreased - but not enough. It just isn't a value for money proposition. An airfield like that is highly unlikely to make enough profit to service a mortgage (and all the other bills) so it needs to be attractive for an owner to live in (and use) so that they subsidise the cost. As a strip, it is OK, but as a home - no way, Jose! The hangars are a disgrace and the house is in the middle of somebody else's yard.
Most of these owners have an over-inflated idea of the worth of their asset and they are unwilling to allow the next buyer to make a penny out of any work they might put into it.
There's another place in Kent that is similar - but even worse priced.
The only way to "save" airfields is to persuade those that govern us that they are infrastructure and have them own them. Nobody expects the M5 to make a "profit" and nobody puts in a planning application to build a housing estate over the main carriageway.

[Flyin'Dutch']

As long as aviation is not considered to be an asset but merely a nuisance which one uses to go on holiday every now and then, there will be no political will to ensure it will survive.

Airfields are just as roads, railways, National Grid, ports etc part of the normal infrastructure of a functioning country.

In the UK they are only seen as potential building development sites without any legal protection.

Unless that changes the sell off and repurposing of airfields will carry on.

Airfields are oasis of nature and rest most of the time which allow wildlife to florish both on and off site. Yet NIMBY's rather moand and have the next housing or industrial estate located next to them rather than an airfield. Planning in the UK is succumbed to the church of capitalism headed by property developers.

[flyingearly]

Enlightened farmers are the only available solution - no-one else can commit 800x15m to remain free from inconvenient obstacles.

Stupid question, as someone not that familiar with planning rules, but aren't farmers constrained by the 28 day rule also?

Or are you suggesting that the best route is to find an enlightened farmer and work with them to obtain planning permission?

[Sooty25]

Personally, I think that if we rely on fighting for getting airfields protected, we will lose, because you won't get them protected. Look at Plymouth, a potentially viable regional airport, but the leaseholder just wants to build on it. Even though they are on a sticky wicket legally, it still isn't operating as an airport. And that is one that can justify itself as infrastructure.

Somewhere like Monewden or Ingatestone or any other airfield predominantly used for leisure can not by any stretch of the imagination, justify its existence on the basis of infrastructure, because it provides a potential transport link for such a minority of the population. So, it comes down to cold, hard cash and determination to keep it open.