Iron Chicken wrote:If the amenity is given planning permission to be consumed by housing, cannot it be made conditional for such permission that those benefiting to great wealth provide an equivalent amenity in an appropriate location?

It would be lovely if this were the real world, it really would.

Iron Chicken wrote:
If the amenity is given planning permission to be consumed by housing, cannot it be made conditional for such permission that those benefiting to great wealth provide an equivalent amenity in an appropriate location?

See” planning gain” provisions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planning_gain

I'm a mere student and spend most of my time in the other sub-forum but putting my head above the parapet. I'm 46 with 16 hours and hoping to spend many more in the skies, every time I read about a closure it's painful.

I have been reading the thread with interest. I'm surprised to see what feels like incredibly strong support for landowners over GA. I trust we all understand that the law is the law and rights are rights, I'm just a little surprised at the level of apathy and resignation to a perceived done deal and a lack of interest in trying to look for an alternative / creative solution. I haven't explained my feelings very well but I wouldn't expect to go to a real estate forum and read about support for GA.

Anyway, enough rambling. Practically speaking, I have seen a little talk here of finding alternatives. Is this really viable these days? How does one go about this? What is the process? How much do these things cost? I'm sure there's a range but some practical examples would be nice? How many new / alternative airfields have sprung up in the UK in the last say 20 years, versus the number that have disappeared?

Links to informative references would be appreciated in the event that this is a FAQ.

Lastly, it is a shame that there is no organization that aggregates "investment" from those who want airfields to remain as airfields and even buy new land for such and / or alternative sites. I'm no legal beagle, but it would be nice to have a go. I'm sure not all of us are completely minted, but if we can afford this hobby, we can possibly afford to put some aside to secure the future of the hobby (and the industry, yadda).

Feel pretty much the same Topdog. I always thought flying would be 'too expensive', self limiting belief and didn't do proper research. I could have actually started on an apprentice salary 20 years back! Worried by the time I get going things will be shut down or airspace closed for stupid drone schemes which make no sense in UK.

I always overpay landing fees, also small fry but will put £100 into the Popham group. There is another 'interest group' in Scotland I said i'd put some money into but the chap was going on hol i think. Can't remember where the thread is on here - (might be malcolmfrost actually - just seen like on your post).

Gonna have to move to America or something for GA but I'll be too old and they won't want me.

topdog91 wrote:...
I'm sure not all of us are completely minted, but if we can afford this hobby, we can possibly afford to put some aside to secure the future of the hobby (and the industry, yadda).

Well that is the perennial problem. Arguably a large proportion of GA is far from minted.

What is the GA definition of minted? I dont know, how about some factors....

Fly/Own a Cirrus? a twin? something with retractable undercarriage? a warbird? a helicopter?
(basically anything mega bucks to buy or maintain or thirsty engine)

Can afford to buy a new aircraft when it is time for engine overhaul? (Look how old the GA fleet is to see that is not happening, also the manufacturer sales figures for the year is a small number for GA types worldwide).

Can easily afford to spend the cost of a Part FCL PPL course every year on GA flying from personal funds?

Can sustain a full Instrument Rating with ease?
Does numerous long trips to Europe every year?

They are so current at flying that getting a CAS transit is a breeze as ATC recognise them?

Has a second home at an Air Park?



What is the definition of Affordable GA?.... how about some factors....

Sipping fuel with a Rotax engine?
Fly/own a microlight? ultralight? glider? paraglider?
Homebuilt aircraft?
Something that can operate from a short farm strip?

Fly/own 40+ year old GA aircraft, 2-4 seats, powered by Lycoming? (perhaps a flying school aircraft in the distant past)
Instrument panel looks fairly original... no modern avionics as dont have the funds to buy or fit without saving up for N years?

Moans about landing fees over 10 quid?
Will fly an extra hour to avoid an airfield with a landing fee of £20+.

Avoids CAS transits?

Mostly does day trips an hour from home base? (probably does not get a taxi to go beyond the destination airfield boundary)

Will sleep under a wing rather than pay for a comfy bed nearby? (Would rather spend the money on flying).



All a bit tongue in cheek, but you get the idea....

As for organising "investment", there are many associations for different flavours of GA. Good luck trying to get that many stakeholders to agree on anything (typically why governments cant please everyone in their country all at the same time for just one day lol)

The flies an extra hour to pay less landing fee made me lol. ,

My definition of affordable (and I understand I'll sound like Johnm here with his "6000 acre estate" mates as it still isn't "real person" as my wife pays half the bills) is...

Aircraft under £40k, yeah probably Rotax, yeah probably microlight.

But that's just because it's what I am doing. So I'm biased.

But I'd go back to my could have started 20 years ago as an apprentice with an X-air / Hawk or Skyranger or something. The latter easily under £20k back then.

You can buy an aircraft for less than I spent on car insurance at the time (mind you I did have a 350hp rwd at 18) £5500tpfp. (Can't teach kids they have to make mistakes with money).

Going back to my limiting beliefs. I always thought an aircraft would be £100k+ I think we are limiting potential pilots with this myth somehow.

StratoTramp wrote:I always thought an aircraft would be £100k+ I think we are limiting potential pilots with this myth somehow.

Look at new microlights now and that's not wrong. Pendulum swinging back that way I'm afraid. So not entirely a myth.

Actually what I tell people is that it's like car ownership and the costs are similar. Depends where you set your personal bar (a clue - I've never spent more than £14k on a car).

I've just looked through my logbooks. Over the last ten years, of the airfields I've flown to, 17% are now gone. And I've not flown to any new start ups(although straight away I can think of places like Hinderclay and Shipmeadow that are very much local to me and I could have visited, just haven't yet).
17% is a big proportion.
Another challenge is that new ventures tend to start small, whereas many of the ones we lose are bigger and with good facilities. So as well as the number of airfields dwindling, any replacements tend to be small and at the farm strip end of things - I love small grass airfields, but I can see that there is a squeeze on folk who prefer acres of ex military tarmac

This is the only time window in which a planning app can be submitted for the change of use of an alternate field to “Airfield”, in which the application highlights the imminent loss of Popham due to the very people you are making your Change of Use application having out Popham into the local plan for redevelopment. This by no means makes approval simple, but it’ll certainly help the case.

So IMHO those affected should get out there and find a suitable location with an amenable owner and seek to enter into a conditional sale or lease for the land now. Or, sit around hand-wringing about the loss of “their” airfield, which was never theirs at all. I genuinely think that there’s an opportunity for a: Planning Permission and b: to demonstrate the route of Agricultural Land to Resi via Airfield; now give us a 20 year lease at rates beyond agricultural yield conditional upon PP approval, and await your 8-figure windfall in years to come, just like the owners of Popham.

@topdog91 you can find plenty of threads like this on the forum and it all comes down to the planning system. TheFarmer has said that the 65 acres of Popham would make less than 10k a year under agriculture, presumably with a lot of hard work and risk involved. Land in Hampshire has a value around £10,000 an acre. As an airfield it ought to make considerably more but probably low hundreds of thousands, if that. Again with risk and hard work.
Win the planning lottery and get a million an acre with no more hard work or risk - and taxation well below the income tax burden on such a sum. It becomes a total no-brainer for the landowner and who could blame them?
Unless, and until, the planning system is sorted out and the shortage of homes is solved this will not get better and “nice to have” facilities, such as airfields, will always lose out over things that generate life-altering riches beyond the dreams of yer average Joe.

Why should the airfield have to move? There is plenty of other land in the immediate area that could be used. Is it perhaps connected with it being considered as brownfield?

There is potentially a willing buyer for and a willing seller of that parcel of land - sadly though, the current users of are neither of the above.

malcolmfrost wrote:Why should the airfield have to move? There is plenty of other land in the immediate area that could be used.

Because the owner has a site that’s easier to get planning on than a green field site, and they want the money. It’s really that simple.

Add my last sentence and you may realise I'm being ironic!

The Aerodrome Operators Group, working with the APPG-Av, are revitalising the Strategic Aerodromes Network concept.

I'm not party to the aims and ambitions of this work but influencing the next Government on protecting a dwindling national resource should be a target.

It may be too late for Popham but at least it will serve as an example of how even a thriving aviation centre can fall prey.

One thing I have noticed is how in local newspaper articles, all of the locals are suddenly very supportive of the airfield and the people who fly from it in their anti-development group.

I wonder how many of those people have been people who’ve previously complained about the airfield noise, of which there are many. The whirr of a little Rotax passing overhead is something they’ve obviously now decided is quite a nice thing hear all of a sudden…