Originally Posted by
Robert-Ryan
The article is somewhat misleading, claiming the housing land "could now be kept for its intended purposes" is ridiculous, given this new hangar complex will at best incorporate 25% of said land, with the bulk still unsuitable for aviation use, which is why housing was planned for there in the first instance.
It may be a case of you say the hangars only occupy 25% of that section of land, but far more important will be the aprons and stands that can be utilised on the remaining 75% of that section of land.