Hey, pay for it or lose it.
As they say, the landing fees don't pay the costs of running the airfield and the buildings are subsidising the rest. Know the problem, I own a small grass airfield without buildings to subsidise it!
If you have never whinged about landing fees, then by all means object.
A very good line to take is to find someone else who would want to use/run the airfield. This was the position with school playing fields near our house - as long as someone wanted to use them as playing fields, they couldn't give planning for houses.
Now, there is planning for an airfield here, and the applicants have said that they are a) dealing with two councils, and b) that their plans for improving the airfield OR developing with houses, have been turned down.
So now they have a bit of ground that is losing money and they are fed up with subsidising our sport. But the councils won't let them do anything with the land! And if they can't improve the airfield, they want to know what they can do! (as it is said, there are three ways of doing things: the right way, the wrong way and the council's way - same as the wrong way but longer and more expensive)
We don't need all these local hassles, we need a national framework to make airfields viable for the owners, the operators and the users.
A good deal is one in which everyone is a winner.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. So if airfields are healthy, viable, sustainable businesses - then they'll stay in business, as airfields.
Very best to all,
XA