I absolutely agree with
Parsnips view.
Just to add to this in my view Peel don't have an issue with DTV in any form other than that from a business perspective i.e. they are there to maximise the return on their investment for the benefit of their shareholders. More of an issue is to over what length of term they are considering for such a return. They, more than anyone will be aware that growth rates in regional airports are falling and in low profile regional airports with poor track records then to 'buck the trend' with lower pax volumes is even more difficult. Peel will have absolutely no plans to close the airport, merely to allow it to run alongside as much alternate development as they are able to undertake & get away with. Expenditure of £3m on lighting is presumably all part of the necessity to maintain the airports essential opertaing standards and can't be taken as a signal to anything else, as is expenditure on the general airport facilities. An abstract from 6 May Airport Press release is interesting :-
The airport is currently only operating at 50% of its capacity, so there is room to grow passengers before growing the airport. However, development plans - funded by a £56m cash injection from owner Peel Airports - include a business park and airport hotel to the north. Meanwhile the south side will host the Skylink International Business Park, which will create a large-scale freight distribution centre and boost cargo through the airport from 1000 tonnes to a predicted 25,000 tonnes by 2015
.
I would be very suprised indeed to see any expenditure directed to extending the footprint of the current facilities, but incredibly the press release actually talks up freight growth knowing that it's major 'aviation related' cargo operator TNT is witdrawing service. Now is this a 'head in the sand' strategy or more like one that will endorse significant planning applications for the alternate use of airport land?