You see a buy out by Biggin Hill Airport Ltd isn't good enough for me. Here is why from a quote in the Airport Newsletter by Mr Will Curtis, the Managing Director of Biggin Hill Airport Ltd from Jan 15:
Seriously though, we need to ensure that we all take part in the Council's own consultation and respond positively as, if we are not careful, the small minority of "antis" will yet again get a disproportionate amount of air time and attention. It seems that the NIMBYs are not interested in jobs for the younger generation, nor in the future success of the airport which they would ideally like to see closed for good. They slate the airport openly for failing (in their opinion) to support the heritage of the airport, all the time ignoring the fact that the airport has volunteered, for no reward, to underwrite the cost of operating a heritage centre if it can be built and to underwrite the cost of maintaining and protecting St. Georges chapel if and when the MOD decide to take it off their books. It is difficult to see what more we might do to support the heritage of the airport. We see our heritage as important and we are keen to protect and honour the history of Biggin Hill airport for future generations, but this will cost money and money, as you all know, does not grow on trees. It has to be earned by commercial activity. The antis, it seems, care only about themselves. The fact that many of them moved into their very substantial houses around the airport, or under its approach, relatively recently and certainly long after the airport was in operation does not seem to matter to them at all. Ironically, they seem as keen as us on honouring the heritage of the airport . They believe, it seems, that Biggin Hill airport can survive purely to service the odd Spitfire flight and host some bits of bent metal carefully placed in an exhibition centre.
Of course, it is more complicated than that, and the £6 million annual cost of operating an airport of this size can only be met by commercial Business Aviation traffic. In the absence of that, I can see Biggin Hill falling prey to airlines, or alternatively following in the footsteps of West Malling aerodrome - also an important WWII fighter base - whose heritage is now buried under 1,500 affordable homes
So who feels comfortable this after seeing the above? Yes, Biggin Hill Airport Ltd could take this on - but what happens when times get tough? As a business it is suggested that when times are tough that they are very unlikely to provide full support of the Chapel - I couldn't blame them for that, either. So the MoD needs to be encouraged to keep this as a heritage site in my opinion, gifting (or more like ditching!) the responsibility to a commercial operation should not be an option. We should have a strategic policy on this as too many new 'heritage' projects keep springing up when old and historically important ones like this Chapel are allowed to fade away into obscurity. The depth of feeling on this is plain to see and the Minister's 'rescue plan' just doesn't cut it.
There are the
last remains of aircrew scattered in the grounds of this Chapel - as a relative, how would you feel if all the Commonwealth War Graves were given to say McDonalds, ASDA, WH Smiths and Wetherspoons to run?
I still think this 'new' plan is poor, I'm afraid (that isn't actually new and they were talking about the past 12 months at least by looking at some of the Parish minutes and other local newsletters).
Shame on those that think that the Minister's solution is OK.
LJ
P.S. Having re-read the above quote, I would suggest that the Company's apparent keeness to preserve the Chapel may have a hint of their need to placate the local NIMBYs for the Company's planned expansion as a Bizjet Airport. Maybe, I'm being harsh on them, and maybe they are very good people wanting to help, so I reserve judgement on their actual motive to fund this. If it is genuine, then I apologise for my thoughts on this up front, unreservedly.