Doncaster Sheffield-3

[pug]

Originally Posted by davidjpowell

They may run it. they may contract it out. I doubt if they did a CPO they would release total control.
Local authorities can afford to take a longer-term view and look further than how much money it makes in isolation.

If they will go through with the CPO or not, only time will tell.

..And my point is, just how vital to the local economy is an airport that provides services only to the bucket and spade market and some ancillary/adhoc freight flights? There’s nothing wrong with bucket and spade, it’s the bread and butter for most airports, but when global connectivity is lacking it becomes quite difficult to justify on a regional GVA level, particularly when the airport was losing up to £10-20 for every passenger that used it as that’s an excessive burden for any Council, let alone one the size of DMBC. So how can the council secure a clear mandate to outlay the £hundreds of millions required in the hope that they may then sell on to a private sector investor who themselves may then want to use the land for something else down the line? Let’s not forget that SYMCA were offered an equity share in the airport in exchange for £20million, but rescinded when Peel were unable to provide a roadmap to profitability*. DMBC are not cash rich enough to complete this and therefore a CPO will not work. The sites future as an airport relies solely on the private sector at this stage. The minutes from the Doncaster Airport Consultative Committee paint a bleak picture, I’m not entirely sure what you think DMBC, SYMCA, UAE Investment companies or whoever else ends up owning the site if Peel sell are going to do any differently? The rumours that Peel purposefully ran the place into the ground have been put to bed now.

*SYMCA/OC were a bit conservative with the truth, there was a loan request from Peel for £20million, but there was also an equity share offered by Peel in exchange for this sum. Peel did open their books and were unable to provide assurance that the airport finances could be turned around which is why SYMCA walked away.

[davidjpowell]

Originally Posted by pug

..And my point is, just how vital to the local economy is an airport that provides services only to the bucket and spade market and some ancillary/adhoc freight flights? There’s nothing wrong with bucket and spade, it’s the bread and butter for most airports, but when global connectivity is lacking it becomes quite difficult to justify on a regional GVA level, particularly when the airport was losing up to £10-20 for every passenger that used it as that’s an excessive burden for any Council, let alone one the size of DMBC. So how can the council secure a clear mandate to outlay the £hundreds of millions required in the hope that they may then sell on to a private sector investor who themselves may then want to use the land for something else down the line? Let’s not forget that SYMCA were offered an equity share in the airport in exchange for £20million, but rescinded when Peel were unable to provide a roadmap to profitability*. DMBC are not cash rich enough to complete this and therefore a CPO will not work. The sites future as an airport relies solely on the private sector at this stage. The minutes from the Doncaster Airport Consultative Committee paint a bleak picture, I’m not entirely sure what you think DMBC, SYMCA, UAE Investment companies or whoever else ends up owning the site if Peel sell are going to do any differently? The rumours that Peel purposefully ran the place into the ground have been put to bed now.

*SYMCA/OC were a bit conservative with the truth, there was a loan request from Peel for £20million, but there was also an equity share offered by Peel in exchange for this sum. Peel did open their books and were unable to provide assurance that the airport finances could be turned around which is why SYMCA walked away.

I think they did some research which found it worth lots of millions to South Yorkshire authority areas. Am I a bit cynical about those calculations? err yes. But that's how they will justify something that may make a loss. And to succeed it will need support from more than just Doncaster.

[pug]

Originally Posted by davidjpowell

I think they did some research which found it worth lots of millions to South Yorkshire authority areas. Am I a bit cynical about those calculations? err yes. But that's how they will justify something that may make a loss. And to succeed it will need support from more than just Doncaster.

Correct, less than 1% of South Yorkshire GDP. BBC calculated 0.03%.

[Asturias56]

"DMBC are not cash rich enough to complete this and therefore a CPO will not work""

"On 28 February 2022, the Council set a budget based on closing a budget gap of £13.1m in 2022/23 increasing to £21.7m over 2022/23 to 2024/25. This was a significant challenge in the context of COVID-19, ongoing demand for services and considerable cost pressures with no reduction in statutory obligations to provide services, whilst continuing to invest in the Borough and protecting the most vulnerable in our communities. This position incorporates £19.0m of budget pressures in 2022/23, increasing to £22.1m by 2024/25. This includes pay and price inflation; with £4.7m set aside for Adults, Health & Wellbeing in 2022/23 for Adult Social Care contracts including the impact of the Government National Living Wage. The service specific budget pressures include significant investment in both adults and children’s social care in 2022/23. The savings proposals identified amount to £19.8m over the 3 years, with £12.1m in 2022/23, reducing the ongoing budget position and supporting the financial sustainability of the Council going forward. The savings include central budgets, e.g. pension budgets and treasury management. Like many other Councils we also plan to review and reduce our use of assets, utilising the new ways of operating and blended approach to working"

No hope of financing the airport on those numbers

[TimmyW]

Hopefully the rumour posted earlier about a deal being agreed in principle is true. There is no way a CPO would be successful, and I don't the council will follow through til the bitter end.

[davidjpowell]

Originally Posted by Asturias56

"DMBC are not cash rich enough to complete this and therefore a CPO will not work""

"On 28 February 2022, the Council set a budget based on closing a budget gap of £13.1m in 2022/23 increasing to £21.7m over 2022/23 to 2024/25. This was a significant challenge in the context of COVID-19, ongoing demand for services and considerable cost pressures with no reduction in statutory obligations to provide services, whilst continuing to invest in the Borough and protecting the most vulnerable in our communities. This position incorporates £19.0m of budget pressures in 2022/23, increasing to £22.1m by 2024/25. This includes pay and price inflation; with £4.7m set aside for Adults, Health & Wellbeing in 2022/23 for Adult Social Care contracts including the impact of the Government National Living Wage. The service specific budget pressures include significant investment in both adults and children’s social care in 2022/23. The savings proposals identified amount to £19.8m over the 3 years, with £12.1m in 2022/23, reducing the ongoing budget position and supporting the financial sustainability of the Council going forward. The savings include central budgets, e.g. pension budgets and treasury management. Like many other Councils we also plan to review and reduce our use of assets, utilising the new ways of operating and blended approach to working"

No hope of financing the airport on those numbers

That's all Operating Expenses. Their capex position maybe different.
But I agree - if the CPO succeeds it will only do so if the local authorities work together.

[pug]

Originally Posted by davidjpowell

That's all Operating Expenses. Their capex position maybe different.
But I agree - if the CPO succeeds it will only do so if the local authorities work together.

Have any of these other authorities committed to pursue this CPO proposal or is this a DavidJPowell assumption?

[Asturias56]

"That's all Operating Expenses. Their capex position maybe different."

But where would the "CAPEX" come from - they're not the same as Public Company - sure they can borrow but at current rates??

[ZeBedie]

I wonder when they'll start demolishing things? Are they holding off for the time being?

[TimmyW]

Originally Posted by ZeBedie

I wonder when they'll start demolishing things? Are they holding off for the time being?

They'll need planning permission to demolish anything. Talks are still ongoing, and then there is the CPO, so nothing will happen for a few years yet.

[Asturias56]

there will be no CPO - there is no money for it

[TimmyW]

Originally Posted by Asturias56

there will be no CPO - there is no money for it

Either way, they cannot just start demolishing buildings.

[Blue_Circle]

Originally Posted by TimmyW

They'll need planning permission to demolish anything. Talks are still ongoing, and then there is the CPO, so nothing will happen for a few years yet.

Unlike building things I'm not sure that an owner needs permission to demolish anything that's not listed or otherwise designated. This has caused many dramas ove the years.

[pug]

Originally Posted by Blue_Circle

Unlike building things I'm not sure that an owner needs permission to demolish anything that's not listed or otherwise designated. This has caused many dramas ove the years.

Im not sure why they would be in a rush to demolish anything, except for the terminal there isn’t really all that much to demolish anyway. What they may do though is sell off the navigation and landing aid equipment and remove the numbers from the runways. I’m sure they won’t do this in haste, particularly whilst they’re still apparently in discussion with potential investors.

Agree with the above though, a CPO won’t happen. The only chance of the airport reopening is a sale of the land to a private sector investor, and given the airport probably won’t be worth as much as an airport as it would be something else, it will require a great deal of good will from Peel and/or a significant investment from the private sector. Still up in the air.

[Asturias56]

Planning Permission

Permission or ‘prior approval’ may be required to demolish a building; it depends on a number of factors including the type and size of building and where it is located. You should ask your local planning authority for advice to find out what is required for the demolition you have in mind before any work commences to avoid the risk of legal action being taken against you .

For example, see below for a summary of certain situations that require specific permissions before demolition can be carried out. You are also advised to review the full official government guidance on the consent regimes around demolition and when permission is required on Gov.uk.

• Conservation areas – Any demolition within a conservation area is further restricted and will require an ‘Application for planning permission for relevant demolition in a conservation area’ unless it meets certain criteria. See full details on Gov.uk.
• Listed buildings and scheduled ancient monuments – These are covered by different legislation and will require a different type of application.
• Pubs or other drinking establishments – An application for full planning permission is required to demolish pubs or other drinking establishments, including those with expanded food provision.
• Concert halls, theatres, and venues for live music performance – An application for full planning permission is required to demolish buildings in use as concert halls, theatres, or venues for live music performance.
• Unsafe/uninhabitable buildings – An application for full planning permission is required to demolish any building that has been rendered unsafe or otherwise uninhabitable, by the action or inaction of any person having an interest in the land on which the building stands, where it is practicable to secure safety or health by works of repair or works for affording temporary support.
• Outdoor statues, memorials, and monuments – Any demolition of outdoor statues, memorials, and monuments is further restricted and may require Planning Permission unless it meets certain criteria. See full details on Gov.uk.

Additionally, permitted development rights do not apply where demolition is:

• on land which is the subject of planning permission for its redevelopment, granted on an application, or deemed to be granted
• required or permitted to be carried out by or under any other enactment
• required to be carried out by virtue of a relevant obligation.

Finally, you should also note that when demolition is permitted, it does not automatically follow that you will get planning permission to build any replacement structure or to change the use of the site, even in situations where the original building has suffered fire or storm damage.

[TimmyW]

Originally Posted by pug

Im not sure why they would be in a rush to demolish anything, except for the terminal there isn’t really all that much to demolish anyway. What they may do though is sell off the navigation and landing aid equipment and remove the numbers from the runways. I’m sure they won’t do this in haste, particularly whilst they’re still apparently in discussion with potential investors.

Agree with the above though, a CPO won’t happen. The only chance of the airport reopening is a sale of the land to a private sector investor, and given the airport probably won’t be worth as much as an airport as it would be something else, it will require a great deal of good will from Peel and/or a significant investment from the private sector. Still up in the air.

A number of the Hangars still have sitting tenants, and also, the terminal building could be converted to another use rather than demolished

[pug]

Originally Posted by TimmyW

A number of the Hangars still have sitting tenants, and also, the terminal building could be converted to another use rather than demolished

I doubt that there would be any appetite to demolish the hangars or the terminal. If the airport is not sold the land will be sat as it is for some years, with possible building work on the periphery initially. My point is that the final straw that seals the fate of the land as an airport won’t be demolition, it’ll be the removal of nav aids, landing lights, runway markings etc and that may happen in the nearer future than anything more drastic like tearing the runway up or building on the airfield itself.

[Beafer]

Rates

Originally Posted by pug

I doubt that there would be any appetite to demolish the hangars or the terminal. If the airport is not sold the land will be sat as it is for some years, with possible building work on the periphery initially. My point is that the final straw that seals the fate of the land as an airport won’t be demolition, it’ll be the removal of nav aids, landing lights, runway markings etc and that may happen in the nearer future than anything more drastic like tearing the runway up or building on the airfield itself.

I think someone will still have to pay business rates even if the buildings are empty. Tenants or the airport owner?

That will cost a bob or two.

[pug]

Originally Posted by Beafer

I think someone will still have to pay business rates even if the buildings are empty. Tenants or the airport owner?

That will cost a bob or two.

That could be taken one if two ways. Peel keen to repurpose the terminal, or Council keen not to apply too much pressure cos the don’t want to lose the terminal? As has been mentioned, I think some of the hangars already have sitting tenants, probably wouldn’t be too much of a job getting those others rented out. Most other buildings on the estate are non-aviation related anyway.

[davidjpowell]

Originally Posted by pug

I doubt that there would be any appetite to demolish the hangars or the terminal. If the airport is not sold the land will be sat as it is for some years, with possible building work on the periphery initially. My point is that the final straw that seals the fate of the land as an airport won’t be demolition, it’ll be the removal of nav aids, landing lights, runway markings etc and that may happen in the nearer future than anything more drastic like tearing the runway up or building on the airfield itself.

The ILS transmitters have already been removed.
They rent land at least on the northern end for the runway lights. If they can terminate the lease I'm sure they will.
Runway markings, that's a bit of paint.

As others said the biggest hurt will be rates. This year the RV is £2,290,000. Next year for some reason it falls to £400,000. I assume that the valuation is at least partly based on turnover. https://www.tax.service.gov.uk/busin...rt/13787199000