Barton Closing??

[Rubber Dagger]

Rumours are afoot that Peel holdings are not renewing Lancashire Aeroclubs lease at Barton when it comes up for renewal in March 2005. This surely cannot happen!! the oldest working control tower in the world (i am told) being closed down, very sad indeed if this is in fact the case. Can anyone shed any light on this subject??

[Dewdrop]

Wasn't there an item on the local news about a new race course being developed, or am I way of key ?

[Spiney Norman]

Dewdrop.
You're right about the racecourse development. There was a plan to put a GA field on it at one time, but I notice that didn't feature in the news item I saw about it. The site for the racing isn't on the Barton airfield site though. I think the locals were rather concerned by the last lot of plans to 'improve' Barton because the buildings proposed didn't seem to fit in with what Barton is/does, and a 'hidden agenda' was suspected. It must be a real pain for anyone at Barton at the moment because these rumours seem to surface about every few months! Goodness knows the availability of GA facilities in the NW is bad enough as it is without the chance that Barton could close! I do hope this is another groundless rumour.

Spiney

[DeltaoneZero]

I Can imagen its a real pain for the memebers.. and no doubt the staff who work there too! Most not forget them!?!?!

[Sir George Cayley]

Yes a notice was served on the club recently by Peel under Section 25 of the Landlords and Tennants Act.

The lease extant expires next March and negotiations had stalled.
Peel submitted plans to Salford a month ago for new hangars and buildings that demolished the Aero Clubs facilities in part

The distinction here is the future of Barton Aerodrome or the Lancashire Aero Club. It appears that Peel are committed to the former but not the latter.

(Thinks) Could the LAC having been linked to listing all the buildings on the site have in someway slightly annoyed the ground landlords?

The committee seem to have dropped a clanger by trying to keep the notice quiet until after membership renewal in April as they feared a mass exodus robbing the club of valuble income.

Treating anyone as less intelligent than they are always back fires as history shows.

I think the future for Barton is actually bright but only if users can meet the commercial charges likely to arise as a consequence of Peels investments. The cosy days of past grass roots aviating may be numbered at this location, but not necessarily in the northwest bearing in mind the tenacity and determination of the LAC membership.

Be intereting to hear from any new Sheffield (Sherriff of Nottingham / Maid Marion Int'l) Airport residents.

Sir George Cayley

[Jodel Hugger]

Oh no.

I'm doing my PPL here, and renewed my membership last week:(

If the club is having the lease ended though perhaps they will still be able to stay, but just not running the airport, like the flying schools do at Liverpool ? Peel wouldnt want to build a hanger if they didnt want the planes to stay

[DeltaoneZero]

Hey.. Dont worry about your PPL Traing ! you should have it done soon enough! now all the nice weather is on its way! :) Happy Flying!

[Jodel Hugger]

I wont becasue I am not old enough for another year:rolleyes:

[DeltaoneZero]

I really need to get a new keyboard! sorry about the Typo's :S

[Jodel Hugger]

Hi again

I got a Lancashire Aero Club magazine today and in it was a letter from the club charirman which explains all this. He says that "a meeting was held with Manchester Ship Canal Developments (they seem to be part of Peel Holdings) and that they emphasised the following :

1. Barton Aerodromes future as an airport os secure :ok:

2. Peel Airports Limited is committed to investing in the development and improvement of the airport as an airport

3. Whislt any renewal of the existing lease is incositent with 2 above, it is important that Lancashire Aero Club and Light Planes Lancashire Limited conyinue an involvement at Barton Aerodrome

4. To that ens, we have both agreed to give consideration to ways that this might be achieved to our mutual satisfaction

5. The buildings shown on the existing planning application will be stage 1 of a series of investments that PAL has resolved to make at the airport. The content of further phases shall be the subject of discussions with all concerned.

The Club has received formal notice that Manchester Ship Canal Developments will 'oppose' the currect lease renewal, but the club are talking to solicitors about getting a robust lease with secures the Club's future at Barton"

So I think this means that Peel will run Barton themselves but the Club will still stay on the airport:D

[Sir George Cayley]

Provided LAC are willing and able to pay the new lease and user charges. That will apply to the many private owners too


Sir George Cayley

[FNG]

A letter to Today's Pilot this month portends doom and gloom. I hope that this is not the case.

[Sir George Cayley]

Any chance of a precis and who wrote it FNG?

In view of the lead time for periodicals this might be an initial reaction at the time.

Jodel Hugger has it right. The airfield (and hence flying) seems well starred for the future but not the Aero Clubs monopoly nor "cheap" flying.

Sir George Cayley

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

I agree with Jodel Hugger and Sir George. But as well as probably much higher charges, I wonder if Peel will wish to reduce the number of based aircraft, especially in view of their planning application which calls for demolition of one of LAC's hangars?

SSD

[Justiciar]

I don't know Barton, but it is not at all unusual for the landlord to serve a notice under the Landlord & Tenant Act 1954 when negotiations stall. The club will have to serve a counter notice and then apply to the court for a new tenancy. They have to do this because the time limits for doing things uner the Act are strict and cannot be extended. Most parties in most cases however manage to agree new terms and these things rarely get to court.

[FNG]

Sir George, I assume that the letter was from a disgruntled member or local flyer. The letter was short, and consisted of a general rant, "Peel are horrid" etc. As you say, it may have been written some time ago.

By the way, has your Coachman recovered yet?

[windsock9]

will there be any point renewing with the aeroclub next march if flying is still taking place anyway?! If its just and aerodrome there will be no point in joining the club as landing fees will be paid to peel anyway to keep up rents etc. The club will probably be near the swap in a portacabin while the peels sit in their golden thrones at the base of the tower enjoying the money that LAC could have made before this happened :'(

[FNG]

Every reason to rally around the club. As justiciar suggested, there may be a continuing negotiation, with nothing yet determined, but the club needs members and subscriptions in order to stay in the negotiation.

[Jodel Hugger]

Hi

Why would Peel want to reduce the number of based aircraft? Peel are replacing what is basically a worn out corregated iron hanger with a brand new, bigger one. Sure they might charge more, but you dont get something for nothing!:eek:

Too many people at Barton seem to be hanging on to the concept of 'grass roots' flying - is this really compatiable with what is the 5th busiest airfield in the UK? I hope Peel will continue to bring investment which LAC members can benefit from - I'd gladly pay more for a first class airfield with hard runway, nav aids etc:ok:

[cubflyer]

It may be the case that the old hangar will be replaced with a new one. But the current residents of the old hangar, might also be perfectly happy with what they have got, particularly at the price they pay for hangarage. Why not build a hangar on some of the land currently used for non aviation business, or on some of the unused land, rather than knock down a perfectly good one that gives cheap hangarage.

And Jodel Hugger, whats wrong with grass roots flying and flying for fun. We dont all want to fly around with our heads in the cockpit looking at instruments, being told where to go by ATC and landing on tarmac. If you want that then why not fly off to Liverpool when doing your lessons. Im sure you will get a lot of circuits done when trying to fit in with the other aircraft there

Im not based at Barton, only visit there occasionally, but it always seemed a really friendly place with lots going on, lots of interesting aircraft and a good place to fly for fun.
If Peel holdings want to continue to make it a fun place to fly, but with improvements and not a lot of extra cost, then great.
But if they want to put up big hangars to attract expensive aircraft and charge expensive hangarage, then no thanks. Next thing will be hard runways and no landing on the grass and full ATC only allowing 4 aircraft in the circuit at once!!

good luck Barton!

[Sir George Cayley]

Dont talk to me about Coachmen!

Talk about prima donnas. History potrays him as the injured party but in fact he wanted flying pay, transport to hotels and expenses!

I refused - offered abitration but he would hear nothing of it.

I self fly now despite my age.

Sir George Cayley

ps Barton IS the home of grass roots aviation in the north west. Without it there would effectively be nothing

[FNG]

Shocking, Sir George, simply shocking, but that's the servant classes for you.

Long may Barton remain grassy and rootsy.

[High Wing Drifter]

Heard on Radio 4 this morning that Peel Holdings are effectively holding a Pig Farmer to ransom who is in the vicinity of Robin Hood Airport (apparantly, Robin was a Yorkshire lad). The reason: his farm attracts too many birds. The chap from the CAA said that it would be rediculous for Peel to remain intransigent over the issue (which they are) whilst the farmer wishes to negotiate (which he does). Not suprising really as apparently, on the grounds of aviation safety, Peel can get a peice of paper to turf the farmer off of his land. Not sure what compensation will be available, if any.

Not sure I like this state of affairs, maybe the birds offer a risk to the traffic, but surely Peel and the farmer both have a duty and must both do what they can rather than just drive folk off their soil (rented or not).

[Dog's Bone]

The planning application for a new hangar and administration office
block has just been approved by the Salford City Planning Authority. This
means that the hangar nearest the Tower will be demolished, together
with the clubhouse. No date for this has been set.

Peel through their joint shareholders, the Manchester City Council, have
issued a Notice 25 stating that the LAC lease will not be renewed when
it expires on 25th March 2005.

LAC has spent £30,000 in legal fees with expensive London solicitors. If
LAC wishes to continue any court case it is stated that this would cost
a minimum £150,000. Should costs be awarded against the LAC then they
would be responsible for paying up to 80% of Peel's costs. Which suggests
that the total bill could amount to £350,000-£500,000.

And for what? Even if LAC won a favourable decision, Peel would still control
the airfield and facilities. Legal action against their Landlords is
therefore a no-win situation and LAC is not going to take legal action
of this magnitude.

The new hangar and admin building is reported to be costing £3 million.
New buildings and new facilities cost money, and these will have to be
paid for in higher charges by the users. It will become a question of
how much you can afford whether you stay or leave for pastures new. As
to pastures new, there is not a lot of choice, and equally the costs
involved at say Blackpool or Liverpool will be no different to those
expected to be imposed under the new management at Barton.

The statutory redundancy notices as required by law are to be issued to
the 50+ staff in December.

[niknak]

As a complete outsider, I ask the knowledgeble folk, what could Peel replace Barton with (presumably housing or industrial units), and, given the fact if that is so, they would be be closing the only G/A facility within at least 30 miles radius, this is a matter of immense importance.

Perhaps not. :rolleyes:

[Zlin526]

I don't think property developers really give a stuff about closing an airfield. To them, its a large level field, mostly well drained and ideal for 10,000 houses.......just think of the potential revenue! A field with some aeroplanes just doesn't compare

Just look at West Malling, Burnaston, Ipswich......the list goes on! To this list you might also add Rochester and North Weald in maybe 15 years time.:confused:

A sad state of affairs, and one which our Government doesn't really give a stuff about either. As politicians seem to graduate mostly from local Councils, is this any wonder?:{

[Sir George Cayley]

........and reveal the nature of the beast with whom LAC @ Barton are dealing.

Under the umberella Holdings Company are a number of operations.

The Trafforrd Centre Shopping Megaplex is the public's most visible incarnation of Robert Hough's empire. But there's more to them than that.

The Manchester Ship Canal Company was bought to give accesss to the land surrounding. Salford Quays and the like. They've just bought Clyde Port the Glasgow equivalent.

Many people in the north live in a Peel Homes Tudorbeathan box on an estate. A lot of ex coal industry land went their way in the '80s.

Then there's Peel Aviation. Now how they got the idea of buying airports up to release unused development land I don't know. And how it was they then saw a business case to continue operating the airport would make fascinating reading.

But that's what they did,starting at Liverpool, and continue so to do.
Finningley isn't just about a Yorkshire regional gateway airport. Just look at the freight interchanges nearby. Docks at Immingham, car distribution and freight consolidation using the excellent motorway links.

Peel intend the same with Teeside (MME) renamed last week Durham Tees Valley. The development plan shows a huge area set aside for commercial development whilst retaining the airport. Just like they did at Speke.

The runway at Sheffield City is to be shortened to 650m making it effectively a helicopter FATO whilst the other bit is going to be Industrial Units.

So if I tell you Barton is not going to shut down as an aerodrome can you see where that notion comes from? Given that Peel thru the Ship Canal Co own all the land around, their planners are painting with a much broader brush. From the Leisure park and race course to the north at Boothstown, to the rail head interchange and the Salford Reds Stadium on the banks of the canal just south of Barton, Peel have it sown up.

You dont apply for a million pound hangar on an airfield that's about to close do you?

Barton will survive. The Lancs Aero Club will survive. It's just that their two futures are now not inextricably linked. There is already a steady trickle of a/c leaving or up for sale but these owners may have been too quick to bail.

Yes, it will cost more but Barton has had historically low charges for the private owner. What has already been lost is the intangible atmosphere unique to the place. (And I don't mean the Daveyhulme sewerage works!)

Sir George Cayley

[poetpilot]

The statutory redundancy notices as required by law are to be issued to the 50+ staff in December.

That's interesting. Where did you get this information from?

1. 50+ staff don't work in the clubhouse and/or the hangar.

2. The majority of the staff work in the Engineering facility, Flight School, fuel pumps and airfield grounds.

3. Nothing that Peel are doing wrt the Planning Permission directly affects Flight School, ground or engineering operations.

The email containing this quote infers that LAC are set to shut up shop. lock stock and barrel. I don't see any evidence of that in LAC's information releases (or indeed in annoucements from Peel or the Council).

It WILL be interesting to see what happens to the (mainly PFA-type) aircraft in the Harbit hangar. Or indeed to the residents of No.2 hangar, who will, at the very least be rather inconvenienced by all that demolition and building work.

Then there's the clubhouse. In the past when refurbs were carried out on the clubhouse, business was transferred to portakabins, and I'm sure this could be achieved once more, with no significant loss of staff positions, given some decent planning and organisation.

But if I were Peel, I'd be thinking how I could get money out of them for as long as possible until my new erections were erected & my new facilities were in place..... and then I'd be thinking how can I maximise income from them ASAP...

[MikeeB]

Re: Sheffield.

Not sure if this is true or not, but when PH's bought the land that Sheffield sits on, they wanted to build a rather large shopping centre, just like Meadow Hall next door. However the council turned them down and said something along the lines of, "the only way you can develop that land is if you build an airport"

PH are in for the duration, so they build an airport as the council ask, but with every intention of eventually shutting it down and building what they wanted in the first place.

In the meantime, they buy Finningley and name it Doncaster-Sheffield (as they are advertising on the local radio atm).

So why would PH have two airports with the name "Sheffield" in them?

It would be of no supprise at all to me in the next few years if Sheffield airport becomes uneconomically viable and gets closed down altogether. They are for all intent and purposes, working on making it that way. As the land is now developed, they re-apply for planning and build something else. (like a shopping centre)

To me it's just one of those things. When a City Council take on the likes of PH, in most cases there will only ever be one winner. While it will be a loss of a GA facility, if the above is true, then it only ever was temporary anyway.

Then you hear of people putting their houses up for sale around Finningley and guess who's buying them?

These are all things I've heard so could be complete twoddle :)