Wycombe Air Park comes under scrutiny

[power set]

Linkything (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/w/wycombe_wanderers/9040006.stm)

[robin]

I'm sure the neighbours who have been complaining about the airfield will love the disturbance from the crowds on match days

[A and C]

You are quite correct about the destubance to tha locals, it is slowly dawning on them how little trouble comes from WAP.

Due to both WW & Wasps using the ground the traffic on the weekends will be a major problem.

Perhaps all the flying clubs can de-camp to Benson when the RAF gets axed in the defence cuts that are being widely reported.

The only up side to the football stadium would be the chairperson of the WAP anti noise group would find her rural cottage placed next to a huge stadium.............. real justice me thinks!

[Blink182]

Found amongst the FAQs of the proposed stadiums website...........

Q17 Would this mean the closure of the Air Park?
Our plans could accommodate continued use of the Air Park albeit on a re-oriented runway. It would be necessary to agree that potential re-orientation with the current operator.

I note the word "could"

[bad bear]

Benson would be a great site for Booker Gliding Club. Nice long winch run, lots of hangars and better airspace. Ideal for vintage, racing,ridge soaring... roll on defence cuts?
bb

[gpn01]

Having already committed £750,000 to a site/feasibility study, Wycombe District Council has now embarked on a public consultaion process on potential options. The rugby club has simply gone public on its preference - but they won't be paying for it (estimates in excess of £100M).

[mary meagher]

Wycombe District Council would like to put stadium, parking, and airfield in one place, and a rugby and footie stadium would include "co-location of the Air Park for continued aviation".

I sure would like to see their plans! Meanwhile they just keep hoicking up the rent. After all, only wealthy people fly helicopters etc. etc.

[EGGP]

With the looming financial crisis for councils as their budgets are slashed I would Imagine all airfields will be experiencing rises in council taxes and also rents if the council own the land.

I think that this will be enough to drive some businesses under over the next few years.:sad:

[Sir George Cayley]

From the plans I've seen I'd be concerned that licensed flying could continue as some of the stadium structure seems very close and a potential infringement of OLSs.

However, with planned housing development right up to the boundary I wonder if any developer would be interested a few Flying Homestead type homes?

No, I didn't think so.

Sir George Cayley

[smarthawke]

From The Other Place:

As said, the only thing that has changed in the last couple of days is that the owner of Wasps and Wanderers has expressed a preference to developing part of Wycombe Air Park into a sports complex etc. The final decision as to which of 19 possible sites is potentially developed is down to Wycombe District Council (the actual land owners) and that is planned for some time in the New Year – then they just need to find the funding.

The parent company of the airfield operator is more than happy to work alongside the developers if Wycombe Air Park were chosen. The realignment of the runway would actually enable a longer runway to exist which would have the added benefit of moving the approach and climb out away from the existing residential areas. This company is in the hotel business and welcomes the idea of a hotel on the airfield which would provide a service to GA using the airfield as well as the sports complex.

At the end of the day, it’s all a long way off and if it actually stops raining we could all go flying!

[ FLYER Forums; Booker - the future (http://forums.flyer.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=66227&p=900053#p900053) ]

[oversteer]

The final decision as to which of 19 possible sites is potentially developed is down to Wycombe District Council (the actual land owners) and that is planned for some time in the New Year – then they just need to find the funding.


:suspect:

Make no mistake, this is a done deal and the stadium will be going onto WAP. The other sites are just a smokescreen to make it seem like the council has done some level of due diligence.

Quite how you'd fit a stadium, "sports village", hotel, runway and hangars on the site, I have no idea. Hayes, Arora and the council have had this one sewn up for a while. All for a 25,000 seater stadium for 5,000 Wycombe fans to sit in. (Maybe a few more from London..)

[gpn01]

The initial financial analysis (Leaving Facebook... | Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wycombe.gov.uk%2FCore%2FDownloadDoc .aspx%3FdocumentID%3D3124&h=cbe1d))

shows that likely costs for the development of the proposed stadium are in excess of £100M and that both the football and rugby clubs have been loss making for the past five years.

Be interesting to see how the council will justify committing to such a high risk/low return scheme that appears to benefit only the club owner.

[chevvron]

Adams Park isn't all that old (30 years?) as footie stadiums go and it's a nice modern stadium. The old WW stadium was derelict for many years after WW moved (may still be for all I know - haven't been there for years). So why do they really want a new stadium?

[mary meagher]

To get rid of the aeroplanes, of course. Envy of those who can afford to buy helicopters or twin engine private planes. Noisy and polluting, sort of like fox-hunting, favoured by toffs. As opposed to Russian oligarchs who can afford to buy football teams and get the District Council to splash out on a stadium....hotel.....sports centre, etc. Of course if greenbelt land is freed up to build houses, somebody will make money out of it, especially with M40 access to London.

[gpn01]

Fortunately one of the covenants when the land was tranferred to the Air Ministry (now MoD) was that if at any point the airfield ceased to operate as an airfield then the land would revert to agricultural use. .......So, no stadium, houses, spports village, etc.

[fairflyer]

The rot is already settling in (a little premature!) - we've got Booker people looking here (Fairoaks) or at White Waltham, but we're in a bit of a pickle too not knowing what's going on with this place long term.

It's very sad, the tide of property development potential is forever knocking at the door of these sites.

I'm afraid the covenents mentioned are not worth the paper they are written on. A good QC will sort that minor hurdle out. The current Wycombe Air Park site will be flattened and there may be an option to replace some facilities at the other side of the airfield, but the costs will never stack up.

[chevvron]

Bad Bear: the glidng club at Booker has been aero tow/slmg only for over 40 years now; winch launching was ditched years ago.

[1800ed]

Green belt? Beginning to wonder if that has any meaning these days with all the monstrosities being built in and around the South Bucks area.

[Prophead]

I used to have a business that was based around land development and saw how the system worked first hand for years. There is so much money to be made here by so many people and so many 'sweetners' within this sector that I would say this is a done deal.

If I had any kind of business based at the airfield I would be looking for alternative premises. Unfortunately the only people that would support the airfield would be the users and maybe a few locals who realise that a stadium would cause many more problems than the airfield does.

People are obsessed with their house prices and have been brainwashed into thinking that aircraft flying overhead has a negative affect on them, they will vote for the stdium without thinking. The whole process will be dragged out to make it look like some kind of consultation has taken place but this will have been signed and sealed long ago either on a golf course or in a resteraunt somewhere. Anyone that stands in the way may well find themselves out of a job. The people that let it happen will probably be promoted and have a conference suite in the hotel named after them. Its just the way it works im afraid.

[JW411]

I was involved in the running of Chilterns GC at RAF Benson from 1963 until we moved to RAF Abingdon at the beginning of 1971. We had a very close liaison with the club at Booker, particularly when Norman Smith was CFI.

We used to get some Booker chaps down for the weekend to give them some experience in winch launching before they went on their instructor's courses never having done a winch launch before.

I know that Chilterns winch-launched from Booker when the club was formed there in 1958 before moving to Benson around 1960. However, I suspect that the civilian club at Booker has always used aerotows.

[gpn01]

I used to have a business that was based around land development and saw how the system worked first hand for years. There is so much money to be made here by so many people and so many 'sweetners' within this sector that I would say this is a done deal.

If I had any kind of business based at the airfield I would be looking for alternative premises. Unfortunately the only people that would support the airfield would be the users and maybe a few locals who realise that a stadium would cause many more problems than the airfield does.

People are obsessed with their house prices and have been brainwashed into thinking that aircraft flying overhead has a negative affect on them, they will vote for the stdium without thinking. The whole process will be dragged out to make it look like some kind of consultation has taken place but this will have been signed and sealed long ago either on a golf course or in a resteraunt somewhere. Anyone that stands in the way may well find themselves out of a job. The people that let it happen will probably be promoted and have a conference suite in the hotel named after them. Its just the way it works im afraid.

There's a number of themes here which resonate! However, the locals are up in arms and are in favour of the airfield. Think even the noise protestors have twigged that the odd Cessna isn't going to be as disruptive as a big rugby match and the associated traffic jams!

[johno1066]

Locals are already up-in-arms because agents are devaluing due to the proposed development. As for a QC, it's not as straightforward as that; the moaners always were in a minority and the majority will be heard.

Consultation here:

https://payments.wycombe.gov.uk/surveys ... y/wcs1.htm (https://payments.wycombe.gov.uk/surveys/community%20stadium%20survey/wcs1.htm)

facebook page here:

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=163959270285614 (http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=163959270285614)

[horizon flyer]

The problem at Booker is the big increase in noisey heli traffic and the total incompetence of Captian Orchard to enter into sane talks with the locals.

He has the nickname of Captain Ackward, thats the polite one.

The anti noise lobby, note the leader of one of the local anti noise groups is the CEO of Credit Swiss, has found that, if Booker managment keep hiding behind the law then the only way to get ride of the problem is go for redevelopment.

I don't think they want it closed, but if that is the only way to fix the problem then so be it.

If Ackward had listened and been prepared to reduce and change Heli operations and routing then things may have been different.

Denham has heli traffic use the same routing as fixed wing, to reduce noise, with no training at the weekends, it all goes to Booker.

So the managment at Booker have brought it on themselves.
Routing heli traffic at 700ft max over noise sensitive housing is stupid to say the least.

Bye the way someone has already put a bullet through an R22, I think it was a .303, so if you fly out of Booker, it might be best if you have a flack jacket handy, helicopters are easy to prey and 700ft. Just shows how mad the locals are becoming with the noise of them.

[twelveoclockhigh]

I would think from the councils point of view that a large part of it will be economic.

The return in rent for what the value of the asset must be down in their books as cannot be fantastic from a beancounter's point of view. This is why they are willing to entertain ideas for a stadium.

[gpn01]

I would think from the councils point of view that a large part of it will be economic.

The return in rent for what the value of the asset must be down in their books as cannot be fantastic from a beancounter's point of view. This is why they are willing to entertain ideas for a stadium.

From a finance perspective this is one of the least 'economic' options ever. It involves an expenditure of possibly in excess of £100M+ (data from council's own report), with funding coming from sports grants (not guaranteed), lottery funding (not guaranteed), possible rate increases, selling off of council assets and a still uncertain level of committment from the (loss making) football club and the (loss making) rugby club. All this to build a stadium that the locals don't want, in order to keep London Wasps (who moved to Adams Park in 2002 and who admit that they may want to move somewhere else).

[twelveoclockhigh]

How long is left on the lease? surely to build a stadium someone, either the council or the airfield would have to bring the lease to an end.

[johno1066]

The problem at Booker is the big increase in noisey heli traffic and the total incompetence of Captian Orchard to enter into sane talks with the locals.

He has the nickname of Captain Ackward, thats the polite one.

The anti noise lobby, note the leader of one of the local anti noise groups is the CEO of Credit Swiss, has found that, if Booker managment keep hiding behind the law then the only way to get ride of the problem is go for redevelopment.

I don't think they want it closed, but if that is the only way to fix the problem then so be it.

If Ackward had listened and been prepared to reduce and change Heli operations and routing then things may have been different.

Denham has heli traffic use the same routing as fixed wing, to reduce noise, with no training at the weekends, it all goes to Booker.

So the managment at Booker have brought it on themselves.
Routing heli traffic at 700ft max over noise sensitive housing is stupid to say the least.

Bye the way someone has already put a bullet through an R22, I think it was a .303, so if you fly out of Booker, it might be best if you have a flack jacket handy, helicopters are easy to prey and 700ft. Just shows how mad the locals are becoming with the noise of them.

the problem for the likes of the ceo of credit suisse and his ilk, besides moving close to an active airfield, is that thanks to his efforts, there would likely be more helicopters not less. With a single runway [grass], gliders gone, aircraft will no doubt be able to join overhead so the anti-noise brigade are going to have not just a stadium and worse traffic but likely more helicopters and more noise.

As the anti airfield campaigners [a minority by the way] at West Malling found out until it was too late, airfields often protect the environment you're in so be careful what yuou wish for.

How long is left on the lease? surely to build a stadium someone, either the council or the airfield would have to bring the lease to an end.

Lease runs out in 2014.

[wsmempson]

I think Bovingdon airfield is a pretty relevant cautionary tale; the residents carped constantly and vociferously about the pesky aircraft, so the actual airfield was shut. However, the VOR remains active and an Open Prison was built on the site.

So, they now have a bunch of dangerous crims as neighbours, instead of the pilots, lots of aircraft overhead (because of the BNN beacon) but no one landing and thereby contributing to the local economy.......

I think that the aphorism "be careful what you wish for, as your wish may come true" comes to mind. Given a choice between a multi-use socking great sports stadium and an airfield, I know which I'd choose!

[B Fraser]

Wind the clock forward and with no Booker, there's no mandatory circuit pattern. White Waltham is just down the road and those villages who previously enjoyed a rigorous "no overfly" policy suddenly have no protection.

I live under one of the semi-official aerobatic "boxes" to the East of Whitchurch bridge. Would you chaps mind sharing the noise and excitement with the good people of South Bucks when Booker closes. ;)


If anyone from WW wants to take me up in their aircraft in the name of good neighbour relations then I'll film the fun from the back seat :ok:

[Human Factor]

Hawking for another ride, Mr F? ;)

[B Fraser]

Yes HF and rather shamelessly too ! When my neighbours comment on the noise, I tell them that the pilot must be as low as 2000 feet when they pull up into the climb and they nod sagely while muttering words of complaint.

BTW, I owe you a DVD sir :ok:

[fairflyer]

Whatever the cost of capital to build the stadium and peripheral facilities, hotels etc. the long term economic benefits thereafter to High Wycombe are exponentially greater than those gained from a continuation of activities as a minor aerodrome. Once established, the whole complex will be a magnet, just outside of London, for events, conferences, concerts, meetings, product launches, you name it, nothing to do with football or rugby whatsoever. The ground rent and business rates paid today are a pin-prick compared to the sums of money the proposed development will generate for the local authority which of course will ultimately reduce the amount of council tax local have to pay to run the region. The percieved benefit is that huge boost to the local economy and the anticipated reduction in aircraft noise versus a little bit more road traffic on match days and when they might have a big pop concert etc. which, by default, will tend not to be midday, mid-week.

The arguments to keep the airfield soley as an airfield are pretty thin from the persepective of a local tax payer. It's the banks, private financiers and developers who will foot the bill, not the neighbours.

You are going to have to fight very hard and dirty to win this one - and there is no evidence whatsoever that the airport management have started that fight with more than a little whimper. They've paid a peppercorn rent for years and now it's time to wake up.

The pro-airfield arguments on employment and economic benefit are going to be hopeless and so you need to find more emotional, legal and political strings to your bow to fight the good cause for aviation.

[gpn01]

You are going to have to fight very hard and dirty to win this one - and there is no evidence whatsoever that the airport management have started that fight with more than a little whimper. They've paid a peppercorn rent for years and now it's time to wake up.


One might suspect that the airport mansgement is in fact fighting in favour of the development as the current leaseholder (AAA Ltd) is owned by Arora, a hotel development and operation business.

[timash]

Hi,
I am a resident living virtually on the airfield. type the location into Google maps and see how close! I am also a fixed wing PPL flying out of the Airfield.

We don't care about the planes and stuff - its residents of Lane End, Frieth and Booker Common that have had the issues. we don't like the helicopter noise but that is mainly to incompetent pilots not respecting flight procedures - (the number of arguments with pilots about the arrogance of claiming Rule5.)

The proposal is to kill flying and build houses, stadium, 3500 car-park, sports centre. its ridiculous! The roads to the airfield are B roads with high accident numbers so its not just the project but everything that goes with it.

My requests to the council under the Freedom of Information Act have been ignored BUT, as residents, and in the airfield covenants there are clauses that stop development that causes nuisance or interference with the natural habitat. then there is this clause about returning to agricultural land.

on another note - a reorientation of the airfield runway will be great. It will move the helicopters to a more remote area and the silly weaving on take off to avoid the odd houses that complain would be a thing of the past.

there is a public protest on Mon 13th at 5.30pm at the Council offices.

[gpn01]

Hi,
I am a resident living virtually on the airfield. type the location into Google maps and see how close! I am also a fixed wing PPL flying out of the Airfield.

We don't care about the planes and stuff - its residents of Lane End, Frieth and Booker Common that have had the issues. we don't like the helicopter noise but that is mainly to incompetent pilots not respecting flight procedures - (the number of arguments with pilots about the arrogance of claiming Rule5.)

The proposal is to kill flying and build houses, stadium, 3500 car-park, sports centre. its ridiculous! The roads to the airfield are B roads with high accident numbers so its not just the project but everything that goes with it.

My requests to the council under the Freedom of Information Act have been ignored BUT, as residents, and in the airfield covenants there are clauses that stop development that causes nuisance or interference with the natural habitat. then there is this clause about returning to agricultural land.

on another note - a reorientation of the airfield runway will be great. It will move the helicopters to a more remote area and the silly weaving on take off to avoid the odd houses that complain would be a thing of the past.

there is a public protest on Mon 13th at 5.30pm at the Council offices.

WDC is required under the FoI Act to respond within 20 working days. If you've been ignored then contact the Information Commissioner to lodge a complaint. The Council has been complaining about the number of FoI requests they've received regarding the stadium. They don't seem to have twigged that if they put the information into the public domain in the first place then there wouldn't be so many requests for it to be disclosed!

The WDC Cabinet will be making an initial decision on how to proceed at their January meeting and there's lots of questions being asked as part of the public session at the Full Council meeting this evening.....at which there is also a protest organised by local ratepayers, footbal fans, parish councils, gliding club, and a whole host of outher groups who'll be adversely affected.

Reading the various documents (Council reports, consultants analysis, internal emails released by other FoI requests, etc) suggests that there's a number of options being investigated by the Council, ranging from expansion of the airfield to incorporate instrument training facilities and Light Jets right through to (at the opposite end of the spectrum) complete closure. One that lookls particularly interesting is to operate the airfield on non-match days (i.e. weekdays) only and to use the runway as a car park at weekends. A grass runway being used as a car park doesn't sound like a very nice option when the ground is soft!

[timmyorc]

This development is going to happen because all the key protagonists get what they want. Hayes (Wasps) gets his stadium. Arora (owner of Booker) gets his hotel. AAA (Air Park managers) get a new runway extended and capable of taking bizjets. Council gets enough development land to meet its quota for new homes for years ahead. Simple really.

Sadness is that AAA are going to kick out gliding to let that happen (and also to free up plenty of movements so they can expand heli and bizjet ops).

Local residents and council taxpayers don't get a say though!

Site development is all about the money, and they're all going to roll in it. Spare a thought for Booker Gliding Club though.

[smarthawke]

"Sadness is that AAA are going to kick out gliding to let that happen (and also to free up plenty of movements so they can expand heli and bizjet ops)."

Are you saying that movements are presently retricted by gliding operations?

I'm not sure that's the case at all - fixed wing powered operate off the hard/grass runways, helicopters operate north (or est if the wind is a northerly) of the runways, and the gliders from the grass to the south. To the best of my knowledge there is no movements restriction by number or in reality by the different types of machinery.

[gpn01]

This development is going to happen because all the key protagonists get what they want. Hayes (Wasps) gets his stadium. Arora (owner of Booker) gets his hotel. AAA (Air Park managers) get a new runway extended and capable of taking bizjets. Council gets enough development land to meet its quota for new homes for years ahead. Simple really.

Sadness is that AAA are going to kick out gliding to let that happen (and also to free up plenty of movements so they can expand heli and bizjet ops).

Local residents and council taxpayers don't get a say though!

Site development is all about the money, and they're all going to roll in it. Spare a thought for Booker Gliding Club though.

Arora doesn't own Booker, it owns AAA which holds the lease of the airfield (which expires in two years). The airfield is actually owned by Wycombe District Council.

Concern is that WDC is going to redevelop the airfield into a massive housing estate/retail park under the guise of "enabling development" to fund a community sports stadium...which won't be for the community (those in the community who have been asked have said they don't want one), isn't about participative sport (but is about spectator activity that can be charged for) and won't be available for public use when London Wasps has a match on.

[smarthawke]

The current lease for WAP actually expires in 2014 (not two years). Hopefully it will all be sorted by then and we can get on with our jobs and playtime in peace....!

[gpn01]

The current lease for WAP actually expires in 2014 (not two years). Hopefully it will all be sorted by then and we can get on with our jobs and playtime in peace....!

You're right.....maths wasn't my strong point! Yes, there's a risk that it will be all "sorted out" as an option being considered by WDC will see WAP revert to an unlicenced grass strip, operating weekdays only (as runway will be used as car park at weekends).

[Phliptop]

I've been flying, mostly gliders and motor gliders at Booker since 1982. During that time I've seen the airfield becoming more and more commercialised, to the detriment of the gliding Club. There can be no doubt in Captain Awkward's and his team's motives towards the gliding Club at Booker. It was one of the major factors that made me reluctantly decide to move elsewhere.

The airfield had been leased to and managed by AAA, a subsidiary of British Airways. They paid Wycombe District Council a modest rent for the 'head lease' which is reviewable every seven years, and expires in 2014. A couple of years ago, BA sold this lease off to Arora, a hotel company who has built hotels on many of the airports where BA operates. This was presented to the airfield tenants as a 'fait accompli'. I would question whether BA acted in their shareholders best interests in selling this asset off without a public tender process which would have enabled other potentially interested parties to bid. Anyway, what's done is done and we can be sure that Arora will not have taken an interest in Booker for altruistic motives.

The whole debate about the stadium is a smokescreen in my opinion. The real reason that they want to grab Booker is so they can put a load of houses on it as well as possibly some industrial units. That is where the profit is and the stadium is only a pretext to build on the airfield in my view.

They have teamed up with a property developer who is supposedly bearing half the cost of the 'feasibility studies'. The council also say that no decision has yet been made and that no site is being favoured. This is at odds with the developer's (who are the council's partner in this enterprise) publicly stated position that Booker is their preferred site. How can the council now claim to be impartial?

The 'feasibility study' was published on line and made no mention of the gliding club, who account for a larger part of the airfield's activity. It did not take into account all the present activity at Booker so how can this be a valid and objective measure of what happens there? The local press, incidentally ran a straw poll and found opposition to the scheme of around 92%.

Rant over. I would dearly love to see heads roll in high places. The whole thing stinks to the core.

[gpn01]

Anybody know what the likely consequences of this are ?
Government steps in over Wycombe Air Park noise row (From Bucks Free Press) (http://www.bucksfreepress.co.uk/news/8770331.Government_steps_in_over_Wycombe_Air_Park_noise_row/)

Apart from it being a bizarre example of people moving next to an airfield and then complaining about the noise of the aeroplanes!

[choxs]

cant believe people are complaining about the noise from Booker - firstly the airfield has been there years and secondly its so small the a/c that come in hardly make that much noise....

And secondly - its only open from 9 - 5 or s/s whichever is first (or somthing like that)

If you dont like the noise then move!!!

[Genghis the Engineer]

Aircraft operations at Booker can be SR-SS, but yes, it's been there since WW2, the local noise is fairly minimal, and if they close the place down they can have Wycombe Wasps and all their supporters instead!

I recall some years ago some local NIMBY nearly getting strung up from a lampost after going around with a petition demanding that the noisy Spitfire based there at the time was sent away. The residents of Wycombe were very clear on that point :E

I wonder what happened to the new government's policy of minimum goverment and decentralisation?

G

[QDMQDMQDM]

My ex brother in law moved to Frieth and is now a member of this anti WAP group. I saw him at a wedding recently and asked him why he moved to live under the base leg of an active aerodrome if he objects to aircraft noise so much. No sensible answer.

[timmyorc]

What does Orchard make of the news from the Transport Dept?

[Romaro]

Someone mentions above that Wycombe Air Park could get a longer runway as a consequence of establishing the proposed Stadium. Not a chance. In the proposals released to date, they look at two options for the runway - both likely to be shorter in fact than the current runway (more like 650m rather 735m). The most likely would run alongside the M40 and is going to cost around £1.6m to build. To the west the land rises, preventing practical use for a longer strip.

Quite aside from that, the council would only sanction the bare minimum cost to re-build something they have to move to facilitate their dream. There is no way on this planet they would build a more expensive, longer runway as part of this proposal which is on land that they themselves own.

They will be naturally averse to buying any additional peripheral land to eliminate obstacles - all of which the current owners will be sitting on knowing thay hold such land as a ransom strip should anyone be desperate to aquire it to facilitate this project.

[controlx]

Anyone got more info on state of play - seems that the prospective developer still has a degree of momentum behind them?

On the runway realignment front - they've got to be kidding with respect to the option of another strip running alongside the M40, nowhere near enough clear ground either side or at either ends - never going to happen there. On the other proposed runway, it's going to be shorter with any runway end safety areas (RESA) that the CAA would insist upon.

Bottom line - there ain't going to be a new runway?

[Dave Barnshaw]

The lease is up in 2014-but who knows what might happen before then,there are too many rumours floating about at the moment.

[ABUKABOY]

Bit of a heads-up for non-locals following the WAP shenanigans. Recent local elections saw more than a couple of anti-Stadium councillors come to power, which put the cat amongst the pigeons. Also it looks like, at long last, someone has decided to conduct some due diligence on the wealth or otherwise of Mr H, the main developer. Allegedly he is nowhere near oligarch status, and could indeed be the diametric opposite, which calls into question his motives and exact plans as to where he thinks the funds are coming from, and to what or whose end. (I repeat, Allegedly, Allegedly!)
I think I am more qualified than anyone to say I know every square inch of Booker, having held the keys for it in the 60's for a while, and driven all over it in gliding club winch retrievers. I know every air-raid shelter, bomb dump, fire reservoir and hidden spares dump on the field. Also, I have seen the whole topographical shape of the field change over the decades, especially the way in which the hastily filled-in south-east corner,(from the pink house up to beyond the Garden Centre), is still on the move. It will be interesting if they either try and build on it (as planned), or try and level it off or dig deep into it, knowing what was there and not demolished before all the spoil was brought in!
I do hope that the locals know exactly what it is they are wishing for. Bovingdon and Doncaster aerodromes spring to mind.
I watch with interest from afar, but have a local contact with their ear to the ground. At the moment it's messy with a distinctly unpleasant aroma all-pervading. The way the Local Council have conducted themselves thus far and spent taxpayers money on "feasability studies" just beggars belief.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I do hope that the locals know exactly what it is they are wishing for. Bovingdon and Doncaster aerodromes spring to mind.

So far as I can tell, the vast majority of locals want this no more than the aviation community do. My Dad, a dedicated Wycombe Wanderers supporter and local since 1978 who has little real interest in aviation, thinks it's completely pointless.

Personally (and I've lived in the area for about half the time since 1978) I think that if there really is a need for a Wycombe Stadium, I'd tear down the eyesore that Handy Cross has become and build a modern stadium there with integrated local sports facilities. I can't honestly see anybody objecting to that - it's big enough, already sports space, right by the motorway junction, and I can't imagine that any change could possibly make it any uglier. It would have no significant impact on local roads and communities, nor on anybody's flying, but would bring money into the community.

Maybe we should have a "new stadium at Handy Cross" campaign?

G

[A and C]

I suspect that the few people that were pushing this were voted out at the last election. One can only speculate as to why they were thinking it was a good idea...............It would seem that the local voters decided that they had little to gain from a stadium and took action.

[1800ed]

I'd agree with Genghis, Handy Cross is as good as wasteland. I can't see any of the current business owners spending any money making it 'nice' again with the new shopping centre being recently completed in the town centre and why does a small town like Wycombe even need two multiplex cinemas?

[ABUKABOY]

Right, back to the job in hand. Four large artists' impressions have appeared in the local paper recently, all very neat and indexed as to what the various sports facilities will be. They fill the available space admirably, BUT, not one mention nor any obvious plan provision for CAR PARKING! Rumour has it that the runways would be used for weekend match parking. Oh really??!! Whither then the "retained and supported" air operation with it's weekend influx of flyers?
Anyone care to debunk my concerns on that score? Go on,surprise me!

[Danscowpie]

Four large artists' impressions have appeared in the local paper recently, all very neat and indexed as to what the various sports facilities will be. They fill the available space admirably, BUT, not one mention nor any obvious plan provision for CAR PARKING!

Perfectly understandable that you should raise this, but a little known and publicised fact of modern planning reg's for major developments of such facilities is precisely the opposite.
When push comes to shove, the developers contribution to keeping polluting cars away from the area and their major contribution towards the provision of public transport facilities will sway the decision.

For example, if the area was under developed with no airfield there and you wanted to build Wycombe Air Park from scratch with a promise of many jobs being created, there's a far higher chance you'd get approval if you promised to somehow ensure that there was plentiful public transport at key times and minimum facilities for car parking (other than temporary essential access).

That said, it makes perfect sense that the developers behind Wasps should get the decision, the Rugby club and the Football club both pay significantly more in local rates than the airfield does, they also provide far more year round employment than the airfield and always will.

As a real aviation supporter I would be very sad to see Wycombe Air Park go elsewhere, however, business is business and if it closed the key people would move with it, the remaining few who didn't want to move have many options in the local area.

[Genghis the Engineer]

That said, it makes perfect sense that the developers behind Wasps should get the decision, the Rugby club and the Football club both pay significantly more in local rates than the airfield does, they also provide far more year round employment than the airfield and always will.

By that argument however, it would be far better to compulsory purchase then build the stadium on a large farm, of which there are plenty locally.

G

[gpn01]

That said, it makes perfect sense that the developers behind Wasps should get the decision, the Rugby club and the Football club both pay significantly more in local rates than the airfield does, they also provide far more year round employment than the airfield and always will.

London Wasps employs 46 players plus 47 'management & admin'. Wycombe Wanderers has 60 players plus 43 admin. So, 93 + 103 = 206 and it's not stated how many of these are part-time, seasonal, etc.

The airfield and tenants are responsible for employing around 250 people. So, the clubs do not provide more employment, nor is it year round.

[ABUKABOY]

Hardly anything in the local Press from the Gliding fraternity or Power or Helicopter people as to the various degrees of "faits accomplis" that the proposed scheme would present them with. Odd that............have they been gagged, paid off, or what? Surely they of all people will be aware of the shortcomings of the artists' impressions?
Surely someone there reads this Site?
Danscowpie, thanks for making your position absolutely clear. I used to drive the No 38 bus that was extended to the RAF married quarters in the 70's. So, if no great number of cars, just where are you going to park the great number of away-supporters' coaches? The (only) roads to Marlow, Lane End and Wycombe are just not suitable for a whole convoy of PSV's, so I would be very interested in the proposed "traffic solutions".

[oversteer]

The gliding fraternity have been busy opposing this. Articles appear quite often in the Bucks Free Press .. in fact today's Bucks Free Press website is a good example ..

Bucks Free Press: News, sport, leisure, local information, jobs, homes & cars in Buckinghamshire (http://www.bucksfreepress.co.uk)

GASP is a coalition of those opposed to the development and members of the gliding club are heavily involved in its organisation. Come along to the protest on Saturday if you can! 2pm at the Rye..


Parking will presumably be on the runways ..

[controlx]

Let's get back to the nitty-gritty here - has anyone seen detailed explanations of the costs and CAA compliance/viability of the proposed two new runway options? It's all pie-in-the-sky, nobody has done any homework on this, those runways will not be built.

Where in all the plans and proposals is this detailed, where are the numbers? It's not a case of getting a bunch of pikeys in one weekend to throw 1000m of tarmac down - just look at the aggro and timescales it took Sywell to sort their new runway out - drainage and obstacle removal, RESAs and safety strips, lighting and lord knows what else.......it's a BIG job.

Whatever is built (if built) will have a shorter licensed strip - and, in light of the complete absence of any car parking for the 'sports village and stadium', it will indeed be routinely unusable as the aerodrome zone is given over to car parking - hard and grass.

Wake up Wycombe Aerodrome - I can't hear any loud noise from you aviators?! A mere squeak if that.

[smarthawke]

Strange, last time I looked (ie today) there was already a hard runway at Wycombe....

[ABUKABOY]

...............and so there always has been, at least since the mid-fifties. But under the new scheme, forget that, as it disappears under the development. Present alignment is ~240 degrees, new one seems to be parallel with the northern boundary on ~275 degrees, right over into the present north-west corner, and by definition much shorter than the present one. There is also another new one, shorter still, bisecting the proposed one at ~225 degrees.

[smarthawke]

Would you be talking about the 'new scheme' as it appeared in a local paper in an 'Advertsing Feature' for WSDL (the stadium development company) - some might say an 'artist's impression'. So perhaps not that accurate then?!

[ABUKABOY]

..................yes I would, since those locally-published impressions are all the public have to go on, without knowing whether the Booker flying fraternity were consulted beforehand. I simply reported what I saw.
Still strangely silent from the WAP users. Should we read something into that?

[MrAverage]

I was at a talk some two years ago in which the Airport Manager described re-aligning the runway and actually making it longer. From memory this was to be more to the south of the existing tarmac than to the north. He stressed that it was not necessarily to allow larger aircraft or commercial operations, more for safety reasons and to allow all new facilities on the opposite side to those in existence. The funding was apparently in place at that time for both the new runway and new tower/hangar/fuel facilities etc. Forgive me if this old information is of no consequence or has already been discussed.

[stevfire2]

http://www.bucksfreepress.​co.uk/news/9146173.Stadium​_project_axed/ (http://www.bucksfreepress.co.uk/news/9146173.Stadium_project_axed/) :ok:

[Practice Auto 3,2,1]

Well done Wycombe Councillors :ok:

[ABUKABOY]

So, the Stadium scheme has been axed. Good. The Council spent a goodly sum of taxpayers' money on feasibility studies without a mandate, and were prepared to sell some "family silver" to further finance this scheme, again without a mandate. Heads should roll.
Now, with such a result and demonstration of local feeling, the Council should research ways of supporting the Air Park in its endeavours in such difficult times, and not go on increasing rates etc until the whole thing grinds to a halt.
Do the Stadium people have right of appeal I wonder?
Congratulations to the opposers of the Scheme, and congratulations to the Gliding fraternity who will now be able to continue as before.
Now just get rid of the helicopters, and we will have the UK's longest-running example of gliding and power fixed-wing operating in close harmony in the country, restoring WAP to something the locals can easily live with.
Just hope the alternative's implications are not lost on the locals.
But to be fair, the helicopters, long term, really have to go, for their sakes.

[Tay Cough]

He stressed that it was not necessarily to allow larger aircraft or commercial operations, more for safety reasons...

Depending upon the rumours you believe, the "safety reasons" were to make it safe to operate VLJs in and out. :oh:

[Genghis the Engineer]

Depending upon the rumours you believe, the "safety reasons" were to make it safe to operate VLJs in and out. :oh:

I'd guess that the managers of just about every sizeable airfield in the UK have that ambition.

Noise concerns mean that very few will get it. Personally I think that's a shame for many local economies and the vibrancy of the airfields - but it still won't happen for all the same reasons that Booker stadium thankfully now won't happen.

Sometimes the forces of Nimbyism work in your favour, sometimes against!

G

[Dave Barnshaw]

Not a 'done deal' anymore,it was voted out last night 4-0,so I can continue my flying training with WAC without having to worry where my next field might be,comman sense has prevailed.

[Phliptop]

Great news, Wycombe District Council voted unanimously to scrap the Stadium project on last Monday evening's council meeting.

Well done, in particular to the efforts of Booker Gliding Club members led by Gary Nuttall.

I reckon that all the other airfield users owe a huge debt of thanks to Gary and the "GASP" team. Gliding and GA is safe at Booker for the time being.:):):):):):D:D:D