Further to my earlier post regarding the means of questioning our CEO,and my curiosity as to the status of our planning application at Turweston, I am hoping that he might be able to tell us:
1. How much the LAA has spent so far on legal,planning and design fees for our new HQ
2. What is the status of our application at present?
3. What our planning consultant has advised with regard to the probability of success.
Thanks
John Massey
Turweston planning application
Moderators: John Dean, Moderator
-
Brian Hope
- Posts: 1271
- Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 8:28 pm
- Location: Sheerness Kent
As you are asking this question on the BB I see no reason why others should not comment. So
1) I am not in a position to say exactly how much money has been spent on the HQ planning issue, my guess would be something in the order of £75K - or about two Rally's worth of losses.
2) The planning permission has finally been granted.
3) No longer applies.
1) I am not in a position to say exactly how much money has been spent on the HQ planning issue, my guess would be something in the order of £75K - or about two Rally's worth of losses.
2) The planning permission has finally been granted.
3) No longer applies.
-
Peter Harvey
- Posts: 72
- Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 1:50 pm
- Location: Mk-Northampton
- Contact:
Hi John
As Brian kindly replied, planning for the HQ has been awarded. However, the issue is rather wider. 'Our' planning award was amongst several for the aerodrome. Before we commit to our build option, we need to clarify several items which indirectly affect us. This we are doing. There is also the small issue of amalgamation and HQ location.
So, we (I) strive to maintain a businesslike approach, look at the conditions, business plan, etc and put a sensible, worked through proposal to EC for consideration, before spending YOUR money. It should be a very worthwhile investment indeed and the culmination of several years hard work.
As to how much has been invested to date: I'm not sure of the exact figure, since the total figure spans several year's accounts and does not appear to be simply itemised. Also, our landlord re-imbursed a considerable sum and we enjoy a very reasonable rent whilst this is sorted. Frankly, me spending time determining historical figures will not change the past, but will cost! Much better I spend my time ensuring we maximise the deal, get the best build for the investment and have a major asset we can be proud of for the future (if EC decide to press the button). I've been talking to project managers, structural engineers and architects. Did I mention I've been designing and building the last 5 years?
As to the Rally; I'm led to believe the Rally ended because it became a cost. I'd love to see the Rally return, but it simply must not cost. That should be very do-able surely?
And while we're looking at the future, we might imagine a day in a couple of years time when, whilst operating from our own Turweston HQ, we host a Rally at our own base for all light aircraft and microlights. That might be a lot of fun...
Hope this helps.
Peter[/list][/list]
As Brian kindly replied, planning for the HQ has been awarded. However, the issue is rather wider. 'Our' planning award was amongst several for the aerodrome. Before we commit to our build option, we need to clarify several items which indirectly affect us. This we are doing. There is also the small issue of amalgamation and HQ location.
So, we (I) strive to maintain a businesslike approach, look at the conditions, business plan, etc and put a sensible, worked through proposal to EC for consideration, before spending YOUR money. It should be a very worthwhile investment indeed and the culmination of several years hard work.
As to how much has been invested to date: I'm not sure of the exact figure, since the total figure spans several year's accounts and does not appear to be simply itemised. Also, our landlord re-imbursed a considerable sum and we enjoy a very reasonable rent whilst this is sorted. Frankly, me spending time determining historical figures will not change the past, but will cost! Much better I spend my time ensuring we maximise the deal, get the best build for the investment and have a major asset we can be proud of for the future (if EC decide to press the button). I've been talking to project managers, structural engineers and architects. Did I mention I've been designing and building the last 5 years?
As to the Rally; I'm led to believe the Rally ended because it became a cost. I'd love to see the Rally return, but it simply must not cost. That should be very do-able surely?
And while we're looking at the future, we might imagine a day in a couple of years time when, whilst operating from our own Turweston HQ, we host a Rally at our own base for all light aircraft and microlights. That might be a lot of fun...
Hope this helps.
Peter[/list][/list]
-
Brian Hope
- Posts: 1271
- Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 8:28 pm
- Location: Sheerness Kent
My understanding is that we will be putting up a building that we own, but which is surrounded by land that we do not own and relying on facilities that we do not own( a runway etc.) , on an airfield with movement restraints.
Have I got this wrong?
Our CEO's response seems to suggest that we may be able to hold a rally at Turweston. Could you let us know the latest info on movement restraints.
It has always seemed to me that by owning our own building at Turweston we will be open to all sorts of constraints over which we have no control and could potentially be held to ransom if we wanted to sell it.
Why do we need to own a building? Why not rent? The purpose of the LAA is not property investment after all.
Have I got this wrong?
Our CEO's response seems to suggest that we may be able to hold a rally at Turweston. Could you let us know the latest info on movement restraints.
It has always seemed to me that by owning our own building at Turweston we will be open to all sorts of constraints over which we have no control and could potentially be held to ransom if we wanted to sell it.
Why do we need to own a building? Why not rent? The purpose of the LAA is not property investment after all.
-
Brian Hope
- Posts: 1271
- Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 8:28 pm
- Location: Sheerness Kent
Welshman, let us just try and get our facts straight here. You, nor anybody else have ever been told by me that the planning issue is none of your business. I have always responded with a straightforward answer relating the facts as I understand them to be. My response this morning was sarcastic, and quite frankly its no less than you deserve. It palls into insignificance compared with some of the c**p I and the EC have had to put up with from you. Treat others as you would hope to be treated mate.
Now, regarding the planning and HQ. A member ballot voted by a majority for a freehold HQ on an airfield. Fact. That is why the EC has gone down that road. If you disagree with that decision tough. I disagreed but was out voted and have accepted it. Its called democracy.
Nobody could foresee the hassle that planning would be. The local authority was asked about planning before we decided to move to Turweston and gave no indication that it would be an issue, it was not until after we arrived that an influential and wealthy protagonist moved into the area and caused the problems.
We heard unofficially that the result of the latest Planning Inquiry had been positive two or three weeks ago, and saw a letter to that effect some time later, I do not know when exactly, contact the office to find out if it is that important to you. The news is in the magazine, which is in print at the moment. Three axis microlight permission has also been granted. Remember that one - the slated first step to eventually trying to gain permission for all microlights to use the airfield.
To the best of my knowledge, it was decided well over a year ago, before I wentt back onto the EC, that even if we got planning consent we would hold fire on starting a build for a number or reasons.
Firstly there is the uncertain situation at Turweston. We need to know that the local authority is going to embrace David Owen's plans to improve the airfield over the years ahead. We need to be confident the airfield will not become moribund due to planning constraints.
Secondly we are in a state of great change within General Aviation. EASA will have an enormous effect on what we as an association do in the future. There are opportunities for us to expand our remit enormously, and until we know what we will be doing in the new European aviation environment we should not build an HQ that might turn out not to best suit our needs.
Thirdly we were at that time, going through a period of nil growth financially. We were not making a trading profit, and only our interest on reserves was keeping us in the black. It would not have been wise to use those reserves to fund a building until the trading situation had been improved. The last two years' accounts have shown a marked improvement, effectively nullifying that problem.
Finally, we now have the BMAA merger issue which again will have an impact on the decision making process should it go ahead.
The EC is not a bunch of numpties intent on wreaking havoc with members money, or building empires to gratify egos. It runs the association effectively and professionally, seeking expert legal and financial advice when necessary.
I've been in this association for over thirty years, and been actively involved for fifteen. I know it is better run now than it has ever been. I also know that it is better respected by the CAA and government that in has ever been. Finally I know that the vast majority of members are appreciative of what is being done on their behalf.
By all means criticise when it is valid, but there really is no need to make it your lifetime's work.
Now, regarding the planning and HQ. A member ballot voted by a majority for a freehold HQ on an airfield. Fact. That is why the EC has gone down that road. If you disagree with that decision tough. I disagreed but was out voted and have accepted it. Its called democracy.
Nobody could foresee the hassle that planning would be. The local authority was asked about planning before we decided to move to Turweston and gave no indication that it would be an issue, it was not until after we arrived that an influential and wealthy protagonist moved into the area and caused the problems.
We heard unofficially that the result of the latest Planning Inquiry had been positive two or three weeks ago, and saw a letter to that effect some time later, I do not know when exactly, contact the office to find out if it is that important to you. The news is in the magazine, which is in print at the moment. Three axis microlight permission has also been granted. Remember that one - the slated first step to eventually trying to gain permission for all microlights to use the airfield.
To the best of my knowledge, it was decided well over a year ago, before I wentt back onto the EC, that even if we got planning consent we would hold fire on starting a build for a number or reasons.
Firstly there is the uncertain situation at Turweston. We need to know that the local authority is going to embrace David Owen's plans to improve the airfield over the years ahead. We need to be confident the airfield will not become moribund due to planning constraints.
Secondly we are in a state of great change within General Aviation. EASA will have an enormous effect on what we as an association do in the future. There are opportunities for us to expand our remit enormously, and until we know what we will be doing in the new European aviation environment we should not build an HQ that might turn out not to best suit our needs.
Thirdly we were at that time, going through a period of nil growth financially. We were not making a trading profit, and only our interest on reserves was keeping us in the black. It would not have been wise to use those reserves to fund a building until the trading situation had been improved. The last two years' accounts have shown a marked improvement, effectively nullifying that problem.
Finally, we now have the BMAA merger issue which again will have an impact on the decision making process should it go ahead.
The EC is not a bunch of numpties intent on wreaking havoc with members money, or building empires to gratify egos. It runs the association effectively and professionally, seeking expert legal and financial advice when necessary.
I've been in this association for over thirty years, and been actively involved for fifteen. I know it is better run now than it has ever been. I also know that it is better respected by the CAA and government that in has ever been. Finally I know that the vast majority of members are appreciative of what is being done on their behalf.
By all means criticise when it is valid, but there really is no need to make it your lifetime's work.
Well said Brian.
I have often critised individuals on here where I thought it was fair to do so,but I have to agree that the LAA is, at the moment , in a unique position to do something posative that could have a profound impact on everyone that flies for recreation.It will take goodwill and co-operation from other associations to achieve and one mistake at this point could put us all back years!
If welshman is so dissgruntled with everything being done by volunteers that will ultimately benefit him,he would be a hippocrit if he took advantage of the eventual outcome so perhaps he should surrender his membership and give up flying now ???
I have often critised individuals on here where I thought it was fair to do so,but I have to agree that the LAA is, at the moment , in a unique position to do something posative that could have a profound impact on everyone that flies for recreation.It will take goodwill and co-operation from other associations to achieve and one mistake at this point could put us all back years!
If welshman is so dissgruntled with everything being done by volunteers that will ultimately benefit him,he would be a hippocrit if he took advantage of the eventual outcome so perhaps he should surrender his membership and give up flying now ???