50-year protection
APOLOGIES for writing yet another letter on the subject of the airport, but I do not believe anyone has yet made the following point.
Sutton Harbour Holdings (SHH) own the lease of the airport and will not sell the lease for less than they think it is worth.
The problem is that they value the land at its development value (for building retail/housing etc). Given the size of the land, the potential development value is huge. The value as an airport is minimal, maybe £5 million.
While Viable may or may not have a valid business plan for the airport, I do not see how they will ever be able to acquire the lease on the airport from SHH while SHH still believe they will be allowed to develop the land if they just hold on to it.
Business Cards From Only £10.95 Delivered www.myprint-247.co.uk
View detailsOur heavyweight cards have FREE UV silk coating, FREE next day delivery & VAT included. Choose from 1000's of pre-designed templates or upload your own artwork. Orders dispatched within 24hrs.
Terms: Visit our site for more products: Business Cards, Compliment Slips, Letterheads, Leaflets, Postcards, Posters & much more. All items are free next day delivery. www.myprint-247.co.uk
Contact: 01858 468192
Valid until: Friday, May 31 2013
I believe the present leader of the council has encouraged them to adopt this position by stating that if no-one can meet his "five tests" he will consider other uses for the site. The first of his tests is that they must acquire the lease on the site.
I believe I have explained why this is not possible. The only way out of this situation is a cross-party effort from all members of the council.
They need to protect the airport land for 50 years or more, not the current nine.
This would remove the development value of the land and motivate SHH to sell the airport as an airport. Perhaps then a group like Viable will have a chance.
T BAKER
Via e-mail
Comments
by fiest1406
Saturday, September 29 2012, 3:06PM
“The letter is correct and i am in complete agreement with it...It really is time elected councillors and officials realised they are public servants and stopped abusing there positions to sell off what belongs to us all..without our agreement..As with Lady Porter and the Westminster Housing Scandal is is time people got together and used legislation such as 'surcharging' Councils/ Councillors for any decision that puts the tax payer at a disadvantage...Only then will we ever get to the truth to how the Armageddon clause entered the contract in favour of SHH.”
by startbay
Saturday, September 29 2012, 2:25PM
“I am in complete agreement with this letter to me The leader of the city council is doing nothing for the future of the city and its people or jobs,but seems to be encouraging SSH to just sit tight.The future of the city will suffer so that comparatively few people make a financial killing.I think the reasons for the original agreement needs looking into at the highest level and also if there were any vested interests involved .For a city council to almost give away land to a private developer is wrong surely the land was not owned by an individual but as council owned land was owned by the city and that means the people in it .On too many occasions the councillors and politicians promise the earth but when in power just follow their own personal agendas.As I said this agreement needs looking into and if neccessary the originator sacked .It seems to me that neither the council or SSH have the cities future at heart just to make as much money as possible from a public assett.The council has to my knowledge not mentioned one word against the policy of SHH if they had any decency as a company they would start negotiations with both viable and the city council.”
by blogtodi
Saturday, September 29 2012, 8:49AM
“Wouldn't that conflict with the current terms of the lease with SHH? I'm sure SHH would have something to say about that.”