REF A W Bridge's letter (Friday), on the council airport lease, how many of us agree?

I can see the council was fully entitled to create a lease with SHG for the airport, but I am not happy with the arrangement we have ended up with.

The things I feel need explanation are:

Why was it considered necessary to have a rent-free lease for the whole 150 years term of the lease, rather than an initial period of say five years, after which a rent schedule could be introduced? It is estimated we, the citizen, have lost upward of £32million on possible rent over the period.

Why was it felt necessary to have the Armageddon clause at all? SHG took it as an airport, and if the air adventure failed the lease should automatically be rescinded. To have a situation where SHG can more or less do what they want and take a large percentage of any profit appears to me to be a gross mistake, and a costly one for us.

Firm control of the airport should remain with the council and not at the call of Sutton Harbour Group, which in my view has a vested interest in failure. It appears to me the proceeds from the sale of parts of the airport have been used to help SHG in dire times.

I feel what is required is a full review of what has gone on, either with the local government ombudsman or the local authority auditor. Will we get it?

NORMAN WYMAN

Via email