A new airport.... South Yorkshire Airport City?

Doncaster Sheffield Airport Strategic Review Announcement​

Forums4airports discusses the latest press release from Doncaster Sheffield airport where the airport questions the future of the airport. The owners of the airport, the Peel Group have announced they are looking at their options as the group has decided the airport is no longer viable as an operational airport. Here's the press release:

"The Board of Doncaster Sheffield Airport (DSA) has begun a review of strategic options for the Airport. This review follows lengthy deliberations by the Board of DSA which has reluctantly concluded that aviation activity on the site may no longer be commercially viable.

DSA’s owner, the Peel Group, as the Airport’s principal funder, has reviewed the conclusions of the Board of DSA and commissioned external independent advice in order to evaluate and test the conclusions drawn, which concurs with the Board’s initial findings.

Since the Peel Group acquired the Airport site in 1999 and converted it into an international commercial airport, which opened in 2005, significant amounts have been invested in the terminal, the airfield and its operations, both in relation to the original conversion and subsequently to improve the facilities and infrastructure on offer to create an award winning airport.

However, despite growth in passenger numbers, DSA has never achieved the critical mass required to become profitable and this fundamental issue of a shortfall in passenger numbers is exacerbated by the announcement on 10 June 2022 of the unilateral withdrawal of the Wizz Air based aircraft, leaving the Airport with only one base carrier, namely TUI.

This challenge has been increased by other changes in the aviation market, the well-publicised impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and increasingly important environmental considerations. It has therefore been concluded that aviation activity may no longer be the use for the site which delivers the maximum economic and environmental benefit to the region. Against this backdrop, DSA and the Peel Group, will initiate a consultation and engagement programme with stakeholders on the future of the site and how best to maximise and capitalise on future economic growth opportunities for Doncaster and the wider Sheffield City Region.

The wider Peel Group is already delivering significant development and business opportunities on its adjoining GatewayEast development including the recent deal for over 400,000 sq ft logistics and advanced manufacturing development on site, creating hundreds of new jobs and delivering further economic investment in the region.

Robert Hough, Chairman of Peel Airports Group, which includes Doncaster Sheffield Airport, said: “It is a critical time for aviation globally. Despite pandemic related travel restrictions slowly drawing to a close, we are still facing ongoing obstacles and dynamic long-term threats to the future of the aviation industry. The actions by Wizz to sacrifice its base at Doncaster to shore up its business opportunities at other bases in the South of England are a significant blow for the Airport.

Now is the right time to review how DSA can best create future growth opportunities for Doncaster and for South Yorkshire. The Peel Group remains committed to delivering economic growth, job opportunities and prosperity for Doncaster and the wider region.”

DSA and the Peel Group pride themselves on being forward-thinking whilst prioritising the welfare of staff and customers alike. As such, no further public comments will be made whilst they undertake this engagement period with all stakeholders.
During the Strategic Review, the Airport will operate as normal. Therefore passengers who are due to travel to the airport, please arrive and check in as normal. If there are any disruptions with your flight, you will be contacted by your airline in good time.
For all press enquiries, please contact Charlotte Leach at [email protected]."

"Not great news for DSA or the region"

Should the government or local council foot the bill and provide a financial subsidy to keep the airport open, thoughts...?

 

i do not mean to be seen to having a go at you pug, but as you no i known little about the aviation, but you thinking they will have a legal case to build there is fantasy because you know nothing about the construction industry. who owned the land where the iport was built ? and had was allowed to sell land next to it for houses? on a side note sheffield airport was originally to built on the other side of the parkway

It’s not fantasy at all, the Council will support them in a change of use of the site if their ambition to reopen the airport fails to materialise. Peel have years of experience doing this and a team with significant legal clout whether we agree with that or not.

I’ve no idea who owned the iport land or why it’s in any way relevant to this discussion. Nor do I have any clue why you brought up the intended location of Sheffield Airport or how that would have even been possible given the topography of the land on that side of the Parkway.

Again, diversion and distraction. How about tackling the issues at hand? How are they going to create a sustainable and viable airport on the site where the previous owners (one being a major international airport operator) failed? Particularly if, as you attempted to suggest, there is little to no opportunity for non-aviation real estate development to supplement other revenue sources?

 

It’s not fantasy at all, the Council will support them in a change of use of the site if their ambition to reopen the airport fails to materialise. Peel have years of experience doing this and a team with significant legal clout whether we agree with that or not.

I’ve no idea who owned the iport land or why it’s in any way relevant to this discussion. Nor do I have any clue why you brought up the intended location of Sheffield Airport or how that would have even been possible given the topography of the land on that side of the Parkway.

Again, diversion and distraction. How about tackling the issues at hand? How are they going to create a sustainable and viable airport on the site where the previous owners (one being a major international airport operator) failed? Particularly if, as you attempted to suggest, there is little to no opportunity for non-aviation real estate development to supplement other revenue sources?

• September 9, 2020

• Print
• Email

peel years of experience did not help them here, nor will it in doncaster
A developer has lost on all four grounds in a legal challenge to Salford City Council and the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government over their refusal to grant permission for a major scheme.
In Peel Investments (North) Ltd v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities And Local Government & Anor [2020] EWCA Civ 1175 the Court of Appeal rejected an attempt by Peel Investments (North) to reopen applications to build 600 homes at one site in west Salford and 165 on another.
Salford refused both applications and Peel’s appeals were dismissed by the Secretary of State.

 

• September 9, 2020

• Print
• Email

peel years of experience did not help them here, nor will it in doncaster
A developer has lost on all four grounds in a legal challenge to Salford City Council and the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government over their refusal to grant permission for a major scheme.
In Peel Investments (North) Ltd v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities And Local Government & Anor [2020] EWCA Civ 1175 the Court of Appeal rejected an attempt by Peel Investments (North) to reopen applications to build 600 homes at one site in west Salford and 165 on another.
Salford refused both applications and Peel’s appeals were dismissed by the Secretary of State.

If you have taken that from somewhere you need to attribute them.

 

why i mention the iport
A new bridge and road into iPortDoncaster have recently been completed and provide a greener and moreaccessible connection to employment space. Harworth is proud to have gifted land to Doncaster Council to facilitate this. We also recently concluded a deal with adjoining landowners to enable the delivery by others of a new link road through to the Bankwood Lane Industrial Estate.

who is a major shareholder in the harworth group, peel.
all harworth group land is mainly old colleries in south yorkshire.
in rossington pit site they had planning for 1,400 alone, do you think they will want to burn any more bridges with CDC?

 

why i mention the iport
A new bridge and road into iPortDoncaster have recently been completed and provide a greener and moreaccessible connection to employment space. Harworth is proud to have gifted land to Doncaster Council to facilitate this. We also recently concluded a deal with adjoining landowners to enable the delivery by others of a new link road through to the Bankwood Lane Industrial Estate.

who is a major shareholder in the harworth group, peel.
all harworth group land is mainly old colleries in south yorkshire.
in rossington pit site they had planning for 1,400 alone, do you think they will want to burn any more bridges with CDC?

Still of absolutely no relevance to DSA.

You’ve posted one successful legal challenge against Peel. There are countless that go through successfully. You really believe CDC hold all the cards here? Contrary, CDC, if given the opportunity of increasing employment space, would welcome it with open arms. Particularly if/when it is realised that DSA is a non starter. You are being very naive.

 

i do not mean to be seen to having a go at you pug, but as you no i known little about the aviation, but you thinking they will have a legal case to build there is fantasy because you know nothing about the construction industry. who owned the land where the iport was built ? and had was allowed to sell land next to it for houses? on a side note sheffield airport was originally to built on the other side of the parkway

Could you clarify? I am not clear whether you are saying you do know something about aviation or not?

Same question for construction?

 

Could you clarify? I am not clear whether you are saying you do know something about aviation or not?

Same question for construction?

i know zilch about the aviation industry , but enjoy this forum. im in the construction industry. last week i spent time with the consultant who resurfaces the majority of runways in the uk, and abroad. i speak regular with the guy who surveyed sheffield airport for budge.that is my only contact related to aviation.
peel will not want to upset the SYC because of their interest in the harworth group. and pug is certainly wrong to think peel would win a legal gas with CDC over planning for houses at DSA.

i would like to add that it was annouced in 2016 by doncaster council that there would be 5,000 homes built there , meaning next to the great yorkshire way , not on the airport.

 

i know zilch about the aviation industry , but enjoy this forum. im in the construction industry. last week i spent time with the consultant who resurfaces the majority of runways in the uk, and abroad. i speak regular with the guy who surveyed sheffield airport for budge.that is my only contact related to aviation.
peel will not want to upset the SYC because of their interest in the harworth group. and pug is certainly wrong to think peel would win a legal gas with CDC over planning for houses at DSA.

i would like to add that it was annouced in 2016 by doncaster council that there would be 5,000 homes built there , meaning next to the great yorkshire way , not on the airport.

i know zilch about the aviation industry , but enjoy this forum. im in the construction industry. last week i spent time with the consultant who resurfaces the majority of runways in the uk, and abroad. i speak regular with the guy who surveyed sheffield airport for budge.that is my only contact related to aviation.
peel will not want to upset the SYC because of their interest in the harworth group. and pug is certainly wrong to think peel would win a legal gas with CDC over planning for houses at DSA.

i would like to add that it was annouced in 2016 by doncaster council that there would be 5,000 homes built there , meaning next to the great yorkshire way , not on the airport.

Interested to know how you can be so sure that Peel couldn’t, in a scenario that sees the council left with a huge plot of land, apply to change the use of the land for employment and housing? I note there are housing developments popping up all over. Although I was dead against the closure of SZD (an aviation facility that should have been kept instead of opening DSA), they did manage to attract Boeing amongst others to the site.

So I don’t know what you think would happen to the site should the airport city project fail to materialise and/or it ends up losing too much money again and is forced to close, again?

 

Interested to know how you can be so sure that Peel couldn’t, in a scenario that sees the council left with a huge plot of land, apply to change the use of the land for employment and housing? I note there are housing developments popping up all over. Although I was dead against the closure of SZD (an aviation facility that should have been kept instead of opening DSA), they did manage to attract Boeing amongst others to the site.

So I don’t know what you think would happen to the site should the airport city project fail to materialise and/or it ends up losing too much money again and is forced to close, again?

i think the land will lay empty for 20 -30 years.
what point i was trying to make the iport was built on green belt with the harworth group involved, with the former rossington colliery. there are plans for 15,000 new homes there also involving the harworth group. it was doncaster council that approved building on the green belt ,all local mps supported it. the government decided against a public enquiry and for the project to go ahead.
the harworth group are selling 13 acres of building land near the town center, that again was done with CDC help. peel is a major share holder in the harworth group, they will not want to have more conflict with not only CDC , but the people of south yorkshire.
if the airport does reopens, then maybe gateway east will progress as was imagined.

 

i think the land will lay empty for 20 -30 years.
what point i was trying to make the iport was built on green belt with the harworth group involved, with the former rossington colliery. there are plans for 15,000 new homes there also involving the harworth group. it was doncaster council that approved building on the green belt ,all local mps supported it. the government decided against a public enquiry and for the project to go ahead.
the harworth group are selling 13 acres of building land near the town center, that again was done with CDC help. peel is a major share holder in the harworth group, they will not want to have more conflict with not only CDC , but the people of south yorkshire.
if the airport does reopens, then maybe gateway east will progress as was imagined.

So you’re basically suggesting that if the airport project fails, CDC would block any redevelopment purely out of spite? Your logic appears flawed. There is no way CDC would block a redevelopment in the scenario that sees the airport project fail to get off the ground, it’s simply not in their interests. You’re basing it on the assumption that Peel plan to do that now, they don’t. They would probably like to see the airport succeed (as they did when they built it and ran it) because that would determine the direction in which their other projects like gateway east go.

Problem is, as we have been saying for years, an airport is not the most lucrative nor viable use of the land and it is more than likely going to require many years of subsidy to continue to operate unless there are drastic cuts in service levels compared to when Peel ran it. That is not going to satisfy the people petitioning to reopen it. The high service levels offered under Peel, along with the investment in marketing, sponsorship deals, airline incentives just blow the argument that Peel always had ulterior motives right out the water. How is anyone else going to approach things differently to see a more successful outcome?

A few things I’m seeing that need straightening out. The conspiracy theories are in force again.

Vantage - they did not take Peel to court to force a buyback. They lost over £50million in the venture to purchase the majority shareholding of Peel Airports, which they offloaded back to Peel in 2014 after systematically giving back MME and then DSA. It’s just another myth used to hit Peel with because it suits a narrative. It is possible the Easyjet deal to get a one outstationed aircraft base in 2010 was with a view to offloading the airports group, however what is more likely is the story I heard at the time from an easyjet pal which was that it was part of a group deal which they couldn’t find use for the extra aircraft at LPL and were growing at MAN so decided to test the water at DSA. They said when they pulled out of DSA after less than a year of operating that they weren’t getting strong bookings. They maintained disinterest thereafter. Vantage simply overestimated the strength of the U.K. market and probably didn’t understand the hyper competitive nature of it, or its idiosyncrasies. They got burned. Any new operator will be able to find this out.

Peel value DSA land at £1.3bn. No, this is the value they place on Gateway East. They would sell the airport for £250million, the amount they invested into it. They did the same at Teesside, only nobody will pay £250million for it.

Once again, these myths are unhelpful and only serve to paint an unrealistic picture.

Am I defending Peel? Not at all. Problem is, on this occasion they’ve got everyone bang to rights. I do know they are keen on seeing the airport reopen, I know this from people who work at Peel. However, they do not want to invest any more time or money into it themselves. They were by all accounts genuinely disappointed when it didn’t work out.

 

CDC will not want to do anything out of spite , just stay with the vision they have for the area
the CDC announced when the great Yorkshire way was completed they planned for 5,000 new homes

14 houses to an acre , £300,000 per acre ( roughly cost in Yorkshire for building land with highway already in place) 360 acres .

who would CDC prefer to be its partner peel or a new investor?

the only way to make the airport a success is for the investor to make money from all revenues, and if CDC plan takes off they will

 

CDC will not want to do anything out of spite , just stay with the vision they have for the area
the CDC announced when the great Yorkshire way was completed they planned for 5,000 new homes

14 houses to an acre , £300,000 per acre ( roughly cost in Yorkshire for building land with highway already in place) 360 acres .

who would CDC prefer to be its partner peel or a new investor?

the only way to make the airport a success is for the investor to make money from all revenues, and if CDC plan takes off they will

But that’s based on the assumption that it will work. We don’t know for certain but what appears to be subject to the lease is the airport and not the entire estate, so it’s not exactly a great deal for any investor to operate within those confines. You’ve already said yourself that Peel should have put the money received from housing developments into the books of the airport - which in itself is a questionable philosophy.

The airport closed because revenue could not match overheads. The airport was not attractive to airlines that were required to operate from there to increase revenue. Wizz were the last roll of the dice after many attempts at attracting and retaining other airlines. If the new operator finds this is still the case, it will either need perennial cash injections from the local authority or it will have to be turned over for use as something else. Doesn’t matter what CDC think or want.

Once again you’re basing your argument on Peel being either underhand or incapable, there is no evidence to show that either of these theories are in any way correct. It’s problematic that CDC are approaching it with the same misunderstanding.

 

But that’s based on the assumption that it will work. We don’t know for certain but what appears to be subject to the lease is the airport and not the entire estate, so it’s not exactly a great deal for any investor to operate within those confines. You’ve already said yourself that Peel should have put the money received from housing developments into the books of the airport - which in itself is a questionable philosophy.

The airport closed because revenue could not match overheads. The airport was not attractive to airlines that were required to operate from there to increase revenue. Wizz were the last roll of the dice after many attempts at attracting and retaining other airlines. If the new operator finds this is still the case, it will either need perennial cash injections from the local authority or it will have to be turned over for use as something else. Doesn’t matter what CDC think or want.

Once again you’re basing your argument on Peel being either underhand or incapable, there is no evidence to show that either of these theories are in any way correct. It’s problematic that CDC are approaching it with the same misunderstanding.

the way peel work is the way it is, i have nothing bad to say about them.
but if a new investor comes in and gets the same deal as peel did with regards land, i think they will be more than happy.
you your self said peel value the land at 1.3 bn , and that is a fraction of the land available in the area.
and without CDC approval the other land will not get the planning.

 

the way peel work is the way it is, i have nothing bad to say about them.
but if a new investor comes in and gets the same deal as peel did with regards land, i think they will be more than happy.
you your self said peel value the land at 1.3 bn , and that is a fraction of the land available in the area.
and without CDC approval the other land will not get the planning.

The way Peel worked with the airport was entirely in the airports favour, that is the point I’ve been making all along. They offered very attractive incentives to the airlines to build high volume passenger throughput from which to gain revenue. The land Gateway East will be on is not part of the airport as far as I can see, so I don’t get your point? How will another investor (if that’s what they are) make things happen where Peel couldn’t? You’re diverting and distracting again.

I did not say DSA was worth £1.3bn to Peel, in fact I said it was Gateway East not DSA that is valued at that. It is not clear at this time whether the land upon which the Gateway East development is planned is incorporated within the leasehold that CDC have signed, language in statements would suggest it is not and will remain a Peel entity. I understand Peel would take £250m for DSA, but no investor would pay that.

Stop talking about CDC as the Gatekeeper, it’s not as simple as that. The situation is fluid and by all accounts the appetite of the private sector to be involved is somewhat underwhelming.

 

The mechanic has released an update. Mentions Gateway East as part of the SY Airport City project, neglects to mention whether this is to be part of the airport business (which is the key point) as my understanding Peel still own this land outright.

Also posts about CWL as an example of success. Clearly had no idea what he’s talking about. Just look at how many passengers that airport has lost over the years and how much its costing the tax payer to stay open!

 

The mechanic has released an update. Mentions Gateway East as part of the SY Airport City project, neglects to mention whether this is to be part of the airport business (which is the key point) as my understanding Peel still own this land outright.

Also posts about CWL as an example of success. Clearly had no idea what he’s talking about. Just look at how many passengers that airport has lost over the years and how much its costing the tax payer to stay open!

i pretty sure peel land and property own the land up to the roundabout up to hurst lane .where the new houses wilson homes built, they bought the land from peel. from the roundbaout to parrots corner is owned by someone else. he sold one plot to amazone, what they have built on.

 

i pretty sure peel land and property own the land up to the roundabout up to hurst lane .where the new houses wilson homes built, they bought the land from peel. from the roundbaout to parrots corner is owned by someone else. he sold one plot to amazone, what they have built on.

The land where the 420 has been built is as I understand it part of Gateway East, I recall plans for mixed retail and leisure immediately to the NW of that which was a Peel plan. It’s alright saying Gateway East is part of the SY Airport City project, but if it’s not part of the airports land portfolio it’s not going to contribute to the revenue of the business.

Mechanic mentions DSA04, which was allocated under Peel but in the event didn’t warrant building because they didn’t have any interest. Had interest been forthcoming they would have built something. Same goes with the freight hub that was never built. I do hope there won’t be millions in council tax payers money being invested in buildings that won’t get used much like the Teesside folly.

I would expect any investor to be keen on how much land is available to them for property revenue.

 

The land where the 420 has been built is as I understand it part of Gateway East, I recall plans for mixed retail and leisure immediately to the NW of that which was a Peel plan. It’s alright saying Gateway East is part of the SY Airport City project, but if it’s not part of the airports land portfolio it’s not going to contribute to the revenue of the business.

Mechanic mentions DSA04, which was allocated under Peel but in the event didn’t warrant building because they didn’t have any interest. Had interest been forthcoming they would have built something. Same goes with the freight hub that was never built. I do hope there won’t be millions in council tax payers money being invested in buildings that won’t get used much like the Teesside folly.

I would expect any investor to be keen on how much land is available to them for property revenue.

Panattoni built 420 and bought the land from peel land and property, just before they annouced the closure. im sure the plans for retail and leisure have been withdrawn.
until we know who the investor is , it is hard to say about what land will be available.
the amazone building on the great yorkshire way, was an excellent bit of business

 

The land where the 420 has been built is as I understand it part of Gateway East, I recall plans for mixed retail and leisure immediately to the NW of that which was a Peel plan. It’s alright saying Gateway East is part of the SY Airport City project, but if it’s not part of the airports land portfolio it’s not going to contribute to the revenue of the business.

Mechanic mentions DSA04, which was allocated under Peel but in the event didn’t warrant building because they didn’t have any interest. Had interest been forthcoming they would have built something. Same goes with the freight hub that was never built. I do hope there won’t be millions in council tax payers money being invested in buildings that won’t get used much like the Teesside folly.

I would expect any investor to be keen on how much land is available to them for property revenue.

Quoting CWL as a success story is really desperation stakes, particularly as the Welsh government are looking to plough another £200m into the loss making venture….what is interesting is the fact that given it’s proximity the BRS market there is potentially a route for a legal challenge from BRS airport. I presume the same remedy would be available to LBA and EMA should they wish to go that route….. https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/bristol-airport-issues-response-wales-29772542

 

Panattoni built 420 and bought the land from peel land and property, just before they annouced the closure. im sure the plans for retail and leisure have been withdrawn.
until we know who the investor is , it is hard to say about what land will be available.
the amazone building on the great yorkshire way, was an excellent bit of business

I expect they have been withdrawn. I’m not sure we can conclude that it depends on who the investor is, more that it depends on what’s available to any investor which dictates the direction of travel. If the airport comes with a load of as yet to be developed real estate then the airport has far more chance of success and longevity than if the ‘investor’ is expected to operate within the confines of the airport and any any aviation related revenue streams only, because it puts said investor at a significant disadvantage.

Quoting CWL as a success story is really desperation stakes, particularly as the Welsh government are looking to plough another £200m into the loss making venture….what is interesting is the fact that given it’s proximity the BRS market there is potentially a route for a legal challenge from BRS airport. I presume the same remedy would be available to LBA and EMA should they wish to go that route….. https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/bristol-airport-issues-response-wales-29772542

I would expect if the airlines start trying to play DSA off against EMA/LBA then there would be grounds for a challenge, it all depends on how the airport operating company is structured and where the cash is coming from. See above response to rabbitfoot.

It’s difficult for me to see a scenario in which an opco with only the confines of the airport to play with, could see the venture as a good investment opportunity. If they have seated of development land that can be incorporated within the airport business then we might be onto something!

Humberside might be the target of discussion for some, particularly the question of how that airport can continue with so little commercial traffic. It’s quite simple, it costs a lot to have all the equipment and staff to handle a 737. Leisure airlines tend to like to fly at unsociable hours, but they also require ATC, Fire cover, security and handling, fuelling etc etc. KLM will depart at 06:10 and the last flight lands at 21:30. The fire cover required is a lower category than a 737. They can have a skeleton crew on to handle the flight. There would maybe be growth in the IT Charter side if those flights were to operate within the core operating hours. Ryanair are probably unattractive because they expect a lot for next to nothing. If you can build a critical mass it’s worth the investment, if you can’t then you end up with heavy losses and no out. Thats where DSA ended up, things will need to change quite drastically in either being able to attract a far larger number of such movements, or restrict the service levels to keep costs manageable. Humberside won’t be interested currently because of the threat of a competitor reopening.