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 can’t imagine Peel would be doing anything other than ploughing on at full speed with their decision to close the airport and redevelop. They won’t be pausing at all for the sake of some joke consortiums trying to talk about reopening the airport.

 

I can’t imagine Peel would be doing anything other than ploughing on at full speed with their decision to close the airport and redevelop. They won’t be pausing at all for the sake of some joke consortiums trying to talk about reopening the airport.

That would appear to be the case. No update on the apparent u-turn by Peel on ending their lease agreements with land owners for approach lights, that did sound positive for the airport but there has been zero follow up yet, perhaps later on one of the talking heads weekly updates?

Also seems like MC of Save DSA had posted an update this morning suggesting the airspace move was a positive, since seems to have deleted the post ‘to seek some clarification’. Again, controlling the narrative.

That would appear to be the case. No update on the apparent u-turn by Peel on ending their lease agreements with land owners for approach lights, that did sound positive for the airport but there has been zero follow up yet, perhaps later on one of the talking heads weekly updates?

Also seems like MC of Save DSA had posted an update this morning suggesting the airspace move was a positive, since seems to have deleted the post ‘to seek some clarification’. Again, controlling the narrative.

Nick Fletcher has posted his weekly update. He is now making it clear that Peel have rowed back on their termination notices to the land owners regarding removal of approach lights and wish to renegotiate new leases. It’s not clear what their intentions are as they are still adamant that the airport should remain closed.

This sends out a strange message. If Peel really do intend on keeping the airport closed, why would they want to retain the land leases? DSAL is to be wound up in May, surely those leases would be wound up then, unless they intend on selling the leasehold to another operator? They’ve made it quite clear they do not wish to sell the freehold. Is it possible this is a further preemptive measure to countenance any CPO movements?

 

Think it might be a case of the land lease for equipment being under DSAL and that Peel are getting lease under Peel name. So when DSAL is dissolved/ wound up the equipment locations still available for use.

This is then able to be said to be something positive by DMBC/ SYMCA Mayors that land leases are still in place for control/ landing equipment, so it is still in place if a successful purchaser comes along.

But most importantly the land owners still recieve payments for the land lease. Once every avenue has been exhausted on buyers then Peel can just terminate the land leases and return the land to previous state.

 

Think it might be a case of the land lease for equipment being under DSAL and that Peel are getting lease under Peel name. So when DSAL is dissolved/ wound up the equipment locations still available for use.

This is then able to be said to be something positive by DMBC/ SYMCA Mayors that land leases are still in place for control/ landing equipment, so it is still in place if a successful purchaser comes along.

But most importantly the land owners still recieve payments for the land lease. Once every avenue has been exhausted on buyers then Peel can just terminate the land leases and return the land to previous state.

All plausible. Also been suggested that they perhaps haven’t found a buyer for the equipment yet and therefore it might be more advantageous to keep them in place with land lease renegotiated rather than uproot them and stick them in storage somewhere. Notice Scampton still has its relatively new approach lighting equipment still in place despite it closing around the same time as DSA. Appreciate that is MOD so a different beast entirely.

 

That would appear to be the case. No update on the apparent u-turn by Peel on ending their lease agreements with land owners for approach lights, that did sound positive for the airport but there has been zero follow up yet, perhaps later on one of the talking heads weekly updates?

Also seems like MC of Save DSA had posted an update this morning suggesting the airspace move was a positive, since seems to have deleted the post ‘to seek some clarification’. Again, controlling the narrative.



Nick Fletcher has posted his weekly update. He is now making it clear that Peel have rowed back on their termination notices to the land owners regarding removal of approach lights and wish to renegotiate new leases. It’s not clear what their intentions are as they are still adamant that the airport should remain closed.

This sends out a strange message. If Peel really do intend on keeping the airport closed, why would they want to retain the land leases? DSAL is to be wound up in May, surely those leases would be wound up then, unless they intend on selling the leasehold to another operator? They’ve made it quite clear they do not wish to sell the freehold. Is it possible this is a further preemptive measure to countenance any CPO movements?

The e-mail was apparently confirming a request by LBA (and it seems accepted by DSA) to 're-home' part of the airspace mentioned under LBA control so as to avoid termination of descents into LBA at FL90 from the east/south east directions and which would allow a more or less continuous descent. I think the e-mail was mis-read by the gentleman concerned.

 

The e-mail was apparently confirming a request by LBA (and it seems accepted by DSA) to 're-home' part of the airspace mentioned under LBA control so as to avoid termination of descents into LBA at FL90 from the east/south east directions and which would allow a more or less continuous descent. I think the e-mail was mis-read by the gentleman concerned.

I think this gent concerned has himself started getting fed up. I noticed a post by him slamming liz truss last night was deleted presumably by himself this morning. It’s losing traction somewhat now as people go off and find other things to be interested in. I just feel like if the airport were to be saved it would have been done by now, the only sticking point is the u-turn on approach light lane leases which is the only publicly available glimmer of hope in all this.

 

Copy of the letter sent by Doncaster Council to the CAA requesting a 12 month extension to the removal of the DSA airspace/AIP. Nothing new other than the same old arguments:

https://airspacechange.caa.co.uk/documents/download/5368

 

Copy of the letter sent by Doncaster Council to the CAA requesting a 12 month extension to the removal of the DSA airspace/AIP. Nothing new other than the same old arguments:

https://airspacechange.caa.co.uk/documents/download/5368

I wonder what would happen should Humberside apply for CTA now that DSA has gone… I personally believe they should do as they have a very valid reason for doing so now that DSA has closed. Otherwise I think they’re right, there is no real issue with maintaining NOTAM for 12 months, I suspect it would take that time to reallocate anyway, though the LBA request will most likely be prioritised as that is a current commercial risk that needs mitigation.

 

I wonder what would happen should Humberside apply for CTA now that DSA has gone… I personally believe they should do as they have a very valid reason for doing so now that DSA has closed. Otherwise I think they’re right, there is no real issue with maintaining NOTAM for 12 months, I suspect it would take that time to reallocate anyway, though the LBA request will most likely be prioritised as that is a current commercial risk that needs mitigation.

I think I may have already posted recently, but the DSA controlled airspace has been deleted from the latest VFR Aeronautical chart.

 

https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=761132785461416&set=a.457962772445087

Hmm, interesting update from Mayor Ros Jones.
Says number of buyers/ investors however since the aiport closed they may await outcome of the CPO instead of buying direct from Peel.

Can't say much because of legalities that might put the CPO at risk. If the CPO fails then it would risk losing the airport for good.

That to me sounds not such a good update saying it all rests on the success of the CPO, if it fails then it is lost for good.


Is it one way of softening the blow as things are looking towards complete failure.

 

I think todays update was more a response to Save DSA Chadwick's self serving “rant” to the press yesterday over lack of updates. I don’t feel the Jones update says anything other than what is already known.

 

https://www.Facebook.com/photo?fbid=761132785461416&set=a.457962772445087

Hmm, interesting update from Mayor Ros Jones.
Says number of buyers/ investors however since the aiport closed they may await outcome of the CPO instead of buying direct from Peel.

Can't say much because of legalities that might put the CPO at risk. If the CPO fails then it would risk losing the airport for good.

That to me sounds not such a good update saying it all rests on the success of the CPO, if it fails then it is lost for good.


Is it one way of softening the blow as things are looking towards complete failure.

Some good questions to Ros about how much she thinks all this will cost if it’s successful. No answers forthcoming yet again. I personally don’t believe she thinks it will be successful, I don’t think they have any private sector backing and are trying to justify it by saying that any investor MAY wait for a CPO to get it at a reduced price.

I think she is just waiting for the storm to pass. It wouldn’t send a good signal to other investors to banish the one private sector investment firm that really do have a proven track record of regenerating and attracting wider investment to an area, I don’t much like Peel MO but let’s face if, who else would? People are forgetting that had Peel not purchased the site from the MOD it would be another prison now.

 

Even Nick Fletchers update yesterday didn’t really add anything new. CPO appears to be the preferred option and the legal team acting on behalf of DMBC appear to be cautious not to give anything away for obvious reasons. Still, if it’s the same legal team that pushed for a halt on Peel Holdings ‘asset stripping’ then I’m not sure what clout they’d have in more drastic legal actions of which a CPO surely would be?

It’s not clear how much DMBC are committing to this, they suggest that a CPO would cost £1.1million, however the actual cost of purchasing the freehold must be a couple of hundred times that amount, a figure that DMBC just cannot have. So where is the money coming from? Note that they are now calling the project ‘South Yorkshire City Airport’ which would suggest they have either gained full support from the other local authorities that make up South Yorkshire, or they are trying to get them on side. The updates on social media led by Ros Jones seem to suggest that a private sector investor may wait until a CPO has been completed, subtext - this is where the money is coming from. A private sector interested party will simply stump up the cash once the CPO has been successfully agreed in the courts.

Not sure if there is any precedent for this? Is this even a legally viable way of acquiring the freehold from Peel? Can the council use the courts to force a sale of a proven insolvent business to another private sector business? In DMBC official papers there is an emphasis on the amount of money Peel received in public grants from various sources, which appears to be the backbone of their justification for forcing a sale. This might be a difficult argument to make, as surely questions will be asked as to how Peel were seemingly given a blank cheque for all these years, with the liability for such falls squarely on the various organisations which provided Peel with these funds, and not Peel for accepting them. Clearly that money tap was switched off last March, airport consultative committee minutes highlight how Peel were rebuffed after their approach to the public sector for a £20million investment from SYMCA in return for equity in the business. The reason cited was lack of assurances from Peel regarding a ‘roadmap to profitability’. This point was mischievously twisted by Oliver Coppard to make it look like Peel had refused to open their books, flies in the face of the evidence available to us. So this has been bubbling under the surface for far longer than DMBC/SYMCA have led the public to believe. It also shows that closure was, after exhausting all alternatives, the final solution for Peel, not the intended outcome as people on social media (including Mark Chadwick) want everyone to believe.

 

Here is a failed CPO result for a local council near to me. It seems that since the owners of the land have plans to redevelop the site, that this was one of the main reasons for the CPO to fail.

So taking it to Finningley Airfield, as Peel have plans to redevelop the site. I can't see how DMBC could win the CPO bid as a precident has been set in the case of the link below.

https://www.kingschambers.com/assets/files/Inspectors%20report.pdf

 

I had to re read the inspectors name on that report as thought for a minute it said John Cleese. Not sure what that would have said about proceedings! Back to DSA, whilst I am no legal expert, it sounds like public money may have already been wasted in past years so the CPO route does not seem sensible to me. I am sure this all remains a vanity project rather than any serious realisation that an airport can be run profitably from the site. Or do they think there is a quick buck to somehow be made here through an onward sale? The longer this all goes on the harder it would be to revive anyway.

 

Surely, the whole purpose of a CPO is to force the transfer of ownership to the local authority to enable a local authority development scheme. Immediately selling it on again to a private enterprise airport operator (particularly one who has failed to offer Peel enough for them to sell directly to them) would be unacceptable legally?

 

You may be absolutely right WH and suspect you are more aware of any legalities than I will ever be

 

Let's face facts. The politicians are trying anything to save face. The airport wasn't needed (planning enquiry) 20 years ago. Mr Prescott approved it for the regeneration of a former mining community. It has been widely reported that it has not made a profit in that time. If Peel can't make it work with all the public money it has received, a private investor without any public funds has no chance.

 

Let's face facts. The politicians are trying anything to save face. The airport wasn't needed (planning enquiry) 20 years ago. Mr Prescott approved it for the regeneration of a former mining community. It has been widely reported that it has not made a profit in that time. If Peel can't make it work with all the public money it has received, a private investor without any public funds has no chance.

Problem is, the local politicians and councillors are now pushed into a corner by the likes of the SaveDSA lot as it is widely believed on there that Peel have actively deterred growth. Only today someone quipped that it would ‘only need Jet2’ to make it a success, ignoring the bleeding obvious issue with attracting Jet2 in the first place. However, if the council issued a full and frank appraisal of the situation they would be accused of accepting brown envelopes or being in the pockets of Peel. They can’t win.

I’ve said for many years that I’m critical of Peel and their MO. Was always against them getting public money with no checks and balances. But receive it they did. However, they’re bang on the money with DSA, and they haven’t actively discouraged growth at any of the airports they’ve owned with the exception of Sheffield City. They’ve just completely misjudged the situation in the U.K. air travel market, only successful low-cost model was Liverpool. It will take some balls for the regional or local leaders to confront the like of Mark Chadwick, but sooner or later someone must do this.

 

Problem is, the local politicians and councillors are now pushed into a corner by the likes of the SaveDSA lot as it is widely believed on there that Peel have actively deterred growth. Only today someone quipped that it would ‘only need Jet2’ to make it a success, ignoring the bleeding obvious issue with attracting Jet2 in the first place. However, if the council issued a full and frank appraisal of the situation they would be accused of accepting brown envelopes or being in the pockets of Peel. They can’t win.

I’ve said for many years that I’m critical of Peel and their MO. Was always against them getting public money with no checks and balances. But receive it they did. However, they’re bang on the money with DSA, and they haven’t actively discouraged growth at any of the airports they’ve owned with the exception of Sheffield City. They’ve just completely misjudged the situation in the U.K. air travel market, only successful low-cost model was Liverpool. It will take some balls for the regional or local leaders to confront the like of Mark Chadwick, but sooner or later someone must do this.

Mark Chadwick strikes me as nothing more than a fanatical aviation enthusiast who hasn't a clue about how the aviation industry works and who needs a dose of reality.

A bit like Ros Jones really, and the other politicians spending large amounts of public funds on a lost cause without even the foggiest idea as to whether a re-born airport would ever pay it's way.