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...?

 

Just saw the article on Look North regarding DSA with the mechanic interview at the end . It reminded me of a song….”send in the clowns”.
As an “immigrant” Reforms politics are not something I approve of, however I do hope that their questions bring some reality to Ros Jones and Oliver Coppard and their very costly vanity project.

It was telling that the Tories, Lib Dems and Greenies, all offered comments which were far from positive. I would actually say that its Labour v the rest. Sure, other parties recognise the benefits of an airport, but it seems that all have now seen through the smoke and mirrors and recognised this isn't what Labour have been claiming it to be.

 

It’s taken them a long time to finally see the wood from the trees. If only it wasn’t this obvious from the start.. oh wait…

the mechanic as the voice of support Jesus not very encouraging..

Anyway in other news, which airlines are raring to start ops..

 

Anyway in other news, which airlines are raring to start ops..

From what I have been told the five airlines interested are:
Eastern
Flybe
Blue Islands
IPS
Global
The main drawback apparently is they all want to serve the same destination - nowhere!

 

I see Chadwick has done what I’d like to coin ‘a Chadwick’ on his campaign site. Looks like he’s managed to source some of the lease details from a Facebook group he’s blocked from. Anyway, rather than scour through it too much here is what AI has to say whilst I wait for the big one at Aintree!

The "Save DSA" Lease Leaks: A Reality Check​

Mark Chadwick has recently shared two "simple explanations" regarding the leaked airport lease. While he’s trying to frame these as good news, a closer look at the actual text reveals some massive risks for Doncaster taxpayers.

1. The "Turnover Rent" Shell Game​

Chadwick claims that the 20% Gross Turnover kickback to Peel only applies if the Council runs the airport themselves. He argues that if "FlyDoncaster" (the operator) makes the money, it doesn’t count as Council turnover, so Peel gets nothing.

• The Problem: Does anyone honestly believe Peel Group signed a 125-year lease that allows the Council to avoid paying rent just by changing the name on the office door?
• The Reality: Even if the turnover is "filtered" through a subsidiary, the cost remains. For the Council to pay Peel their cut, they have to charge the operator. Whether you call it "Council turnover" or "Operator costs," that 20% "tax" is still a massive burden on a business that already lost £170m previously. If there’s no turnover rent, why is the clause even in the lease?

2. The "Break Clause" Ticking Time Bomb​

Chadwick shared the specific targets required for the airport to stay open. To prevent Peel from triggering a "Break Clause" and evicting the Council, the airport must hit:

• By 2031: 1 million passengers OR 13,000 tonnes of cargo.
• By 2036: 2.3 million passengers OR 25,000 tonnes of cargo.
• The Problem: These targets are historically unprecedented for Doncaster. 2.3 million passengers is nearly double the airport's all-time record. 25,000 tonnes of cargo is more than it ever handled in 17 years.
• The Risk: We are planning to spend £159m of Gainshare and £57m of borrowed money on a "5-year gamble." If we miss these huge targets by even a fraction in 2031, Peel has the legal right to take the land back.
• The Result: Taxpayers lose the money, lose the airport, and Peel gets a fully refurbished site back for free to turn into the housing and warehouses they originally wanted.

The Bottom Line:​

Chadwick admits the lease is "currently being renegotiated." If the deal was so good, why is the Section 151 Officer refusing to sign off the Gainshare until the terms are changed?

We are being sold a "125-year lease," but the small print shows it’s actually a 5-year ultimatum with targets the airport has never hit. This isn't a safety net; it's an exit strategy for the landlord.

 

I see Chadwick has done what I’d like to coin ‘a Chadwick’ on his campaign site. Looks like he’s managed to source some of the lease details from a Facebook group he’s blocked from. Anyway, rather than scour through it too much here is what AI has to say whilst I wait for the big one at Aintree!

Nice to see that even that nice chap(ess) with the initials AI agrees with us.

 

Next they will be telling us Air India are one of the airlines interested!

 

Nice to see that even that nice chap(ess) with the initials AI agrees with us.

In the interest of some balance I asked if there is any chance he could be correct. This was its reply.

There is a very slim, technical path where he could be correct, but it relies on a "loophole" that usually collapses under the weight of standard commercial law and the Council's own structure.

Here is the breakdown of how he could technically be right, and why that "win" might actually be a disaster in disguise.

1. The "Legal Entity" Loophole​

Chadwick is correct that in law, a Tenant (City of Doncaster Council) and a Third Party Operator (like a private company) are separate entities. If the lease is drafted narrowly to only tax "sums received by the Tenant," then the operator's ticket sales and landing fees aren't "Tenant turnover."

• How he’s right: If the Council acts only as a "passive landlord" and just collects a flat sub-lease rent from an operator, Peel's 20% cut would only apply to that sub-lease rent, not the millions in airport revenue.
• The Problem: This only works if the operator is truly a Third Party.

2. The "FlyDoncaster" Conflict​

The Council has set up FlyDoncaster Ltd to run the airport. According to the Subsidy Advice Unit (SAU) report from January 2025, FlyDoncaster is 100% owned by the Council.

• The Reality: In most commercial leases, a wholly-owned subsidiary is not considered a "Third Party." If the Council owns the operator, a judge or an auditor would likely "pierce the corporate veil" and say the operator's money is, in effect, the Tenant's money.
• If Chadwick is right: If the Council successfully argues that FlyDoncaster's money is exempt, then Peel gets almost no turnover rent. * The Question: Do you think Peel Group—who have been negotiating this for two years—signed a deal where the Council can bypass the 20% rent just by moving the money into a different bank account they also own? Peel’s lawyers are not that incompetent.

3. The "Double Counting" Clause​

As shown in the search results for common turnover leases, landlords almost always include a "concessionaire clause."This states that any turnover generated by sub-tenants or operators is treated as if the main Tenant earned it. Without this, every shop in a shopping mall would just sub-let to a "sister company" to avoid paying rent.

4. The "Break Clause" Math (The Real Danger)​

Even if Chadwick is right about the 20% rent, he has confirmed the Break Clause targets. This is where his "good news" becomes a nightmare.

Target Date	Passenger Target	Cargo Target
March 2031	1 Million	13,000 Tonnes
March 2036	2.3 Million	25,000 Tonnes

• Historically: The airport's record was 1.4m passengers and ~10,000 tonnes.
• The Risk: If the airport hits "only" 900,000 passengers in 2031, Peel can cancel the lease. * The "Correctness" Trap: If Chadwick is right and the Council isn't paying Peel much turnover rent (because of the loophole), Peel has an even bigger incentive to use the Break Clause. If they aren't making money from the airport, they will evict the Council and build the warehouses.

---

Summary for the Forum:​

"Chadwick might be technically correct that the current wording allows for a loophole where FlyDoncaster's income is shielded. But that creates a bigger problem: if Peel isn't getting their 20% cut, they will be even more aggressive about the 2031 Break Clause.
We are effectively asking the taxpayer to spend £200m on a project where the Landlord can evict us in five years if we don't hit targets the airport hasn't seen in a decade. Whether the 20% is 'shielded' or not doesn't matter if we lose the whole airport in 2031 because we missed a target by 5%."

The Verdict: He is likely "correct" on a single paragraph of a 100-page document, but he is ignoring the ten other paragraphs that make that loophole irrelevant.

For a deeper look at the legal risks that these types of public-private partnerships face, this video explains the "viability vs. politics" tension.

Analysis of airport viability and public funding risks

This video discusses the financial difficulties and viability concerns that led to the original closure of the airport, which are still relevant to the current debate.

Seems to me that this confirms Peel want a genuine third party to operate the airport and take on the risk, least they certainly did at the point of agreeing the lease in 2024. Clearly the council failed to get any bite amongst the industry and so they are the ‘investor of last resort’. Some of the Reform councillors went along to Peel HQ a few weeks ago to discuss matters, to be a fly on the wall in that discussion !

 

Some of the Reform councillors went along to Peel HQ a few weeks ago to discuss matters, to be a fly on the wall in that discussion !

That will be why this vote review has come about. They will have been given far far more information from Peel than what the Labour administration give them through their roles.

Peel will no doubt have given them clear defined answers and breakdowns of what each bit means and what options are available.

 

That will be why this vote review has come about. They will have been given far far more information from Peel than what the Labour administration give them through their roles.

Peel will no doubt have given them clear defined answers and breakdowns of what each bit means and what options are available.

Possibly, but I sense this is being led by Jason Charity who, in spite of his political leaning, does know a thing or two about this sort of thing. I don’t recall him being in the photo op outside their Salford HQ.

Someone appears to have shot Chadwick down on his own page by pointing out IFRS 10, this apparently means that because FlyDoncaster is 100% council owned, the company is seen as the same entity as the council. It has received no reply. Someone has also pointed out the lease doesn’t stipulate x passengers OR x tonnes of freight. It’s an AND condition.

 

For the avoidance of doubt, and in case anyone was incredibly concerned as to how my bet went at Aintree (as I’ve just seen my post has been screenshotted and shared elsewhere, which I’m happy with BTW) I did indeed back I Am Maximus. Sadly though the winnings will not buy me that Aston Martin. As you were.

Meanwhile not much to report, I do notice that people have been trying to do the maths on the passenger forecasts on Mr Chadwick’s site with some pretty unfortunate findings.

 

Spokes person Chadders has dropped some Myth Busting slides on the fan group!!

 

Spokes person Chadders has dropped some Myth Busting slides on the fan group!!

Funny you should say that. I’ve got AI to Fact-Check his ‘fact check’. Here are the results.

The DSA "Fact Check" Fact-Checked: 15 Holes in the Council's Narrative​

The Council’s PR machine is working overtime with these yellow "Fact Check" tiles. But as the 30th April meeting approaches, it’s time to look at the real facts the 28 signatories have discovered.

1. The Airline "Appetite" Claim​

• The Claim: Hard-nosed airlines make decisions in private; "interest" has been stated.
• The Debunk: "Interest" is free. Airlines like Ryanair and Jet2 are currently expanding at Manchester and Leeds-Bradford. They don't move bases to airports with a 0.9:1 BCR (Value for Money fail) without massive taxpayer subsidies, which the Council hasn't budgeted for.

2. The "Never Profitable" Claim​

• The Claim: This is a "new version" of DSA with a new team and business case.
• The Debunk: The "new team" includes the same people who were there when it closed. The "new business case" relies on freight—a market that has collapsed globally since 2022. If Peel couldn't make it work with zero debt, how will the Council make it work while servicing a £57m loan?

3. The "Potholes vs. Airport" Claim​

• The Claim: Gainshare can only be used for "economic growth," not potholes.
• The Debunk: This is a half-truth. While Gainshare is for growth, "Economic Growth" includes town centre regeneration, public transport, and business grants. By blowing the whole £159m pot on an airport, you are choosing one runway over every other growth project in Doncaster for the next 30 years.

4. The "Doncaster Taxpayers on the Hook" Claim​

• The Claim: The loan is backed by Gainshare, not Doncaster taxpayers.
• The Debunk: Doncaster Council is the Legal Borrower. If the airport fails and the Gainshare pot is empty (or the government changes the rules), the lender comes for the Council’s General Fund. That means libraries, bins, and social care.

5. The "Break Clause" Claim​

• The Claim: Break clauses are standard and "good for both tenant and landlord."
• The Debunk: Not when the tenant (the Council) is spending £100m+ on capital works. A 5-year break clause for Peel means they can let us fix the roof, then evict us in 2031 if we miss one passenger target, keeping the renovated airport for free.

6. The "CPO" (Compulsory Purchase) Claim​

• The Claim: A CPO would have been too slow and costly.
• The Debunk: A CPO would have given the Council ownership. Instead, they chose a lease where they pay for everything but own nothing. They traded long-term security for a "quick win" that looks better on a campaign poster.

7. The "Renegotiating the Lease" Claim​

• The Claim: It's common to renegotiate; the landscape has changed.
• The Debunk: They are renegotiating because the 2024 lease was unworkable. If the deal was "brilliant" (as the Mayor said), why is it being overhauled before a single plane has landed? It’s an admission of a bad deal.

8. The "Warehouse Jobs" Claim​

• The Claim: Warehouses provide AI, robotic, and high-tech jobs.
• The Debunk: Look at the current GatewayEast. Most jobs are low-wage logistics. Using an airport site for sheds is the "lowest common denominator" of economic development. It doesn't require a runway to build a warehouse.

9. The "Electricity Supply" Claim​

• The Claim: Power is sufficient; demand increases income to pay for upgrades.
• The Debunk: Modern sustainable aviation (electric planes/charging) requires massive grid upgrades. The "2019 levels" of power are irrelevant for a 2026 "Green Hub." The upgrade costs are in the millions and aren't in the budget.

10. The "Council Knowledge" Claim​

• The Claim: Councils have always run airports (Manchester, etc.).
• The Debunk: Manchester is run by a Commercial Holdings Group, not a Mayor’s cabinet. FlyDoncaster is being run by political appointees who are currently attacking the public on social media for asking questions.

11. The "Investor Group" (Labyrinth) Claim​

• The Claim: The private investor group (Labyrinth) has no evidence of funds.
• The Debunk: The Council refuses to conduct a Soft Market Test. If the private group is a "fake," a formal tender would prove it in weeks. They won't do it because they fear a private group will show up and take away the Mayor's control.

12. The "Passenger Number Revision" Claim​

• The Claim: We only told the CAA 1.1m because they require "minimums."
• The Debunk: This is a regulatory disaster. If you tell the CAA you only need airspace for 1.1m, you cannot legally operate at the 2.3m required by the Peel lease. You’ve effectively capped your own growth.

13. The "Make the Lease Public" Claim​

• The Claim: Making legal documents public "weakens our position."
• The Debunk: This is public money. The 28 signatories (elected councillors) have a legal "Need to Know." Hiding the lease from the people voting on the £57m loan isn't "negotiation strategy"—it’s a lack of accountability.

14. The "20% Turnover Rent" Claim​

• The Claim: Rent only applies to what the Council charges the Operator; we control it.
• The Debunk: Check IFRS 10 Accounting Rules. Since the Council owns 100% of FlyDoncaster, the accounts are consolidated. Peel gets 20% of the total income. You cannot "launder" the turnover through a subsidiary to avoid paying the landlord.

15. The "FlyDoncaster is Separate" Claim​

• The Claim: The company protects the council from liability.
• The Debunk: The Council is the 100% Shareholder. If FlyDoncaster goes bust, the Council loses its entire investment and is still liable for the 125-year lease payments to Peel. There is no "shield"—only a taxpayers' bill.

---

Bottom Line: The 30th April meeting is where the PR stops and the Law begins. If the 28 signatories rescind the loan, it’s because they’ve finally read the fine print that the "Cabal" wanted to keep hidden.

 

Funny you should say that. I’ve got AI to Fact-Check his ‘fact check’. Here are the results.

As a resident living about 2 miles from the airport, and as someone who has voted both red and blue in my lifetime, I am so incredibly fed up of the Labour Party and Chadwick. There are many of us who would like the airport open IF it could be economically sensible. Since I doubt it can I am therefore against using £160m of gainshare funding and a loan of £57m being taken on before that funding is even guaranteed. It would seem that if you want the airport open ONLY if it is viable that in this town that you get classified as a hater. The rhetoric from these people is nothing short of a disgrace and the irony of accusation that those of us who want economic literacy are unintelligent is frankly hilarious. My recent trip abroad was from Manchester airport and it was all very straightforward, even landing at 2:30am. A quick drive across the hills and I was in my own bed. Chadwick’s disciples insist they are the majority that want the airport open. I think the 300 or so regular posters on his site are actually very much the minority of the local population and they are just selfish and refuse to see common sense. Chadwick’s understanding of the 20% of turnover is laughable. I’m completely ashamed of this situation. £160m could be used far better in Doncaster for many economic purposes rather than this single folly. Here’s an idea for the City of Doncaster Council - put all the facts out there.l, including the business case and hold a referendum. Give us the choice with the full facts. Won’t happen because this has all been about politics since day 1. Shameful.

 

As a resident living about 2 miles from the airport, and as someone who has voted both red and blue in my lifetime, I am so incredibly fed up of the Labour Party and Chadwick. There are many of us who would like the airport open IF it could be economically sensible. Since I doubt it can I am therefore against using £160m of gainshare funding and a loan of £57m being taken on before that funding is even guaranteed. It would seem that if you want the airport open ONLY if it is viable that in this town that you get classified as a hater. The rhetoric from these people is nothing short of a disgrace and the irony of accusation that those of us who want economic literacy are unintelligent is frankly hilarious. My recent trip abroad was from Manchester airport and it was all very straightforward, even landing at 2:30am. A quick drive across the hills and I was in my own bed. Chadwick’s disciples insist they are the majority that want the airport open. I think the 300 or so regular posters on his site are actually very much the minority of the local population and they are just selfish and refuse to see common sense. Chadwick’s understanding of the 20% of turnover is laughable. I’m completely ashamed of this situation. £160m could be used far better in Doncaster for many economic purposes rather than this single folly. Here’s an idea for the City of Doncaster Council - put all the facts out there.l, including the business case and hold a referendum. Give us the choice with the full facts. Won’t happen because this has all been about politics since day 1. Shameful.

I think the thing that bothers me most about it now is the way these politicians and their hangers on have gone about actively deceiving the public. Whether it’s intentional or not is irrelevant, but what is clear is that this thing just isn’t going to work and so throwing a tonne of money at it in the knowledge that Gainshare might not even get signed off is disgraceful. Chadwick is a useful idiot so we can’t lay too much blame on him, but at the same time he should not be putting out blatantly false information to support his narrative.

 

I think the thing that bothers me most about it now is the way these politicians and their hangers on have gone about actively deceiving the public. Whether it’s intentional or not is irrelevant, but what is clear is that this thing just isn’t going to work and so throwing a tonne of money at it in the knowledge that Gainshare might not even get signed off is disgraceful. Chadwick is a useful idiot so we can’t lay too much blame on him, but at the same time he should not be putting out blatantly false information to support his narrative.

Chadwick has gone beyond being a useful idiot. Putting out false information because he doesn’t agree with the truth is a dangerous precedent. I note the DFP published a video of him embarrassingly calling out reform this morning. In what world is a garage owner getting air time in the press calling out political parties because he doesn’t like the scrutiny of his Labour mates?

Unfortunately for him, I can absolutely fact check his “fact check” about airline interest. There isn’t any. Infact from what I’ve heard, they view this the same way many on here do.

 

FBO search launched for DSA it seems!

 

FBO search launched for DSA it seems!

More distraction. ‘We are moving forward’ and ‘we are bringing the start of flights forward’. Note that the articles doing the rounds mention ‘private jets, medical and leisure pilots’. You can tell this latest release has been written by someone who doesn’t understand themselves what’s actually being looked for here. The real reason for this ‘news’? Well they want to stop the opposition councillors from voting to rescind because they know it would be game over. Like I say, it’s unlikely the Section 151 officer will sigh off Gainshare, particularly with a BCR of 0.9:1 as this is unlikely to pass the Green Book rules.

I personally think some of the 28 will get itchy feet on rescinding the loan due to the bullying tactics. However no doubt Jason Charity has made his case clear.

 

Flydoncaster think flights up in 4 weeks, by the end of May