I WAS amused by the seemingly straight faced manner in which the City Council’s spokesperson claimed that the terms for the Sheffield City Airport’s closure had been laid down in the lease.
Indeed they had…but did the council comply with them?
The spokesperson was obviously unaware that, thus far, the council has failed to provide evidence that Clauses 22.214.171.124 to 126.96.36.199.6, dealing with the termination of airport use, had been complied with nor whether the land has been transferred nor, indeed, that the magic £1 which then ‘bought’ 80 acres of land, was ever received.
Despite reminders I regret having to say that I have now been forced to request the intervention of the Commissioners Office for Information.
The above serves to illustrate just a few examples of a series of occasions in which the terms of the lease do not seem to have been fully complied with.
These range from the failure of the operators to maintain an operating subsidy to the charging of rent when, according to the lease, this could only happen if the airport was in profit. Rent was, in fact, charged yet we are told the airport was loss-making.
If the case was so ‘open and shut’, one wonders why the council has resorted to the sorts of obfuscation which, over the years, it has.
DS Dalton, Westland Gdns, S20
n I DEFINITELY support Mr Kirkhope’s submission that the European Commission should halt Sheffield Airport’s destruction.
I used the airport during its short life and found it extremely convenient and efficient.
It was little wonder that Peel Holdings, as new owners, found it unviable when they already owned Robin Hood Airport and so, presumably, didn’t relish any competition from this other airport.
As your article states, London Airport was the same type of venture and was a success. Sheffield could still be. It’s a disgrace that the fourth largest city in England doesn’t have its own airport.