Boscombe Down Aviation Collection Troubles

I was speaking recently to Tony who has a little to do with the collection and he was saying he can’t see any silver lining to the clouds gathering over it. 🙁

Because people and policies change Chox.

I’m sorry but even I’m almost lost for words with that turn around!

Not quite sure what you’re getting-at. I’m not criticising the museum, I’m questioning the sanity of the MoD for sanctioning the museum’s presence in the first place, if they are then going to treat it almost as an inconvenience a few years later. If it was a good idea when it was created, then presumably it still is, therefore the only issue is money. If that is the case, then surely someone with a bit of clout should be able to illustrate that the MoD is simply being entirely unreasonable?

Phantomfan -The ex 74 Squadron machine is in a terminal decline due to the spar exfoliating under the wings -the trials machine is a different proposition being significant and in far better condition.

The Helicopter Museum at Weston super Mare had the same problem quite a few years ago after GKN bought Westland.Around came a bean counter to look at the assets (4.5 acres of airfield with a wooden hut but on a prime roadside site).He valued the land and a year or so later the museum added it to its bid for lottery money.Now it owns the freehold so problem solved.
In Boscombe’s case ,the same might not be feasible so is there a plan B..like moving to Old Sarum airfield ????

Scotty,

Sadly there can be subtle nuances in planning regulations, which might view a museum as being a ‘tourism / recreational activity’ rather than a ‘fighter / bomber’ base. There might even be a covenant that states the ‘site’ has to be returned to a former owner or condition.

As for Listing, I have shared ownership of a family property in Newark, which has a low listing status. We face restrictions about changing the use and external appearance of the property: this can affect what type of windows can be fitted; what size and style of signage can be used; and even down to the question of whether the local Council can legally fasten Christmas lights to the walls of the building!! :rolleyes:

And as the buildings are already listed then I would guess that the costs and maintainance to certain guidelines is already in place, by having a collection using the site aswel then you increase revenue to cover this.
The wonderful buildings and structures there are a draw for myself, airfield and veteran groups, but you open up to a much bigger potential visitor base with a museum or collection there aswel.

I must stress here that I know nothing about how UH is currently administrated, I am aware that there are some businesses using some of the site etc.

Yes a good idea in principle – however ‘Listing’ brings with it a whole new set of ‘guidelines & permitted uses’ and no doubt costs! 🙁

I understand what you’ve said there TO, but I’d imagine a museum for aircraft would be pretty much the same sort use as an active base? – the difference being the aircraft aren’t as active (unless it’s a site like Duxford etc..) I’d suppose the buildings would be actually be used for the purpose they were designed for, the storage and maintenance of aircraft and associated systems. I suppose that the new guidelines would have to take in to account up to date HSE requirements, as well as the addition of visitor access and facilities….

It was just a thought, I realise you and others on the forum will know a lot more about it than I do..

Kind regards

Scotty

You have to wonder what the thinking was behind setting-up a museum there in the first place if there was always the possibility that they’d be thrown-out at some stage in the future..

😮 I’m sorry but even I’m almost lost for words with that turn around!! 😮

However, once again “I hope that the Boscombe Down group is able to resolve its problems!”

You have to wonder what the thinking was behind setting-up a museum there in the first place if there was always the possibility that they’d be thrown-out at some stage in the future.

I can appreciate that security might be an issue but it’s not that big a deal these days. A properly-secured museum complex in the current location, presents no more risk to QinetiQ’s activities than the photographers and plane spotters stood at the other end of the airfield. Besides, this saga doesn’t seem to be about security – it’s about money. All well and good if the site could be used for something else but we all know that it will not be. It’s just another sad, shabby tale of the MoD recognising the cost of everything but the value of nothing.

Yes a good idea in principle – however ‘Listing’ brings with it a whole new set of ‘guidelines & permitted uses’ and no doubt costs! 🙁

Possibly off on a whimsical tangent here, but what I find frustrating is that there are marvelous airfields like abandoned (by the services) and complete and looked after time-warp Upper Heyford with listed and protected buildings, in theory nothing can happen to some of these empty structures of which some areas are lying idle and empty. Imagine if the site got together with a major aircraft collection, both parties gain by in theory very low rent and being attractive to both airfield and aircraft enthusiasts, thus improving the income and protection of the site and collection.

Good idea….. what’s the point of listing a building only to not use it? It will require maintanence to the fabric which has no sense if the building is not occupied, as it will only deteriorate again. Might as well use them…

IIRC set up by the last ‘lot’ – enjoy! :rolleyes: http://www.voa.gov.uk/

Do you mean rent, or business rates?

I don’t know what type of rent or values etc, but all the buildings were rateable to the local authorities.

Chox, you have to be realistic about this, as far as the MoD are concerned this collection is on their land and unfortunately probably at one of the highest security UK airfields that it could find itself on.
I’ve visited Boscombe a few times (and I guess you have) and cameras were a no no on all occasions.
This is obviously very sad, especially with the likely disperstion of the collection, which as Tony points out are particularly relevant to Boscombe’s past. It must be particularly galling and frustrating to people that volunteer and work at the collection.
It is a shame that perhaps a corner of land and a building couldn’t find itself on the ‘other side of the fence’ as it were to keep the MoD happy and to far improve public access – however rent would still be an issue.

Possibly off on a whimsical tangent here, but what I find frustrating is that there are marvelous airfields like abandoned (by the services) and complete and looked after time-warp Upper Heyford with listed and protected buildings, in theory nothing can happen to some of these empty structures of which some areas are lying idle and empty. Imagine if the site got together with a major aircraft collection, both parties gain by in theory very low rent and being attractive to both airfield and aircraft enthusiasts, thus improving the income and protection of the site and collection.

I would have thought both the FG1 and FGR2 are MOD

That will be their fate sealed then 🙁

since when does the MoD consult the public on what they do with policy, aircraft, and land

Er… well yes, exactly!

Regardless of who “owns” the aircraft now, they were (or still are) the property of Her Maj’s Government, on Her Maj’s property. With typical British resignation, this saga is presented as a sad inevitability. If, dare I say, this was happening in the US, then voices would be saying “hang on, these are (or were) our aircraft on Government (ie “our”) land, therefore we ought to have a right to say that we’d like to keep them there as part of our country’s heritage, given that there’s no logical reason why they can’t be there. It might be easy to wrap everything in red tape or issues of defence and security but we all know that we’re actually talking about an abandoned HAS on an area of redundant land, which wouldn’t be making so much as a penny for the taxpayer if it was vacated.

In a sane society, someone could step-in and instruct the MoD to stop being so petty and ridiculous, and leave the museum alone, or perhaps encourage it to expand. But nobody is going to do that unless there’s pressure to do it. We’re powerless to provide that pressure but surely the media isn’t, particularly when respected preservation bodies and magazines such as Flypast could make quite a fuss. But I guess nobody will. Maybe the aircraft will survive and move elsewhere. Maybe they will not. Maybe somebody will point-out just how pointless (or counter-productive) the MoD’s actions have been? I doubt it though!

I would have thought both the FG1 and FGR2 are MOD

Are the two phantoms owned by the museum or Mod?

the reason being to work out what levels of rent had to be paid on the various buildings

Do you mean rent, or business rates?

Pete

Are the two phantoms owned by the museum or Mod?

How many of the airframes are MOD owned?

This is a sign of the times where the MOD are concerned, DE are tightening the rules on everything and charges are being made for things that in the past would have been gratis