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

[pug]

Sponsor has generally used up-to-date, credible, and referenced data sources appropriate to Stage 3. Sponsor is working on the basis of current
assumptions used to inform the planning application.
The key sources of data are the most up to date air transport movements available at the time of submission. Forecasts are likely to be
assumption driven and speculative based upon tentative commitments from airline operators that the Sponsor is entering into. This may reflect
the uncertainty of market conditions. Similarly, those assumptions would in turn drive the fleet mix serving the airport. They also help inform the
modal split between the runways. The assumption appears to be start from the split in runway use in 2022 which is proportionate.
The data upon flight patterns from General Aviation could be made more clearer. Assessment is based upon input from stakeholders and radar
data
Sponsor indicates the option 3 is the preferred option to take forward. It specifically emphasises the strategic impact from reducing the volume
of controlled airspace required and improving the integration with other airspace users including other airports. These are qualitative
judgements while the cost-benefit analysis suggests the quantified impacts may be worse.
There are some shortcomings in the methods used which have been highlighted by the Environmental Regulator and not reproduced here. The
remaining issues are in relation to uncertainty. For this reason, both options need to be re-appraised and also undergo design principle
evaluation to ensure they both remain safe and feasible
• The impact upon general aviation stakeholders
• The uncertainty underpinning forecasts of air transport movements.
• The impact of elevated jet fuel prices in the short run
There were other issues in the methods which have affected the presentation of the cost-benefit analysis.
Some of the impacts were not monetised because they were identical in both options. Air transport movements, passenger numbers and cargo
volumes were forecast to be the same in both options. Sponsor indicated further quantification would be identical for both options and
therefore disproportionate effort to do so. It would be disproportionate to quantify impacts where the evidence suggests that it would not affect the preferred decision between the options and the baseline.

Interesting, thanks for posting. There’s a few things to take away from that not just the speculative forecasts!

@radar do you have a take on this?

 

[radar]

@radar do you have a take on this?

The only interesting bits are:

•The impact upon general aviation stakeholders
•The uncertainty underpinning forecasts of air transport movements.

These are related, and suggest the CAA are unconvinced by the traffic forecasts - in particular raising questions as to whether the inconvenience to other airspace users would be proportionate. As I’ve said before, airspace is far from guaranteed.

You mentioned the ATC sim they’ve got. Standard kit, and you’re right it’s not much in terms of hardware, the cost (£six figures) is mainly in the tailoring of the software to individual airports, creating graphics etc.

I wouldn’t be surprised if this is the old DSA1.0 sim that FD have bought from Peel. Mainly because it would essentially have been e-waste otherwise, it’s useless to anyone else.

 

[pug]

Thanks, interesting. They do seem to be rather interested in the projections and financials of it all. I suspect this may delay it for a couple of months pending the situation in September.

 

[pug]

@Eusebius just see what the YP have put out..

Doubt over Doncaster Sheffield Airport will only increase after CAA report

Further doubt has been cast over the viability of the reopening of Doncaster Sheffield Airport (DSA). The overarching sentiment towards the project has been positive. Who wouldn’t want a fully functioning airport and aviation hub in South Yorkshire? A reopened DSA could transform the local economy.

www.yorkshirepost.co.uk

‘Brimming with potential’ where in the same article they’re literally saying the projections are fanciful! I do not get this at all, they should not be signing off with such a positive statement, they should be asking direct questions of the people leading this project! Can’t say I’m surprised though, I just find it strange.

Airports are economic facilitators, NOT economic drivers. It’s like that old cliche of watching a car crash in slow motion.

I suppose they have to be seen to be supportive to not alienate readership. However I’m not convinced that they won’t take the next ‘positive news’ PR bait that the council release as a distraction.

 

[pug]

This other YP article suggests that the £57million loan cannot be drawn down until start of FY27.

Doncaster Sheffield Airport: Official warning over 'particularly speculative' passenger forecasts is deleted

Passenger and freight forecasts for the Doncaster Sheffield Airport reopening project are "particularly speculative" with the aviation industry currently facing "significant uncertainty and disruption", the Civil Aviation Authority has warned.

www.yorkshirepost.co.uk

So is it the case therefore that even if they get the lease sorted pronto, and Gareth Sutton is not dissuaded by the Grant Thornton concerns, the SYMCA and Councils own admissions, and now the CAA skepticism, they won’t be able to touch the money until well into next year? I don’t see how that fits the Spring 2028 timeline whatsoever. Also didn’t they already say that a 12 month delay would make the airport project completely unviable?

 

[pug]

There is more, as expected the council are trying to aggressively turn the narrative around. They’ve now announced that the public consultation is to commence on 3rd August, they’ve entered what looks like a place holder on the NATS system

Doncaster Sheffield Airport Airspace Consultation - The Civil Aviation Authority and Airspace Change sponsors - Citizen Space

Find and participate in consultations run on Airspace Change

consultations.airspacechange.co.uk

@radar might be able to explain but it’s my understanding that they can run the consultation but the CAA will not take the results into account if they are still locked at the pre Stage 3 assessment phase. Is that correct? Haven’t they been asked to go back and reappraise the two previously abandoned options ‘from the ground up’? Doesn’t this add months of delays and increased costs for consultants?

Once again they seem to be purposefully deceiving people into believing their opinion on it matters and it’s not the fact that other airspace users are the priority - accepting the environmental considerations. The recent news will undoubtedly get the backs up of all of the local aviation outfits who were already opposed. In fact I’d go so far as to say that they’re potentially deceiving people into believing that ‘their’ consultation is anything but a sham rogue consultation with the sole intention to deceive, once again at further cost to the tax payer.

 

[Eusebius]

‘Brimming with potential’ where in the same article they’re literally saying the projections are fanciful! I do not get this at all

No, nor me! I don't know why the press keep writing this sycophantic claptrap.

The reality is that the reopening project has transitioned from a strategic regional investment scheme into a desperate damage-limitation exercise. The most fiscally responsible action (albeit the most politically damaging) is to accept the sunk costs and quit before the financial exposure becomes catastrophic.

Anyway, reading between the lines, I think it's over. And here's the reality: that's actually not because of a technicality in a 20% turnover clause, but because there is no fundamental economic justification for spending £190m+ of public money on reopening a structurally unprofitable, sub-scale airport in a saturated market. The September funding cliff is merely the mechanism of death; the cause of death is a terminal lack of demand.

The politicians have tried to use BS, bluster, wishful thinking and deceit to defy commercial reality. Unsurprisingly, it has failed.

Even if you ignore the minor issue of running out of money in September, we can see that the CAA isn't going to grant an aerospace license on the basis of political will. Nor is this wishful thinking going to make new radar and lighting systems appear on time.

There's no way they'd be flying in Easter 2028 even if the gainshare funding was released, and the council's own information pack for the rescission meeting stated that the funding couldn't withstand even a 12 month setback (which is a dead cert with major infrastructure projects).

 

[pug]

No, nor me! I don't know why the press keep writing this sycophantic claptrap.

The reality is that the reopening project has transitioned from a strategic regional investment scheme into a desperate damage-limitation exercise. The most fiscally responsible action (albeit the most politically damaging) is to accept the sunk costs and quit before the financial exposure becomes catastrophic.

Anyway, reading between the lines, I think it's over. And here's the reality: that's actually not because of a technicality in a 20% turnover clause, but because there is no fundamental economic justification for spending £190m+ of public money on reopening a structurally unprofitable, sub-scale airport in a saturated market. The September funding cliff is merely the mechanism of death; the cause of death is a terminal lack of demand.

The politicians have tried to use BS, bluster, wishful thinking and deceit to defy commercial reality. Unsurprisingly, it has failed.

Even if you ignore the minor issue of running out of money in September, we can see that the CAA isn't going to grant an aerospace license on the basis of political will. Nor is this wishful thinking going to make new radar and lighting systems appear on time.

There's no way they'd be flying in Easter 2028 even if the gainshare funding was released, and the council's own information pack for the rescission meeting stated that the funding couldn't withstand even a 12 month setback (which is a dead cert with major infrastructure projects).

It’s a systemic flaw. The Yorkshire Post like easy to copy PR releases that they don’t need to spend time researching, it’s the click bait generation and so just playing to the narrative and confirmation bias is the order of the day. They also don’t want to alienate what they probably see is a significant potential readership, they already get accused of being in the pockets of LBA which in itself is lunacy but seems quite prevalent going by the comments sections and Chadwick’s group. They might also fear being left out if the loop, this is very real and Coppard and Jones people will simply stop inviting them to things, means they get less coverage and start relying on third party information.

It’s all wrong, it’s the bunker mentality and the press are complicit not because the want to be necessarily but because they have to be. They have clues in recent articles though that public opinion may start to shift, they’re poised to jump on that when it happens I think.

 

[752]

Ros is literally deleting any comments on her post who questions her / raising the correct concerns and questions. What a fraud in my opinion. Laughable. Let’s face it Ros.. times ticking.

 

[White Heather]

I have said it before, and I will say it again. This entire fiasco should, in due course, after the re-birth of DSA is finally culled, and the millions of pounds of tax payers money wasted, be the subject of a public inquiry and those responsible held to account, particularly in view of the deception and refusal to even allow dissenters a voice.

 

[Eusebius]

I have said it before, and I will say it again. This entire fiasco should, in due course, after the re-birth of DSA is finally culled, and the millions of pounds of tax payers money wasted, be the subject of a public inquiry and those responsible held to account, particularly in view of the deception and refusal to even allow dissenters a voice.

Absolutely. They'll get away with it though.

 

[pug]

Absolutely. They'll get away with it though.

They’ll never be held to account. As much as they’re clearly incompetent they’ll have enough nouse to cover their tracks and show they did everything they could and that they were transparent across the entire process.

Clearly they weren’t, and clearly they’re aggressively protecting their position in the hope that the airport does reopen because that would indemnify them somewhat. But ultimately they’ll be looking out for themselves whilst externally giving the impression that everything’s ‘progressing’.

EDIT: the CAA have updated the ACP to remove any mention of Targeted Review to this.

Stage 3 : Commence Consultation/Engagement​

This step has been started

Having passed the consult/engage gateway, the change sponsor implements their strategy and launches their consultation/engagement activities

Now call me a cynic but one suspects this is following a request from the sponsor. Whilst it’s accurate, it’s also hiding the fact that the CAA have questions that need answering, presumably ongoing whilst the consultation phase is ongoing which enables the council to show momentum. Removal if the previous document is a huge red flag in my view, potential gridlock at the end of Stage 3? Dread to think how much it’s costing to review everything, which I assume will be done concurrently with the consultations to give the illusion of momentum.

 

[Eusebius]

They’ll never be held to account. As much as they’re clearly incompetent they’ll have enough nouse to cover their tracks and show they did everything they could and that they were transparent across the entire process.

Clearly they weren’t, and clearly they’re aggressively protecting their position in the hope that the airport does reopen because that would indemnify them somewhat. But ultimately they’ll be looking out for themselves whilst externally giving the impression that everything’s ‘progressing’.

EDIT: the CAA have updated the ACP to remove any mention of Targeted Review to this.

Stage 3 : Commence Consultation/Engagement​

This step has been started

Having passed the consult/engage gateway, the change sponsor implements their strategy and launches their consultation/engagement activities

Now call me a cynic but one suspects this is following a request from the sponsor. Whilst it’s accurate, it’s also hiding the fact that the CAA have questions that need answering, presumably ongoing whilst the consultation phase is ongoing which enables the council to show momentum. Removal if the previous document is a huge red flag in my view, potential gridlock at the end of Stage 3? Dread to think how much it’s costing to review everything, which I assume will be done concurrently with the consultations to give the illusion of momentum.

The CAA shouldn't be bowing to political pressure in that way!

Although I don't think it really matters anymore.

 

[pug]

The CAA shouldn't be bowing to political pressure in that way!

Although I don't think it really matters anymore.

I’m not suggesting they’re being influenced, I do think they may be using things in their gift to remove anything that could be construed as politically contentious, which arguably the published review was, hence the change to remove it and update to reflect stave 3b to commence. Problem here as I see it, and perhaps @radar can correct me on this, but during a normal, less politically ‘hot’ ACP, the sponsor would ensure they and the CAA are pretty much aligned prior to entering the consultation phase. Ultimately what if the current option is consulted upon only for the CAA to block it at the end of Stage 3 and back to the drawing board?

It screams of political expedience and using the regulatory framework to their advantage to once again display momentum and progress, when in actual fact some of the points the CAA seek clarity on are significant and would probably cause lengthy hold ups and cost escalation further along in the process. Perhaps the council are now aware that money will probably run out first anyway? Who knows, but this ain’t progress.

 

[Finger66]

This mallard is expired!

 

[radar]

perhaps @radar can correct me on this, .

I wouldn’t read too much into what they’re doing regarding consultations. Like you say, if they get ahead of themselves they may have to revisit it, so there’s no point. I am curious about why a document was published and then removed, however - particularly one that the sponsor might find inconvenient. An intrepid journalist armed with a FOIA request might dig something up.

 

[pug]

I wouldn’t read too much into what they’re doing regarding consultations. Like you say, if they get ahead of themselves they may have to revisit it, so there’s no point. I am curious about why a document was published and then removed, however - particularly one that the sponsor might find inconvenient. An intrepid journalist armed with a FOIA request might dig something up.

Yes, I think they’re pushing ahead regardless to display progress — it fits the pattern we’ve seen across the whole project. The airspace change is just one small part of a much bigger crisis, and they need to keep the narrative moving.

The upload and removal of that document is what really stands out. The CAA’s original wording was clinical and quite pointed, and it clearly contained commentary that didn’t sit comfortably with the sponsor’s wider messaging. I don’t think the team handling ACP publications is used to this level of public scrutiny, so pulling it and replacing it with boilerplate feels like an attempt to steady the optics while they figure out how to present the clarification work.

Given everything else going on — the lease uncertainty, the funding pressure, the political noise — it wouldn’t surprise me if someone does put in a FOIA. It’s exactly the sort of situation where a removed document could reveal more about the internal concerns than the current public wording does.

 

[Eusebius]

Yes, I think they’re pushing ahead regardless to display progress — it fits the pattern we’ve seen across the whole project. The airspace change is just one small part of a much bigger crisis, and they need to keep the narrative moving.

It's not that small. If the ACP fails or gets significantly delayed, then realistically they're screwed.

It just so happens that they've got an EVEN BIGGER problem: they've run out of money. I'm not convinced this ever was affordable, but it looks like it's even less affordable than I realised!

 

[pug]

It's not that small. If the ACP fails or gets significantly delayed, then realistically they're screwed.

It just so happens that they've got an EVEN BIGGER problem: they've run out of money. I'm not convinced this ever was affordable, but it looks like it's even less affordable than I realised!

I still think they’ll get more money from somewhere, possibly with the change at No.10. In fact I suspect Coppard is hoping his former Mayoral neighbour might be more amenable to expediting processes of devolution funding. He’s certainly keen on that himself. However with Coppard reminding us that there is ‘no blank cheque’ it is perhaps a new example of him creating some distance. Who knows, it’ll only be fully killed off when it becomes too politically toxic to do so, CDC know this hence the PR of ATC recruitment and training. It’s a visible sunk cost that they can win hearts and minds on.

Regarding the consultation to commence next month, it may well be structurally flawed, they may well know this already too. All they really want at the moment is the money and they’re using all the tactics they can to ensure they get it. People like to draw parallels with ‘Donnygate’ here.

 

[Eusebius]

I still think they’ll get more money from somewhere, possibly with the change at No.10. In fact I suspect Coppard is hoping his former Mayoral neighbour might be more amenable to expediting processes of devolution funding. He’s certainly keen on that himself.

Dr No-Mandate must have heard you!

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2026/07/18/burnham-plans-to-hand-income-tax-powers-to-labour-mayors/

Although it's too little too late for a project facing a September funding cliff.

What the coronation of Dr No-Mandate does though is provide a very convenient political offramp. Instead of admitting defeat in September due to failure to fix the lease or lack of commercial viability, Coppard now has a macro-economic excuse to pull the plug. He can frame the surrender of the lease as a strategic pause:

"In light of the Government's historic decision to devolve income tax powers, it would be fiscally irresponsible to lock South Yorkshire into a restrictive 125-year lease today. We are halting the current procurement to reassess our strategic options - including acquiring the freehold outright - once our new fiscal powers are legally established."

Does this change anything for the immediate survival of the current DSA reopening project? No. The project remains commercially necrotic, and the S151 Officer will still be forced to act when the interim money runs out in a few weeks time.

However, it changes the political exit strategy. It provides local leaders with a dignified narrative to abandon a toxic lease, accept the £48.6m short-term wind-up costs, and pivot toward a much longer, multi-year strategy (they might resurrect the CPO idea) once their new tax powers are enshrined in law. The current project is still going to die, but they now have a convenient excuse for the funeral.

Basically they'll then just let the whole idea fade into the background noise and wait for everyone to lose interest.