Volume 34 No 4 Aug-Sept 1983.pdf - Lakes Gliding Club

including no powered aircraft. CGC wasnot concerned about this as it had alwaysfelt toat its low cost reverse pulley autotowsystem on a 4800ft runway wasmore profitable than aerotowing andsecondly, the covenant would precludecommercial aviation interests bidding.The counter to this strategy was, howevcr,that to continue autotowing wouldrequire the full main NE-SW runwayand if possible the E-W runway. Thethird NW-SE runway has a poor surfaceand would only be suitable for winching.This operational requirement meant theclub also nad to secure lot 8, the lynchpin in tile middle of the airfield, and lot4 at the south end. In total, lots 1,4,6and 8 amounted to 206 acres which, atan assumed price of £1200 per acre, was£247000. .Must be In correctseque.nceLot 8 was subject to CritcheU Downrights which leading up to the auctionwere still ulHcsolved, but even if res'olvedin our favour, or made available, atauction, we would have to be ,certai, ofsuccessfully bidding for all three or fourlots in the correct sequence at auction toachieve a viable site!A ,local landowner, Col Lowsely­WiIliams, had the Crilchell Down rightsto lot 8. He was approached by JohnHolland ami willingly undertook to lookafter the club's interests as regards thelot 8 runways. He took up his rights butthen sold all of lot 8 to us at nO profit.This deal was struck immediately priorto the auction on December 4, 1980 andvery importan,tly, was no,t disclosed bythe auctioneers, except to the extent ofsaying that lot 8 was not available forsale at auction. Other bidders were leftin doubt who their neighbours would beif they bid for olher lots. Lot 8 of coursewas the key to the CGC plan for withoutit there was no viab'le runway system.If there were not enough complicatingfactors already, then the CirencesterPark Polo Club was to provide the piecede resistance. Although we had receivedseveral calls from possible counterbiddersand had also liaised as much aswas sensiblc with local landowners, aphone eaU 1 received about ten daysbefore the auction set in train a sequenceof events that was on the one handnerve-racking and complicating but onthe other hand tuned us up to a highdegree of concentration to achieve ourobjective.This firs,t phone call was anonymous,inquiring about the nature of the club'soperations. It was difficult to guess whatthe potential interest was. The Minish'ycovenants in the sale were that the landcould only be used for non-powered g'liding,model aircraft flying and agriculturaluse, but excluding public I::questrianevents or shows. I perceived a loop-holehere as regards cash crop operationswhich would fall within the definition ofagriculture but \vouldbe a public accesssafety flroblem for the club. My imaginationwas misplaced since a few d'lYs laterthe mysterious party phoned back andtold me that he represented the po'loclub wh@ were interested in purchasingthe north end for development of somepolo pitches.Their intent meant lhal thcy would bean opposition bidderfor lot I, which would,if we los,t it, destroy our whole plan forthe airfield. The next seven days werehectic with meetings with the polo club'sagent, culminating in our realisation thatthey were scrious, but at the same timeclearly did not want to deprive CGC ofan opera tional base. This latter factor ofa degree of sympathy for our requir.ementwas largely due to our PR work in,earher years. It was clear that thefinance behInd the polo club could outbidus for the 'land, assuming the restrictivecovenant in the sale - "no equestrianevents or shows" - did not affectthe playing of polo by a private club.In the early hours of the morning ofthe auction a deal was thrashed out anda few hours later it was put into legallybinding terms 'by our ,solicitors and at1.30pm I made a mad dash from Swindonto Cirencester armed with a threepage document to be signed by the agentand myself prior to the auction at 2.30.The document was signed by both partiesat 2.28pm.The essence of the agreement was asfollows:I. The polo club were not bidding forlot I and CGC were not bidding for lot2.2. If CGC acquired lot 1 and the poloclub lot 2 at auction, then CGC wouldsell to the polo club the part of lot Inorth of the old road across Aston Downat auction price. This latter sale, however,was dependent on CGC being ableto acquire after auction the runway andsouth field in lot 4 and the west runwayin 'lot 7.3. The polo club would extend the mainrunway within lot 4 by 300 metres attheir expense before developing thenorth end.4. Until such time as land swops took,place after the auction, the polo clubwould pay CGC interest on certain landfueld for their benefit. This clauseunderwrote part of CGC's financingcosts.5. The polo club, in selling the southernpart of lot 2 after auction, would create a130ft wide free, permanent grass rightslanding strip for CGc.The auction was well attended and thelots were offered in numeric order. Havingsecured, unbeknown to anyone else,lot 8 by private treaty on the back ofCritchell Down rights, our only brief tothe agent bidding on our behalf incognito,was to bid for lot I to a maximumof £84 000 guessin,g that the reserve wasaround £69 000. With this under ourbelt we could not afford at that stage tobid for any other lots availab'le at auction,even though we wanted some ofthem. Bidding for 'lot I (65 acres) soonreached the reserve price and beyondthat was between our agent and anotherbidder in £500 jumps ~and with,in lessthan a minute we had secured lot 1 for£72 000. The price per acre was keptreasonable by high interest rates at thetime (17% base rate!). Lot 2 (45 acres)was knocked down for £44 000 to thepolo club after some opposition biddingfrom local farmers. The remaining lotsavailable, namely J, 4,5,6 and 7, wcreunsold, but lot 3 outside the perimetertrack was sold afterwards.Following the auction, 1981 was takenup with long negotiations with HM theQueen's land agent and a local farmer,both of whom were interes'ted in acquiringthe lots 4 to 7 unsold at auction. Theairfield lies adjacent to the GatcombePark estate,the home of HRH PrincessAntie and Capt Mark Phillips. The netresult of these negotiations was thatCGC acquired the balance, of itsrequirements by selling the grass areas oflot 8 in a consortium arrangement withall the parties mentioned (see map).Problem of weed controlMuch of the negotiations concernedthe definition of the boundary of themain runways in order to protect therunway drainage system from overploughing.SUbsequent experience hasshown that weed control is a major problemwith cereal crops adjacent to the runwaysand has to be dealt with effectivelyto avoid erosion of the runway. Theprincipal s'trategic factor ,in all thenegotiations subsequent to the auctionwas that CGC, thmugh ownershi,p of lot8 in the first instance and also throughthe medium of the agreement with thepolo club, was in a strong bargainingposition to place restriclive covenants onthe land at ,its disposal. Thus nearly allthe land within the perimeter track areacan only be used for grass and cereals,thus precluding livestock, fencing, buildingsor other obstructions that couldjeopardise gliding operations.The cost of this net acquisition of 78acres, including the control tower, was£107000 including legal fees, stampduty and rolled up interest.At one stage COC was committed toAugust/September 1983161