Doncaster Sheffield Airport's past losses show answers are needed on public funding plans: Chris Burn

It should go without saying that such accusations are without merit but I thought it was worth setting the record straight in a bit more detail.

For those not familiar with the issue, the context is that Doncaster Council has established a council-owned company called Fly Doncaster and intends to loan it £105m to help facilitate the reopening of the airport from next spring. The move is due to be done on such favourable terms that it has been calculated that £89.7m of the cash is effectively a grant – with the money coming from Doncaster’s share of devolution funding to South Yorkshire.

The council intends to work with Munich Airport International GmbH which will provide operational and management services for the airport but the ‘proportionality’ of the proposed grant has been criticised by rival airports, most notably Leeds Bradford.

Plans to reopen DSA were given a boost last week when Chancellor Rachel Reeves said the Government would support the efforts to make it happen.

It is correct that Saturday’s story about the warning that DSA will need more public funding in future years was made in a report by consultancy York Aviation which was commissioned by LBA – something highlighted clearly and prominently in the story.

But I actually saw the report only after I had spent an afternoon going through all of the Companies House results filings for Doncaster Sheffield Airport Limited.

They demonstrate in black and white that between its opening in 2005 and closure in 2022 under private operation by Peel, the airport made substantial losses in every single year of its operation.

The operating losses collectively added up to almost £180m; more than £140m of which was prior to the Covid pandemic beginning in March 2020 and hammering the aviation industry.

DSA Limited’s results for the year ending March 2022 published following the closure announcement noted that shareholders had invested £250m to cover losses and in fixed assets since it opened but revenue never exceeded costs.

As such, there are clearly questions to answer about whether more public money will be required given the history of the site.

Indeed, the Government’s Subsidy Advice Unit has already told the council to provide further information about how the airport’s operation will be sustained after the initial grant while Mayor Oliver Coppard is now due to seek further independent advice and assurance over the scheme.

It is important to note that it is intended that the airport will become a catalyst for wider regeneration work around the site involving new homes and employment land which it has been argued could create 5,000 jobs and be worth £9 to Doncaster for every £1 spent. The full business case for the airport reopening is yet to be made public but it has been prepared “on a broader basis than solely the return of aviation activity”.

I think there is potentially an argument to be made that it is worthwhile to have the airport as an effective ‘loss leader’ for wider regeneration possibly worth billions to Doncaster. Equally the council may believe they can deliver more financial success than Peel achieved.

So it was disappointing the council chose not to provide any statement to this newspaper despite repeated requests for comment over several days prior to publication to explain their perspective on the issue.

For clarity, the paper’s coverage of this issue is not driven by bias, scaremongering or favouritism to other places; it is a genuine attempt to establish the facts in a situation where an initial £105m of public money – and potentially more – is at stake.