HOUSING minister Dave Jones has broken ranks to criticise a fellow States department.
In a letter to the Public Services Department about the proposals to refurbish the airport runway, Deputy Jones outlines his belief that only absolutely essential work should be approved – and that Guernsey must stop pretending that it needs facilities that match other, larger jurisdictions.
He criticises the department for the rate at which the predicted cost has risen – from £55m. in June to the recent £85m. estimate.
‘I suppose the first observation I have on this subject is PSD’s inability to give States members any accurate costings on the various proposed phases of this project, which we are now told amounts to £85m. plus, that is, of course, if we don’t extend the runway,’ he said.
Deputy Jones said the island had a £330m. economy and its spending on infrastructure needed to reflect that income.
‘Neither the people of this island nor the travelling public can be expected to continue to fund these grandiose schemes on the whim of a consultant or someone who doesn’t have to find the money to pay for it,’ he said.
‘We need something that is functional, affordable and sustainable.’
One of Deputy Jones’ proposals, which he admits will ‘shock’ the department, is for the airport to be closed for two full days in order for the bulk of the work to be done quicker – thus saving on cost.
‘It is true that passengers would have to plan their trips accordingly and it would be an inconvenience for some.
‘Emergency flights would also have to be considered. However, if it was for the runway only it would not be for too long a period.’
Deputy Jones said he did accept that the strengthening and resurfacing of the runway were essential for the safe operation of the airport.
But he did not believe the runway needed to be ‘balanced’, saying that it may be desirable but is certainly not essential.
‘The extra 127 metres that would be needed to “balance” our runway is, in my view, unnecessary, as are any extra taxiways, which add considerable amounts to the cost,’ he said.
‘We should stick to our existing runway length, strengthened and resurfaced, and install arrester beds rather than the longer Resas (400m), which will require significantly more land and a huge amount of infill with all the added costs that entails.’
Article posted on 7th January, 2009 - 11.30am
13 Article Comments
I agree with David Jones. About time we stopped spending like we still had an extra 90million income.
Report abuse
Dave Jones
You have got my vote!
Report abuse
Hurrah for Dave Jones – what a novelty, a States member with some common sense. Why on earth would we need an extended runway anyway? It won’t make more people come here and if anybody in the States thinks it will, they are deluded. Furthermore, I can’t imagine how it can cost £85m to resurface our current runway – what are they resurfacing it with – 24 carat gold for goodness sake???
Report abuse
I must have been on the 99p Breda for too long…I actually agree with DJ!
It’s time we faced up to the fact that we are a small island. Why can’t we operate as a hub and source larger aircraft/longer flights by hopping over to Jersey or Southampton?
A modern helipad and maintenance of Aurigny/Blue islands should be enough to service inter-island and South Coast routes. Everything else could go via Jersey or Southampton, you might even be able to negotiate some sort of financial incentive with a partner airport to push traffic their way. There’s little point in the Channel Islands having 3 airports if all of them are a financial burden. I know it would be a pain losing some direct routes but this has to be measured against how we would pay for the runway upgrade and the inevitable lengthening which would follow.
How many jurisdictions of our size and population warrant such expenditure when the service is already limited to only a handful of locations?
Report abuse
Dave Jones for Deputy Chief Minister
Report abuse
Har! I agree aswell on this case, but DCM? With his penchant for ‘outspokeness’? In his own words he’d have started a war with the UK and the EU before having memorised a suitable ‘joke’ for a press conference.
Report abuse
If only ‘‘We need something that is functional, affordable and sustainable.’ had been applied to all other projects…
Though I would like to add one more word in to that group, and that is ‘appropriate’.
Report abuse
Thank you, Dave Jones, for voicing some sense on this outrageous States proposition at last. There is no legally compelling or even practical reason for the mooted expansion of the runway and airport safety areas, yet the attitude of the States (and in fact of the Press when it was reported on Dec 16th) was that it was not only entirely necessary but also entirely inevitable. As Bridge rightly points out, a bigger runway won’t attract more people to the island, and bigger planes would most likely mean a reduction in scheduled services for locals as the larger aircraft would need to be proportionately fuller to justify their use. Our current air services have no problem at all meeting current demand.
Anyone who’s looked at the proposed plans as outlined in the paper will realise that it would involve not only a lot of taxpayer’s money but also a dramatic change to the island’s topography too. The expansion (sorry – “vital upgrade”) would necessitate not only a hell of a lot more tarmac and concrete, but also a huge embankment rising out of what is currently a green valley, sacrificing mature trees and aesthetic values in the process – all a stone’s throw from St. Peter’s village. I’m no aviation expert but I’d assume that a longer runway would mean that planes coming in to land and taking off would be even lower over nearby houses, and the lead-in lights would need to be extended and raised accordingly.
In the current financial and social climate, these plans are breathtakingly, brazenly silly. I work for an international company here and we – like many other businesses – are scaling back our air travel as far as possible to cut costs and carbon footprints; happily, technology such as video conferencing often makes this a practical and profitable course of action. I cannot see the logic in the Chamber of Commerce’s argument that a bigger airport means more business… Where’s the causal link?
These proposals are socially and environmentally irresponsible, to put it mildly. Well done, Dave Jones, for having the sense and the courage to speak out against it. He will undoubtedly come up against some fierce resistance – the States have, after all, already spent £135,000 of our money buying the necessary land (scaring away other potential private buyers with the threat of forced acquisition, apparently) – but hopefully he’ll read this thread and realise that his stance has a lot of public support. Please let’s get vocal about this issue so an unnecessary and expensive runway extension isn’t just another States shoo-in.
Report abuse
Dave Jones gets my vote on this subject too. He is so right to state that all that is needed at the airport is refurbishing of the runway.
Clearly those who want a bigger noisier more polluting airport thrust upon such a small rock of land as Guernsey are the businessmen and the wealthy who would stand to gain from it….plus, of course, the airport authority who have only one goal in mind, namely the growth of their personal empire.
Waste no more precious time or resources. Refurbish and be done with it. Get on with resolving more important island issues.
Report abuse
Of course, Mr Jones makes sensible comments and criticism on the issue… but, as usual, it is not particularly constructive.
How about taking some responsibility as part of the government team and help find some workable solutions? This kind of action would be more praiseworthy than just inflaming the situation.
Report abuse
Helen, you’ve hit the nail on the head and thank you Dave Jones for talking sense on this matter. With the economic slowdown and increased communication meaning less need for business travel, I cannot believe the States are seriously considering this. As for visitors, our propellor planes add to the charm of visiting our island.
The environmental impact will be horrendous as will be the consequences for St Peters Village, one of the last rural communities left.
We cannot let the Sates do this to our tiny, beautiful island!
Report abuse
Well done Dave Jones, more politicians should be speaking out about this
utter madness.
The runway needs to be resurfaced – end of story. The enlarging of the RESAS is just a way of lengthening the runway by stealth, the cost both financial and environmentally will be felt for generations if this is allowed to go ahead.
Turbo prop planes are completely adequate for Guernsey, the last thing we need are larger, noisier and more polluting aircraft. The current operators provide enough routes to national and international hubs.
Good to see that there are some very sane comments on here too!
Report abuse
To see the effect of a “jet” length runway we have to look no farther than Jersey – a bit bigger and more people, but essentially similar to Guernsey. Do they have convenient flights where I could decide to jet off directly to Seville or Mallorca or Bruges this weekend? Not as far as I can see. I can do this but I’d have to take a (probably ATP aircraft, even from Jersey) connecting flight to Southampton, or somewhere. So with an extension we would do only as much as they do.
True they have several operators such as BA, BMI, Easyjet etc but it appears the flights are only to UK airports. More choice than from Guernsey but getting around the UK is easy even if you can’t land on the doorstep of where you want to be.
I agree with “carts” – make more use of Jersey & Southampton with connecting flights. Why do we need two “jet” airports within 26 miles of each other and serving the same routes?
If the business community think that an extension is essential future proofing then we need to see a properly researched and detailed justification from them/Commerce and Employment. A proposal would be needed that looks at, amongst other things, travel needs, how much people are inconvenienced by unavailability of direct flights (with economic estimates of time lost, business opportunities lost etc and how that all translates into income for the States), future aviation trends including use of jet versus ATP etc, environmental thinking etc.
After all, present a proposal that requires significant capital expenditure to a board of directors of a company without full research and justification and it wouldn’t even make it to the agenda.
Can we not think strategically, intelligently and laterally and come up with a solution – if one is needed at all – that is hailed as innovative, sensitive, effective, mature and sustainable – and is also cost-effective? No, we’ll probably go the “common sense” (not my words) route of playing safe and spending £m’s on dumping megatons of earth and concrete over the ground and then patting ourselves on the back for implementing the “sensible” solution.
Not only are we in difficult times economically but the world is changing – more emphasis on green policies, more efficient (not necessarily bigger) aircraft, more use of, as Helen rightly observes, video conferencing and technology and awareness of green issues. Let’s be very careful we don’t end us with a zoo again at the airport – one with white elephants in it.
Report abuse