Compulsory purchase looms for family field in St Peter’s
Friday 17th December 2010, 11:30AM GMT.
The area of land that could be purchased is in the left-hand section of the area marked out in red. (Picture by Brian Green, 1009061)
A FAMILY will be forced to sell land to the States as part of the airport runway project, if deputies agree.
The field owned by the Le Messurier family on Route de la Tourelle is wanted for improvements to the runway end safety areas – it is the last piece of land needed for the project to go ahead.
Public Services wants the Assembly to agree to compulsorily purchase it for £36,265 after negotiations with the family failed.
Public Services minister Bernard Flouquet said it was very unfortunate that the issue had to be resolved in this way.
- Read the full story in the Guernsey Press. See below for subscription details.
- To read Guernsey Press stories in full click here for subscription details. Individual editions are now available online.
Island Life
All about Guernsey
Ambassador of the Year 2011
History & Heritage
Visitor Information
Guernsey's government
Campaigns
Voice For Victims
Voice for Victims is a campaign aimed at promoting the rights of those affected by child sexual abuse.
This is Guernsey
Guernsey Press
Useful Links
I DISAGREE WITH THIS PROPOSAL. I WILL BE STANDING ON THAT LAND WHEN THEY ARE TRYING TRO GAIN IT.
LOVE
GREG FALLA (l)
Report abuse
What a silly statement Greg. This island will be finished without these very necessary improvements to the airport runway. The States on our behalf have no choice but to agree to the compulsory purchase of this little piece of land.
Report abuse
No need to shout Greg
They will gain it, so you need to stand there when the bulldozers move in
Good Luck
Report abuse
I’ll be standing with you Greg.
Report abuse
Who said they left in 1945?
Report abuse
Why pay money for land/property if essentially, it still belongs to the States, to take it off you as and when they feel like it? If this is the case, then in what respect did you ever own it in the first place?
Your land is not your own.
Report abuse
As I understand it, the runway has to be extended for H&S reasons, to allow larger planes to land.
Now I believe that this extension is for extra “run-off” space, rather than proper runway, so a collapsible concrete block solution has also been proposed.
What I can’t understand is why this other solution is not being used.
The only reason I can think of is that the States are too arrogant to admit that they are making a huge mistake.
….. Discuss …
Report abuse
The current owners want to keep the land; the States want to use it for the airport.
How about they both agree a long term lease agreement, say for 100 years? It could be agreed for a peppercorn rent (say, 25% of the compulsory purchase figure) thus saving the States money and yet ensuring the family keep title of the land.
I haven’t spent a long time thinking about this so there’s probably a glaring hole in this solution somewhere, but at least superficially it would seem more equitable.
Report abuse
Since Guernsey became a signatory to EU human rights it has to observe respect for property. It is still working to 1945 laws.
This entitles it to compulsory purchase but as a signatory it must now do so fairly, ie with respect to the landownder and compensate for injuries effects from states works to property and surroundings.
Report abuse
What’s the point in owning land in Guernsey if essentially the States could purchase it for 1p?
They could use an EMAS system which has been proven, whereas grass has not. The last plane crash that couldn’t stop in time was years ago, since then brakes have improved drastically, as have air brakes.
It’s worth far more than 32k. I too will be there with Mr Falla on the day of purchase, with my four bulldozers I purchased with the money I’ve saved from not paying tax. I will attack Bernie until justice has been served for the local man.
Report abuse
When I look at the picture above, it really boggles my mind what kind of large aircraft they intend to allow at this airport – Jumbos?? or what?
Report abuse
36,000 doesn’t sound like much money to me!
Report abuse
looking at the location of the field in relation to the end of the runway, it is a ridiculous distance away from it. i agree with slep’s comments, what type of aircraft that lands in guernsey, require such a huge increase in the current’run off’ zone, to justify stealing property which is legally held in rights of deed by the Le Messurier family. If the reasoning is for the european health and safety recommendation to require this land, then the family should call in to use the european bill of human rights to protect what is legally theirs
Report abuse
If the offer was 3,600,000 I suggest we would never have heard about it.
Report abuse
If, as is being said “Guernsey is finished” without this land then i should hope the Landowner gets a fair price, rather than as quoted,further up,the runway a proposed Hanger is waiting on permissions, i would guess the valuation of this land, will rise should this be granted.
Report abuse
I reckon there’s more in this than meets the eye’
Perhaps some official has it earmarked for something other than what they tell us.
It’s nothing less than medieval laws where the big guys tries to dominate the lower lot(in their; opinion that is)
This law of compulsory should be put to death now and forever.
IT IS AN UNFAIR AND HITLER like ATTITUDE.
Report abuse
Mark and Slep – as I understand it ( I am often wrong mind ) the idea is move the runway west into what looks like a huge gap – thus creating a longer run off at both ends, but keeping the same length of useable runway.
As regards EMAS – it seems to me to have a major flaw – if an aircraft ever ran into it it would no longer be useable – so we would lose the run off area – and until it were repaired we wouldn’t have a “safe” runway ( or again am I missing something ? )
I also note that this ‘treasured’ piece of family land is owned by a load of people in the Vale who don’t use it themselves but rent it out …..
Report abuse
It doesn’t matter if they live other than in the field.
They have the rights to use as it seems fit.
They live in the Vale; so what? some of those who wish to take away the field aren’t even Guernsey folk. so where is the fairness in this land grabbing. It’s not the days of “Go west”
It should be stopped, this land grabbing.
If it is wanted then a fair price should be paid as in any deal where property is in Question.
Report abuse
@Martino: what a stupid comment you make in stating that without the runway extension the island is ‘finished’!! What a load of utter uninformed tripe! Will you please explain yourself! If not, please cease all further contact with this posting service as clearly you must be an extremely uninformed person or a heavily biased ‘business’ person whose ‘business’ in one way or another involves the airport itself, or using what the airport has to offer, or stands to benefit in other ways from a runway extension. Who are you?
If Guernsey folk allow it, the true reason that the island is heading towards being ‘finished’ – a ‘reason’ that needs to be stopped right now – is jet propelled aircraft. That and the fact that they are being allowed to land on the island in the first place. Indeed, I have personal painfull experience of living near to – and suffering the effects of – an airfield that expanded into an ‘International Airport’ and I can, and will, guarantee without fear of factfull contradiction that if the population of Guernsey allows any further expansion of the islands runway or airport facilities then indeed the island will be finished as the pleasant place it has been to live for so many hundreds of years.
Sadly though …..while islanders spend their time writing and complaining rather than grouping and doing something constructive to stop the airport expansion….the suits in the states will continue to pave paradise over and the private jet owners who live on Guernsey will continue to ruin the island, guaranteed.
Report abuse
More inward looking, backward looking, little Guernseyman, short sighted, xenophobic nonsense.
Out of Out of interest Islander. Would you be saying the same if the field in question was under the ownership of people who are not ‘Guernsey folk’?
Report abuse
The States has conned land owners by setting in law that only their valuation system can be used. The field cannot be valued as a field but part of airport infrastructure. This is discriminatory and presents a retrograde precedent for all property owners in Guernsey whose land the States covets.
A true value can only be established by forcing an auction. What the States is prepared to pay is substantially more than what they are artificially offering to the family.
Report abuse
As a regular air traveller to and from the island I have to welcome any improvements to the runway, especially if they will then accomodate bigger aircraft and we can at last see the end of the Guernsey air transport “monopoly / price fixing” and get some competitive airlines in here. What a boost to the island economy that could be…
Report abuse
Airtraveller, that won’t happen. There isn’t the demand for it over here, nearly all aircraft, even the trislanders fly out half empty.
Report abuse
There are not enough bums on seats to actually create enough business to run more than one airline.
Insert here BIG mistake allowing Blue Island routes that Aurigny already serviced.
One airline running at full capacity is in a better position to offer lower prices then two airlines running half empty or less at a loss.
Jets, they go further distances but again not enough bums to fill the seats. Go to Jersey if you want that.
I find the current service to Gatwick pretty fast and only a few minutes longer then the previous jet service. The planes are better for the environment which is better for the world.
EMAS can be repaired very quickly I understand if it is ever actually used.
Doing the works as they currently stand to the airport I feel will prove to be an enourmous white elephant years down the line.
EMAS addresses the safety issue right now and allows Guernsey to have more options open to keep abreast of changing global environmental needs.
Competitive airlines in the past run for a little while then pull out as there are not enough bums on seats all year round. But hey with your proposal you would have made the local airline bust and then there would be no air travel off season. As it is for example Flybe do not fly to Norwich in the winter….not enough bums on seats…you get the picture…
Report abuse
I was under the opinion that the EMAS system was much, much more expensive than this option and if Tony is right that after one use, the EMAS would need to be replaced, then that’s just a ridiculous solution
(even though hopefully would never have to be used)
I agree with Airtraveller, if we get a few more airlines in here and it drags down the price of flying (which has become silly) then I’m all for the improvements
Report abuse
I understood it could be repaired, not the same initital cost repeated at each repair.
Wishful thinking, where do people think bums will magically appear from to sustain more airlines…
Report abuse
I gather with EMAS that it is made of separate blocks, and so it is only the blocks that get damaged in an accident that need to be replaced. It is also likely that it would be the airline of the aeroplane that would have to pay for the repair, and not the states.
To my mind this is all about the weighting given to the use of green field agricultural land. I don’t think that they are giving the preservation of our green spaces, ( what’s left of them) enough priority. If the runway requires additional safety measures included into the refurbishment, the question should be how can we do that WITHOUT encroaching onto agricultural land outside of the airport perimeter. If there is a way to do that, ( and there appears there is with EMAS) then that should count for a lot even if it is a bit more expensive (in the short term.)
Report abuse
@Martino. The answer is YES.
Report abuse
The States have vastly overblown the costs of EMAS. If you used it in place of ‘blast pads’ at the runway ends the cost of the entire project reduce substantially. The States are refusing to consider EMAS at the threshold ends. This is the safest place to arrest a plane.
In an accident the costs of EMAS replacement would be met by the planes insurer.
See this link which is of a plane at JFK. The plane makes tracks across the bed. http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/003292.html
If another plane that same day hit the bed it is unlikely to make the same track onto the bed so it is still a safe and viable arrestor bed.
The damaged blocks were replaced when the runway was off line.
Report abuse
The talk of the price of air travel in the Island has always been a sore point:
However if you think it will be cheaper with bigger and more airlines; there I think you could be sadly mistaken.
Look at it this way, they grab that land, the enlarge the runway. at an enormous cost for labour, and materials, architects and so on.
So they have to recoup that cost, so taxes will be levied to those using the airport, from travellers to airlines.
Airlines naturally will lay any expenses to their customers.
So the crux of it all is a natural,
Dearer; much dearer air travel.
Remember this; Progress is costly.
Report abuse
I have been a big supporter of the EMAS system because there is less risk to passengers from fire, as the soft grass Resa’s can rip off the undercarriage with the possibility of damaging the wings where the fuel tanks are situated. If you remember the last incident at Heathrow when the plane ran out of fuel and was badly damages by a soft grass Resa as it failed to make the runway the hydraulic rams of the undercarriage punctured both wings had she had any fuel on board I suspect most of the passengers would have been killed by the subsequent fire. The Emas system brings the aircraft to a gradual halt while keeping the landing gear intact. There is ample evidence to show this where emergencies have occurred.
It will also take significantly longer to clear if the Aircraft is badly damaged; first off you may have to build a temporary road into the RESA as the ground will be unlikely to stand the weight of a Crane to lift the aircraft, this operation could take days to remove the wreckage and with only one runway the airport would be effectively closed until the recovery operation is completed.
With the EMAS system the aircraft can be towed back onto the runway using its original tracks on to the collapsible system and the blocks replaced in a much shorter period. An undamaged aircraft is much easier to deal with than one that has lost its undercarriage. So when the States are looking at costs, the costs of having an airport out of operation because of the length of time to recover a badly damaged aircraft also has to be taken into consideration. We could also store spare crush blocks.
Report abuse
blokeinlondon
“The States have vastly overblown the costs of EMAS. If you used it in place of ‘blast pads’ at the runway ends the cost of the entire project reduce substantially. The States are refusing to consider EMAS at the threshold ends. This is the safest place to arrest a plane”.
What are ‘blast pads’?
Where & what are the ‘threshold ends’?
Where are the States considering that EMAS would be put?
Report abuse
I Googled Yeager Airport where an EMAS incident took place on January 9th this year
A plane aborted take off and destroyed 160 of the 4,400 EMAS blocks, with another 80 blocks compromised.The $700,000 cost was paid by the aircraft insurers
So far so good, BUT despite an estimate of 11 working days to bring the EMAS area back up to standard,on 24th FEBRUARY it was being reported in the media that repair work should be able to start NEXT WEEK (2 months!).Apparently EMAS cannot be repaired when rain or snow is forecast and needs a regular temperature of 45 degrees in order for the tar to be spread properly
Also extra damage during/after an incident can be expected from rescue vehicles and the eventual removal of the damaged aircraft
US airports in snow areas have had to purchase specially designed snow blowers with low surface pressure tracks in order to keep the EMAS areas free of snow build up
EMAS appears to come with a lot of baggage that does not apply to a grass run off area
Report abuse
Ray, what a load of b/s.
Report abuse
Rosie. Apologies for using lingo.
At the ends of the runway (the thresholds) there is an area with markings to indicate an emergency area. It is there to protect grass and earth from being blown away when jets throttle up (blast pads). This is the ideal place to put EMAS, as it is safest to have the arrestor bed right at the runway ends.
Ray. Please bear in mind that the twin engined Bombarier is similar to what Flybe will be brining in and cost $37m. The aircraft was saved and would have been written off on a grass RESA. Insurers are therefore delighted. Cost wise this is a no brainer. Repair takes place at night. The airport was shut for some time while the AirUK flight was pulled out in Dec 1997.
Also Arrestor beds are getting cheaper as competitors come onto the market place. You would also have seen that bendy concrete is a new technology that is emerging as a cheaper alternative to crushable concrete.
The overall cost of just putting EMAS in at the ends of the runway would be millions less than the nonsense we have seen coming out of PSD.
Report abuse
Never mind the sermon or the short story, (of which you are very fond)
What’s your point, apart from all the b/s.
But then as is well known. as an Englishman you know it all.
Report abuse
The above item was for the Housing bloke.
Report abuse
Islander I am a Guernseyman normally resident in Guernsey, passionate about preserving our environment, our human rights and fighting our way in the international markets.
The point is we can’t trust PSD to conduct themselves properly anymore. The situation is so bad that men and women who would normally be concerned with growing fledgling business and looking after young families are being diverted to fight for a set of values which would normally be expected of government. PSD is destroying our human capital and our physical capital.
Report abuse
Hi Mr G
Perhaps you had better address your remarks to Mr Google.When you have finished your 11+ studies ask your mum to look up Yeager airport
Report abuse
Hi Ray,
I unfortunately do not agree with the 11+ blokeinlondon explained it far better than me, I couldn’t be bothered to research it.
That takes time, and time is money my friend.
Report abuse
Blokeinlondon
Yes I know you are Guernsey, and like me stubborn as ‘L’-.
And why not, when a loads of spivs try to turn our Island into something we don’t want.
They allowed their country (well the country they stole from the Brits)to be messed up by others, and allow it to continue.
Where’s the guts that the Men at arms showed?
A load of soft-soaping so called ministers feathering their own nests.
Well leave Guernsey alone-you’re not wanted.
anhd Blokeinlondon, I back all your notes.
Report abuse
Sometimes compulsory purchase is necessary but obviously it will never be popular. But let’s keep this in perspective, they are not knocking down somebody’s house this time, We are talking about a field which the family don’t even use except as an investment. If £36k represents 20 times the annual rent then the price seems fair enough to me. It should be fair market value, not ‘how much will the States (i.e. you and me) pay when they are over a barrel’.
Report abuse
Compulsory purchase is not necessary, PSD are misleading deputies on all aspects of this project. Why I have no idea.
Report abuse
You’re living in cloud cuckoo land blokeinlondon. Just look at the photo above. Comoulsory purchase is absolutely necessary in order to carry out this absolutely necessary project.
Report abuse
blokeinlondon
I would have thought that in order to make such a sweeping and scurrilous statement you would have at least some idea
Report abuse
Martino, why is it absolutely necessary? I haven’t seen any plane crashes on our current airport recently.
Report abuse
There’s a little known organisation beyond our shores, Mr G, that has something of a say over the state of our runway. And would you believe it even has the power to stop all flights to and from our island if we fail to take heed of its rules? Why not check it out for yourself at http://www.caa.co.uk
Report abuse
You might think it is necessary because of the photo above presents the field as the missing jigsaw piece in the project. In fact it is the project itself which is unnecessary. An £86m folly.
The airport must address safety deficiencies by improving runoffs at runway ends. – but the States won’t future proof the airport with a 240m safety run off area. For example Pilot unions in the UK and North America are demanding 300m minimum safety areas or EMAS like the current US standard. (The US Aviation Authority, the FAA, developed EMAS in conjunction with introducing safety end regulations).
A 300m safety area would mean closing or moving arterial roads to St Andrews and St Peters with an extended runway.
However EMAS at the runway ends are equivalent to a 300m safety area and have a better performance than grass. EMAS at the runway ends mean the entire runway will be safer, future proofed, and contained within the existing airport perimeter. ie there is no need to purchase the field. PSD have been misleading the public and deputies that EMAS needs the fields to be purchased and that an EMAS solution can’t be contained within the existing perimeter – and this is not true.
Report abuse
I notice that whenever the English can’t have their own way as regards the wishes of GUERNSEY people-then people like Martino comes with that age old comment about little minds and xenophobic people.
If they don’t like our ways, the p… off we can do without you bunch of scroungers and tax dodgers.- when we needed you you kept very quiet. now it’s our turn to turn our backs.
Report abuse