U-turn on runway work on cards, claims critic
Monday 20th December 2010, 2:29PM GMT.
AN INDEPENDENT report on runway development alternatives could prompt a U-turn on the project, the sole Treasury Board member to oppose the scheme has said.
West deputy Shane Langlois (pictured) said the review on alternative technology such as EMAS (Engineered Materials Arrester System) could help overturn the resolution to extend the runway end safety areas.
‘A truly objective report will be an interesting addition to the debate,’ he said.
‘I think what we have been shown so far has been subject to some bias. I don’t think it will show EMAS to be a cheaper option but I think it will show that gap is a lot closer than what we’ve been told.’
- 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
This is why States members are so rubbish. They have crazy ideas that things are too expensive so don’t bother looking into it. They’re so stupid and dumb. They will spend a few thousand on a report from some foreign bloke, and then still run with the option nobody wants.
The local, Guernsey people that own that land is rightfully theirs.
Report abuse
Please go to GP’s ‘compulsory purchase of airport field’ news posting and read my comments re ‘airport runway expansion’. Thank you.
Report abuse
What utter rubbish Mr G. A Guernsey person’s land cannot in any way be seen as ‘rightfully theirs’ when it is an unused little field the continued ownership of which stands in the way of a long overdue scheme that is vital to the future economic wellbeing of an entire community of 65,000.
I’m afraid this is a classic case of a western deputy looking over his shoulder at the impending election in 2012 and wondering what sort of straws he can clutch at in order to justify voting against the absolutely necessary runway upgrade as proposed by PSD.
EMAS is not an acceptable solution to Guernsey’s runway problems, the CAA has made this clear more or less, and in my view it is unjustifiable also in terms of the extra cost.
Deputy Langlois is another politician who has shown himself to be unfit to exercise a mandate on behalf of the whole island. Like Deputy de Lisle he should stick to his parish pump politics when his current term runs out and confine himself to the annual St Peter’s Douzaine elections from now on. That way he can be assured of a landslide vote every 12 months.
Report abuse
So where was West Deputy Shane Langlois when the States was busy buying up the other six or seven parcels of land for £145,000 or more
Will that now be yet more wasted money ?
Couldn’t that money have been used to keep the toilets open or more importantly to help fund Bowel screening?
Report abuse
Martino- Are you saying that, hypothetically, if I were to own an unused house, then I should be forced to sell it?
I think you’re mad, my friend!
Report abuse
Martino, you were so worked up about having your bowels checked out the other day, couldn’t that money be used to have them checked out?
If it was your land you’d be furious.
Report abuse
Sometimes it is not about being cheaper but being the best solution. Guernsey does not have pots of land to go with also not having pots of money.
EMAS addresses the safety issue right now and allows Guernsey to have more options open to keep abreast of changing global environmental needs.
Report abuse
SB
Yes if that house was in the middle of the piece of land in question.
No if it was practically anywhere else in the island.
MR G
If it was my land I would be totally accepting of the situation. I really would. If you own a property right next to a strategically vital place like an airport there is always a chance it will be needed for the future development of that facility. If I had been one of the brothers who had inherited that field I’d have been pressing the others to let it go rather than go through the farce of compulsory purchase.
Guern abroad
EMAS is not the best solution, either in cost terms or practical terms or even in environmental terms. The best solution is the one being put forward by PSD.
Report abuse
@Martino. Judging by your most recent posts, it is clear that you stand to gain financially and/or substantially from the current ill-advised potential expansion plans that are being attempted at the airport.
However, if I am incorrect and you do not have a hidden agenda – and if indeed you are a person interested simply in this ongoing discussion regarding the ill-advised potential airport expansion – then you are without feeling, vision, or common sense and with no love for the people nor for the island that you are fortunate enough to live upon.
Furthermore, you appear to be lacking in compassion, and selfish enough to not understand and/or do not want to appreciate that when a Guernsey man or woman sweats, toils, and sheds tears in order to own their own land – and perhaps to own the home that stands upon it – the whole is their castle, not a chattel to be treated as all-but valueless as you so nastily state in your earlier post.
Ps: your comment re the ill-advised potential airport expansion and the ‘economic well-being of the island’ being at stake without the expansion and forced purchase of islanders land or homes is so much total utter ‘hidden agenda’ rubbish that it is just not worth commenting upon again, comments that would only add to the myraid comments already voiced by other posts. My guess is you are connected TO the airport in some way, financially or otherwise………..
Report abuse
You’re hysterical Expat80, in more than one sense. I almost lmao reading your assessment of me as some sort of high flying finance type. Nothing could be further from the truth. Also, I have no hidden agenda or stake in this whatsoever, except as an islander who wants his island to have an economy to speak of in future, which means a modern airport runway system that meets all national and international requirements.
Also, you clearly haven’t seen the airport redevelopment proposals as I have. They are modest, with a fairly minimal environmental impact, and the selfish ones are those who are determined to hold onto that field, not I.
In every sense in your ill informed, hysterical postings, Expat80, you are wrong, wrong, wrong.
So stick to a subject you do know something about, like smoking, and stop making ridiculous, OTT statements about issues and people that you know little or nothing of. In fact why don’t you try making that your New Year resolution?
Report abuse
Expat80
The other six parcels of land appear to have been sold without too many tears.What does that say about those Guernsey owners?
I may be way off beam but I have a niggling feeling that the brothers Peter,Paul,Nick and James Le Messurier who’s professed objection to the sale is that as children they used to play there,may have held on for the best possible price,with the added incentive of having their names recorded in the history books of the States as a result of the forthcoming compulsory purchase debate
Report abuse
@Ray: for me it is a travesty that each of the other six parcels of land that are wanted for airport expansion have already been sold by the owners. How very sad for Guernsey. Clearly this takes the wind out of my sails and leaves me temporarily dissapointed and depressed. I say temporarily because I know that from a health perspective one must rediscover the positive approach, but there is no positive side to expansion of the airport in my estimation and I can only offer my commiserations to those who live alongside of the airport and who will have to live with the increased pollution, the increased noise and the loss of their peace and quiet if the expansion does indeed continue.
Report abuse
@Martino: I respect your viewpoint. Each person is entitled to one. Gained through experience, my viewpoint is one that will continue into the New Year and beyond. It is as follows….that by promoting an ‘expanded’ so-called efficient airport runway system you are saying peoples living conditions should deteriorate because airport traffic must increase – much the same as years ago someone said Guernsey’s road traffic must increase – then more recently someone said Guernseys marina’s and boats must ‘increase’. Can you not see the forthcoming scene? No Guernsey, no fields, no average working families? Just more and more parking spaces for countless cars, boats, aircraft plus their noise and pollution……?
Report abuse
Martino – the trouble is that most of the public totally distrust PSD (and the wider States) to make any kind of sensible decision that is in the best interest of the Island.
Some of the spin that has come out of PSD regarding EMAS (on the airport website) hints that come hell or high water this isn’t going to be an option. Why? I’ll tell you why – they want to increase the length of the runway. Putting EMAS in would scupper that forever.
Whats happening at the eastern end? To go the same distance as the western end they’d have to fill in the valley almost up to Chemin Le Roi.
Just as a parting thought Google Map Jersey’s airport and have a look at the western end of the runway. 200 metres then off a cliff. Hmmm.
Again, sadly, we are being lied to.
Report abuse
Sorry, time just for a quick response. Distrust of PSD, although understandable, must not blind us to the fact that they have chosen the right solution.
Also, just because the PSD proposals involve more ‘encroachment’ and a bigger footprint for the airport runway area (although not the runway itself) does not mean this is the least environmental option.
From what I have read about EMAS, and none of us are experts, this system actually involves more development and is less environmentally acceptable even though it uses not so much land.
With a traditional run off area the land is left pretty much intact although undoubtedly some of the hedgerows will have to go. It’s also going to be cheaper than EMAS and it will mean that the work can start on schedule in 2011 and won’t be subject to more years of delay and all the added expense that that would involve.
Report abuse
If anyone fancies reading some real news, follow the link below:
http://www.gsyfutu.com/?cat=5
Report abuse
Martino, if a fair amount was being paid for these fields, then EMAS would be the cheaper solution.
You also risk the chance of writing off aircraft by having a grass run off, where as EMAS will reduce that risk almost to nil.
Also, you said you wouldn’t mind if some of your land was purchased by the States, is it alright if they buy some of your land for our new rubbish tip, then?
Report abuse
Martino,
The intellectual capital in the development of EMAS is of an entirely different order to a patch of grass. EMAS is safer than Grass, and PSD are putting a biased spin on not only what is coming out of the CAA, but also their own advisors/contractors.
If PSD were honest why would they hold private meetings with Ministers and not the public. Why? – One could argue that they are working as hard as they can to hoodwink ministers in the lead up to January 26th vote.
Report abuse
I say this everytime. The land the current airport is on is worth about 150 million pounds as buider plots. Take the money from this and build a new airport on the land reclamation site at the bridge. There would be around a 20 million surplus. I spoke to Mcnaulty-Bauer about this when i saw her, she said, great idea, however as the states overspent massively on the terminal they wouldn’t do it out of principle.
Do this and the states would have a new airport (not affected as much by snow and fog) and 20 million in their coffers. Plus provide thousands of homes for islanders
Report abuse
GuernseyStrokes
Thanks for that link.An excellent half hour break from the family over Christmas
Report abuse
No wonder people are concerned about this.
Our current States has proven itself time and time again, over issues large and small, to be inefficient, narrow minded and inadequate when it comes to discussing options for various projects…
it was even stupid enough to commission a report that proved that point, then chose to ignore it and tried to cover up, for god’s sake.
THAT’S is why I don’t trust a word they’re saying about ‘essential runway work’, and that is why I think all options should be properly investigated in an objective, thorough and logical manner, with a transparency which will then help people to understand (even if they don’t necessarily agree) any conclusions which are reached…..
not too much to ask, as it’s our island, and we will be the one’s ultimately paying for it…is it…?
Report abuse
Damian
I presume your in a world of vertical take off and landing aircraft like those in Thunderbirds?
Report abuse