Airport debate put back for a month
Thursday 27th January 2011, 2:30PM GMT.
PUBLIC SERVICES was accused of running scared yesterday as it pulled its report on a crucial phase of the airport runway development.
But there is mounting pressure on the States to make a decision on the compulsory purchase of the Le Messurier family’s field soon so that it can obtain planning permission for the £80m. project in time for work to begin in the summer.
If signing off the contract was delayed beyond October, it could be costly – any price on the table at the moment would have to be renegotiated.
The report withdrawal yesterday came as PSD last night confirmed Lagan Construction as its preferred bidder to carry out the work.
- Read the full story in the Guernsey Press. See below for subscription details.
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
The States won’t be able to make a big leap from one position to another overnight.
Delaying the decision gives everyone time to move their stance in incremental steps.
Report abuse
That Deputy De Lisle is a strange old cove
He lambastes Deputy Flouquet for withdrawing the field debate because the EMAS report wasn’t ready,claiming that the withdrawn item was nothing to do with EMAS … it was purely to do with the purchase of the field
Hasn’t Mr De Lisle been desperately linking the field with EMAS for the last few months?
Report abuse
Instead of thinking of shifting the runway westward, or debating whether the runway should be lengthened, ( which shifting it westward basically will be ), the States should be thinking if the airport runway really needs to be as long as it is.
It does not – the airlines currently flying to the island, as well as any potential newcomers on any routes to Guernsey, are not going to use aircraft that need even anywhere near the existing length of the runway.
Therefore, the airport could suffice with a shortened runway which would allow for extensions of the safety areas to include the unused ends of the existing runway.
Think that way and the States will save millions… spending £80 million pounds is simply absurd and quite obscene.
Full stop !!
Remember… it’s not the length that counts, it’s what you do with it !!
Report abuse
it really is coming to something when Bernard Flouquet is the one talking sense amd wanting to give us MORE facts in order to aid the decision making process …
Report abuse
Use EMAS and be done with it.
Report abuse
crucial phase of the airport runway
Says the article heading. May I ask if the reporter is an expert on airport runways, or is this media pressure at its best.
Interested States members before spending such a vast sum need to get to the source of crucial to find out if its just a nice but not needed item.
It would be downright incompetent to spend that much money (£80 million) when money is in short supply, and then have to put up taxes which will badly hurt the low and middle classes.
Report abuse
Most of the cost of the project is shifting the runway west. The starter section, adding an additional 120m to the length of the runway is another major source of cost. Filling in the fields, eye watering cost. None of these are necessary. We only need resurfacing and drainage. + bear in mind Jersey has an arrestor bed made of gravel.
Report abuse
Dear old David!
One of his main arguments is that prime agricultural land is to be lost.
Has he actually looked around the rural parishes lately.
A huge loss of fields to the farming community is coming from the buying up of field by the wealthy to use as extensions to their gardens or to use for equine pastimes.
The premiums paid for fields by these people cannot be matched by the farming folk.
Just take a walk and see!
Please dont use this as an argument David and think of the real issue.
Safety.
Whatever the outcome we have to ensure that our airfield is safe to use and meets current and is able to meet future safety legislation after all safety limits never go down.
You would not buy a new car that doesnt meet EU standards would you.
Report abuse
Vraic eater, are you aware that what the States is planning will not meet international standards, but EMAS would.
Report abuse
blokeinlondon
I can’t quite work out if you have a genuine passion to retain this Guernsey green field or if you are actually a salesman for EMAS … if you’re not you’re certainly working up a pretty good CV
Report abuse
Thanks Ray. I confess I would be happy for there to be a gravel pit. However you a point, there is a huge potential market for EMAS. You could argue that the States & Ronez should work with a university like cranfield/bristol to develop their own cheaper version of EMAS. Imagine the financial benefit to the Guernsey of having a share in that technology.
Report abuse
blokeinlondon, you’ve got to be kidding. The States want a more expensive option rather than using local companies.
Report abuse
Alvin J Furrer
Would your Mrs agree?
Report abuse
@vraic eater. Yes, presuming your statement is accurate it is not right that the wealthy should be buying up agricultural land to use for grazing a horse/pony or two. However, doing that is far more desireable than covering agricultural land with more ‘airport’ and more ‘concrete and construction’ of one kind or another. At least with the former, the horses can be eaten and the land can be ‘reverted’ to ‘agricultural’ in the event grossly deteriorating global conditions demand it.
Furthermore, have to tell you that your statement re ‘safety’ is incorrect. The safest way to handle the airport situation is not to expand the airport in any way shape or form, guaranteed.
Report abuse
My focus is not the land/field(s) it is that the job is fit for purpose and does not have scope creep.
Sadly what has been proposed does have scope creep and is fit for an Island with a bigger purse.
Guernsey needs the runway repaired.
It does not need it realigned and an extra 120 metres of concrete surface added.
Focus on the need which is a repaired runway surface and an adequate safety system, for which I support EMAS, which I see as being far more future proofed then grass!
If the objectives stuck to the actual need then I expect the budget would be much smaller, which in turn would be more affordable for the Island and travellers.
Report abuse
Alvin J Furrer | January 27, 2011 at 4:56 pm
You make an very interesting comment, for it to be noted would be great if you would submit that to the Deputies directly please.
Report abuse
Toby, If only the Minister’s decision to make a tactical withdrawal was borne of high ideals. It was not. He knew that the poorly prepared submission to Compulsory Purchase (CPO) the land would fail without the Mott McDonald report. Many deputies have grown tired of the bulldozer approach adopted by PSD. A CPO is a draconian measure. Moreover, the victim of such action only has a judicial review to fall back on. If they lose their case the loser pays ALL expenses. Such action is beyond the means of the average Guernseyman. This was recognised as unfair and a breach of the democratic process and human rights. As such, we were supposed to have introduced a system of appeal but this facility has not yet been made law.
Report abuse
if I were a deeply cynical and untrustworthy person, I might come to the conclusion that Deputy De Lisle didn’t want to delay the decision because he knew the report would show that the airport boundaries would need extending even with EMAS ….. and La Mare road still might still have to go ….
And the Le Messurier family are sitting on a valuable piece of real estate ….. as of this morning its worth about £6million to the States ……
Report abuse