Airport work delay ‘would cost millions’
Thursday 17th February 2011, 2:29PM GMT.
ANY further delays on deciding on work at the airport will cost the island millions, Public Services has said.
The States will be asked next week to approve the compulsory purchase of a field needed for the department’s proposed new grass safety area at the western end of the airfield.
Deputy Shane Langlois wants the decision delayed for more consideration of planning policy issues.
Public Services minister Bernard Flouquet (pictured) said that would delay the project which is due to begin later this year.
- 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
More Delays = more cost to us the average Islander; Get on with the job and move on for goodness sake, this is essential work to serve the Island for years to come, it needs to be done.
Am I the only one in the Island sick to death of prevaricating deputies who it seems need to be spoonfed information and can’t do anything other than try to delay matters so they can play catch up.
This Airport Fiasco seems to be in danger of going the way of the Incinerator, are we going to end up having to pay off another outside contractor for breach of contract wasting yet more money.
Report abuse
I am furious that Deputy BF has tied the island into contracts without financial sign off.
He should be dissmissed immediately.
Report abuse
No contracts should have been signed already at this stage, if they were then no lessons were learnt from previous experience.
No one is doubting that the work must go ahead, only the scope detail of that work.
This current situation could have been avoided had there been open communication and consultation in the earlier stages of the project.
It could have been forecasted that there might be public backlash on something this large and impacting.
Report abuse
DA666
No your not the only one. I am as well. The States agreed this in 2009 and now the nimbies are coming out of the woodwork.
As you say it is essential. Bernard Flouquet on the radio this morning talking about having to patch up the runway. How much longer can you patch it up!
Report abuse
@DA666. It makes me so angry when I read a post from someone like yourself who does not have the islands well-being truly at heart. Indeed, a post from a person who is also talking absolute codswallop and has an obvious and obnoxious hidden agenda in trying to over-ride due process and the peoples wishes.
You are doing this by saying that neither the people nor their representatives the deputies count in any way shape or form. You are saying that the people and their deputies should be ignored. You are saying that the commercial process of forced buying up of islanders land and expanding the airport ( which is what indeed commercial entities are trying to make happen here and which will bring on the increased noise and pollution not just at the airport but over much surrounding land and air) should go ahead ASAP. You are saying it should go ahead regardless of the people wishes or their deputies putting forward their wishes.
Even more questionable, I dislike the way you knock the people representatives who in their approach to this subject on behalf of the Guernsey taxpayers that they represent simply advocate a ‘steady as she goes’ approach to this suggested island killer’ airport expansion.
Any sane person knows this proposed expansion ( as opposed to simple maintenance)would be extremely destructive to the islands healthy and beautiful way of life and must not happen particularly when it is being promoted by actions more allied to a dictatorship i.e. “ignore the people, they don’t count in our plans. Just get on with the job. ‘lay more concrete’ over the land and ‘bring on the increased aircraft, noise, pollution and people.
You are calling the airport process a ‘Fiasco’ @DA666 ? What a rubbish comment. No it is not a ‘fiasco’, not by a long chalk. ‘Due process’ in a democaracy is NEVER a ‘fiasco’. The ‘fiasco’ would happen only if by some stupid idiotic and mindless reason
(namely greed and blindness)this proposed commercial airport expansion was allowed to go ahead over the wishes of the average Guernsey person. That sad and destructive day must never be allowed to come. Never!
Report abuse
Beautifully said DA666! If only more islanders could see the bigger picture too, it’s an essential job that needs to be done, so let’s begin!
Report abuse
Well said DA666
Report abuse
So let me understand this correctly DA666 and Martino, you are suggesting that failure to observe due process by a government department is acceptable in any circumstances and that if they do it for long enough we should just ratify it and move on?
The Law Officers warned PSD in 2009 that failing to secure amendment to the Rural Area Plan was likely to bring them into conflict with interested parties and yet they chose to ignore this warning.
This project has been conceived and executed without consultation with those who will be affected most. A constructive dialogue about the way in which they intended to mitigate the worst effects of the project would have been a good start. But that’s not how PSD operate.
For PSD to claim that the work is now so essential that we’re about to be blasted back to the stone age is a little rich. Did I miss something or have they (or their predecessor) been responsible for this vital piece of infrastructure for the last 35 years of the 20 year life span of the runway?
Don’t blame us for wanting the job done properly when someone has been sitting on their hands for years. Integrity and good governance. The least we should expect from our government.
Report abuse
Bloke, as I said somewhere else, I don’t think any contracts have been signed. As you well know, the States approved the tenders to be sought – do you think that, if we then go back on it, we’d not have to pay any money? Or that the consultancy work, that was approved and would have to be redone to a degree?
Seriously, if that’s the level of brains that is arguing against the development, then I hope the Deputies really see the way forward.
And Expat… Whoa – reign it in son! What a vitriolic attack on someone’s opinion! Again, says a lot…empty vessels and all that.
I agree with the others, the due process has been done. The project was debated and agreed. All that’s left is a couple of rubber stamps. Get on and do it!
Report abuse
I think you’ll eventually find, GAC, that due process has been followed every inch of the way with this project. And if you want the job done properly simply withdraw your nimbyish opposition to Option C, which the States voted for in 2009. Why weren’t you so vocal at that time I wonder? You must have known what was on the cards. You have not got the wider interests of the island and its economy at heart. Let’s end this prevarication and doubt and delay and simply get on with it!
Report abuse
Is this the same Shane Langlois that was a signatory to a Requete to put an Incinerator in the middle of the North of the Island.
Sometime later………
All of a sudden he’s got the green bug in his neighbourhood.
The man is a joke. At least De L’islet is consistently wrong.
Report abuse
To quote Monty Python, “YES, GET ON WITH IT”.
The nonsense you spout Expat80 is the perfect example of why “The People” should be ignored! They pick the facts that suit them and only argue the point from their very narrow point of view. You can pick these people from a mile off because they always claim to speak for “The People” and that their views are representative of the collective voice of all “The People”. Well you don’t speak for me and reading the comments above and the lack of green ribbons I’ve seen, you don’t speak for very many of “The People” at all.
This work needs to be done, there is no valid reason for it not to be done, so do it.
As others have said, no contract has been signed, the cost of delays is simply the amount that the contract will go up if it has to be tendered all over again. Contractors will bump the price up on an uncertain job, and kicking it out now will make it exactly that.
Ignore the idiots with their green ribbons (I’ve seen 3 btw and I drive for a living!), who somehow think that concrete is more environmentally freindly than grass, and get on with it.
Report abuse
Eh bien garçons it’s me again’ ’Ope you’ve read my h’other letters in section ’Emas is better than grass’ artical. Again forgive my English spellin’ and grammer but my computer won’t do Guernsey French.
Well done le GAC and Expat80. They ’as got brains and is full of common sense them.
The States ’ave said all h’along they were going to follow their own lois (laws) but now they’re not doing it. I seppose that’s why people is so mâri (cross)
Also the ’uge job needed at the west ’as been ’idden from us till people like le GAC have dug it out. Talking about digging what about the Bronze age dig? is it goin’ to be finished? Those Bronze age people must be turnin’ in their graves
Just cos we speaks funny round ‘ere and dresses funny don’t take us for a load of country budloes. We were ’ere long time before the others and kept the island beautiful for everyone to h’enjoy.
Eh bien this is Le Vieux de St Pierre signing orf again.
Peace and blessings to all
Bonheur à tous
Report abuse
My word Expat80 we are on our high horse. Now that you’ve chucked all your toys out of the pram perhaps you’ll allow me to clarify my post for those of you blinded by idealogical thoughts of a wonderful peaceful tranquil Island, which I assume from your name Expat80 you no longer live in.
What I’m getting at is the joined up Government we are supposed to have does not seem to exist.
Plans are made, deals signed, then along come others who then try to find out all they can about something they need to do a lot of research on but haven’t been given the time because they’ve come into the arena half way along.
Due process is fine if it is inclusive and involves all those that will vote on the subject, clearly this is not happening in a manner that allows timely decisions to be made.
Due process should not take years as it seems to do in our States.
I do actually have the Islands well being at heart; I want to live on an Island that is prosperous into my old age and also that of my children, I do not want to live on an Island that has become a desolate backwater with no direct flights to anywhere, no viable industry, banking or otherwise because the Island failed to modernise its essential facilities which maintain the Islands vital transport links.
Projects like this will always be unpopular but there is a bigger picture to consider.
Fiasco. noun. Definition: any undertaking that results in a failure or disaster,
especially an embarrassing one.
So, Incinerator; No.1 Fiasco, twice chucking out proposals and also having to pay considerable sums for preparatory works by a preferred contractor – embarrassing to the Island of Guernsey, I should think so.
Airport Improvements/Extension possibly headed that way…
Finally Expat80, please read the Disclaimer below the comment box. I am entitled to my opinion as you are yours, it is a shame that you are unable to accept that without making unjustifiable personal comments such as your vitriolic post which clearly demonstrates that you have little tolerance for offers who do not share your views.
Report abuse
Yes well said DA666.
At the end of the day, what the decision boils down to is: one (significant) field Vs five- 10 million pounds from the delay + an extra ten to 15 million initially for the slightly better system EMAS then a couple extra million per year for its maintenance.
Thats the decision – Make it.
Report abuse
To the “get on with it” brigade.
Go up to the airport and have a look at the pretty pictures that PSD have got on their displays – you’ve got until 17:00 today.
You won’t see any mock up of what the western end will look like (horizontal view). Ask them. I did and got nowhere. Ask them the height that the fields in question will have to filled in by.
Be intersting to know whether you still think option C is a good idea.
Honestly, I can see people chaining themselves to plant at the site when the true monumental scale of what is happening actually dawns.
There’s going to be trouble!
Report abuse
Gilthead
Did you ask to see the video of what the western end will look like.
I saw it.
Report abuse
@Gilthead
Yes, I’ve seen it and I still think option C is a good idea. More so than ever in fact.
All the way along the nimbyist green ribboned de Lisle/Langlois followers have scaremongered, sensationalised and completely over stated the impact this vital project will have on the environment/the island.
Can we just please get on with it now. There is no reason whatsoever for any further delay.
Report abuse
Ok chaps – best suggest we wait and see then.
If I’m wrong happy to admit it. Don’t think I will though.
Meet you there in three years time…
BTW not a NIMBY!
Oh and PSD’s latest wheeze is to raise mooring fees 18.5%
God help us all.
Report abuse
I was just thinking of Guernsey heritage and although option C purchases a historically significant field (as I am told) just imagine what Culture and Leisure could do for Guernsey heritage with an extra 20 million+ in its budget? Remember the museum objects Vs bowel cancer screening fiasco? The mind boggles. Im not sure what 20 million plus is divided by the number of taxpayers but Im sure its a lot per person….. and if you went along asking for that as a personal contribution to save one field from being purchased (at a very good price) then I wonder how successful you would be?
Report abuse
Well said DA666 and others.
I am sick of de lisle and his cronies – he is in my view dangerous.
when he was one of my teachers we used to take it in turns to climb out of the windows during his classes as he was so dire and had no control.
now he is electioneering and will no doubt get relected and god help us get a ministerial position!
Report abuse
Martino, we’ve been at this since 2008. What do you think the prospects are of us giving up now? With more people taking an active interest everyday, “we” has grown to incorporate a wide cross-section of society living all around the Island. In addition, the Douzaine’s of both St Saviours and St Pierre-du-Bois have voiced their opposition to the current proposals.
Would be very interested to hear your version of due process.
If PSD had bothered to engage with airport neighbours we might not be where we are. Offering to mitigate the effects of the development would have been a good start. Compromise is always possible but a dialogue is essential.
Might versus right. The fight goes on.
Report abuse
If repairing the runway is only one third of the cost – why are we spending 54 million on peripherals including masking an extension as something else. We all agree that repair is essential. How it is being proposed is another issue. PSD seems to forget that we are a community of only 67000 people and that someone has to pay. Already the cost of a ticket on and off the island is heavy with indirect taxation. There are questions being asked and no answers given. Where is the environmental imapact study? Why is it not public?
Report abuse
OK, GAC
So far all I’ve gleened from your FB page and the like is that you
a) hate PSD’s proposal;
b) don’t trust the four seperate industry experts who all came to the same conclusions;
c) want a solution that all 4 say won’t get past the CAA.
So, can you please succintly set out what compromise you’d be happy with?
Yours sincerely
BTF
Report abuse
“…the Douzaine’s of both St Saviours and St Pierre-du-Bois have voiced their opposition to the current proposals.”
That just about says it all GAC.This is 99 per cent a ‘not in my back yard’ campaign led by ‘not in our back yard’ parish committees to the detriment of the island as a whole.
The only ‘compromise’ you lot are interested in in one which results in our vital airport gateway going to rack and ruin.
Report abuse
BTF
a) Correct
b) Actually, when speaking to the Mott MacDonald guy he reckons the EMAS solution is technically the best one. But in general, consultant reports are skewed by the mandate they are given.
c) Yes, no expansion of the current footprint would be the desired outcome but in contrast to Jersey where they resurfaced their runway and rebuilt taxiways without addressing alleged RESA deficiencies, PSD appear to have committed the Island to vast additional expense and having done so, now dress it up as imposition by the CAA/DCA.
Finally, from a purely personal perspective EMAS represents the least intrusive, least land grabbing, most compliant solution (100%).
Report abuse
Martino
What do you have against the Douzaines? These are democratically elected bodies designed to represent their parishioners.
And enough with the NIMBY argument. The airport already exists and is accepted in our back yard. Pardon us for trying to stop it coming in through the back door! If the cost of a brand new airport at L’Ancresse or Belgrave Bay was £75 million, what do you think the reaction would be?
You make it sound like airport neighbours are trying to knock you back into the stone age. Nobody is saying that.
Report abuse
When I asked PSD why we were simply not resurfacing the runway I was told that if we did that we were taking the risk that at some unspecified point in the future the CAA could come to us and say “increase your RESAs”. When I asked why other airports like Southampton and Jersey have been happy to take that risk, the reply was that they didn’t know. When we are talking £80m, would it not have been an idea to find out?
I started off not believing that this was runway extension by stealth. I am fast running out of other explanations.
Report abuse
roquaine:
I had exactly the same experience. Leaving the runway exactly where it is and resurfacing it ‘could theoretically’ result in the CAA asking us to increase our RESA’s, or they ‘could theoretically’ tell us to reduce the length of our declared runway. Again, when asked why neither of these suggestions have happened to Southampton or Jersey, there was no answer. I can only conclude that the CAA is not in the business of closing trading centres down.
The chap from MOTT MacDonald was adamant about one thing though. And that was that we would be utterly mad to extend our runway. He sited the examples of Newquay & Plymouth where they have tried to open up their airports to increased business resulting in the smaller operators going bust and the airports, especially Plymouth, are now barely viable and at risk of being closed.
Report abuse
A bnit of perspective needed, I think:
1. The airport is the island’s number one strategic asset.
2. The runway is in a dreadful state and urgently requires sorting out.
3. EMAS is a good idea but will delay the project unacceptably.
4. The land to be purchased is small in area, little used and not scenic in any way.
5. La Mare Road is a convenient shortcut but in no way essential to road users.
6. The concept of aircraft ‘low-flying’ over the western parishes is nonsense – ‘moving’ the runway west 150 metres means planes will fly over any given point about 25-30 feet lower than they do now.
7. The environmental issues directly resulting from extending the airport west relate to mainly to bird life, and birds and planes don’t mix well. The wildlife will ‘relocate’ and perhaps to areas they might be more welcome and enjoyed – how many people take La Mare Road for a scenic stroll to enjoy the sights and sounds?
Any delay to the airport works will be prejudicial to airport safety in both the short and long terms and the project should not be held back by scaremongering NIMBYs. Let’s hope the politician’s can see through the smokescreens and actually get on with this much overdue project.
Report abuse
A bit of perspective needed, I think:
1. The airport is the island’s number one strategic asset.
2. The runway is in a dreadful state and urgently requires sorting out, but nothing else has to be done.
3. EMAS is effective.
4. The land to be purchased is protected by the Rurual Area Plan.
5. La Mare Road is a boundary between the Rural Area Plan and the airport.
6. Moving the runway west will put a main road and houses in the recomended safety zone.
7. Our environment is worth fighting for.
Report abuse
So, Sensible, you are advocating a massive spend of circa £85m in order to displace the runway, rather than a more sensible spend of around £15m-£20m to resurface the existing runway (which would continue to meet the needs of the island) ?
Surely in this current economic climate it is worth keeping the coffers topped up, rather than spending nearly half of Guernsey’s war chest? With a budget deficit of around £30m this year, it would not take long to deplete Guernsey’s war chest altogether. It will then fall on the population of Guernsey to make this deficit up through increased taxes – nothing NIMBY about that.
Common sense should prevail over a desire to to pursue an expensive (and unnecessary) white elephant.
Report abuse
Chers amis well done la Mrs W et Edited Sensible et La Rosie et le gaillard de Rocquoine They have got common sense them
A lot round ‘ere like the word NIMBY, but me I don’t recognise the word.
Me I got my own NIMBI word spelt NIMBI –
Never Implement Maladapted Baseless Ideas. Sums up the h’extension
Me I takes no credit for finding this. My cousin Jiman from La Perelle he helped me, he got a degree in English – too clever for me!
He ought to go on that Countdown programme on TV
àmitiés à tous!
Good wishes you all!
Report abuse
Mrs W.
Spot on. The irony in this whole debate is that those who want us to plough ahead with this £80m+ spend are basing their argument primarily on ‘saving money’. Yet none of them are suggesting that we just refurbish the runway where it is, thus saving ourselves many millions.
Report abuse
Just get on with it!
Report abuse
Round one to common sense.
Report abuse
@ sensible and @ edited sensible:
1.The airport is not the islands number one ‘strategic’ asset. People are.
2. Put people first and all else will follow in the manner that it should.
3. Do it the other way around and you will be asking for problems and trouble.
Report abuse
@Rosie. Excellent post thankyou. Your quoted words ‘Utterly mad to extend our runway’ spoken by MOTT of MacDonalds are spot on! In fact, and along with others, the most sensible common-sense words that I have read on this most important matter to-date.
Report abuse
Just get on with it already. The airport is a lifeline and is vital to the Islands economy. Time for debate is well and truely over.
As for the exact scope of works, prudence in this case surely dictates that just performing the basic level of work i.e. resurfacing will only ultimately result in further work at a later date. The cost of future works to lenghten / improve saftey will undoubtedly be increased from that quoted now. In the current global climate costs are only going one way….. up, driven by inflation and commodity prices.
Act now, and for pitty sake act decisively!
Report abuse
Expat80, if people are the Islands No.1 asset then surely those that leave are letting the island down? Perhaps we need a bigger runway to bring them all back?
Anyway, people exist in Guernsey, as western society does in general, through working. a large percentage of Guernsey people work in the finance sector which is without doubt the largest industry on the island. The finance sector exists because of our favorable offshore status and the fact that the island is easily accessible (hence the majority of Guernsey’s finance being underpinned by UK wealth). Therefore the airport for many reasons in addition to this is certainly the people of Guernsey’s number 1 asset. Direct airlinks to other countries may attract investment from those countries and diversify the reliance that the Guernsey economy has on UK.
Report abuse
The concept of ‘just’ resurfacing the runway is not an option. The airport layout was designed in the early 60′s when undulating runways, minimal safety areas and poor drainage were all considered acceptable. Those of you like me who have travelled by Dakota to or from Guernsey(that was the era when the runway designed) will remember how slow the take-off and landing speeds were. Today’s planes are not like that and to have a safe and successful airport we need all the runway works as planned to go ahead. Despite many cries of foul to the contrary, nothing is planned to be done that does not actually need doing, and the useable runway is not being extended but moved to the west for very sound reasons.
I am aware that the Rural Area Plan covers part of the land in question, but such a strategic issue has to take precedence over the desire to keep a few fields and a mostly empty road outside the airport boundary. I agree that our environment is worth fighting for but as such a small part of it will be lost that argument has lost credibility in the wider public eye.
The arguments raised against the airport works are not objective but are emotionally driven to ‘protect’ the few whilst ignoring the needs of the wider poulation, hence the NIMBY reference. I will stop posting now as those against the airport will clearly never change their views. All I can say is enjoy the ferry – you clearly have no need of an airport.
Report abuse
@Sensible
That indeed is your view.
But in what way do you go about it, what entitles the States to destroy the property values of the NIMBYS, to ruin their lives? This has been very traumatic for the particular individual at the end of this and as you have just pointed out you don’t give a monkey. The world has moved on and you are still applying your values of the early 60′s.
Report abuse
My thoughts are with the Messurier family.
Report abuse
LMAO @ blokeinlondon
Report abuse
Move it? Resurface it? Lengthen it?
GET ON WITH IT !!!
3 years so far attempting to make a decision. Take much longer and fossil fuels will have dried up so planes won’t be flying any more.
Report abuse
@isit? LMAO> Laugh my arse off I guess you mean.
Yes we all need a sense of humour, I’m laughing at our deputies human rights approach and ignorance of good governance.
Report abuse