Airport work could cost £2m. more without land
Friday 13th May 2011, 2:30PM BST.
Land needed for the airport redevelopment project could be subject to compulsory purchase.
THE States is being asked to approve the compulsory purchase of two pieces of land to prevent further delays to the airport redevelopment project and an increase in costs of more than £2m.
The scheme has been held up because two landowners have so far refused to give the Public Services Department permission to put new runway approach lights on their property.
Without their consent, PSD is unable to submit a planning application despite the expiry of the deadline for accepting a tender fast approaching.
‘The current fixed price from the preferred contractor, Lagan Construction, expires on 31 October,’ said Public Services minister Bernard Flouquet. ‘After that date, the Public Services Department will have to renegotiate the tender sum to reflect construction price inflation.’
He said Lagan Construction had estimated that a three-month extension to the tender validity period would cost the States an extra £2.1m. Each month of delay would then add further costs and a six-month extension would come with a £2.75m price tag.
- Read the full story in the Guernsey Press. See below for subscription details. Individual editions are also available.
- To read Guernsey Press stories in full click here for subscription details. Individual editions are now available online.
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
Why do the States agree to such appalling contracts? It’s like they don’t read the small print when signing, but do once they realise they need to buy a few fields.
Report abuse
Having read the Billet d’Etat for May the 25th where these compulsory purchases will be voted on, there is no certainty that the current two will not be the last anyway.
As previously written I do not support the option that the States has voted to go forward with and reading the Billet left me with a feeling of really poor historic maintenance management of the airport.
So we have either a case of:
- the situation is not as dire as what is trying to be made out (bullied through)
- the departments really have been lapse at their responsibilities of running a maintenance and replacement strategy program
Report abuse
Mr G
Because a lot of them have no commercial savvy whatsoever, and of course it’s not their own money they’re throwing away time after time after time.
I’d also like to know who scrutinises these contracts, if it’s the law officers then my first point applies once again. Let’s face it if a lawyer is worth his salt they’d be working in private practice at a vastly higher salary than the law officers enjoy.
Report abuse
Phil where you say :- “if a lawyer is worth his salt they’d be working in private practice at a vastly higher salary than the law officers enjoy.”
I would extend that to all civil servants at every level. Wouldn’t last in the private sector for 5 minutes.
Report abuse
I am so angry about this I can hardly write.
States members cannot allow PSD to abuse land ownders by rushing through non human rights compliant land grabs to save money.
Report abuse
guern abroad. I think the latter of your two reasons for the situation we are in!
Why build a spanking new terminal when the infrastructure was in dire need of repair.
As a regular traveller I look at this old bit of concrete rushing up to me and pray that it will hold one more time to I can land in one piece
Report abuse
Is that Bernie dishing out more contracts without knowing in advance what the obstacles may be? and if he does why on earth does he keep giving contracts when he knows there are things that could hold back the project.
How many more millions is he going to give away?.
Report abuse
Having to compulsory purchase land also surely goes against an option that can be accommodated by the Island and would not be something that the CAA would have ‘made’ Guernsey do or otherwise shut the airport.
This project is a farce. The need is there, but the solution is OTT.
Report abuse
They learnt well from the former occupiers of our sacred soil.
The bullying methods of these departments is nothing short of devilment.
I always though we were directly under the jurisdiction of the monarch, as a dependency.
If there is no help from that source then might as well cease to be dependant.
Kick their butts out of it, (That department) an get some rational thinking once again in Guernsey.
Report abuse
The current owners should fill their land with landmines, that’d be hilarious.
Report abuse
The CAA ( Civil Aviation Authority ) are quoted regularly by Politicians advised by civil servants we have been advised to do this and this is best practice.
The CAA are not stupid and do not expect Jersey or Guernsey or any small island to have the same infrastructure as Heathrow.
If I were a States member I am sorry to say I would be getting some knowledgeable third party advice.
Davey West.
Report abuse
eggy bread:- “Phil where you say :- “if a lawyer is worth his salt they’d be working in private practice at a vastly higher salary than the law officers enjoy.”
I would extend that to all civil servants at every level. Wouldn’t last in the private sector for 5 minutes.”
———————————————
Pity you don’t realise that some people serve their community (like some people serve their country), not for the money but because they want to. For some, job satisfaction is more important than salary. Would a nurse worth their salt ‘only work in the private sector’? Thankfully many people like to serve other people, not just themselves.
Report abuse
bcb
Valid questions everybody should be asking him.
Report abuse
The lawyers in the public sector here I have so far met are every bit as good as the best ones in private practice and most come with years of experience; typical ignorant and poorly-educated criticism by someone who doesn`t want to find out the true position.
Report abuse
Here we go again. When oh when is Bernie and the rest of his side-kicks ( who could’nt organise a party with alcohol in a brewery) Going to step down and let some people with sound business sense like myself take the reins. You dont sign off an a tender when you’re not even sure you have all the boxes ticked with regard to land owners consent and purchases out the way. This Company will either make a fortune or go the the wall getting involved with the Guernsey States. I’ll bet on the fortune!!!
Report abuse
over spend again before even started whata surprise.
Did we not not see something about about Manchester airport being done for less then an eighth of the price please guernsey states wake up and stop wasting our (the taxe payers ) money its not yours. yes there is some times reason to use local labour thus just is not one when your talking 70million diffrence.
Report abuse
The states must have lots of money splash the cash WHY DONT U
Report abuse
This behaviour is not becoming of the States. Compulsory purchase is surely only to be used when no other options are available. The whole scheme should have been confined to the existing airport boundary and not allowed to munch pieces out of St Pierre du Bois. Let’s hope the whole thing gets thrown out. Fat chance of that, I’m sorry to say.
Report abuse
Hi.
How about voting for ‘none of the above!!!’
Would it work? Dont suppose.
Cant wait to see what ‘stealth’ taxes are going to be introduced……
If a comp purchase is necessary, why wasnt it all done and sorted in one go? Delays, delay, delays!
And I bet if it was the CM’s or of the like, their back garden, how would they feel? (of course unless they were to get a substantial financial pay-off!)
Boo hiss to them all. Extension, not necessary, never has been, never will be!
GD.
Report abuse
Yet again, it would appear that Bernie and the useless gang have committed to something hugely expensive without having all the facts, and now they do have them, it’s going to cost.
Our politicians constantly act like a bunch of uneducated, short sighted idiots and without a care, as they seem to have no consequences to endure when they b*lls it all up by wasting/losing money with poorly thought out schemes and strategies.
If they were the management within a private company and let it lose money in this fashion (or by declaring it’s going to take 4 years to make a decision and that delay was losing business – i.e. the open market debacle) then they would be held responsible and probably thrown out neck and crop.
Shocking behaviour from those who are supposed to know what they are doing, and if they don’t, expected to have the intelligence to FIND OUT FIRST…but never mind, ay, as they’ll all keep their jobs and gold plated pensions regardless of the Carry On style farce they keep creating in this island.
Most ordinary folks would at least have the decency to be embarrassed.
Report abuse
If Lagan Construction wants to ‘renegotiate the tender sum to reflect construction price inflation.’ presumably the States can threaten to renegotiate them as ‘preferred contractor’? Or have our buffoons entered into yet another contract which works entirely to the potential supplier’s benefit? In the real World nobody pays for tenders, nobody makes open ended financial commitments or fails to have penalty clauses. Does nobody in the States have any commercial savvy or common sense whatsoever?
Report abuse
This disgraceful shambles needs to be scrapped & looked into again. Like stol has pointed out there are alternatives.
The legal test for compulsory purchase fails for this reason alone.
It’s a joke. This whole “preferred contractor” is a licence for that select business to print money before even thinking about starting work. Surely an enviable position to be in.
It’s not how things work in the real world.
Companies must love competing for works with the states. I bet they can’t believe their luck.
How can a price & start date be agreed when nobody is clear on anything from the outset?
Fail to plan.
Plan to fail.
I’d like to see some German contractors approached. It’s far too expensive. It’s far too big for what the island needs. Start again like has been said by most here & work within the current boundary.
Planes get lighter, stronger, more economical & much faster as technology progresses. Their take off & stopping distances are reduced.
I just don’t believe it needs to be bigger or anywhere near as expensive.
How can anybody claim fairness has been exercised when nobody is clear about proceedings in the first place?
Incompetence yet again.
Report abuse
Please take the time to pass your comments on to the Deputies. If we don’t register our objections formally they are not heard.
It is never too late to try to do something :)
This link is helpful.
http://www.gov.gg/ccm/general/states-members-and-committees/states-members-email-addresses.en
Given historic oversized project overspends this is nothing at a projected 2 m …. what did the airport terminal or even St Sampsons marina overspend turn out to be….
Report abuse
Is it coincidence that we have just celebrated Liberation Day. After all, the Germans in 1940 were the last to commandeer land on such a scale!Potentially another 13 to come.
Report abuse
Is this going to be the waste debacle all over again? More prevaricating and U turning by our elected representatives followed by an interminable public consultation led by Deputy Scott Ogier to find the “airport runway solution” that everybody’s happy with.
In the meantime the chosen contractors get a multi million pounds pay off, the runway continues to deteriorate and the cost of the project continues to soar.
The stark reality of the situation is that we are far too far down this route to go back now. These fields must be compulsorily purchased and the project recommended by PSD must be allowed to go ahead. The consequences of scrapping the plan and starting all over again are unthinkable. There is no alternative.
Report abuse
So is that why the States keep making commitments like this? So that when everybody realises the scale/stupidity/cost of one of their projects we are so much on the hook already that “There is no alternative”. Its a funny kind of democracy when the States just keep steamrollering expensive egotrip projects past the public who don’t want them. And knowing full well that the projected cost they tell us is likely to be completely bogus. Then they will whine that they don’t have enough money for services we do actually need.
They are obsessed with the damn airport, people can’t afford to fly here anyway. Do the minimum required for safety, get it done by a decent company as quickly and cheaply as possible. Get the contract arraged by a person who is not an idiot, stop throwing public money away. My old Granny could do it but the States makes a meal and a mess of everything they touch.
Report abuse
Yet another shambles from Bungalow Bernie (nothing upstairs) who is cocking up yet another major public project. How many more mistakes are you going to make? Hard to believe that one man can oversee so many shambolic projects without being brought to task.
Pillsbury – if the local Law Officers are as good as you say then its very clear that their advice is being ignored by their client – yes that’s Bungalow Bernie.
Incompetence at best….
Report abuse
Guern abroard.
Don’t forget the White Rock jetty refurbishment or the St Sampson harbour fire main or the clinical block or Longue Houge reclamation site.
Report abuse
Martino;
Oh yes there is an alternative
Get rid of the present committees who want the changes, they pamper to the Finance people who are the largest group using the airport.
Then on top of all that the present States of Guernsey have an exaggerated Idea of their own importance… and my friends; that is dangerous.
Flouquet is one who thinks big with little to back it up.
Why do you try and forever turn and twist, and try to be better than others Martino.?
Act like a fellow Islander if you must. don’t pander to the other lot, one day they’ll drop you like a rotten egg, then you’re on your own.
Report abuse
Martino – it may very well end up like Bernie’s Burner.
A bit of a pattern emerging…
I’m afraid this is incompetence on a truely biblical scale.
They should all be sacked.
What an utter shambles.
Report abuse
Boo!
I’m biting my tongue largely, but GM, you have intruiged me.
I’m no great fan of his generally, but I was just wondering what other “shambolic projects” Bernie has overseen? You see, I can’t actually think of any…
Looking forward to your list!
Report abuse
I don’t necessarily disagree with you Gilthead and you too Islander. I’m beginning to think this whole airport runway fiasco has been totally mismanaged from the beginning – an opinion I didn’t hold a few months ago.
All I was trying to say in the above post was that ‘we are where we are’. I was also posing the question ‘what next’ if the current scheme is scuppered. None of us know and it is a fact that the longer we leave it the costlier this project will become.
You’re certainly right in one respect though, Gilthead – a definite pattern is emerging. I had confirmation of that just half an hour ago when I picked up an email from a friend who had been to the waste consultation workshop at Le Friquet this weekend.
I am reliably informed that despite the long and drawn out efforts to involve the public, PSD still hasn’t got the message and is still intent on pushing incineration as a major plank of the new waste strategy.
Doubtless we’ll hear more about this in due course but returning to the subject of the airport (and here I’m going to shock you Islander) I am now starting to think that you are right and I am wrong.
Sack the bloney lot of them!
Report abuse
I’d like to hear Radio Guernsey carry out an in-depth, no-holds-barred, hard-hitting and incisive investigation to get to the bottom of this affair, getting information from people who really know the answers. Perhaps Colin Le Ray could interview himself.
Report abuse
Martino – have you seen the light?
Seriously though we all appreciate that the runway etc needs sorting out – no problem there.
These purchases though are not just some geezers field. I can’t be 100% but I did a little nosey there yesterday and I think we’re talking residential. Hence the very high cost I suspect.
To be honest I’m past the anger stage now…I just despair at the utter incompentance.
If this is an indicator of the cost control mechanism the total bill will come in at over 100 million.
If thats value for money (or necessary) I’m Pope Gregory the 9th.
Report abuse
Billythefish
Waste disposal. An utter farce from start to finish. Oh I forgot – there is no finish yet.
Report abuse
The site plans for these two parcels of land are in the Billet d’Etat for May25th but I can’t look now to check.
Report abuse
GM
From my recollection, I don’t see how the waste disposal farce is Bernie’s fault? The States as a whole accepted Lurgi, then did an about turn after the contract was signed (as agreed!).
Roll forward a few years and the States as a whole accepted Suez, then did an about turn after the contract was signed (as agreed… or letter of intent)
The point I’m making is Bernie can’t be held to blame for it – it’s the States, with or without backbone, depending on what side of the bed it woke up on!
Report abuse
This absolutely reeks of the old Board of Administration political shenanigans
Don’t tell the States everything at once in case they vote against the proposal
Once they’ve committed to the idea and it’s too late financially to back out then the additional awkward bits can be introduced for rubber stamping by the ‘little people’in the Assembly
SHAME ON YOU FLOUQUET
Report abuse
Billythefish
Come off it – the buck stops with the Minister. Why do you think the States voted against the Department’s recommendations? Because they had too many doubts about what was being proposed and the process followed.
You seem to have a very short memory indeed.
And every Minister could always hide behind the excuse of “but its was a States Assembly decision”. Yes it was – but based on a flawed recommendation with preferred tenders and preferred processes, when alternative viable methods were discarded without proper consideration. Why do you think Scott Ogier is now charge of waste and not Bernie? Bernie was way out of his depth on waste and so he’s now got the airport project to play with. Unbelievable.
Report abuse
All you posters above, think on when the States up your indirect or direct taxation and hit you in the pocket. Irrespective of how poor the contract might be or the ineptitude of the States, there is one man that is going to hurt you in the pocket and that is Deputy De Lisle. All he is doing is dragging out the inevitable for his own agenda. We need a decent, safe runway, you all would agree 100% when you are hurtling towards that narrow, short strip of concrete and tarmac in gale force 8 gusting 10 with significant crosswinds, rain and low clouds in your comfy leather chair in that aluminium tube. Pilots say one of the most useless things in aviation is runway behind you.
The anti protesters need to get a grip on reality.
Report abuse
Martino
I do understand what you are saying, however this sets a pretty ugly precendent for the future if other mistakes are made, “oh well, we did it with airport”.
Plus, how do we know that this wasnt the plan all along?? Keep the whole lights issue quiet until we get so far down the road that these lights just HAVE to go in so the land HAS to be purchased. Then if the landowners object we’ll have a situation where a few people are potentially costing the island millions and will have massive public pressure. The the states look like leaders who’ll “do what it takes to save the island money” by using last resort compulsory purchase……… or is it just incompetence, its not fair either way on us as taxpayers or the landowners really!
Report abuse
I am not convinced that this project is the right scale for the Island’s needs and that these compulsory purchases are essential, rather then essential to keep the project as proposed being rollered through.
Nor am I convinced about how the States goes about negotiating work, these land agreements should have been sought as soon as it was identified that the States were going to push option c, not way later and after a significant amount of time on the tender price had elapsed lending exaggerated weight to keep pushing through the work.
There is just too much coincidence and too much incompetence.
Report abuse
Yes Mr Lloyd, we are caught between a rock and a hard place – or at least our deputies are caught between a rock and a hard place.
Do they say “this whole exercise has been organised in a shambolic way from the outset” and vote against the purchase of the fields, thereby risking the entire runway project with unknown consequences?
Or do they say “this whole exercise has been organised in a shambolic way from the outset” but vote for the purchase in order to keep the project on track even though it may be too expensive and too invasive?
Not an easy one but I’d probably still go for the latter because the island’s entire economy depends on the integrity of our airport runway.
Report abuse
Martino – good points and post @ 07:21.
You say the States are between a rock and a hard place. Sadly its all of us who pay tax too.
The cost of this is already spiralling. PSD have, at the very least, been economical with the truth. What other little surprises are there is store? Well brace yourselves as I’ve had it on good authority that there are a few more to come.
I’m afraid that the cost risk is too great given PSD’s untruths thus far. We have to go back to the drawing board and of that means a cost hit now so be it.
It will be better than the horror to come.
But heads must roll.
Report abuse
Is it only me or does anyone else wonder why the names of the landholders have been put into the public domain – whilst also blaming them for the extra 2 million in costs if they continue to hold out?
Report abuse
The Public Services Department is unable to respond routinely to posts on the Thisisguernsey forum, due to time and resource constraints, but in light of recent comments the Department feels it may be helpful to clarify some aspects.
No contract has yet been awarded for the essential maintenance and improvements at Guernsey Airport. A full tendering process was undertaken last year, and four companies submitted bids. Lagan Construction was subsequently selected as the Department’s preferred contractor, and then entered into a period of negotiations designed to identify potential savings, both in cost and time.
Lagan Construction’s tender price has been fixed since it was submitted last October, despite increases in material costs since then. It remains valid until 31 October, and if a contract is not concluded before this time the Department would have to renegotiate the price, to reflect inflation. The Department has not paid any of the company’s tender costs, and if no formal contract is agreed the Department is not liable to pay any money to Lagan Construction.
Nevertheless initial discussions have been undertaken with Lagan Construction to assess the likely cost of a three month extension to the tender. The company has indicated this could see an increase in price of around £2.1 million, to take account of construction industry inflation. A key element of this is the price of oil, which is a major factor in the cost of bitumen products required for the resurfacing of the runway.
Until October 2011, any increases since the tender was submitted will be absorbed by the company.
The cost of the project has therefore not increased above the original pre-tender estimate approved by the States in October 2009. The reason the Department is now seeking compulsory purchase of two small parcels of land is to try to avoid a potential increase.
With regard to the compulsory purchases, the Department would wish to make it clear that it has been in contact with all relevant landowners since July last year, with a view to obtaining ‘wayleaves’ for the location of airfield approach lighting, and the access required to maintain these. These lights are a vital navigational aid for pilots in locating and aligning with the runway, particularly for operations in low visibility, and therefore essential to the operation of the airport.
The majority of these landowners already have approach lights on their property, albeit because of the change to the position of the runway the locations of the lights have to change. Guernsey Airport has in the past enjoyed an excellent relationship with landowners with whom it has wayleave agreements. To date, 12 have either signed new wayleave agreements, or given their consent to the Department submitting a formal planning application including the lights on their property.
Only two landowners have so far not given consent. Unfortunately, because the formal planning application is now urgent, the Department has no alternative but to seek approval from the States to compulsory purchase the areas of their land required to site the lights, to install the necessary power, and to provide access for maintenance.
This urgency is dictated by the deadline on 31 October, by which time if a contract has not been agreed the tenders received last year, including that of Lagan Construction, will expire. The Environment Department has indicated it will require a minimum of 17 weeks to consider the planning application, so even if this is submitted this month the earliest a decision could be given would be the end of September. The project timescale is therefore very tight.
The areas of land the Department is now seeking to compulsorily purchase relate only to the position of the lights and access. There is no requirement or intention to fence off these areas, apart from a small area immediately around the base of each lights. Therefore there is no reason these parcels cannot continue to be used in the same way as they currently are.
As with the previous acquisition of the field to the west of the airport, the preference of the Department has been to reach a negotiated agreement with landowners. Given the vital strategic importance of Guernsey Airport, the option of compulsory purchase has always been available to the Department, but considered only as a last resort. In this instance, it is necessary to maintain the required timescale for the project and avoid significant additional cost.
In respect of the budget for the project, the Department identified in the report that was debated by the States in 2009 that to incorporate all potential improvements to the airfield, and to meet all recommended regulatory standards, would cost in the region of £160 million. The scheme approved by the States only includes those elements that are required, either to address the current condition of the runway and other hard surfaces, and key systems such as the drainage and ground lighting, or for Guernsey Airport to reasonably comply with current international aviation standards. Since then, the scheme has been reviewed by a number of experts, all of whom have concluded that the maintenance and improvements are both required and represent the most cost-effective option.
Finally, if islanders have any further questions regarding the project, the Department is staging another drop-in session at Guernsey Airport this weekend. This will run from 12pm until 6pm on Saturday, and from 10am to 4pm on Sunday. Anyone wishing to attend can use the normal car parks, for which the first hour is free.
Report abuse
guernseyal – good point.
Who leaked this info I wonder – but I guess it isn’t rocket science to figure it out.
Looks like Bernie was slagging off David de Lisle in yesterdays Press article too. How dare he have an opionion that is contra to the mighty Flouquet!
Report abuse
Gilthead
I don’t think the identities were exactly ‘leaked’.The names are printed in the Billet I believe
Interesting post from PSD. What grabbed me is the fact that Lagan are able to swallow a £2.1M hit due to rising prices
Makes you wonder what the profit margin is on this job
Report abuse
Public Services Dept.
Hogwash.
Any properly run project would identify the non signing of wayleaves as a major risk issue. Contingency should have been built in to mitigate that risk. Its very simple.
As you’ve failed to do this one wonders what else you’ve forgotten to do.
As for the rest – you can try and fluff this up as much as you like but by stating what you have, you have proved beyond all doubt that you, collectively, can’t run a multi million pound project.
Sorry PSD your attempt at placation is abysmal.
Report abuse
Mr (or is it Mrs) Public Services Department
One thing stands out from your post.
“The Environment Department has indicated it will require a minimum of 17 weeks to consider the planning application”
Frankly it seems madness that the exact specification and location of these lighting towers is known, the only thing that hasnt been done is the compulsory purchase, surely, there can be some way the towers can be agreed in principle and then just rubberstamped when the land changes over, which will give you some more time for negotiation!
To do otherwise seems like inter-departmental bureaucracy gone insane!
Also what happens if environent refuse??
Is this even an option? Surely an intangible such as this, (particularly given that environment seem hell bent on making a point at the moment), should have been sorted before tender.
Would you then consider a compulsory purchase of their desks at Frossard House? And replace the department with someone with a “Yes” stamp in their hand.
It begs the question, shouldnt some of these intangibles have been sorted PRIOR to the tender?
Report abuse
Why will it take Environment a minimum of 17 WEEKS to consider the application?
What is so difficult to consider?
This is totally ridiculous particularly with £2.1 million at stake!
Maybe they would like to explain on this forum as PSD have done?
Report abuse
With the contract being valid for such a long period and the rising oil prices along with inflation you can bet your life that was all factored into the contract. Companies on contracts of this size would imagine never quote at current prices with such a long valid start date knowing there will very likely be increases in things such as oil, they would more than covered there butts on that you can be sure.
Also why is the figure 2.1 million? do they already know the price oil will be? unless they are locked into a forward price.
Report abuse
More scare tactics being used to bully through unnecessary work.
Yes the runway needs to be repaired but lights do not need to be moved, runways shifted or safety areas increased. In short, what is being pushed through is a runway extension in disguise.
The aircraft currently using Guernsey Airport do not even need the length of the current runway… so why extend it ?
Report abuse
Let us for a moment leave aside the question of whether £160M is the right price for the job, also whether PSD have agreed a fixed price and a timescale subject to penalty clauses (Some hope). If I was a supplier competing for a $160M contract and the client could not comply with the deadline for signing the contract I would much rather swallow a relatively small increase in material costs than risk the the project going back to tender. Call their bluff, if PSD play with the big boys they need to negotiate, not just bend over backwards and every which way to please suppliers.
This £2.1 Million is a dreamed up figure to frighten the States into signing quickly, along the lines of the timeshare salesman’s ‘today only ‘ offer. I bet there is an awfully big profit at stake for this developer, as people have rightly pointed out the rising cost of materials and slow decision making process would have been factored in. Anyway, the price of oil is currently dropping, down 15% in the last two weeks. If PSD keep dithering will Lagan be reducing the contract price accordingly?
Report abuse
Jusr re-read the PSD post.
I’m perplexed ref the cost increase!
Are they saying that by delaying three months the cost will rise by the 2.1 million “because of construction industry inflation” or is that since the original tender?
If its the former then that’s an annual inflation rate of over 10%. If its since the original tender then that would be more reasonable (2.6%) – however Lagan would have (one assumes) worked that forward position into their price.
Oh and oil is going down in price.
Something smells of fish.
Quite apart from the fact that this whole thing is unesessary in its current form PSD seem unable to negotiate properly.
Or is it to put the frightners on the rest of our elected assembly?
Report abuse
I suppose if we stood still for just a few moments and thought things out, then I’m sure if we are all honest, we will come to this conclusion.
The finance people wish to travel in more luxurious aircraft.
The ruling body (I say that smiling, because they couldn’t rule a kindergarten)
However they are dominated by these people, who think they are cat’s whiskers, whereas in many peoples eyes they from the other end of the cat.
So let’s have a little more honesty in all of this,
The very first bit of honesty would be to be rid of that comical feature know as Bernie the none earny.
Come on Guernsey people stand up for your Island get rid of those dregs who are ruining the Island all together shout BASTA!
Report abuse
Islander
Agreed re Bernie but where do you get that ridiculous idea about “wanting to travel in more luxurious aircraft” from?
The flights are only 35-60 minutes duration for goodness sake and I don’t recall anyone asking for more luxurious aircraft! The concern is that the airlines which service the islands MIGHT not in future have planes which are able to land here, and those lifeline routes need to be protected by bringing the runway up to scratch. At the moment that doesn’t mean needing to lengthen it, but it might well do in the future if those airlines only fly planes which need a longer runway.
Report abuse
GM,’
I’m pretty sure that back along(perhaps even further than that)
I’m sure I read that if the airport was built up to scratch (their words not mine) the better bigger and faster aircraft could be in use..
Say what you will, it seems that whenever anyone quotes or speaks up about the finance people some of you get hot under the collar.
I could say more, but then I’m just an innocent who must listen to (land of hope and glory) when I’d rather hear Sarnia Cherie.!
Report abuse
Dear PSD
What means of complaint are available to the public such that individuals or a group of airport neighbours complaining of abuse or threat of abuse of property rights by PSD are investigated and heard by an external disciplinary board. And that those most senior members of PSD who are found by an external disciplinary board to be contributing toward a culture of disrespect toward property rights are identified and expelled from office? Examples to include the following:
(1)Failing to provide for legal and survey support for those individuals affected by planned works to ensure state requirements proceed in an orderly way before issuing compulsory purchase notifications.
(2)Sending external letters containing threat of abuse of property rights, in some instances quoting national socialist ideologue as a reason not to pay ‘fair compensation’.
(3)Burdening of costs on airport neighbours and not meeting these costs, under EU human rights law what is referred to as a disproportionate burden.
(4)Sending deadlines for compulsory purchase of a week offering the assistance of a PSD individual to take any questions, and that PSD individual is on holiday for that week.
(4) Sending internal communications to subordinates that encouraging bullying/abuse such as instructions to delay meeting costs borne by individuals.
Report abuse
Dear PSD
I note your comment on bitumen. You are within your rights to enter into financial contracts to reduce project risk through oil futures and other traded commodity hedges. It would be a prudent way to reduce risks to the Guernsey tax payer.
Report abuse
GM
In that case would it not be cheaper to resurface our current runway and engage an airline with suitable planes when Flybe and Aurigny pull out with their big planes.
Report abuse
GM – whilst I agree that Islanders comments are a bit silly regarding “luxury aircraft” – the thrust might not be that far from the truth.
The question is what do we need from the airport and its airfield?
PSD have have argued that the “essential work” is to safeguard our compliance with CAA regulations and that option C is the most cost effective solution for this.
Many, like me, do not think that this is the case.
What PSD have done is laid (or is laying) the foundations for a runway expansion which will allow much larger jets to operate from the airfield. Both scheduled airline and private biz jets.
Ignoring the supposed extra cost of EMAS – without doubt the most sensible option to follow would be to keep the airport within its current boundaries – we wouldn’t be having this debate had that course been steered!
So what do we WANT and what do we NEED? PSD WANT an expanded airport that can handle larger aircraft, no doubt a buisiness park (watch this space!) and a legacy. And to hell with the costs, environment, compulsory purchase etc.
What we NEED is to service our current requirements (load capacity) and to work with the CAA to comply with regulatuions within the current boundaries.
Report abuse
Agree with Gilthead, sums it up.
I fully support what we ‘need’ being the VOC, which is us the people and the sponsors (as we are paying for this project!).
There are some ancillory elements to the project that look sensible to add such as the revised drainage and catchment tanks for the run off etc.
Report abuse
I’m coming around to your way of thinking on this Gilthead.
I think the problems with all these grandiose PSD (previously Board of Admin) projects come right at the beginning when the tender parameters are set. From the outset the Department should have made it clear to potential tenderers that it required a runway solution that fitted within the current airport boundaries.
The same should have applied after the Lurgi incinerator, proposed by the Board of Admin, was thrown out. Having seen the lie of the political landscape the new PSD and the States as a whole should have made it clear to tenderers like Suez that our waste solution must not have an incinerator as its core feature.
The same should apply to the new bus fleet if and when we come to buy it. The Environment Department should take heed of public opinion, see that the present buses are far too wide for our smaller roads and lanes, and seek tenders for new buses that conform to a much narrower width limit. To do otherwise is to put the cart before the horse but that is what States Departments, led by senior civil servants, are guilty of time and time again.
Report abuse
The Public Services Department in its post above says;
“ … the scheme has been reviewed by a number of experts, all of whom have concluded that the maintenance and improvements are both required and represent the most cost-effective option.”
Yet Mott Macdonald, the most recent experts to review the proposals, stated;
“An assessment of the risks …may result in an acceptable level of risk being achieved by the provision of RESAs with dimensions between the CAA’s minimum and recommended values.”
In other words we may well not have required 240m long RESAs if a design approach based on risk assessment had been used. Mott Macdonald were only reviewing the RESAs but the same design approach could have been applied to other components of the project rather than just following the CAA’s standard ‘recipe’. It is possible that a design could have been developed that was more cost-effective, more appropriate for a small, densely populated island and less environmentally damaging.
Report abuse
Steve
The huge strategic risk to the island of that approach is that at that time there could well be no airlines willing to or capable of flying aircraft fleets which are both small enough to land here and large enough to be acceptable at Gatwick. Its not a problem that Guernsey could resolve within a matter of a few months notice of an airline pulling out, and the island would become isolated very quickly. That just cannot happen.
Gilthead
I fully agree with most of what you say. Unfortunately there aren’t many of us who believe a word of what eminates from Public Services Department and from Bernie the Bungalow so its impossible for the public to really know what’s going on. Which of course seems to suit PSD and Bernie perfectly.
Report abuse
GM
You are spot on re Bernie.
This is nothing new with him but i feel more and more people are begining to see through him,
including some deputies. He couldn`t even manage to install some proper speed bumps outside a school which had to be changed to a more suitable one.
Report abuse
Shane Langlois – exactly!
Eyes, wool and pulled over spring to mind.
Good letter in todays Press too!
If anyone is still in any doubt about what this project will mean go to the “drop in” at the airport this weekend and demand to see a 3D of the Western end after the 250,000 tonnes of infill is there…oh and the radar array. Also ask how much higher it will be than the road.
Report abuse
Presumably the PSD post here and the hastily organised “drop-in” this weekend constitute their idea of consultation. However, for those directly affected by this extravagent project are yet to be properly consulted.
Following the debate in February the department had a great opportunity to be magnanimous in victory. Instead they chose to write to landowners on whose land they wished to place lights offering; Sign this Way Leave Agreement; Give us permission to submit a planning application; Or face Compulsory Purchase. Would it have been so difficult for them to write or call those same people and request a meeting to discuss the matter calmly and with respect for the rights of the affected parties? At no time have PSD signalled a willingness to pay legal fees for those they would strip of their property. We all have a right to expect our government to work for us, not against us.
To portray those landowners holding out as standing in the way of the whole project and potentially costing the Island more money is a scandalous misrepresentation of the facts. It is in fact the ineptitude of those leading this projet that has brought us to this place. If they are this bad during the preparation phase, how are we to be confident that the execution of the project will be any better?
And what of those people that are directly affected by this runway extension but do not own the land PSD want. They have heard nothing. No calls, no letters, no visits. Consultation! I don’t think so.
As Deputy Langlois has eloquently pointed out, had PSD followed the procedure for these matters, proper consultation would have been part of the natural progression of this project. Instead, in their arrogance, they believed they could just bludgeon residents and States Members into submission.
There are many things that could be done to mitigate some of the effects of the development. Some can be achieved at little or no cost, whilst others will cost dearly if UK and internationally accepted rules for compensation are applied. The 1949 Law they are using was deemed “Unfit for purpose” in 2006 as it breaches fundamental human rights. Primarily, the Law does not provide an adequate appeal mechanism nor does it recognise the right to proper compensation. So why are they using it? Surely other deputies must be concerned at the implications of wielding this sledge hammer for possiblly another thirteen times?
It is tool late to expect PSD to change its tactics but surely it is not too late for States Members to bring this department to heal and stop abusing the rights of Islanders in their name?
Report abuse
As far as I was concerned I was quite happy that it was all done and dusted when the Le Messurier field was purchased and it was decided to close the lane
Now,because of the dirty politics employed by PSD,I am seriously considering investing in a bit of green ribbon
The ‘extra’ compulsory purchases will probably creep through at the next States meeting but hopefully not before Flouquet and his Board members get a really good kicking … one that will be remembered next April
Report abuse
Umm…GAC, don’t you/can’t you read? I was interested to see the PSD post. Taking them at their word, it seems they have been trying since July 2010 and most already have lights and therefore presumably wayleaves.
So it’s not like… Feb 11, victory, then nasty letter. It sounds like trying for nearly a year, obviously not getting anywhere – so last resort?
It would be interesting to know if the two that are holding out have lights on their land already. If they don’t I can understand (I’d probably do the same). If they DO (the inference being they have been happy with arrangements so far) and are now digging their heels in, I’d have to question their motives.
Lastly, what’s the 13 times you are are referring to? Are they lining up another 13 compulsory purchases???
Report abuse
Billythefish – yet again you fail to understand.
Why would you question their motives? Its their land. They have every right to say no – except PSD are saying they don’t. Which is what this is about.
In PSD’s post they have stated that other land owners have either signed wayleaves or have granted permission for PSD to apply for planning on their behalf. Those that haven’t signed wayleaves could turn round and say no.
Bit of a mess! And potentially more compulsory purchases.
Because the runway is being expanded west by 120 Metres (or whatever it is) the lights also have to be moved that far. One property that will be most affected is one that may have a compulsory purchase slapped in it.
There are already lights there but because of the shift the single or double lights will turn into arrays which would have a detremental affect on that property. Its not going to be a like for like change.
This whole fiasco needs to be stopped now.
Report abuse
Oh Billy, What are we to do with you?
It is the manner in which they (PSD) have been trying that has caused unnecessary anguish. A letter in July last year and precious little until February this year when the threat of a CPO with days to respond. No offer to pay for legal fees to check that they were not signing their lives or livelihoods away.
Yes, they do have lights on their property now. A single stantion in one case and two single stantions in the other case. Compare that to what is coming and you are talking a complete change of outlook and detrimental effects upon homes.
I have spoken with those concerned. They are upset with the way they have been treated and there motives are not what you are possibly trying to infer. They have a genuine concern for the damage being done by this scheme. In a couple of years, if reason does not prevail, you’ll be able to see for yourself.
The magic number 13 comes from the Emergency Billet. That is the number of landowners who have given permission for PSD to submit the planning application. The worry is that they will not then go on to sign way leave agreements permitting access to the land. Hence, 13 potential CPO’s.
Report abuse
Billythefish – like Gilthead I don’t understand why you question the landowners’ motives. One of the landowners currently has a couple of single light posts in the field in question, but PSD want to not only ncrease the number of single posts but add a bank of 20 lights – now that is a pretty significant difference! The lights would also be fenced off in a cross formation, effectively dividing the field into four separate small fields, affecting how the land can be used, and it’s interesting to note that PSD are only willing to purchase the strips of land they want rather than pay for the whole field. Access issues would also require a tall hedgerows to be ripped down and replaced by large gates. I can’t think of many people who would willingly subject their land to this kind of degredation, especially when you consider that the short- and long-term consequences of the whole project – if it goes ahead – will also hugely diminish their quality of life (massively increased light, noise and environmental pollution and further damage to roofing from aircraft flying even lower overhead to name just a few examples) and permanently devalue their property. PSD are being disingenuous by implying that they’ve been in constant communication with those affected: I think there have been two rounds of letters sent out. I know of one family that found out that their house would be one of the worst affected by the lights because a friend happened to scrutinise a map at a drop in! That’s disgraceful behaviour from PSD.
What upsets me most about all this is that it’s just so unnecessary. As previous posts have rightly pointed out, the airport expansion is more about laying the foundations for a fully extended runway in the future than it is about the necessary rehabilitation of the runway and apron surfaces, which could have been achieved without broaching our current airport boundaries. Can someone banging the drum for an extended runway in the future (PSD and C&E amongst others) please explain to me how a longer runway could possibly benefit Guernsey?
* None of the airlines servicing Guernsey at the moment say a longer runway is necessary or desirable.
* None of the larger airlines have expressed an interest in flying to Guernsey – in fact many have explicity ruled it out as our catchment area is too small.
* In the unlikely event that we did attract larger aircraft they would a) probably need heavy subsidies, as in Jersey, and/or b) reduce the existing number of services, meaning less choice/flexibility for passengers.
* I don’t have any figures but I’m willing to bet the average passenger capacity right now isn’t exactly pushing 90%. I’m pretty sure we don’t lose visitors to the island for the reason that they can’t find a seat on a plane to get here.
I’m just not convinced there’s an economic case to be made for a longer runway, making the various tragedies brought about by the current airport expansion project even more poignant. If this goes ahead we’re going to be have to go through it all over again with even more CPOs and degredation of land and quality of life when they want to fill in the valley at the eastern end to create the fully extended runway in a few years’ time. If you think this situation is unacceptable, don’t do nothing: tell the deputies whose votes have the power to change it.
Report abuse
Helen – a truely excellent post.
Bravo!
Report abuse
Helen
Happy to bow to your knowledge in the absence of anything from PSD – I didn’t know what lights the people have at the moment if any, and don’t know what lights are proposed.
Just want to pick you up on one thing though if that’s ok – this assumption that this work is either a) a runway extension or b) the pre-cursor to a runway extension.
You say that PSD and C&E is banging the drum for a runway extension. I don’t know about C&E cos I can’t find anything from them, but can I refer you to paragraph 1.8 of PSD’s September 2009 report (I’m sad – I keep my Billets!)
“The PSD’s previous report made it CLEAR that it was NOT convinced that an extension of the runway….was justified at this time”
So PSD have said twice that it doesn’t want an extension and independent advice has confirmed it. I’m really not sure what else PSD can do on that one. So actually, Helen, your last 2 paragraphs are not needed!
ooooo I love the runway debates! lol
Report abuse
I hope that the deputies who openly and those who secretly read these posts tip off their fellow deputies to read Helen’s post
Report abuse
Billythefish
If you look back at the relevant Billet reports over the last ten years you will find they are written with extending the runway to 1700m as the main theme. Matters such as resurfacing the runway are side issues relegated to ‘routine maintenance’. The reports always conclude with a statement that a runway extension is not required at this time. However the concept of an extension dominates the reports. Crucially it has coloured and influenced the development process undertaken by the PSD and its predecessor.
The idea of ‘future proofing’ the airport is inevitably linked to the old chestnut of a 1700m runway. This despite even the C&E Department admitting we do not have the catchment area to support air services other than the current ones.
Report abuse
A real no nonsense letter.
Getting down to basics it would be too much to ask those distinguished idiots that serve our Island with their commandments.
Isn’t it about time that the Cock bird said who ruled the roost (no slur on you ladies whom I admire tremendously)
If we had some people with backbone, they would tell these people to get lost, if they don’t like it then get out of the Island-
And we need a body of people with guts enough to say “Right we want an airline to serve our Island, not another dictator”
It should be put to test and ask for enquiries, and make it clear from the start that demands will not be met; but demands by those who demand will be kicked out
It’s no use saying they will demand, that bull…. and you know it.
It’s the present States who have no back bone and less thought for our Island do as you are told (Guernsey employs you) or get out, ”no more quibbling doas you are asked to do, or get out.
Report abuse
I’ve come around to changing my stance on this issue and Helen’s post has been the tipping point!
Report abuse
The question is how to get all this objection noticed by the States?
I am not convinved at all that many of the current Deputies standing actually listen to anything other then what they are told to vote for or do their own research into the issues in hand to decide how they will vote.
Whilst we can not expect every Deputy to research into every matter they have to vote on, that would be unrealistic, but anything that requires such large spends on capital funds and/or is a contreversial project, of which this one is both, have a duty to be diligent in their voting powers.
Right now I get the feeling of a lot of hog washing and threatening consequences are being used to manipulate voting direction.
Report abuse
Martino
Welcome over to our side, would you like me to send you your angry mob members pitch fork in the post??
Report abuse
Shane
Firstly, thanks for entering into debate – appreciated.
I can’t see how you can write what you have though. Why drag up Billets from 10 years ago? PSD have brought 2 reports in 2008 and 2009 that clearly say (the 2009 one in the INTRODUCTION) that they don’t want an extension and this was backed up by independent advice.
Those are facts. Simply saying “ah, but they are clearly written from the angle of extending the runway” is conjecture and no basis for decision making.
My understanding of the FACTS are fairly simple – please correct any FACTUAL inaccuracies (as no doubt you will be privy to more info than I!)
1. The runway and aprons and lighting etc is old and knackered;
2. We have to fix them now or face even more mind-boggling figures;
3. The CAA state that if you fix your airfield, you MUST reasonably address any other things that don’t comply with their rules.
4. The RESAs don’t comply with the rules.
5. Ergo, they must be reasonably fixed.
Granted, “reasonable” can lead to some interpretation. I believe that as land exists it is “reasonable” to obtain it for safety. “Unreasonable” would be an airport next to a cliff or in the sea.
The States have had quite a few professional firms (at least two) who make a living out of airfield design who broadly agree, albeit Motts said EMAS could work at an increased cost.
Therefore I can understand an arguement based on the FACT of cost (RESA vs EMAS), but please, Shane, tell me how any of the above can be argued (assuming the FACTS are indeed correct!)
Thanks
(see guys and GAC, I am trying to get it!)
Report abuse
On the basis that applications to remove earth banks from fields are usually rejected by Environment when applied for the public, there should be no chance of the States being allowed to remove any hedges or banks.
Or, if they do, its a great precedent for the rest of us.
Report abuse
If only i could put my thoughts into words as Helen as done :) great post
Come on Ray where are you?
Helen for PSD minister?.
Report abuse
The Western RESA does comply today, it exceeds the RESA minimun as it is 117 metres long. However granted the Eastern RESA falls just short of 90 metres by being 78 metres long.
If a 120 EMAS was put at the Western end and then a 120 metre RESA at the Eastern end then only an additional 45 metres would be required which would take the boundary just up to La Mare road, plus leave scope for EMAS to be installed at the Eastern end if required, or even less extra requirement if a 90 metre RESA was put at the Eastern end.
Certainly either way requiring far less earth works, reprofiling and CPOs etc.
Report abuse
Martino
We thank Helen for her eloquence and wonder where you want your green ribbon sent?
Seriously though,it would be gratifying to think more people could be persuaded, so anything you can do to spread the word will be appreciated. One convert is good, more is better.
Report abuse
Billythefish
You might not want to read previous Billets but unless you do you will not fully understand how we got to our present situation. Perhaps though you could read my earlier post regarding the design approach adopted. There is a lot more to engineering design than ‘complying with the rules’ as you put it.
Report abuse
It was the detail in Helen’s contribution that impressed me. There is more and more evidence that this whole scheme is being railroaded through. I still worry that if we don’t go for it we will be left without a plan to replace the current runway, which we all agree needs to be replacing, but PSD now has some very serious questions about the way it has conducted this project.
Report abuse
Martino
We agree, the runway does need to be brought up to standard. It is unbelievable that knowing the condition and lifespan of such structures, the Board of Administration opted to build a shiny new terminal (without consulting with the airlines we might add) before securing adequate infrastructure like a decent runway. EMAS could still be adopted and not involve any serious delay because the planning application would be unlikely to face a serious challenge unlike the present situation.
PSD have done such a number on the States Members that one of them seemed to think the cracks were like something out of a disaster movie and the surface so uneven one would trip over if walking on it. This view was retracted the day after but why did this deputy not question why they had been given erroneous information in the first place? Flybe didn’t seem so concerned when they announced they were using the Embraer 170 jet but that’s all gone quiet.
The modus operandi thus far has been to deal with people as pieces on a chess board. No direct face-to-face communications. This is what has upset us so much. Most people, if approached in a reasonable fashion respond positively. If treated without respect and bullied, most people push back. Ultimately it is unlikely that the CPO debate will take place, but the episode has exposed PSD shortcomings in public relations, despite employing a professional firm to help them. I guess it is a leadership thing.
After a discussion today with a member of the project board I live in hope that there may now be a change of policy with open and fair discssions taking place about proper compensation and mitigating measures being adopted to ease the worst effects of the planned development. If not, the fight will have to go on.
Report abuse