We were told there would be no more compulsory purchase

Monday 16th May 2011, 2:29PM BST.

Deputy David De Lisle ANTI airport project campaigners are taking a stand against another compulsory purchase order.

West deputy David De Lisle (pictured) has attacked Public Services’ request to obtain two parcels of land belonging to two homeowners who have refused to allow new runway lights to be sited on their property.

Public Services says that without the consent of landowners Margaret Le Noury and Mr M. R. Pinder the department will not be able to apply for planning permission.

That would mean missing the deadline to accept the current tender and cost the States another £2m., which is why it was going for compulsory purchase.

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.

View more: Airport news, Public Services news.

1
Expat80

May 17, 2011 at 4:53 am

Absolutely NO COMPULSORY PURCHASE of land to further the totally unnecessary expansion of the airport. ‘Compulsory purchase’ is a disgusting undemocratic evil that should never be entertained by free peoples. Only those, if any, struggling under the jackboot of a dictatorship should have to bear such an impostion and Guernsey is not under the jackboot now, or is it? And as for that 2 million pounds? Had I the authority I would immediately fire and take action against those responsible.

Report abuse
2
Islander

May 17, 2011 at 10:57 am

Expat80:
I am entirely in agreement of your feelings about all this.

They’ll never know what it was like to feel the weight of that Jackboot.

Some of them should be ashamed of what they do, and one especially should ask his father what it was like. I remember him-
I’m sure he dis-owns his son’s attitude.

Report abuse
3
Gilthead

May 17, 2011 at 1:38 pm

Agree with the posts above.

Compulsory purchase sets a very dangerous president. One that is very much at odds with rights enshrined in law.

I’m no lawyer but if this goes ahead and was challenged…the outcome could be very interesting.

Oh and of course another waste of our taxes.

Report abuse