Minister: ‘Come to the airport drop-in and get your project facts straight’
Tuesday 16th August 2011, 2:29PM BST.
Caretaker Daryl Broadhurst checks out the plans. (1170564)
Caretaker Daryl Broadhurst checks out the plans. (1170564)
PUBLIC SERVICES minister Bernard Flouquet has urged people to attend the department’s drop-in sessions.
He said it was important to get the relevant information before expressing opinions and concerns.
By the end of today, project officials will have spent a total of 18 hours over two days in the terminal building on standby for anyone wishing to find out more about the £80.4m. runway works.
But yesterday, people did not begin trickling in until an hour after the session began.
The drop-ins coincide with the publication of Public Services’ planning application, which will give islanders the opportunity to influence Environment before it makes a decision at an open planning meeting in October.
- Read the full story in the Guernsey Press. Click here for subscription details. Individual editions are now available online.
Island Life
All about Guernsey
Ambassador of the Year 2011
History & Heritage
Visitor Information
Guernsey's government
Campaigns
Voice For Victims
Voice for Victims is a campaign aimed at promoting the rights of those affected by child sexual abuse.
This is Guernsey
Guernsey Press
Useful Links
Sorry Bernard, thanks for the invite, but i really can’t be bothered wasting petrol going via school holiday roadworks, all the way out to the airport to view something that already has ‘states approval’.
Surely i’m wasting my time, because lets face it, will the Environment department really be interested in my views or opinions, no matter how well informed i am.!!!
I’m sure the Public services application and scheme proposals will tick all the relevant boxes for Environment to approve the scheme.
OUR only hope to stop this monster spend is that wonderful gathering of neighbourhood friendly people. ‘Works within 9 metres of a road brigade, the Forest Douzaine.
Support your parish, support your Douzaine and don’t give the works a Bornement.!!!
Report abuse
But is there anything new been displayed?
Report abuse
Yes it would be nice to know the in depth details of this £80.4m project. Often though we do not get to see them only what the Environment Department try’s to feed us with. Instead of your drop in sessions why not post the details on the internet for all to see or are you afraid there too many eyes looking. Move with the times as your expenses certainly are.
Report abuse
What’s the point? It’s not as if we (the public) even get listened to. Why bother pretending that we live in a “democracy” when our illustrious leaders continue to push through hair brained schemes which waste our money and resources? Why kid ourselves that “we can make a difference” through the channels available to us? It’s pretty clear that everything is decided before it even goes out to consultation so I guess us serfs should just bow down to the self proclaimed “lords of the manor” and pay (yet more) taxes.
Report abuse
It’s this level of apathy that got us in this mess in the first place.
And I think you’ll find the runway extension/resurfacing project is actually a lot less than 80milliom, whith a significant amount being spent on ESSENTIAL drainage and resufacing the apron – which would still need doing even if the plans only invovlved resurfacing the existing runway in its current place ….
But of course whingeing about wasting 80mill sounds much better ….
Report abuse
Toby: I agree. With less apathy, more people might have realised earlier on that no mitigation was being sought to ensure that the work that needed to be done, could be kept to the absolute minimum necessary. And so we have ended up with an over-scaled project that, being larger will therefore be more expensive than we need and no-one really seems to know why we are doing it.
Is it to improve safety? If so why when our records show that the current layout of runway, safety areas, taxi ways etc have resulted in an impressive safety record?
Is it so that we can get larger aircraft in? We are assured that this is NOT a runway extension so it is not about bringing in larger aircraft. The consultant from Mott MacDonald told me that opening up to larger aircraft would be a very unwise thing to do and something they would strongly recommend against.
Is it so that high-worth individuals can fly here in their private Gulf Stream jets? I don’t know….. maybe.
What does seem certain, is that we are spending tens of millions on this project over and above what is absolutely necesssary while at the same time further urbanising a part of our very limited rural area. The phrase ‘essential project’ is unfortunately being taken at face value. While maintenance and improvement to the runway fabric is ‘essential’, I am yet to be convinced that anything else REALLY is.
Report abuse
Toby,
It was indicated that the cost of just moving the runway, (which is NOT essential) and the knock-on of that, adds about £30m to the project.
I am not whinging about £80m, I am whinging about the wasted £30m – just think what else could be done with that!
Report abuse
Poor old Bernard couldn’t spin a coin.
Lets get a few facts straight here:
- the £80 million project is unessesary for the airports current designation – a regional airport supporting a small community.
- The tax payer is having the wool pulled over their eyes as this is an airport expansion.
- As Rosie intimates this is for larger jet aircraft to land and take off – be that commercials (unlikely) or big biz jets such as Gulfstreams and Global Challengers.
- The commercialisation of the airport is likely to happen within a couple of years – we are paying for that.
- the current footprint will increase dramatically with new hangarage and businesses following commercialisation a la Exeter and Southampton.
Having mooted these points at a previous drop in I can confirm that this caused a degree of anxiety.
But what can we actually do? Our States members are weak and in many cases foolish so what chance do the public have?
Once the gravity of this actually dawns on the appathetic majority there might be a bit of trouble!
Report abuse
Excellent post Gilthead, although I would say that Bernard and his PR deputy have managed to spin this well enough to the deputies who voted it through.
They largely did this by pulling ex-pilot Dep Kuttelwascher into the camp after he proved so troublesome outside of it, vis-a-vis the incinerator.
Report abuse
Rosie- dont confuse people not agreeing with you and protesting as apathy, perhaps you might be in a minority?
Report abuse
Jack,
Sure – most people, in possession of the facts of this case as opposed to the spin, would of course want their taxes spent on setting up for a longer runway by stealth rather than services more relevant to them.
The trouble is most people are too busy just earning a living and looking after their family to go through hundreds of pages of sometimes complex details, just to check up on our politicians and civil service. And that is precisely what PSD are relying on.
Report abuse
Jack,
I struggle to imagine that there are many people who would be happy about the size of this project and all the knock on effects that it will cause, and the extra money it will require over and above what is absolutely necessary if they realised that we could have got away with something smaller.
Report abuse
It seems that the penny has still not dropped – we are not having a runway extension, it is a runway end SAFETY AREA extension, which unfortunately requires the runway to be RELOCATED 120m to the west to allow for the longer safety area to be accomodated at the east end.
This will not make the slightest difference to the types of aircraft that are able to use our runway.
Report abuse
I too am surprised that there has not been more opposition to the proposals. PSD have once again failed to present the States with all the options. PSD have decided amongst themselves and not explained to anyone why the CAA were not approached for dispensation on the length of the RESAs which could have enabled a smaller project to be presented as an option to the States. If such an approach had been turned down then they would have been seen to have considered all options.
The States, I am sure, only voted it through because of the farce over the incinerator and it was very disappointing that none of the deputies asked the questions the public wanted which shows how far out of touch they are when it comes to these large projects.
Report abuse
Kevin. Do enlighten us. Why are we so much in need of another 120 meters of safety run-off on the eastern end of the runway? Would your answer please include details, including causes, of how many run-offs we have had at that end over the last 60 years. Thanks.
Report abuse
when the runway extension is complete I’m looking forward to being able to fly straight into here in complete safety……………..
http://www.myguidebritain.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/london-city-airport.jpg
Report abuse
i urge everyone to look at this video, seemingly made by PSD showing how the infill will look at the western end of the airfield, especially how the ILS gantry will dominate the skyline.
http://www.facebook.com/#!/video/video.php?v=10150244122772838&oid=132380340134748&comments
it seems a bit fishy that this is a PSD made simulation, yet is nowhere to be found on any online publication or propaganda!!!
Hopefully the moderator on here will take a look and pass this on to the newsdesk as it seems another case of the public not being told the full facts!
Report abuse
Rosie,
I have never said we need another 120m of runway end safety area at the east end however as we are now the RESA is below the minimum length required by the CAA regulations,it is currently 78m,we need 90m minimum to meet their requirements.
The CAA actually recommends a 240m RESA for our length of runway.
You can argue that longer RESAS are not necessary but if you were in an aircraft that was to overshoot the runway I’m sure you would be rather thankful for longer safety run off areas!
In answer to your question about run offs in the last 60 years at the east end I can only recall one ( a small private jet about 3 years ago, as it is paved surface that end it was able to taxi back out ) but due to our prevailing westerlies I would estimate aircraft land from the east coast about 80% of the time.
The point I was trying to make in my previous post was that a lot of people still seem to be under the impression that the runway itself is being extended and do not understand that it is being moved to accomodate the larger safety areas,the usable runway length will not change.
Taking a slightly different angle we could say that we don’t really need nine airport firemen on duty at all times, they cost thousands of pounds a year and do very little but the fact remains if Guernsey airport wants to remain licensed and continue to operate they are a legal requirement as are all the other required safety measures.
Report abuse
Very insightful post russm, although there are some deputies I know who understand the project for the Trojan horse that it is.
I would bet that in a few years we will see an application to the CAA to reduce our new maximum length safety areas – and hey presto! a longer runway.
The dishonesty sucks.
Report abuse
Kevin,
You say the CAA recommends a 240m RESA for our length of runway. I think you will find that the MAXIMUM recommended RESA for ANY length of runway is 240m, but it is up to individual airfields to ask what is the MINIMUM for their particular circumstance (based on movements, aircraft types and safety record, amongst other things). Shockingly, this was not done.
Also, I think you will find the easterly runway is used about a third of the time, as opposed to the one fifth you suggest.
Your argument about the number of firemen on duty is specious.Just like the RESA length, there will be a risk-assessed calculation of the number of firemen needed.
But when it comes to the RESA, this risk assessment was never done.
Report abuse
Kevin
The Take-Off Distance Available (TODA) under the proposed arrangements increases by 120m. TODA is one of the ICAO measurements of a runway. Granted, another runway measurement will not change – the Landing Distance Available (LDA).
PSD failed to consult with the CAA and seek derogations from the “recommended” RESA length of 240m. The same as at Heathrow. At 90m our RESA’s are compliant with the minimum requirement. Even after the £80+ million is spent, we shall not have a compliant airfield. For that we needed to adopt EMAS, which, if one takes the additional costs popping out of the woodwork now (and no doubt in the future), would not have been so different.
So far as runway use is concerned, the pattern has been shifting over the years. Up to about 10 years ago the split was 70% westerly runway, 30% easterly. Today however, the average is more like 60/40. This year the figure is edging towards 55/45. So, why is it acceptable to have a 198m RESA at the eastern end and insist on a truncated 240m at the western end?
Report abuse
People of guernsey
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFuE6DrAuOA
Report abuse
Great Post Kevin! I just wish people weren’t so blinkered and obsessed by it being an “extension”!
Guadeloupe, that’s not how it works. Once safety areas are in place, that’s it, they can’t be moved like a roadwork barrier!
As for the argument that it is to accommodate larger aircraft, they could operate in now. Global Expresses, Gulfstreams, etc. operate in here NOW, and larger commercial aircraft could as well if the runway wasn’t in such an appalling state. Get the job done, and hopefully people will find something else to whine about with very little knowledge of the project!
Oh, and there was a freight plane that ran off the end of the Westerly end of the runway about 4 years ago. I’m sure if it was a passenger plane then people would remember and wouldn’t be quite so critical of the need for RESAS.
Report abuse
I am not blinkered about it being a runway extension. It is however an perimeter extension and in many ways that troubles me more.
Big D – I am fully conversant with the properties of a RESA thank you. Of course part of a RESA could be incorporated (or re-incorporated) into a runway by paving it to the required standard, installing/adjusting lighting and repositioning the ILS.
This would undoubtedly cost a few million, but it is perfectly possible and as a stand alone runway extension it would be relatively cheap (as most of the work is being paid for this time round).
It is a fact that certain larger private jets are currently limited in wet conditions.
What injuries did the freighter crew sustain in the overrrun, by the way?
Report abuse
Rosie
Very quick to accuse and demand of others. Let’s flip that shall we?
You say:”No mitigation sought” – please provide your proof of that.
You question whether the boundary (RESA) extension is for safety – if you know so much, you would know that it is for safety, but our current records don’t mean a thing if you are NOT compliant. Perhaps like me you have never had a car crash – you still have to buy insurance. We have had no accidents, but we still must comply with CAA requirements.
You then follow up with some typically enflaming comments about HNWI and their gulf-stream jets; poor, poor comment. Anyway, I would have thought that such planes could already land here is someone wanted to visit their money. And if they did so what?
You were right in the first place – with no extension of the RUNWAY, no larger planes could land.
You might yet be convinced, but I wonder if that is because your mind is already closed to being convinced? You refer to the apparrent certainty of wastage – yet again, can provide no proof of your shouting.
I wait with interest.
Report abuse
Rosie
The “High-worth individuals” you quote already use Guernsey Airport with their Gulfstreams and Challengers on a regular basis.
It is actually some of the smaller jets that have a problem with the current state of the runway.
It is like people complaining about the noise jets make when the biggest culprits for noise are the Aurigny Trislanders that drone on for a long time after they have departed.
Report abuse
BTF – I challenge you to prove that the CAA have said we are not compliant.
And that my piscatorial nincumpoop is the whole thrust of this debate.
If PSD have a letter from the CAA saying that we do not comply and we must have 200 metre RESA’s then we’ll all shut up.
I wait with interest.
In fact if its so damn dangerous now lets shut the airport straight away.
Report abuse
http://www.constructionenquirer.com.
‘Lagan lands £81m runway job’
great article which bernard is quoted as saying
‘the urgent repair of the runway is only one aspect…..and represents around one third of the budget’
£81m divided by 3 = £27 million.
http://www.bbc.news 8th July 2011
Manchester runway 1 is being re-surfaced at night.( including some upgrading of services)
Length of runway 3km or 3000metres.
Cost of £21 million
and heres the question.
Guernsey runway 1463 metres.
Half the length but more expensive to re-surface than Manchester?
PSD and Deputy Flouquet might be negotiating with Lagan Construction, but i hope someone at T&R can use a calculator to check the figures.!!
Report abuse
enviroman,
Manchester runway 1 may be twice the length of Guernseys runway and at £21m cheaper to resurface than ours at approximately £27m but I bet that it doesn’t need raising by 1.5m to level it out,a complete new lighting system or extra modification to the runway end safety areas which is most likely where our extra cost comes in.
Something you possibly should have considered before writing your last post?
Report abuse
Gilthead,
We are not compliant with CAA regulations for runway end safety area lengths, we currently have only 78m at the east end – as far as the CAA is concerned the absolute MINIMUM required is 90m for our length of runway, in fact the recommendation is a for a 240m RESA.
Report abuse
Billythe fish.
Re seeking alleviation from having to comply with 240m RESA recommendation – if you don’t want to take Rosie’s word then just ask PSD if they sought it.
But before you waste the cost of a phonecall, don’t you think that if Bernie had documentary evidence from the CAA that we MUST have the RESAs he is proposing, he would not have missed the opportunity to tell everyone?
Report abuse
kevin
I did understand the point that you were trying to make and I know that the official line is that the extra work over and above maintaining the runway is about improving safety. But the extent of the work planned is excessive and I don’t think stands up to scrutiny.
The runway is already safe isn’t it? (If it isn’t, then why on earth is it still operating?) The new surface, drainage and lights will make it even safer and aeroplanes themselves are getting safer too…. brilliant! So going by our past history, with just those improvements, we will have an extremely safe runway before you even look at the RESA’s.
Bearing that all in mind, any enlarging of the RESA’s to keep the CAA happy, should be kept to the absolute minimum and, considering that we are a small island with limited land space, the present airport boundary should have been the limit to which we were willing / able to go. Did we go to the CAA and plead mitigating circumstances to ensure that any lengthening of the RESA’s was kept as small as possible? I have seen no evidence of our having done that despite the question being asked.
Improving safety is presumedly about preventing injury. Has a risk assessment been done to ascertain just how much we are spending per person who is likely to get hurt over the next 30 years at the airport once the runway repairs are done? Would we get better value for our money if we spent it on areas where it is more certain that lives really could be rescued? Early bowel screening being just one obvious suggestion… not quite so glamorous but more certain to save lives over the same period..
BtF: It is not up to me to provide the evidence of wether the CAA was approached re the minimum RESA’s we could get away with. The question has been asked and the response has been silence.
Report abuse
A PSD official told someone that they thought there was only 78m at one end but then they re-measured it and it was 88m (!)
In any case, and as has been mentioned by others, it is perfectly possible to retain the runway length and have 270m available for the two RESAs to be divvied up as a risk assessment indicates (i.e. as there will still be a slight downward slope to the west and it is the principal landing direction it may be risk-assessed that you would have (say) 150m at that end and 120m at the other.
But no-one bothered to investigate this before buying up fields, planning to close roads, sterilising agricultural land and committing to far more money and disruption than is necessary.
Report abuse
Re: Proof.
Look at the September 2009 Billet, which includes:-
4.2. The extension of the RESAs is not optional. The Director of Civil Aviation (DCA) requires that as part of the runway rehabilitation project, the issue of the currently inadequate RESAs be addressed.
4.7 Throughout this process the Department has been consulting with the DCA who in turn has received advice from the CAA (Civil Aviation Authority) and has considered the ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organisation) Standards and Recommended Practices concerning the feasibility and acceptability of alternative options
Then, in response to an option that was considered, which would have seen 135m RESAs within the airport boundary (are you still with us Rosie and Guadeloupe?), the view received from the DCA was given as:-
DCA: This option does not satisfactorily address the RESA issue and is not acceptable.
Now I am sure that is not sufficient proof for some. But then that will always be a forlorn hope.
Conspiracy? Of course it is…..
Report abuse
Dave r – why then is the airport still operating?
Report abuse
The above by Dave R needs the other side of that question, what was the aviation profile that had been given to the CAA (assuming negotiations did take place) in order for the RESA debate to take place.
I do not accept for Guernsey that the entire project as it stands is required. I fully suspect that there is a smoke screen somewhere and in time we will learn of it.
Given where aviation is going (pedal power anyone) then it would appear full hardy to spend this much on the Airport. We should be doing the essential maintenance as a basis and then work from there.
Report abuse
OK, I know I’m on a winner. Why?
2 reason. Firstly, Rosie can’t prove her assertions. Rosie, when you STATE that they weren’t asked, I think it’s entirely reasonable to require proof of your STATEMENT – is it a statement of fact or an assumption that you are dressing up as fact? Which is it?
Secondly, Gilthead just tries to flip the requirement back to me. Sorry, friend, I asked the question. Just asking me the same question won’t do.
Oh, and next time try to do it without playground insults, there’s a good little boy.
Report abuse
Dave R.
I am not suggesting a conspiracy theory at all. Looking at your “proof” and the Sept 2009 Billet, of course the RESAs must be addressed – indeed the CAP says they must be considered when rehabilitation is carried out. And one of the RESAs was below the absolute minimum of 90m, either by 2m or 12m (depending it would seem on which measurement was adopted). However none of this means that the maximum of 240m was required or that a risk assessment should not be undertaken to assess the minimum acceptable consistent with safe operations.
Section 4.7 which you quote does not indicate in any way that efforts were made to ascertain the minimum acceptable length of RESA.
In respect of your last point (are you still with me, Dave?) it is not the job of the DCA to undertake risk assessment of RESA length, so in the absence of this having been provided to him, he had no alternative but to default to the maximum of 240m, because this is the only length that he categorically knows will be acceptable.
Is Mott McDonald in on the conspiracy theory too when they state in their report that a risk assessment of the RESAs may well have justified shorter lengths?
Report abuse
The Gueno’s dropped in unfortunatly no one there was able to answer our question on drainage and pollution control costing £11.2 M. Tune in or drop out is the Gueno motto.
Report abuse
I’m sure Alderney doesn’t comply with CAA regulations, their RESA is a cliff.
This is an absolute waste of money, and the way old Bernie’s said it is so demeaning. I hope nobody votes him in next year, his eyes look worse as the years go on.
Report abuse
Here is the quotation from the Mott MacDonald report:
“a detailed statistical analysis of the risks [of undershoots and overruns] involved has not been undertaken … Such a study may demonstrate that RESA dimensions that are less than the CAA’s recommended dimensions could be adequate for the nature of operations at this airport.”
Report abuse
The only time PSD has sought to ask the CAA if it was possible to depart from the recommended maximum of 240m x 90m was very recently in order to accommodate the slight modifications for clipping the far corner very of the RESA etc.
It is a verifiable FACT that no risk assessment into RESA length was conducted before presenting the options in the September 2009 Billet.
Over to you, Billy and Dave
Report abuse
September 2009 Billet again…
8.12 Halcrow carried out a numerical analysis to assess the overrun risk of each of the options. This risk assessment established that only RESAs of 200m or longer would be acceptable to the CAA and thus likely to find favour with the DCA.
Yawn.
Report abuse
Mr G,
If the CAA did not consider Alderney airport fit for purpose as it stands then it would not be able to operate………..
As I understand it any major new work carried out to runways has to meet their current safety requirements.
Guadeloupe/Rosie/Gilthead
Do any of you fancy sending some envelopes out in the post asking for donations towards funding a CAA risk assessment on required RESA lengths?
Some of our ‘powers that be’ might not be the sharpest tools in the box but surely someone must have communicated with the CAA to determine what is acceptable to them?
Report abuse
and if it is established that they didn’t, kevin, will you join our happy band?
Report abuse
David R
The 2009 reference is to one of the three Reports the Board of Admin commissioned from Halcrow ( Aug 2000, April 2001 & Sept 2001). All three Reports were investigations into the practicalities of extending the runway length to 1700m and any statements should be read in that context. The Board of Admin’s conclusion in the 2001 Billet Report included;
“28.6 … It should be re-emphasised that the increased length of the RESAs would be subject to negotiation with the CAA; in order to establish the most appropriate length for Guernsey Airport. The revised RESAs would be between the current 90-metre and the maximum 240-metre length.”
This was mirrored in Mott MacDonald’s statement ten years later;
“Such a (risk assessment) study may demonstrate that RESA dimensions that are less than the CAA’s recommended dimensions could be adequate for the nature of operations at this airport.”
The truth is that the PSD never did make the effort to establish a sensible RESA length for our airport and instead shoe-horned in lengths as near as possible to 240m used at the UK’s major international airports.
Report abuse
Guadeloupe,
Before I commit myself to joining your happy band I’d like to hear from one of our deputies or Mr Flouquet himself, maybe they could clarify exactly what procedure was followed and what final decision has been reached regarding RESA lengths?
I suspect we will never know ( c’mon Deputy Jones or Deputy Fallaize – spill the beans!)
Maybe I should have made the effort to attend a drop in, I’m sure all would have been revealed!
Report abuse
BTF – pot, kettle, black?
Ok – the fundemental issue here is whether (within reason) the airfield could be kept within its current boundaries.
If not then proof needs to be tabled – this simply hasn’t happened.
The conclusions must therefore be that this is either megolomania, airport expansion by the back door or just plain stupidity.
Report abuse
Kevin,
Given the moderation system on here which can disrupt the flow of debate a tad, perhaps you posted before Dep. Shane Langlois’ post appeared to answer your appeal?
I suspect Dep. Langlois knows more about the airport project than most of the rest put together. I also expect that the others largely relied on Dep. Kuttelwascher because he used to fly a Jumbo into airfields with 4km long runways.
So, welcome to our happy and growing band! Good to have you aboard. :-)
Report abuse
Sorry, Gilthead, don’t understand the pot, kettle, black comment – please point out where I have had to resort to insulting others?
Report abuse
Billy da fiish – I don’t think I need to point out where some of your posts have been somewhat antagonistic.
However, if you feel mortally insulted by my little quip – where no offence was intended – then I withdraw it forthwith.
Lets not let that get in the way of debate on this very serious matter though!
Report abuse
I have commented and/or asked repeatedly that there is no evidence of a risk assesment and associated negotiations that I now suspect that there really isn’t one, and if there was it was done on an aircraft profile for an extended runway.
It is time for PSD to proove they have correctly underwritten this Airport project.
Make the documents (if they exist) public domain. (Wales Audit report).
Report abuse
Surely based on what Deputy Langlois has stated, one of the most controversial aspect of this project ie extending the Western boundary of the airfield across La Mare road and associated fields & watercourses could have been avoided and a substantial amount of money saved.
It seems PSD are hell-bent on some sort of perverse future proofing against all the advise of previous reports. Utter madness.
Report abuse
Guern Abroad,
I am sure if said documents existed, PSD would have fallen over themselves by now to put them in the public domain. As is so often the case with this department, silence speaks volumes.
Report abuse
The ine thing I’d really like to know about this project is what is it actually going to cost? I think most islanders could be forgiven a little sceptiscm at the prospect of the project running on time and on budget.
Personally I’m happy to read the information on-line. I doubt very much whether my questions about independent oversight would be given much of an audience anyway.
Report abuse
They should move it back down L’eree then the lorrys wouldn’t have as far to go, just a shortish drive round the coast. It would stop all the whinging about that silly, insignificant little road (La Mare Road or whatever its called). All those silly guerns driving around (at snails pace I might add) with that pathetic green ribbon on their cars, when there is another road you can use a few yards further along.
Report abuse
SS
An airfield at sea level makes more sense as bad weather would be less of a disruption. Should have been properly considered before spending £24 million on a new terminal! (Which should have come after properly maintaining the runway!!
As for La Mare Road, you may be surprised to learn that on a Saturday morning, over 50 vehicles per hour use that “insignificant little road”.
And those pathetic green ribbons represent people who care about Guernsey’s heritage, environment and landscape as well as its future.
Report abuse
The “airfield at sea level” debate is a distraction from the main issue, in the same way as EMAS helpfully diverted attention away from the main issue. What should be exercising taxpayers is that PSD failed to establish basic information that could have saved the island from significant financial and environmental costs. This is nothing short of a scandal and they should not be allowed to get away with it, frankly.
Report abuse
guadeloupe
Have you used the consultation period at Environment to object to the PSD application? Only a couple of days left. PSD have asserted that the works are essential. However, the lack of proper investigation into alternative solutions means that they cannot accurately describe the work as “essential” and that brings them into conflict with the planning laws. Without amending the Rural Area Plan, a public enquiry should be held to ensure our government is not abusing our Human Rights. Without an enquiry the only avenue open is a Judicial Review. The Planning Law provided for the enquiry route specifically to ensure Human Rights were observed.
Report abuse
I presume that SS either didn’t bother to read this thread prior to posting or is happy that Guernsey is going to fork out millions for a larger project than was possibly needed. Or maybe they just couldn’t care less when ‘insignificant little roads’, otherwise known as Guernsey lanes, are buried and transformed into a homogenised and sterile landscape. It’s hardly any wonder that Guernsey gets progressivley more urbanised with attitudes like that around.
Report abuse
The problem for the majority of people wishing to object is that they do not have the time to delve deeply into the planning laws in order to form a valid objection. PSD (and indeed other departments, but PSD are masters at it) rely on people not having the time to study all the material they would need to do in order to hold them to account.
Report abuse
Guadeloupe:
You’re right… all that document reading can be a put-off. But infact for this, I think people could object just on the grounds that the rural area is being encroached BEFORE real efforts were made to avoid doing that. And that is evidenced by the fact that no risk assessment was done to see what the minimum length RESA’s that we could possibly get away with were.
Report abuse
guadeloupe
Your comments are noted and largely shared. And for this reason some examples of the issues that can be contested with Environment have been placed on the Guernsey Airport Campaign Facebook site. Take a look and feel free to use the material to submit your own objections.
Report abuse
Hi GAC,
Thanks for that. I am afraid I don’t do Facebook and have no plans to start, but if there is a Guernsey Airport Campaign, why were none of the campaign members on the court steps when the proposals were debated last month and why was there no “call to arms” for people to join them?
I am not saying that I do not think the anti-airport feeling is there; I am convinced that it is, but you have to see the whites of the Deputies eyes to put the wind up them!
Report abuse
guadeloupe
Call me on 07781 118677 if you want copies of the posts on Facebook. The consultation period has been extended to 9 September I am informed. As for the campaigning, please be assured that whilst
no one camped out on the steps, efforts were made to persuade deputies of the folly of the current proposals.
Report abuse
GAC, you can email me at guadeloupe2011 (at) hot mail dot co dot uk
Report abuse