Airport project gets green light
Tuesday 18th October 2011, 1:43PM BST.
GUERNSEY’S airport project has been given the go ahead.
Environment Department board members today agreed with their planners advice that the £80.4m. operation, which includes levelling the runway and extending the safety ends, should be passed.
Of the five board members, only Deputy Janine Le Sauvage dissented, concerned about where a temporary concrete batching plant would operate from.
The board also approved plans to use Longue Hougue for a temporary harbour.
- More on this story in Wednesday’s Guernsey Press
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
Hooray ! Hooray ! now lets just get on with it and everyone stop moaning it’s progress, if left to some people we would still be ferried by Dakotas or the Vega !!!
At least there is one thing for sure, we will have to keep our links with the mainland and maybe open up more ! or whats the point ?
Report abuse
Yes Hooray !
We need a decent runway, all those nimby Deputies headed by De Lisle have done is cost me as a tax payer money. Thanks guys !
Report abuse
How can Deputy Shane Langlois continue to waste Islanders/taxpayers money on fatuous arguments when it is quite obvious that the vast majority of Guernsey residents are content for the airport to go ahead.
If he seeks a judicial review, he is simply wasting taxation on feathering lawyers pockets to no avail.
Stop now and accept the majority vote.
Report abuse
What’s the point of what, Stone de Croze.
Nowhere have I seen anyone say that we should cut our links with the UK. It is just that we don’t need to spend £80m and use up precious green belt in order to maintain them.
As to opening up more links, I think you will find that the reason that ‘more links’ do not exist is that they are not commercially viable – and that has sod all to do with the length of the runway or RESA.
Report abuse
Finally, a decision has been made. Let’s get on with the project and not waste anymore money on further reviews. With any luck the next decision might give the island a decent waste disposal system!
Report abuse
Hooray? We have just witnessed an Environment Department and PSD abuse the system that was supposed to protect this island from the ravages of rampant development. In 2006 the States recognised that our planning laws were not Human Rights compliant and this needed to be addressed. The first stage of this was to development the Rural and Urban Area Plans. The second part of this exercise has conveniently sat in someone’s in-tray for 5 years, i.e. a proper appeals process. The abuse of the RAP and Policy RD1 means that the ONLY recourse left to anyone wishing to call our government to account is a Judicial Review. Changes to the RAP can be achieved by altering the RAP but that requires a Planning Inquiry, something PSD were concerned they would lose. This is as much about good governance as it is about environmental and human rights concerns.
Report abuse
@Rocquaine
You forgot to prefix your comments with the words ‘In my opinion’ before the assertion ‘it is just that we don’t need to spend £80 million and use up precious green belt….’
In someone else’s opinion, we do. They are, I presume, experts in this sort of thing. I have to admit I don’t know what your expertise is or how many years you have been designing airports and applying aviation regulations to that. I suspect none, but that is just my opinion and I could be wrong.
Now, on top of all that previous expert opinion, we have Environment’s opinion that the work does meet all the requirements of the planning law.
So that’s various people whose opinion ultimately matters, versus a few people who have other opinions – albeit invariably stated as unqualified facts. That, I would suggest, is best left to experts.
I know whose opinions I trust.
Report abuse
rocquaine,
Unless we bring our airport up to the standard required by the CAA we will cut our links with the UK, it is them that hold our licence to operate, if they decide we are not fit for purpose they can revoke it.
Report abuse
Dave
Excellent post – you are so right about opinions.
I had my doubts about the airport but you have said it all.
Report abuse
‘Airport project gets green light’
Yes, it does until someone decides to waste more taxpayers money by contesting the decision!
Report abuse
Kevin,
You know full well that no mitigation was sought from the CAA as to what length RESA would be required for our airport. That was a MAJOR oversight and is highly likely to have cost us considerably.
If the CAA are of a mind to shut airports and cut links, they can find lots of airports in the UK which do not have 240m RESAs. You are scaremongering.
Report abuse
rocquaine,
I don’t know if we could have got away with (slightly) shorter RESAs but I do know that what we have now does not meet their requirements so some alteration was inevitable.
There is a minimum requirement for RESA lengths dependant on runway length and category.
Report abuse
As regards RESAs …. yes it is possible to negotiate a reduced RESA with the CAA if it is not physically possible to accomadate the standard minima required. There clearly is room to accomodate them however, so I’m not sure the CAA would have agreed ( would have been nice to ask though .. ) to a reduction.
And remember how EMAS was supposed to solve all our problems ? …. until it was looked into properly, and it still wouldn’t fit within the existing boundaries …….
Report abuse
Yes there is a minimum length for RESAs. It is 90m. The maximum specified is 240m. There is a lot of room for negotiation in between.
I can see why I would argue my side as a taxpayer and environmentalist. What I cannot deduce so easily is the reason behind the passion and commitment with which you have been arguing your side so fervently kevin, unless perhaps you work for PSD?
Report abuse
And where is the limit on what one should do to accommodate them?
Go outside the airport boundary?
Close a road?
Compulsorily purchase land against the owner’s wishes?
Report abuse
i tend to agree with you Rocquaine, Kevin’s unerring commitment to this project, vehement objections to views other than his and misinformed scaremongering makes me think his links with PSD are more intimate than he reveals here…
or perhaps he owns an airline?
FYI, Kevin, other people are entitled to air their personal opinions and observations on these boards just as you are. Save towing the party line for your office based activities at the custard castle or your board meetings.
Report abuse
@Rocquaine
As an environmentalist, can you explain to me what your objection is to closing a road? Or are you just throwing that one in for ammunition?
@Kevin. I’m afraid I am with Rocquaine (to a degree) on the issue of the CAA closing the airport. That prospect has been thrown around by a few people, usually as a claim that PSD is scaremongering by insisting that if it doesn’t do this we won’t have an airport. I don’t think it is that cut and dry.
I think the reality of the situation is that if they don’t consider your safety areas to be long enough, they won’t actually close you down (within reason, I suspect) but can tell you to effectively shorten the runway, thus making some of this additional run-off. I am no expert but I suspect that would have an impact, unless you are happy to fly to London in a Trislander. I’m being a bit extreme there, but as I understand it the type of aircraft that can use an airport are dictated by how long the runway is. That seems logical to me.
As for Rocquaine’s claim (sorry, it was never going to last long) that no-one ever thought to pick up the phone to the CAA and get some guidance. If that were true, then effectively everyone involved would have to be an idiot. That I don’t believe. All the interviews I have seen or heard with people from this project suggest to me they are perfectly sensible. So no, I don’t buy it.
I suspect the issue of RESA length is a grey issue. How long is long enough? I don’t know – and I suggest neither do you. However I am pretty sure that if the regulators would like airports to have longer safety areas, then the solution is not to tickle their tummy and say we’ll give you another 15 metres because there’s a road that’s so special even environmentalists love it. I suspect the answer to that will be try again.
I suspect where the balance lies is a matter of judgement. Personally, I’m kind of reassured that if the unthinkable did happen when I was on a flight then my chances of survival are improved.
Report abuse
Before if a plane overshot west you would most likely crash bang wallop through fields and hedges. Now if a plane overshoots west it could crash bang wallop onto a main arterial road and shopping are due to the change in surrounding space and displacment of the runway.
I do not feel that the maximun recommended RESA length of 240m can be ‘reasonably’ provided. There were other approaches that could have been investigated and negoatiated but were only given a token gesture of consideration.
I expect in a few more years time the full ‘vision’ will become apparent as to why this project is shaped as it is.
Report abuse
@ Dave
My concern (and I suspect that of rocquaine’s) is not so much the closure of the road; which is annoying and will ultimately lead to an more urbanised style junction East of St Peters village to accommodate through traffic;
but the loss of green belt land to the West of La Mare road.
Yes they are man-made fields/ hedges etc but they are hundreds of years old and will be replaced by a vast re-contoured area surrounded by high fencing and a large ILS gantry in the middle of it.
Report abuse
Guern abroad – to literally turn your argument around – before if an aircraft overshot at the east end it would almost certainly crash down onto a main arterial road. Now it should stop in some grass within the airport boundaries.
I don’t think anyone can deny that the runway needs to move west. It’s the way it’s being done that is the problem.( and by how much possibly – though as I am not an aircraft and airport safety expert I wouldn’t dare to comment … )
And as for accusing our politicians of having ‘vision’ …. I doubt most of them even have very good hindsight …. To my mind nearly all conspiracy theories fail because they assume a degree of organization and planning that governments are totally incapable of ….
Report abuse
Dave.
It is a FACT that PSD did not seek to find out from the CAA by means of a risk assessment what the minimum RESA for our circumstances would need to be. Ask them. Instead they went for the full 240m and then just asked if they could clip the odd bit off here and there to accommodate the topography.
Is this a scandal? Yes. Why was it done like this? Well, several reasons, including the possibility of seeking that alleviation in the future and thus increasing the runway length by reducing the RESA. Watch this space. They justify it by calling it ‘future proofing’
Report abuse
Rocquaine
You lost, get over it.
Report abuse
Oh joy, now i can endure months of noisey evenings so that they can move the runway into my back garden! Waste of time and money, but of course nobody listens to us… So i guess we’ll just put up with it and fill the black hole later.
PS – I am going to continue to ride my bike down the comparatively safe Ruette De La Tourelle until the road is gone. I have done for 15 years, and don’t intend to stop until i have to!!
Report abuse
chris
My thoughts exactly but I was waiting until the lone Western Deputy who doesn’t give a toss about how many millions a delay will cost us, makes up his mind to accept the overwhelming decision of the States or not
Report abuse
The most depressing thing about this story is the amount of people who are clapping their hands at the prospect that yet more of Guernsey is to be urbanised for yet another ambitious, over spec’d, over priced project.
No-one….. I repeat no-one, is arguing that the airport does not need some level of refurbishment…. we are all in agreement that that needs to be done. But the size and scale of this project is unnecessary for the small island that we are. I find it amazing and desperately sad, how so many are happy to roll over without any sort of fight to preserve what limited rural area Guernsey still has. Everyone seems happy to just believe all the scaremongering about the CAA swanning in here to close us down if we don’t go the whole hog with the full recommendations despite the fact that our airport already has an excellent safety record which would become even safer with more modest repair works. And also despite there being other comparable airports that have much shorter run-off areas than we will now ultimately have, with apparently no problems with the CAA.
As Rocquaine above says, we did not get a risk assessment done in order to fight our case for a smaller, more appropriately scaled runway improvement. That should appall us and yet most people are just shrugging their shoulders with indifference. As temporary guardians of this island, it doesn’t say much about our desire to protect and guard what we have in order to pass it onto the next generation as unspoilt as is possible. Shame on us!
Report abuse
rosie
The protests have been heard
The debate has been had
The decision has been made
Report abuse
Ray- your post totally ignores the point I make. And the points you make seem to be in the wrong order.
The decision to which you refer, appears to have been made first….before the protests were heard or the debate had. The fact that a risk assessment was never made or presented to the CAA , indicates to me that there never was any intention of fighting tooth and nail to preserve the rural area around the airport or to ensure that the size of the project was kept to the absolute minimum possible. It would appear that those aims were never part of the original remit or considered a priority. We are not rolling in cash. We are not rolling in spare land. We are meant to be guardians of this island.
I don’t think that it is good enough for us to be so cavalier with Guernsey’s environment or cash. It bothers me greatly. I am sad (as I said in my earlier post) that it does not bother you or any of the other people who are cheering that the project is going ahead in its entirety…. larger than it most probably needed to be.
Report abuse
rosie
Point taken.I’m not exactly cheering the result either but what do you intend to do now that the decision has been made by the people who matter?
If you and the others wish to continue on about what COULD HAVE BEEN then please feel free to do so but I’m not convinced that it will get you anywhere other than filed under ‘W’ as a group of whingers
No doubt there will be other battles on other subjects in the future.It really does look like this one is lost so save your energy knowing that you put up a good fight tried your best
Report abuse
Ray: I am delighted that at this late hour you have at last realised what I, and others have been trying to say. If more had spoken up earlier we might not be where we are today. And I repeat, that I find it depressing the amount of people who are cheering the loss of more of Guernsey because…… well basically because of indifference I guess.
Report abuse
Ray,
It ain’t over till the fat lady sings. That may not be an overly accurate way of referring to certain western deputies but is not the possibility of a judicial review still on the cards?
The runway is not crumbling away any time soon (despite PSD scaremongering) and there is time to redress this.
Or are you one of those who believe that any decision is better than no decision. I am firmly in the camp that believes that an ability to change one’s mind in the light of new information (that no risk assessment was done) is a strength not a weakness. It may well be a male-female thing.
So, we could:
a) save rural land
b) save shedloads of money
c) dramatically cut down on lorry movements across the island
d) avoid the need for the ILS gantry eyesore so far outside the current perimeter
e) and with a bit of luck sack the PSD board at the same time
What’s not to like?
Report abuse
rocquaine
States changing their minds!
That’ll make them look like a bunch of numpties won’t it?
Report abuse
rocquaine – sounds like a plan…and I’m a bloke!
Report abuse
rocquaine
I heard on the wireless today that the contract has now been signed so if your dopey ‘fat lady’ deputy still wants a judicial review we will have another Suez compensation type situation
Can we afford that after the secret millions given away over the fishing dispute?
Had a little giggle listening to Trott’s hour on the radio on Monday morning.Talking about the secret payment he was asked directly which side of the dispute had requested the secrecy clause.Despite being armed with reams of paper which he used to answer every other question in detail he ‘couldn’t remember off the top of his head which side had wanted a no disclosure clause’
Report abuse
I believe the airport is in need of some work. It’s the enormous scale of it that concerns me.
Seems that’s the general thread of the dissenters on here.
Is ‘any decision’ (rather than none) a reason for celebration?
Should we just ‘carry on regardless’ with one of the largest and most expensive projects to hit this island in many a year (bearing in mind there are other, cheaper options, and the economic state of the rest of the world) just because questioning it will cost us (comparatively) a few quid…
and do those who complain about delay related ‘costs’ have ANY idea about how much more than the projected 81 mill this project is going to cost if it goes ahead as is, in terms of damage to roads /property /health /island?
It’s worth talking to a haulage company to get their views on what these lorries are going to do to our roads. The cost is going to be incalculable, and for those en route whose houses are damaged, it’ll be up to them to prove it to Lagan and claim from them.
Who do we all think will be paying for all the fall out of this project? Lagan? PSD perhaps?
WE will. Now that WILL be some spending we can all have a good moan about!
The indifference to what is happening to our lovely island, certain people’s willingness to believe everything they are being told because it’s easier, shoot down as trouble makers/ignore/diss and misconstrue those who care enough to question…NOT whether the work needs doing, but simply the WAY IT’S BEING DONE, is indeed, very, very sad.
Report abuse