Runway backward step ‘a disgrace’

The St Peter Port South deputy has also challenged P&R’s estimated costs of looking into a longer runway.

He brought a successful requete to the States in October, after which an investigation was started into the possibility of installing a 107m-long strip to increasing the runway length from 1,463 metres to 1,570 for take-off and landing in one direction and landing in the other.

The findings of that investigation have not yet been published, and P&R’s report includes a proposal for members to agree that no further work is done on extending the runway beyond the current boundaries as that investigation is ongoing.

P&R also offers members the option to approve an investigation into extending the runway to 1,700-1,800m.

But the committee wants £700,000 to commission this work, and ‘as guardians of the taxpayers’ money’ it does not recommend exploring an idea that it did not believe the community or the States would back.

‘P&R have put us back where we were in 2017,’ said Deputy Kuttelwascher. ‘Personally I think it’s a disgrace.’

He also took issue with the estimated cost of researching the longer option.

‘My view is there is enough expertise on-island to look at up to a code three runway [up to 1,799m],’ said Deputy Kuttelwascher.

‘You could be looking at less than £200,000, and in fact most of that work has been done so someone just has to collate it.’

The idea of researching a runway extension of 1,700m. is supported by business groups.

The Institute of Directors, Chamber of Commerce and the Guernsey International Business Association have issued a joint statement urging deputies to back P&R’s second proposition, which the committee itself does not support.

‘Based on the recommendation from the PwC report, we believe a detailed cost benefit analysis needs to be undertaken into a potential runway extension to 1,570m and 1,700m,’ said the business groups.

‘While we hope this work can be completed on a timely basis and well within the £700k budget identified in P&R’s policy letter, the scale of this budget commitment is modest in relation to both the capital cost of the infrastructure and the socio-economic implications for Guernsey of the investment decision made.’

The alternative, continuing with ‘inadequate infrastructure’, would likely fail the island from both a social and economic perspective, said the groups.

‘It also risks compromising on safety and reliability as airline operators may be forced to stretch their operational limits to provide services to Guernsey.’

And while the implications for Aurigny’s strategy should be considered as part of the cost benefit analysis, ‘the protection of the airline should not result in an infrastructure policy that is contrary to the long term interests of the island as a whole.’

Economic Development president Charles Parkinson wants to see the business case developed for extending the runway so members can make an informed decision.

In his opinion the research into the 1,570m extension and the reduction of the runway end safety area (Resa) to 90m might conclude that this did not meet the requirements of the licensing authorities. He understood that the kind of Resa proposed would need to be 120m and so extend outside the airport’s boundaries.

While doubting that an 1,800m runway would be justified, he thought a 1,700m runway could be a practical option. ‘The question is, would the investment be justified? And that is what we need to discover.

‘I believe that both easyJet and British Airways would be willing to operate off a 1,700 metre runway, potentially opening a number of new route options for Guernsey.’

While the runway would be confined within the existing airport boundaries, the east-end Resa would extend beyond the boundary and would require the closure or diversion of the road running along the eastern boundary of the airport towards La Villiaze.

If a 240m Resa was chosen, it would require some properties being demolished, and that would mean compulsory purchase would be required.

A 120m Resa using Emas (Engineered Materials Arresting System – a specially installed surface which quickly stops any aircraft) would not need any properties to be demolished but would need to be laid on a level surface so a lot of engineering and earthworks would be needed.

‘All of these issues need to be properly examined and evaluated,’ said Deputy Parkinson.

n Debate on P&R’s report is due to take place at this week’s States meeting, which starts tomorrow.