Airport development plans face next big challenge

GUERNSEY'S airport project is facing its next test as Public Services goes to the States this week to get a sign-off on its preferred contractor.

But, as ever, it is not plain sailing - and the deeper you dig, the more buried costs jump out.

Just as day follows night, and as the reality of the £80m. project dawns, deputies and the public are beginning to wake up.

And with some justification, as questions go, at worse, unanswered.

Much play was made by the department of the money that had been shaved off the anticipated cost of the work.

Less has been made of the extras that have come on board with little examination publicly - although they have formed part of the gateway review process that Treasury reassures us has delivered a 'value for money solution'.

A footnote to PSD's report tells us that the cost of professional fees has increased by an eye-opening £3.5m. as the 'complexity of the scheme became apparent'.

That included £250,000 to redesign the scheme, while an increase in supervision by the designer/project manager comes in at £1.6m. and appointment of an independent client project manager at more than £1m. - a PSD project support team is more than £540,000.

All new costs not envisaged two years ago.

Nose-in, push-back parking for the planes, so opposed by the airlines since the new terminal was built to accommodate this practice, has increased by £400,000 to £1m.

Essential for the airport to continue operating when the work is under way, the real unanswered question is why the leap in price?

Additional air traffic control staff needed under this heading cost £420,000 as opposed to £240,000 in 2009 - and a new element is included in the costing: £370,000 to bus passengers to remote stands. That is the price of not walking.

'These costs are more than covered by savings that will be realised by reducing the overall project duration,' the footnote states.

They are still, though, hard to stomach.

And then there is £3m. for removing contaminated soil as a result of the foam used by the airport fire service.

A £4.7m. allowance has been made for the risk of delay before the contract is signed - it also covers any increase in costs as a result of the delay.

Legal challenges are a real threat - something acknowledged by PSD, which points to the number of objections it has attracted - which is why this sum has been put aside.

'It is not appropriate for the department to comment on such legal issues as if these arise they will be matters for the courts. It is, however, duty-bound to point out that any resultant delay in commencement has the potential to lead to an escalation in project cost,' the Billet report states.

A sursis will be proposed this week by deputies John Gollop and David De Lisle, a bid to buy more time and reassess the situation.

The department says it has already done everything the sursis directs it to do - it is a motion that reflects tensions over cost, environmental impact and the opportunities, or rather lack of them, that the project provides for local labour.

Some of this has been rehearsed ad nauseam. But still it is hard for the layman to reconcile why apparently similar projects elsewhere come in at a quarter of the cost.

Expect to hear the phrase 'the devil is in the detail' this week.

Petit Bot has come somewhat from leftfield for most as an option for transporting the hundreds of thousands of tonnes of material needed to be imported by sea for the project.

Looked at and rejected, along with other coastal options, deputies were briefed last week about the conveyor belt system by its supporters - but until yesterday it was something that had not been included in any publicly available report on the airport work.

But what of the department's preferred transport option?

Bringing in material at Longue Hougue - just exactly how is it going to work? Where, for example, will the landing point be and how will it interact with other port traffic?

It is this kind of information we are at times told cannot be finalised until the contractor is signed off on, but it is a fundamental link in the chain.

The department has not released into the public domain the project management and construction programmes - the Guernsey Press asked when its Billet report would be published and is still waiting - which should provide the answers to some people's questions.

Residents in and around the area are getting increasingly restless about the two years of disruption they face as a result of work nearly all agree is essential to keep the island's lifeline link up to standard.

They feel that, despite road shows and other publicity, they do not have all the facts on the table.

It is something of a common theme to the debate - the department at times runs behind the amount of information the public feels it needs, whether by accident or design.

Deputy De Lisle has questions in with the department attempting to find out just how much different elements of its plans cost. He still believes that in the collapsible concrete technology known as Emas there is a better option for the end safety areas, although that ship has long since sailed.

He has asked for a breakdown that includes:

nÊthe cost of aggregate required to even out and move the landing strip and to create the western runway end safety area;

nÊthe cost of shipping aggregate to the island;

nÊstorage costs;

nÊthe cost of trucking aggregate around the island to the airport over the life of the development;

nÊand the cost of relocation of the western ILS gantry.

He believes this information would provide an indication of the relative costs of trucking aggregate from Longue Hougue against alternatives such as Emas and the Petit Bot drop-off plan.

If, as expected, the States this week approves Lagan Construction as the contractor, there are still hoops to jump through.

Planning permission is needed and the Civil Aviation Authority needs to give its backing. PSD needs to complete a detailed independent financial check on Lagan.

And once that planning permission is in the bag, it appears that could be the stage for a legal challenge by way of judicial review.