Thursday 05 August 2021
The Committee for Economic Development has today provided an update on its ongoing work to review the cost-benefit analysis of an extended runway at Guernsey Airport in the light of the impact of Covid-19 on air travel.
Following a resolution from the States of Deliberation from a successful Requête led by the late Deputy Kuttelwascher in November 2019, the previous Committee for Economic Development commissioned from Frontier Economics a cost-benefit analysis of the extension of the runway at Guernsey Airport to at least 1,700m. The reports by Frontier Economics were presented to the previous Committee during 2020 and are publicly available on the gov.gg website.
The previous Committee decided that, in light of the impact of Covid-19 on air travel, any decision to bring a Policy letter to the States Assembly would need to be deferred until a clearer understanding about the impact of the Coronavirus pandemic on air travel could be developed.
The current Committee has subsequently commissioned Frontier Economics to update the cost benefit analysis in the light of the impact of Covid-19 on air travel and is also investigating options that would utilise an Engineered Material Arresting System (EMAS.)
All of the options currently under active consideration by the Committee would lead to a runway length of at least 1,700m. The Committee is grateful for the technical expertise that is being provided by officers at Guernsey Airport. It should be remembered that any runway extension would also need the technical and regulatory agreement of aviation authorities in Guernsey and the UK.
The Committee has included the runway project as a pipeline project in the States' capital prioritisation process which was agreed by the States Assembly as part of the Government Work Plan debate. The Committee will bring a Policy Letter to the States of Deliberation on an extension to the runway at Guernsey Airport once these further investigations have been completed. It is envisaged that the Policy Letter would set out the costs and benefits of different options, and a recommendation of a preferred option should there be a business case to do so.
The Committee has not at this stage reached a collective view as the work is ongoing. It has met and received representations from various stakeholders, and any information provided has been considered as part of the process thus far. The Committee acknowledges the right of stakeholders in the community to lobby in order to put forward a view. However, the Committee is content that at this stage the best approach is now to let the independent technical and economic experts complete their work so that it can be considered.
In response to questions raised by one of the business representative points outside of the States that is lobbying in favour of a particular outcome: the Committee is following the States resolution; the Committee is working within its mandate; the Committee is engaging with States and non-States stakeholders alike where needed; and its officers and officers at the Airport are following the Committee's direction.
The Committee also notes that the Government Work Plan does not include funding for any extension of the runway during this political term, should that be the States' decision, as this is a pipeline project. This means that should the States agree that it supports the extension of the runway, funding would either need to be reprioritised from other areas of the Government Work Plan; or alternative sources of funding be considered. The States agreed this through its decisions in relation to the capital portfolio as part of the Government Work Plan.
The Committee will publish the final report by Frontier Economics as an appendix to the future Policy Letter so that it can be considered by parties outside of the States transparently.
Deputy Neil Inder, President of the Committee for Economic Development, said:
"The work to update last year's Frontier Economics cost-benefit analysis in the light of the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on air travel is ongoing and nearing completion. In parallel, the Committee is working to understand how an extended runway of at least 1,700m could be delivered in practice. This includes looking into the technical and regulatory feasibility of options that would utilise an Engineered Material Arresting System (EMAS)."
"While this work is ongoing, given the understandable interest from the local business community, the Committee was keen to provide an update ahead of the publication of its findings in a Policy Letter, in due course. The Committee has not reached a collective view at this stage but expects that a Policy Letter would recommend a preferred option should there be a business case to extend the runway. It would then be up to the States of Deliberation to determine whether this pipeline project should be prioritised and funded."
