At its States Meeting to be held this week, the States are to consider a proposal to fund Part B of the PwC Strategic options review – Part A of their work.
Part B entails producing a cost benefit analysis relating to a runway extension as recommended by PwC. It is Option 1(b) of the Proposition to be voted upon.
In our survey, which concluded yesterday, 2020 members voted overwhelmingly to perform Part B, as follows:
Over 90% of respondents wanted Part B to be funded in one form or another. More than half respondents wanted the States to perform Part B in relation to a 1700 – 1799m extension, a little under half, Part B for all options. Only a very few wanted the other options, including doing nothing.
Option 1(b) of P&R’s Review of Strategic Air and Sea Link Infrastructure(P.2019/21) provides for completing Part B, the consideration of the technical, regulatory, environmental and economic aspects of extending the airport runway.
To recapitulate, we asked our members to choose between the following options:
Do nothing – don’t fund Part B. (The Chamber of Commerce and Institute of Directors made a joint submission which P&R received on or shortly after the 14/09/2018. In the section relating to economic impact due to the weakness in the island’s connectivity:
“the impact would approach £100m per annum in lost GDP to the island”).
Perform analysis in relation to a 1,570m extension only. (PwC Report, Pg 20: “The 1,570m extension appears to be the best runway option if it is feasible from a commercial and operational perspective for more than one airline.” (However there is a caveat on page 14 relating to payload restrictions)).
Perform analysis in relation to a 1,700 to 1799m extension only. (PwC Report, Pg. 20: “A 1,700 -1,800m extension should be taken forward as the primary alternative to the 1,570m option. There are clear additional benefits and it is lower risk in the longer term, although there may be a substantial cost difference”).
Perform analysis for all options.
They could also add their own preferences.