Skip to main content

States Resource Plan 2004 - 2008 (P.118-2003) - amendment

The official version of this document can be found via the PDF button.

The below content has been automatically generated from the original PDF and some formatting may have been lost, therefore it should not be relied upon to extract citations or propose amendments.

STATES OF JERSEY

r

STATES RESOURCE PLAN 20042008 (P.118/2003): AMENDMENT

Lodged au Greffe on 2nd September 2003 by the Harbours and Airport Committee

STATES GREFFE

RESOURCE PLAN 2004 – 2008 (P.118/2003): AMENDMENT ____________

After paragraph (b) add the following sub-paragraph

"(c)(i) to refer to their Act dated 19th November 2002 in which they agreed that future capital expenditure

comprising the replacement or resurfacing of the runway, taxiways, concrete aprons, the fireground and associated works at Jersey Airport should be met from general revenues and to request the Finance and Economics Committee to ensure that the funds for these capital projects are provided in accordance with that decision and in a timely and appropriate manner;"

and renumber subsequent paragraphs accordingly.

HARBOURS AND AIRPORT COMMITTEE

Note:  The Finance and Economics Committee's comments are to follow.

REPORT

The Harbours and Airport Committee had noted the decline in arriving air passengers over recent years and had consulted with a number of airlines in order to seek ways of arresting the decline. The airlines' consensus view was that a substantial reduction in Airport charges would need to be made to secure the low fares which were being offered in 2002 and 2003.

The  Committee  embarked  on  a  wide-ranging  consultative  exercise  for  several  months  during  2002  and approached all stakeholders in the Airport to seek their views; many States members were also involved. The consultation identified three clear issues to be tackled –

  1. T h e Airport's capital programmeofsome £140  million over 20 yearscouldnotbesupported from Airpor operating surpluses without a substantialincrease in landing feesof the orderof £4perpassenger.
  2. T h e States should beasked to agree that Jersey Airport was a strategic asset; it could, therefore, qualify for some infrastructure capital works being paid forby the taxpayer costing some £40  million over 20 years This would removethe need for a substantial hike in Airport dues and would allow a smaller capital programme ofabout £100  million to befunded over the next 20 years from operating surpluses.
  3. W  h ere serviceswere provided by the Committee they should be paid for by the user/consumerof that service. Wherenouser/consumer could be identified then the States shouldbe invited to payandremove all hiddensubsidies;anexampleof this is non-aeronauticalmeteorology.

Added to all these contributory factors in creating a situation where Airport landing fees could be reduced, the Committee has embarked on a Fundamental Spending Review within the Airport departments. The savings will be generated within the Trading Fund and, when they have taken effect by the end of 2004, a further reduction in landing charges can be made in 2005.

The Harbours and Airport Committee in consultation with the Economic Development Committee has lodged a Report and Proposition seeking States' approval for the aviation security charges, currently £2.45 per arriving passenger, to be paid for from the General Revenues of the States. If that were to happen, the Committee has pledged to the airlines that the reduction in charges would be passed on immediately.

A fundamental part of the States' decision of 19th November 2002 when it approved P.198/2002 (Proposition attached at Appendix  1) was that various capital infrastructure works Airport fireground, runway resurfacing, replacement of taxiways, concrete aprons and associated works should be paid for from the General Revenues of the States.

Summarised here are the infrastructure items from P.198/2002 with their costs in full in the year in which they occur as is required by the Finance Law.

Year Project Name Cost1

2003 Fireground Remediation £4,900,000 2004 Apron design fees and sealing £1,360,000 2005 Replace Main Apron Phase 1 £6,550,000 2006 Replace Main Apron Phase 2 £3,700,000 2007 Replace South Apron £4,800,000 2008 Resurface Runway £8,046,000 TOTAL £29,356,000

1 December 2002 prices.

The Harbours and Airport Committee has twice reviewed these important infrastructure projects to verify that

they are good value for money and being started in the year in which they must commence.

The Fire Training Ground project commenced in 2002 when the Public Services Committee, in exercise of its powers under the Water (Jersey) Law 2000, ordered the works to stop pollution emanating from the fireground into St. Ouen's aquifer. With the then Finance and Economics Committee's approval, the Harbours and Airport Committee agreed to fund it from the Trading Fund. The States' decision of November 2002 concurred with this stand to clean up the environment but now the Harbours and Airport Committee finds itself without the extra funding agreed by the States.

The Airport aprons are those 5 vergeés of concrete on which all aircraft movements take place between the runway/taxiways and the parking stand which are included in the apron. There are substantial amounts of concrete to be replaced, most of which is between 30 and 40 years old. The concrete will no longer be able to bear the weight of heavier aircraft beyond 2004/5 according to the calculations of civil engineering consulting engineers. The concrete itself has been breaking up for some years and pieces of concrete and chips are regularly swept up in order to prevent foreign object damage to aircraft trafficking the aprons with jet engines and to propeller driven aircraft. Many areas are affected by "concrete cancer" (alkali-silica reaction – ASR).

In order to determine the impact of the failure of the concrete aprons, the North Apron will be used as an example. Tests were carried out during 1997 and verified in 2001 to confirm that the North Apron was reaching the end of its serviceable life. The concrete bays are continuing to fail; they are unstable and rock as aircraft move over them. Individual bays have failed in the last 2 years and it is anticipated that there will be an increasing number of concrete bay failures at a cost of about £100,000 per annum. The North Apron taxiway is the main through route to the runway from the east and the west ends and pavement failure on this route will result in severe delays to air traffic movements. The effect will be that every aircraft using the runway will have to turn round and backtrack either on take-off or landing so that the western taxiway and the western exit from the runway is used; the central and eastern exits from the runway pass over the North Apron (see Map – Appendix 2). An independent pavement specialist, Scott Wilson Pavement Engineers, conducted falling weight deflectometer tests in 1997 showing that the pavement is inadequate for larger commercial aircraft. In order for reconstruction to start, detailed design work, which will take 7-10 months, needs to happen in 2004. That detailed design will then be turned into tender applications so that work can start in 2005. If work does not start in 2005 the North Apron will have to shut to all jets and bigger propeller-driven aircraft of 20 tonnes. This closure will affect 80% of all commercial aircraft using Jersey Airport. For the busy summer weekends it will mean a reduction in flight movements of approximately 30%, i.e. 30% of commercial aircraft will not be able to land on a Saturday in the summer. This reduction in aircraft movements will have a devastating effect on tourism.

The Committee wishes to remind States' members that Jersey Airport has put £73 million back into the States by way of capital repayments and operating surpluses since 1983. Part of the logic when the States agreed P.198/2002 in November 2002 was in recognition of that payment in the past; if the States wishes Airport operating surpluses to continue and be able to fund part of its capital programme, then some of the infrastructure as set out in the Proposition (Appendix 3) must be met from General Revenues.

The Committee put forward to the meeting of Presidents and to the Finance and Economics Committee a proposal for an allocation of £3 million per annum for 10 years from 2004 in order to deal with the substantial capita requirements for States' funding up to the year 2008. The Committee can manage the money and spread the work from 2003 until 2010 with judicious planning. However, if the money is not forthcoming and the Committee has to wait until 2009 to have an opportunity for capital funding then Jersey Airport will be reduced in capacity by 50%.

The Finance and Economics Committee has also rejected a proposal that the States should arrange loan funding to commit capital expenditure of £3 million per annum and fund the borrowing costs from General Revenues.

The Harbours and Airport Committee believes that the Finance and Economics Committee is ignoring the States' decision of November 2002 and hopes that this amendment will be approved and that capital finances can be advanced in a timely manner.

There are no manpower implications arising from this amendment.

APPENDIX 1

JERSEY AIRPORT: FUTURE FUNDING (P.198/2002) AND COMMENTS OF OTHER COMMITTEES

PROPOSITION

THE STATES are asked to decide whether they are of opinion –

(a ) t o agree that Jersey Airport should be viewed as a strategic asset for the Island and that –

( i ) fu t u re capital expenditure comprising the replacement or resurfacing of the runway, taxiways,

concrete aprons, the fireground and associated works should be met from general revenues;

( ii ) t h e A irport should otherwise be funded in the manner set out in the report of the Harbours and

Airport Committee dated 5th November 2002 and that the Committee should operate Jersey Airport in a profitable manner as described in the said report by charging all users of its facilities and services the full costs to the Airport;

(b ) to request the Harbours and Airport Committee to operate the Channel Islands Control Zone for so

long as the full costs are met from the United Kingdom and French Governments by way of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 16th February 2000, but to review the operation of the Zone where the cost-recovery no longer meets the costs of its operation and its associated capital expenditure;

(c ) t o agree that from 1st January 2004 the cost of providing the non-aeronautical meteorological service

should be met from public funds, and to charge the Finance and Economics Committee to make available the required funds and to take the necessary steps to seek an appropriate contribution from the States of Guernsey and the States of Alderney;

( d ) to agree, in principle, that the cost of providing those community services presently funded from

Airport dues where the public of the Island, or the States of Jersey, is identified by the appropriate Committees as the true user should be met from public funds, and to agree that the Harbours and Airport Committee should identify any services it provides at present for which no paying user can be identified and to take steps to discontinue those services;

(e ) t o agree, in principle, that additional funds from general revenues should be made available for use in

encouraging the provision of new air services and/or the offer of low fares on existing and/or new air services, and to request the proposed Economic Development Committee, together with the Harbours and Airport Committee, to bring forward for approval by the States proposals for implementation in 2004;

(f ) to charge the Human Resources Committee with facilitating any manpower transfers and reductions,

and to agree that any costs relating to manpower reductions should be met from general revenues; and

(g ) to rescind paragraph 3 of their Act dated 3rd November 1998 in which they approved, in principle,

the incorporation by 2002 of Jersey Airport Limited, as a company wholly owned by the States.

HARBOURS AND AIRPORT COMMITTEE

Notes: 1. Policy and Resources Committee

T h e P o li c y and Resources Committee welcomes the Harbours and Airport Committee report.

T h e A  ir p ort is manifestly a strategic asset and its future funding is an issue of major importance to

everyone in the Island.

T  h e C  o m mittee agrees that the States should now be invited to revise its earlier decision that the

Airport should be entirely self- funding.

O  b li g a ti o ns which clearly relate to the community should be funded by the taxpayer rather than by

passengers. Examples include the public weather-forecasting service and the early opening for newspaper flights.

T h e r e n e e ds above all to be long-term and innovative thinking, in a joined up manner across all of the

Committees concerned, on how to link Airport pricing and funding strategies to overall economic development objectives.

T h e c r u c ial task is to ensure overall benefits to the Island economy. This should be kept clearly in

mind during the debate in the States.

T h e C o m  mittee had this very much in mind when it asked OXERA to produce its paper on the future

funding of the Airport.

O X E R A 's report provided a clear and concise analysis of the funding issues. The Committee

welcomes the central role which the OXERA paper has been given in the Report and Proposition from Harbours and Airports. It is a good example of the importance of good analysis to underpin well-founded policy proposals.

2 . F inance and Economics Committee

T h e p r o p osition goes to the core of the Airport's funding arrangements and, by doing so, will impact

on some individual Committees and have significant ramifications for overall States finances.

T h e r e i s m uch within the proposition that the Committee is able to support.

T h e C o m  mittee supports part (a) of the proposition by acknowledging the Airport as a strategic asset

for the Island.

T h e C o m  mittee does not support part  (a)(i) of the proposition and considers that the items of capital

expenditure referred to should be funded by the Airport Trading Fund.

T h e C o m mittee supports part (a)(ii) of the proposition. It supports the user pays' principle and agrees

that, where the airport provides a service, there should be an appropriate charge to the identified end user.

T h e C o m  mittee supports the principle of part  (c) of the proposition, but considers that it is not within

the remit of the Finance and Economics Committee to manage the cost recovery of services provided by the Airport.

T h e C o m mittee supports the principle of charging for community' services, as stated in part (d) of

the proposition.

T h e C o m  mittee supports part (e) of the proposition.

T h e C o m  mittee considers that it is for the Human Resources Committee to comment in detail on part

(f) of the proposition, but is mindful of the impact on general revenues of costs arising from this proposal.

T h e C o m  mittee supports part (g) of the proposition.

T h e C o m mittee agrees that the airport is a strategic asset for the Island of Jersey, but does not

consider that expenditure on capital infrastructure should be funded from general revenues. The provision of effectively free' capital to the Airport may detract from optimal commercial decisions being taken. Should the States approve part (a)(i) of the proposition, capital funding bids from the airport which could amount to several millions of pounds, will need to be prioritised against the bids of other States Committees within the current capital allocations agreed in the 2002 Resource Plan.

T h e C o m mittee, in supporting part  (b) of the proposition, would wish the Harbours and Airport

Committee to undertake a cost benefit analysis of continuing to operate the Channel Islands Control Zone.

T h e C o m mittee recognises that the airport cannot bear all of its current costs of operation (revenue

and capital) from its existing income stream and supports the principle that the airport charges its users the full cost of the services provided. In many cases the end user is a Committee of the States and the impact of absorbing these additional costs within the already agreed future total revenue and capital allocations will require affected Committees to take serious and difficult service priority decisions. Where such services are considered to be a priority, that Committee would need to meet charges levied from within its allocated cash limit. The Committee considers that any charges levied to third parties, including other jurisdictions, must be recovered by the Airport and not through the Finance and Economics Committee providing additional funding.

T h e b r o ad thrust of charging for community services', as stated in part (d) of the proposition, is also

supported, however, the Committee considers that the recipient Committee must be party to the determination of a community service' and any associated charge. Where such charges are levied, the cost must be contained within the already approved revenue budget limits.

 T  h e C o m mittee agrees with the proposals in part (e) of the proposition subject to funding being

contained within existing approved budgets and the identification of an appropriate medium through which subsidies are channelled. The Airport Task Force is in place as an expedient to manage the process in the short term only and another body, such as the Jersey Transport Authority, will need to be considered for the medium term. The Committee would require appropriate financial and performance safeguards to be in place to ensure value for money is achieved from any public funding.

W  i th r eg a rd to part (f) of the proposition, the current Human Resources Committee policy is that all

costs of VR and VER (and, if necessary, compulsory redundancies) are met by the employing Committee. On the basis that the Airport will receive the future cost reduction benefit of such action, the Committee considers that the cost of manpower reductions should be met by the Airport.

T h e C o m mittee acknowledges that it has not been possible for the Harbours and Airport Committee to

achieve the previous States decision to incorporate the Airport. The Committee, whilst supporting part (g) of the proposition, considers that the airport cannot continue to operate in a dynamic commercial environment whilst remaining as a trading committee and would seek revised proposals as to the future status of the Airport to be developed as soon as is practicable.

3 . T ourism Committee

T h e T o u r ism Committee supports the view that Jersey Airport should be regarded as a strategic asset

for the Island and is an important utility supporting virtually every sector of social and economic activity within the Island. It is, therefore, inappropriate that airline passengers are being asked to pay for a planned capital expenditure programme and a raft of services which are not directly associated with their journey.

T h e T o u rism Committee, therefore, supports in principle the proposals set out in the Report and Proposition and summarised on page 17 under the heading "Community Services and Hidden

Subsidies" providing that these costs do not simply emerge elsewhere as increased costs to passengers.

T  h e r e p o rt is short of detail in regard to demand patterns and marketing opportunities. The section

under the sub-headline "Increasing Passenger Numbers" provides a number of reasons why various initiatives have been discounted but offers little dialogue or suggestions as to how volumes at Jersey Airport might be increased.

T h e T o u r ism Committee is, therefore, of the opinion that a full study of demand patterns needs to be

undertaken and that a business and marketing plan should be produced which deals with both the opportunity of increasing passenger numbers at Jersey Airport and methods of increasing revenues from non aeronautical activity.

T h e O X E RA report is based upon an anticipated drop in passenger numbers at Jersey Airport of 2%

per annum, but it is known that currently the decline in passenger numbers is already significantly greater than this. It therefore follows that the OXERA model will not be sufficient to meet the financial requirements of Jersey Airport and that therefore alternative methods of revenue generation will be required.

T  h e T o u r ism Committee therefore seeks the support of the States in suggesting that a business and

marketing plan is required which includes a robust study of demand patterns to be coupled with the supply side issues which have been identified associated with capital redevelopment.

4 . H uman Resources Committee

T  h e H  u m an Resources Committee will be pleased (and its successor will need) to work with the

Harbours and Airport Committee to facilitate any manpower transfers and reductions that may arise from the proposals. For clarification, the States are asked to note that the proposal that any costs relating to manpower reductions should be met from general revenues' is the responsibility of the Finance and Economics Committee, not the Human Resources Committee.

5 . J ersey Transport Authority

T h e J er s e y Transport Authority is responsible for looking after the interests of all users of the Island's

air transport and sea shipping services. These interests have been reflected in the Authority's statements of policy over the years. On air transport the Authority's policy has been to seek to ensure –

th e provision of air services from as many points of origin in the United Kingdom and the Continent of Europe as possible;

t h e p rovision of sufficient capacity and frequency to meet all categories of demand;

t h e p rovision of services at the lowest possible cost;

t h at existing traffic levels are sustained and traffic growth is encouraged;

th e continued viability of the air services provided upon which long-term security of service provision depends.

I n r e s p e ct of the Airport this policy calls for –

t h e p rovision of adequate airport facilities to accommodate present and future aircraft movements and passenger throughput;

a l ev el of Airport charge that encourages airlines to provide air services at the lowest possible cost to the customer.

W  i th t h e latter point in mind the Authority shares the Harbours and Airport Committee's view that

passengers using the Island's air services should not be expected to pay for –

n o n - aeronautical/public service meteorological services;

e a rl y opening of the Airport for newspaper and postal services;

a m b u lance flights;

c o m m unication services provided to non-Airport customers;

d i sc o unting freight flights.

T h e A u t h ority also shares the Harbours and Airport Committee's view that every opportunity should

be taken to maximise the Airport's trading income through the duty free shop, car park and related charges, and the leasing of space to operators and other commercial users.

T  h e A  u th ority accepts that users of the Airport should contribute to the cost of providing Airport

facilities upon which the landing and taking off of aircraft, and the handling of passengers and freight, depends. However, it should be recognised that the Island is in competition with other destinations for business and tourist traffic and in the European Union it is not unusual for the European Commission and/or national governments to meet some of the cost of investing in transport infrastructure. This was recognised for the investment at Elizabeth Harbour, and also for the investment in the Airport passenger terminal, and justified part of the cost of those facilities being met out of general revenues. In the view of the Jersey Transport Authority similar arguments apply to replacement investment for the runway and aprons at the Airport. The Authority agrees with OXERA that this should be reflected in infrastructure payments to the Airport by the States as grants, interest free loans or a combination of both. Investment that is required to sustain the Airport as a strategic asset should be met in part from –

a p e r centage of the capital expenditure being met from general revenues; or

a p r oportion of the capital expenditure being financed by an interest free loan from the States, plus also a degree of deferred repayment; or

a p ro portion of the interest and repayments on a private loan obtained by the Airport being met from general revenues.

T h e A u t h ority considers that it is important that the States should decide in principle whether any part

of the future capital expenditure of the Airport should be met from general revenues rather than from the users.

T h e A u thority has given particular consideration to the section of the Harbours and Airport

Committee's report dealing with increasing passenger numbers and future Airport charges.

 T  h e A  u th ority is encouraged by the further steps that are being taken by those airlines currently

serving the Island to pursue a low fare strategy. Most of these airlines have done so without demanding the substantial reductions in Airport charges that the so-called low fares airlines have demanded as a price for providing air services to and from the Island. This does not mean of course that the existing airlines are satisfied with the present level or structure of Airport charges. Some if not all have called for –

a ch a nge in the basis of the Airport charge so that it relates only to the passengers carried and not to the all up weight of the aircraft as well as to the passengers carried;

t h e l evel of charge to be varied to avoid the present high proportion of the fare that the Airport charges represent when low fares are offered to the travelling public.

R  ef e r e n ce also has been made in the Harbours and Airport Committee report to the possibilities of a

winter/summer differential, an off-peak/peak differential, a charge according to the fare level, and a lower charge if more passengers are carried. A report prepared by consultants for the Harbours and Airport Committee has identified the difficulties that would be experienced in attempting to implement changes to the present charging system. The report also refers to ways in which an ability to pay' principle could be reinforced and passenger growth might be encouraged. However it also points out that with any change inevitably there will be losers as well as gainers and the losers can be expected to object vigorously to any such change that is proposed.

I n t h e v i e w of the Authority support from general revenues should be made available

t o m  eet the cost of "community" services presently being paid for by the users of the Airport;

t o h e lp meet the cost of the replacement infrastructure as a strategic investment.

T h e A u t h ority considers that if there are grounds for supporting particular air services it should be in

anticipation of the effect of doing so on passenger numbers. What might be justified would be some form of underwriting to cover what should be a short period between the introduction of a lower Airport charge and a consequential impact of passenger numbers on Airport revenues.

T h e J e rs e y Transport Authority considers it important that there should be a level playing field in the

treatment of competing airlines. If the view is to be advanced that Airport charges should be reduced to encourage the offer of more low fares to promote traffic growth, or the retention of existing traffic, then in the view of the Authority such a policy must be applied to all airlines offering low fares. The Authority considers there is little if any benefit to be gained from offering lower Airport charges to an airline providing a low fare service out of, say, Stansted if the effect is to divert traffic from Gatwick and London City to such an extent that the continued viability of those services is adversely affected, particularly if the airlines providing these services are also offering fares at least as low as the new operator out of Stansted.

T  h e A  u th ority considers the States should debate and decide in principle whether general revenues

should be used to encourage the provision of new services, and the offer of lower fares by new and/or existing airlines; and if so whether the proposed Committee/Ministry of Economic Development jointly with the Harbours and Airport Committee should be requested to bring forward detailed proposals for implementation in 2004, on the basis that general revenues are already fully allocated for 2003.

APRON REPLACEMENT PROGRAMME

Appendix 2 - Apron Replacement Programme (diagram)

JERSEY AIRPORT INVESTMENT PROGRAMME 2003 2008 (JUNE 2003 EDITION)

PROJECTS

Report and Proposition YEAR DESCRIPTION OF COST States Airport

PROJECT

£ £ £

2003 Air Circuit Breakers (Phase 57,000 57,000

1)

2003 East Substation Generator 210,000 210,000

and Switchgear

2003 Fire Tender (Crash 68) 365,000 365,000 2003 Flight Information Display 138,000 138,000

System

2003 Ground 200,000 200,000

Radiocommunications

(VHF and UHF)

2003 HBS + OOG X-Rays 800,000 800,000 2003 Instrument Landing System 1,600,000 1,600,000

Runway 27/09

2003 Microwave Links (LP + 145,000 145,000

St. Ouen)

2003 X-25 Route Switch 114,000 114,000 2003 MCAs 220,000 220,000 2003 Fire Ground Remediation 3,700,000 3,700,000

2003 Fire Ground Remediation 1,200,000 1,200,000

Fees

2003 Total 8,749,000 4,900,000 3,849,000 2004 Operations Building 6,663,000 6,663,000 2004 Air Circuit Breakers (Phase 58,000 58,000 2)

2004 Approach Lighting 410,000 410,000 2004 Cloudbase Recorders 187,000 187,000 2004 De-Icing Rig 128,000 128,000 2004 MCAs 186,000 186,000 2004 Main Apron Design fees 769,000 769,000

2004 Bravo Taxiway Re-sealing 213,000 213,000

2004 South Apron and Freight 378,000 378,000

Area Re-sealing

2004 Total 8,992,000 1,360,000 7,632,000 2005 Aeronautical Transmitters 320,000 320,000 and Receivers

2005 Emergency ATC 107,000 107,000

Communications

2005 Flight Info. Distribution 267,000 267,000

System

2005 Operations Building – Fees 1,025,000 1,025,000 2005 Primary Radar (Les 2,933,000 2,933,000

Platons)

2005 Rehouse Police, Customs, 1,025,000 1,025,000

Alpha

2005 MCAs 177,000 177,000 2005 Main Apron (Phase  1 – 6,550,000 6,550,000

Northern Section)

2005 Total 12,404,000 6,550,000 5,854,000 2006 Demolish 1937 Building 2,050,000 2,050,000 2006 Operations Building – 1,552,000 1,552,000 Equipment

2006 Monopulse Secondary 1,760,000 1,760,000

Surveillance Radar

(Les Platons)

2006 MCAs 199,000 199,000 2006 Main Apron (Phase  2 – 3,700,000 3,700,000

Western Section)

2006 Total 9,261,000 3,700,000 5,561,000 2007 Passenger Pier 400,000 400,000 Windows/Cladding

2007 DVOR Doppler 906,000 906,000


At December 2001 Costs

 

Report and Proposition

COST

States

Airport

£

£

£

57,000

 

57,000

210,000

 

210,000

365,000

 

365,000

138,000

 

138,000

200,000

 

200,000

800,000

 

800,000

1,600,000

 

1,600,000

145,000

 

145,000

114,000

 

114,000

220,000

 

220,000

3,700,000

3,700,000

 

1,200,000

1,200,000

 

8,749,000

4,900,000

3,849,000

6,500,000

 

6,500,000

57,000

 

57,000

400,000

 

400,000

182,000

 

182,000

125,000

 

125,000

181,000

 

181,000

750,000

750,000

 

208,000

208,000

 

369,000

369,000

 

8,772,000

1,327,000

7,445,000

312,000

 

312,000

104,000

 

104,000

260,000

 

260,000

1,000,000

 

1,000,000

2,861,000

 

2,861,000

1,000,000

 

1,000,000

172,600

 

172,600

5,633,000

5,633,000

 

11,342,600

5,633,000

5,709,600

2,000,000

 

2,000,000

1,514,000

 

1,514,000

1,717,000

 

1,717,000

194,500

 

194,500

3,290,000

3,290,000

 

8,715,500

3,290,000

5,425,500

254,000

 

254,000

884,000

 

884,000

Beacon/DME

2007 New Engineering Services 2,973,000 2,973,000

+ ARFFS Building

2007 East Uninterruptible Power 235,000 235,000

Supplies

2007 Sliding/Swing Doors 130,000 130,000 2007 AGNIS, Stand signs and 192,000 192,000

Obstruction Lighting

Control Gear

2007 MCAs 109,000 109,000 2007 South Apron Area O2/N2 4,800,000 4,800,000

2007 Total 9,745,000 4,800,000 4,945,000


2,900,000 2,900,000 229,000 229,000

260,000 260,000 187,000 187,000

106,100 106,100 4,117,000 4,117,000

8,937,100 4,117,000 4,820,100

PROJECTS

Report and Proposition YEAR DESCRIPTION OF COST States Airport PROJECT

£ £ £

2008 Demolition of No.  4 213,000 213,000

Hangar

2008 AFTN Switch 144,000 144,000 2008 Fire Tender (Crash 66) 399,000 399,000 2008 Monopulse Secondary 1,279,000 1,279,000

Surveillance Radar

(Airfield)

2008 Public Address/Fire 586,000 586,000

Alarm System

2008 TELEBAG System 1,386,000 1,386,000 2008 MCAs 165,000 165,000 2008 Runway PFC Resurfacing 7,646,000 7,646,000

2008 Runway Centreline & 400,000 400,000

Edge Lighting

2008 Recorders – Voice and 215,000 215,000

Data

2008 Total 12,433,000 8,046,000 4,387,000 Grand Total 61,584,000 29,356,000 32,228,000

All costs at December 2002.


At December 2001 Costs

 

Report and Proposition

COST

States

Airport

£

£

£

208,000

 

208,000

140,000

 

140,000

487,000

 

487,000

1,248,000

 

1,248,000

572,000

 

572,000

1,352,000

 

1,352,000

161,100

 

161,100

7,282,000

7,282,000

 

400,000

400,000

 

210,000

 

210,000

12,060,100

7,682,000

4,378,100

58,576,300

26,949,000

31,627,300