Jurby Airport?

[Roger Mexico]

For completeness the fourth FoI (which was presumably from whoever asked the third above) was (ref: 4028586):

"Please provide copies of any minutes from meetings in the last three years which include any reference to a proposed extension to the runway at Jurby. In addition to copies of the minutes please provide a list of all recipients of the minutes including recipients who were not attendees of the meeting itself."

While our aim is to provide information whenever possible, in this instance the Department of Infrastructure does not hold or cannot, after taking reasonable steps to do so, find the information that you have requested.

For further information relating to the subject of your request, please see FOI request 4028485 ‘Proposed Runway Extension and \ or New Runway Extension at Jurby

This seems to be a new tactic - avoiding valid FoI requests by claiming they have been answered elsewhere when they haven't.  But it's not really conceivable that the documents that Cabinet Office were sent 18 months ago had not been the subject of any discussion beforehand.

[Derek Flint]

1 hour ago, lfc84 said:

 

https://www.three.fm/news/isle-of-man-news/no-meetings-over-airfield-plan-says-doi/

 

The Department of Infrastructure says it has no information on meetings about proposed changes to Jurby Airfield.

Two Freedom of Information requests were submitted to the department after the site's possible future expansion was exposed in the draft plans for the North and West.

But in its response the DOI says it doesn't have any information about meetings help in the last three years to discuss the scheme.

And in a second FOI answer, it says it doesn't have details about who drew up the plans, when they were commissioned or when they were completed.

It's a 2 second job to look on a a file and see who created it. 

 

[Two-lane]

9 minutes ago, Derek Flint said:

It's a 2 second job to look on a a file and see who created it. 

Isn't that what Expol did with some Ranson related documents?

[manxman8180]

This will inevitably be pulled, likely before the public meeting. 

In strategic planning terms it probably makes sense to hold as a strategic reserve just in case.  Ronaldsway is low lying and could well be subject to the impact of climate change / rising sea levels and I guess there is buried infrastructure which could be at risk well before any sea level rise would impact at actual surface level.

Likewise, aircraft types are changing and likely to get bigger in the drive for 'efficiency' in CC terms.  So overall, probably makes sense....it has just been handled with the usual clusterfuckness of the DoI.

So scrap it - no need for this to be hanging like the sword of Damoclese over nearby residents for the next 40/50 years.  Ultimately, if the shit hits the fan in a few decades then there is only one viable place for a replacement airport and that's Jurby.  It will just need dealing with at the time and lead to whatever compulsory purchase orders / compo is needed there and then.

It doesn't really change anything though - whether officially held in reserve or not, if you have property bordering Jurby Airport then it has always been at risk some point in the future as it is the only realistic alternative working Airport site.

[Roger Mexico]

24 minutes ago, Derek Flint said:

It's a 2 second job to look on a a file and see who created it. 

Not if the link doesn't work.  I just copied it across without checking but it appears the DoI supplied, as part of their response, yet more duff info.  What a surprise.

10 minutes ago, manxman8180 said:

This will inevitably be pulled, likely before the public meeting. 

It looks like it already has been. (downloads)

Edited August 9 by Roger Mexico
Add link

[Derek Flint]

15 minutes ago, Two-lane said:

Isn't that what Expol did with some Ranson related documents?

Don't know.

On most files there is metadata. I use it a lot to see how long students have worked on a paper, or to see if they actually created it.

It's led to some interesting conversations.

Overall, the proposal is probably a bit ahead of it's time. Probably didn't need mentioning for another 20 or years. Probably more likely to find some privateer developing Andreas earlier- which would then create an interesting ATC pattern

[A fool and his money.....]

The DOI are terrible for swerving FOI's. A few years ago when Ian Longworth retired the first time, he was taken back on as a consultant on some ridiculous hourly rate. At the time he was still doing a bit of bus driving and I had it on good authority that, because of his contract, he was also getting this massive hourly rate for his bus driving work ( having previously claimed that bus drivers were overpaid).

I sent in a FOI asking what was the highest hourly rate paid to a bus driver in the last six months? They returned it with details of standard wage levels, not answering the question. I queried it and was told that Nick Black would give me a ring - he never did and I never got the question answered, make of that what you will. 

It was a very simply worded question which they chose to swerve.

[Utah 01]

59 minutes ago, A fool and his money..... said:

which they chose to swerve

Is that 'nice speak' for not telling the truth?

[Two-lane]

1 hour ago, Roger Mexico said:

It looks like it already has been.

It does not look to me that it has been pulled.

Direct flights to New York are still part of the fantasy - "Should a new long distance destination be required in the future "

 

[Maugholdmafia]

1 hour ago, A fool and his money..... said:

The DOI are terrible for swerving FOI's. A few years ago when Ian Longworth retired the first time, he was taken back on as a consultant on some ridiculous hourly rate. At the time he was still doing a bit of bus driving and I had it on good authority that, because of his contract, he was also getting this massive hourly rate for his bus driving work ( having previously claimed that bus drivers were overpaid).

I sent in a FOI asking what was the highest hourly rate paid to a bus driver in the last six months? They returned it with details of standard wage levels, not answering the question. I queried it and was told that Nick Black would give me a ring - he never did and I never got the question answered, make of that what you will. 

It was a very simply worded question which they chose to swerve.

I do think this is a lazy response to the FOI and individuals within the DOI/ airport will know the information which was requested. 

If I had submitted that FOI I would be appealing the response as being inadequate. 

[lfc84]

 

 

[swoopy2110]

On 7/31/2024 at 2:58 PM, lfc84 said:

Public outcry about not wanting to travel as far as Jurby to get a flight, about cost and wildlife.

 

So they'll decide to extend the runway at Ronaldsway and the terminal which will be cheaper than new build at Jurby and the public will be happy 🙂

You're prediction is likely to be scarily accurate

[Two-lane]

I think some people are being a bit naive.

"The Department of Infrastructure has no plan to build a new airport at Jurby. Including the
safeguarding model in the Draft Area Plan for the North and West is a pragmatic approach
to monitoring, assessing and protecting critical island connectivity for the future growth of
the Isle of Man."

1. The DoI has no plan to build a new airport at Jurby. (At this precise, exact,  moment)

2. At some time in the future there may be a plan for a new airport, and if so it will be at Jurby.

 

[Roger Mexico]

15 minutes ago, lfc84 said:

 

 

 

You read it here first

If you look at the second link I gave it says:

COD 23- Cabinet Office’s response to queries raised at Inquiry regarding the safeguarding of Jurby Airfield

COD 23 is provided by the Cabinet Office in response to the Inspector's question about the safeguarding of Jurby Airfield and the justification for the runway extension shown on PIP 3 Map 1b Infrastructure Constraints North.

Following questions into why the runway shown on the illustrative map was larger than the current Airfield runway, the Cabinet Office requested additional clarification from the Department of Infrastructure. The Cabinet Office has received a response from the Airport's Division that clarifies the issues raised during the Public Inquiry and has agreed for this to be posted on the Inquiry Webpage.

Planning Policy, Cabinet Office 2nd August 2024

Followed by a letter from Cobb, full of technical explanations that ends:

The Department of Infrastructure has no plan to build a new airport at Jurby. Including the safeguarding model in the Draft Area Plan for the North and West is a pragmatic approach to monitoring, assessing and protecting critical island connectivity for the future growth of the Isle of Man.

There's also a "supplementary submission" from the Cabinet Office that involves more furious backpedalling.  It's dated the 8th and I presume both only went up on the website today and the previous link from the FoI was deleted.

[WTF]

so is the big meeting at jurby town hall off now then ???