A troubled £285.5 million airport project financed by public money has "unquestionably failed" the British taxpayer and the residents of the remote island it was meant to serve, a damning report by MPs has said.
Commercial aircraft have been unable to use the new airport on the South Atlantic territory of St Helena because of the dangerous wind conditions, with the MPs on the influential Public Accounts Committee (PAC) saying it was "staggering" that ministers and officials did not foresee the problem.
The PAC demanded answers from the Department for International Development (DfID) about who was responsible for the fiasco and how much it would end up costing taxpayers.
The UK overseas territory could only be reached by sea and the new airport was meant to improve accessibility and boost tourism, with the intention of making the island self-sufficient.
The airport was meant to start operating in May 2016 but test flights a month before revealed the problems with "wind shear".
While the airport has since handled a small number of flights the wind conditions have prevented the operation of the planned commercial service.
The PAC report said: "The Department for International Development has spent £285.5 million of taxpayers' money on building an airport in St Helena that is not usable by commercial airlines.
"It is staggering that the department did not foresee and address the impact of difficult wind conditions on landing commercial aircraft safely.
"The department was evasive on the question of who should be held responsible, and is yet to hold anyone to account, either internally or externally for the failure to identify this fundamental issue. Nor has it identified the extent or cost of remedial action required.
"There is also doubt over whether the airport, when operational, will lead to St Helena becoming financially self-sufficient, due to significant uncertainties over projected tourist growth figures and a lack of progress toward attracting investment. "
"Thus far, the department has unquestionably failed the residents of St Helena and the British taxpayer."
The problem of wind shear on St Helena was noted by Charles Darwin on his voyage on the Beagle in 1836 and the MPs challenged DfID about why it had commissioned an airport paid for by the British taxpayer, without properly appreciating the danger of this effect.
Officials told the MPs that it had commissioned a feasibility study from engineering consultancy Atkins for the airport build and acted upon its recommendations, as well as taking advice from the Met Office and aviation regulators.
But the report noted that Atkins expressed doubts about local weather conditions, including the amount of turbulence that could be expected on approaches and recommended test flights before the runway design was finalised.
The report said a single test flight using a propeller aircraft was carried out, but the contract for the commercial service was to use a Boeing 737 - a twin-engined jet.
The PAC's Labour chairwoman Meg Hillier said: "The Government has an obligation to support St Helena but a £285 million white elephant serves neither its people nor the taxpayers footing the bill.
"The failure to undertake robust due diligence on this project is truly appalling. I also have serious concerns about the airport's business case, which was marginal at best.
"A more modest airport could have addressed the practical needs of the Saints. Scaling up the project may have made sense were it not done on the back of such unconvincing projections.
"The result is a disaster: a commercial airport that is not fit for purpose, no credible plan to salvage value for money, and no clarity on exactly who is responsible for the whole sorry mess."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel