It was previously announced by the cross-Solent operator that as of Tuesday 26th June the waiting time allowed at the pier would be slashed by two thirds – from 1 hour to just 20 minutes – and that any vehicle that breaches this would be fined.
However, recent conflicting communication with members of the public, which have been shared with Island Echo, reveal that in fact there has been no change in the rules thus far and the reduced waiting time was no more than a ‘suggestion’.
Local resident and admin of the Isle of Wight Overners Facebook group, Paula Ryan, raised the question when she needed to collect a friend from their Fast Cat crossing on 4th August.
Unsure of when the changes would be fully implemented, Paula contacted Wightlink for clarification of the situation to be advised the following:
“The new rules at Ryde have already come into effect and the £1.00 toll charge for driving up the pier now entitles you to up to 20 minutes free parking at the terminal. Anything over the 20 minutes will result in you being issued a fine.”
After sharing her response with the local Facebook group, others pointed out that in fact the signs on Ryde Pier are still showing conflicting information of the original 1 hour waiting period allowed.
Miss Ryan got in touch with Wightlink again, this time to be told:
“The parking at Ryde Pier still uses our old parking system, so at the moment you still get the full hour when you pay the £1. The 20 minute rule is something that was suggested but we do not have any information on when or if this is going to be implemented. We will of course update you as soon as this changes, however in the mean time I will pass your message on to our port staff to make sure the current rules are clarified.”
A spokesperson for Wightlink has responded to the confusion and has told Island Echo:
“Plans to introduce ANPR-controlled parking on Ryde Pier have been put on hold at present. We will let customers know when this changes. In the meantime, systems remain the same.
“We are sorry that some customers may have been given inaccurate information by some of our colleagues”.