A ‘substantial claim’ has been submitted by the IW Council over the troubled Floating Bridge 6.
With the latest suspension of service hitting last night and another in a long line of repairs announced for tomorrow morning (Thursday), council leader Councillor Dave Stewart declined to say much concerning the chain ferry at yesterday’s (Tuesday) corporate scrutiny committee. However, he did say a substantial claim had been made as part of the legal mediation currently underway.
Providing the monthly update, Cllr Stewart said:
“The whole question of the design, build and performance is currently the subject of legal action through mediation.
“While the council has submitted a substantial claim, it is not appropriate for me or cabinet members to discuss this matter further, pending the outcomes of those actions.”
In his update, Cllr Stewart also said he hoped the legal action would be resolved shortly and would be able to provide a report to the next scrutiny meeting in February.
Cllr Julie Jones-Evans pressed for further clarification, as she said it sounded as if the council were hopeful a legal agreement would be reached in the month between meetings.
Cllr Stewart said mediation continues and he could not comment beyond that. He said:
“We are going through legal action and any professional body needs to follow that process and not deal with that in a way which would undermine the council’s or indeed the public’s financial interest.”
A solution to the vessel’s problems has been proposed in the form of side thrusters as a report was prepared to consider relevant options at the end of last year. Again, he said he was not able to comment on this.
Addressing ‘comments from a range of individuals’ as to why he had not brought the public’s attention to the fact that the Floating Bridge 6 was designed, built and paid for under the previous independent council administration, Cllr Stewart said he did not wish to make a comment on that aspect until the legal action is concluded.
AT last, then only due to public pressure to do so.
Vote them out next time
IF ONLY this was their only fault.
Ruining this Island as a holiday destination, by over building for their own greed is their most serious mistake.
And long after the ‘floating bridge’ has gone, the Island will suffer as a consequence of their greed and likely corruption.
They need to be gone, as it won’t stop otherwise.
How about becoming Isle of Wight… exit Hampshire…
Have seen their incompetence and know of their dishonesty, so whilst the council can’t be fully to blame for this floating bridge joke, their en masse building over a beautiful Island to then advertise such and get PAID to take in mainland council overspill, which is oft the most troublesome tenants as they want rid of such, is unforgiveable.
We MUST vote in any one BUT this lot again.
People here fret and quite understandably over this floating bridge, yet seem less bothered by the massive destruction not only of our countryside, but of ALL of our standard of life.
When a these thousands of new flats and houses are filled, and NOT with Islanders only, but the greater number from other boroughs on the mainland of which, our own greedy cou nicl then get payment for taking them off their register.
The huge numbers will not find work, and many will turn to crime to subsidise free rent. c tax and universal credits.
None of which will bother the coun cil as they ensure they and their developers will be living nowhere near the area, and the coun cil receive any unpaid c tax or rent from central Government so they don’t care if someone works or sponges, as they get paid whatever.
That is the truth, ask any co uncillor if in doubt.
Ruined this Island now forever more. Disgusting people, remember such at voting time.
National audit office should look at the contracts and scrutinise the spend on tax payers money for this heap of scrap .. might also highlight just what the council signed themselves into.
Island has never had a worse shower running it.
Never vote for them again.
Ruining everything for their own greed.
I wonder who would you prefer to ruin this Island ? IF we could break off from being Hampshire, the Council over here would be able to run and rule this Island.. Not be under thumb and bundled into Hampshire by the Government…
Why did Anyone vote for these incompetent fools?
Anyone can now see how destructive to the Island they are, and only concerned with lining their own pockets before leaving us with the damage to this Island, not for a few years, but forever with their massive destruction of natural beauty and their creating of thousands of homes most for non Island people.
SEE them for just what they are.
Because like all politicians they tell us what we want to hear at election time!
Once the brown envelopes are handed out it all changes
Vote in someone like the green party for once or better still somebody who will overturn all the developments this lot have accepted!
Why do you people keep voting for the same incompetents, knowing their history? Surely a change is long overdue now?
It is only luck that not so many people are needing this bridge now.
Likely under normal strain it wouldn’t have made it without breaking down this long.
As others rightly say, pointless just moaning, so, ALL we can do is to ensure all those in this dubious and unsavoury but lucrative jobs at county hall are removed as soon as we can all vote once more.
They ARE ruining this Island and at a rapid pace.
What all residents here must ask themselves is, ‘Would ‘they’ keep us as employees, if we were as incompetent, perhaps corrupt, and greedy’ as they are?
IF the answer is no, then high time, WE sacked them all.
Sadly, we will have to wait to do so, but do so we ALL must.
It should be the tax payers that should take legal action against the council for the state of the floating bridge
We must vote this council out next time. Most have leisure businesses on the island which clash with what the island needs are at present. Money before health.
OK, so ‘legal mediation’ is now under way – and not before time, considering the wicked waste of millions of pounds of residents’ money. Maybe ‘heads will roll’ as a result. Maybe . . .
But what we would really like is a reliable vehicle ferry across the Medina! One like Floating Bridge No.5. Remember that? Didn’t need side thrusters to make a successful crossing, either.
Or do we have to fork out another seven million on another Wight elephant?
I would like to know WHY hey need a BIGGER floating bridge ??? They must have known it would create many problems, especially here with the fast running tides and the chains, the original size was adequate, had been for years, so why not just redesign similar to old ones size… it was that size for a reason ! The people that deigned it were not stupid. Making it bigger is stupid. Just add up the costs so far, … could probably have built a brand new to old specs and also a car ferry to cross the Solent, owned by the council… imagine how much money they would have been earning by now !! Stupid person(s) in council that are no brainers.. BIGGER is not always BETTER.. bigger means greed..
If they wanted to increase capacity perhaps they should have had TWO floating bridges, one at each end! And I would put money on it that someone at County Hall would have thought that a good idea!
How about putting rollers or wheels on bottom of it ? Powered wheels then it could drive up the ramps.. and roll down.. but also if it was not designed wrong, the running tide would not push it so much..
Legal Actionappropriate name for any launch carrying passengers when the ferry is out of action.It was established long ago that the previous council was NOT responsible for the fiasco. I cannot remember the details now, just that the current council tried to say so and was shot down for it.