UPDATED: The Isle of Wight Council have rejected a 3000 signature petition against the introduction of parking charges at Appley and Puckpool parks in Ryde, it has been revealed.
The shocking news comes after the petition was handed over to Cllr Jonathan Gilbey last month expressing the concerns of Island residents. It follows the revelation of proposals by the Isle of Wight Council to scrap free parking at both seaside locations. Locals have feared losing the ability to walk their dogs for free, the effect on businesses and on tourism.
The petition, which was created by Brading resident Tony Gibbs via the popular site change.org back in March, has to date received 3,029 signatures and falls well within the Council’s policy of a petition requiring 2,500 signatures. However, the Isle of Wight Council have told Mr Gibbs that because the petition doesn’t show the addresses of individual signatures they will not consider the petition at full council, falling partially in line with their constitution – effectively a list of rules they create and therefore can control and adjust accordingly.
The constitution says that if a petition does not follow the guidelines set out, the council may decide not to do anything further with it. Despite the clear public protest to the plans, the Council have made the decision to simply ignore the public’s opinion instead of acknowledging a clear public outcry.
A similar petition to save the Totland sea wall earlier this year was successful, however only attracted 1,069 signatures in comparison.
The Council’s decision has disappointed those behind the action and is set to anger those who have shown their support by signing the petition.
The fight is not over, however, as supporters look further into the legalities of the Council’s actions and objections to the parking proposals overall have been raised by the Federation of Small Businesses and 15 Councillors from the Conservative Group.
UPDATE THURSDAY: Island Echo has obtained a full copy of the petition in PDF format and can confirm that the name, location and the date that the petition was signed is listed for each signatory on the 96-page document.
Island Echo has approached the Isle of Wight Council for a statement this morning as to why, despite the location being given, the Council are still refusing to consider the 3000-strong objection.
The website change.org has been used by hundreds of thousands of people and have resulted in thousands of petition victories, however despite this the Isle of Wight Council refuse to accept it as an acceptable format. You can see some of the latest change.org victories at https://www.change.org/en-GB/victories#most-recent.
UPDATE THURSDAY @ 12:30 – Following our approach to the Isle of Wight Council this morning, the Communications Department have issued a statement.
A spokesperson for the Isle of Wight Council has said:
“We want to make it clear that a petition has already been presented to and accepted by the Executive member, and these will be taken account of in the final deliberations about the proposals.
“The council has not ‘rejected’ the petition as has been reported.
“What the organiser of the petition has been advised is that, under the council’s rules, the petition cannot be officially presented at the next Full Council meeting because it does not include names, postal address and personal signatures of those who signed it. These are needed it for verification reasons and the petition’s website, which is the main source of the signatures, does not contains this data.
“The organiser of the petition, Mr Tony Gibbs, has been advised of this but has been invited to ask a question at the next meeting instead, which he has accepted, so that the matter is raised in a public forum. He has also been invited to a meeting with the Executive member and council officers to discuss the proposals at Appley/Puckpool as part of the consultation process. It is proposed that all representations received to the current consultation will be considered by the Executive at its meeting on 8 July before a final decision is made”.
Although the Council say they have not rejected the petition, they are refusing to allow the petition to be officially presented at the next Full Council meeting despite the petition including the names and addresses of those who have signed the petition.
