A trio of councillors from both sides of the River Medina made a heartfelt case for replacing Floating Bridge 6 to the Isle of Wight Council earlier this week (16th October).
Before a debate and decision to press ahead with the replacement process, the mayors of both Cowes and East Cowes as well as Cowes Medina representative Lora Peacey-Wilcox addressed the economy, regeneration, transport and infrastructure committee (ERTIC).
Committee members ultimately voted to ‘assess market interest around the supply of a new vessel’ and ditched a council officers’ recommendation to modify rather than replace the chain ferry.
An ERTIC report presented yesterday said a modification would lead to a ‘higher value for money outcome’ and is the ‘preferred option from the perspective of maximising the economic and social benefits of the crossing’.
Its recommendation said a new vessel ‘is not affordable’ and ‘would not satisfy the legislative requirements to enable borrowing to be taken for the capital costs of purchase for a new vessel’.
However, the passed motion said officers are ‘instructed to procure a qualified company to articulate a high-level requirement specification and invite companies to procure solutions’.
It put forward recommendations regarding a new vessel including that it operates at a ‘minimum of five return crossings per hour’, is at the location of the existing service and has a ‘focus on sustainability’.
East Cowes mayor Tracy Reardon said:
“Both of our councils have consistently raised concerns about the Floating Bridge since its inception.
“Its operational failures and financial inefficiencies are well documented. The bridge continues to impose an unacceptable burden on public finances with losses approaching one million pounds annually – this is not sustainable and not justifiable.”
Mayor of Cowes Stuart Ellis said:
“The Isle of Wight Council has already voted in favour of replacing the Floating Bridge. That decision was further reinforced by the results of a public consultation which were clear and unequivocal – the community wants a new bridge.
“It is therefore deeply troubling that our recommendation appears to disregard the democratic will of councillors and expressed wishes of the public.
“The residents of our towns deserve a reliable, functional crossing, they deserve transparency of how decisions are made and how public funds are used – above all, they deserve to have their voices heard and respected.”
Cllr Peacey-Wilcox told the chamber:
“Everyone knows I rarely speak at council meetings but such is my anger and frustration over the recommendation not to replace FB6, I am here tonight.
“Just look at the reports, the stats that I have read over the past eight years – this is eight years of chaos, time and money wasting. In all of those years, all I have ever wanted to do was resolve the situation we ended up with with FB6.
“The Floating Bridge is not good enough and never will be. It carries many fewer cars and pedestrians than Floating Bridge Five because the waiting times are too long and people do not use it that much anymore.
“This has obviously hurt our local businesses and our community as a whole.”
Colin Rowland, strategic director of community services at the Isle of Wight Council, said:
“The officer decision in the (ERTIC) report is based on expert findings, technical, economic and financial options appraisal as per Treasury Green Book guidance.
“It’s informed by outcomes from the expert technical reports of economic and financial, it takes due consideration of the current service as the base case – Floating Bridge 6 has been operating around 95 per cent reliability for the past two and a half years, 326 days a year.
“Environmental and operational constraints mean that it may not be possible to deliver marked improvements to overall performance with a new vessel.”
Just build a bridge, such a short distance.
A short distance, really!
So where would this bridge go then? From where to where?
And how much will that cost?
Once built it will be a permanent fixture,
there are plenty of places available.
‘Invite companies to procure solutions’ ???
Are the officers not overstepping things with this statement? You cannot ‘procure’ solutions, until you know, specifically, what you (or should I say we council tax payers), decide we want to procure?
The mouth of the Medina is so narrow, a swing bridge is probably a viable option. No chains, no tides to worry about, no chugging, rusting vessel to maintain.
To this council tax payers mind, there are still cost effective options to a chain vessel to be explored, and we are far from being in a position to ‘invite companies to procure’ anything.
Somebody, probably many, must know what went wrong with the design of FB6.
All the factors including tide heights, rate of flow, wind speed to be expected were known.
The ramps were rebuilt, all looked good until it was found it did not cope with low tides, ebb current, strong winds.
Then later parts broke, other parts wore quickly
Did someone say “This design is too big, it will not work” or give other reasons to reject the design?
Were comments like this ignored?
Were the designers not up to the job? Did somebody force the wrong design through?
What guarantee do we have that it will not happen again?
Probably best to get a marine engineer to design it, not somebody in the council office.
Whatever solution is decided upon can we please have a warranty so we don’t have to pay out every five minutes for repairs
I can’t understand why we don’t base the design on the old reliable chain ferry ?? It never broke down, just went backwards & forwards whatever ?