More than £20million is needed to re-route part of Military Road, securing the scenic coastal road for a further 20 years. Although concerns have been raised about the stability of the cliff at Afton Down, the Isle of Wight Council says the more immediate concern is further along the coast towards Brook. It was in October last year that planning permission was sought to provide a short-term solution, to keep Military Road open for its entire stretch. But Councillors on the planning committee turned down the planning application. Now, a potential alternative option being explored is to reroute this stretch of the road inland, which would guarantee the route for a further 20 years or more. The council has had positive discussions with the National Trust regarding relevant land in its ownership and the Government has been approached for their views on the rerouting option. Rough estimates suggest a figure of more than £20 million would be required to re-route the road inland. It was announced earlier today, that Island MP Bob Seely had written a letter to numerous government ministers this week. Seely added that he is doing his ‘upmost’ to ‘save’ the road. Councillor Phil Jordan, Isle of Wight Council leader, has said:
“As local residents will be aware, we are experiencing the real effects of geological erosion on the Military Road (the A3055). There are three specific sites – the cliff top along Compton Down (Afton Down), and two sites between Brook and Compton Farm. The road along Afton Down is currently considered to be relatively stable. Work was carried out in the late 1990s which included ground anchors and 27 metre piling into the chalk underneath the road to protect it from the eroding cliff face. The more immediate concern is the erosion taking place between Brook and Compton Farm, known as Sites 14 and 15. “The Military Road is the responsibility of the Isle of Wight Council as the highway authority. However, the surrounding land and the land underneath is of mixed private and National Trust ownership. Many parts of this stretch of the road are Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and Special Areas of Conservation (SACs), and it is within the designated Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). The Shoreline Management Plan produced by the council in partnership with the Environment Agency identifies the whole area as a ‘no active intervention’. “Island Roads recently submitted a planning application for a short-term solution for Site 14. This was refused by the council’s Planning Committee based on the above policy considerations and related objections from the National Trust and Natural England. A potential alternative option is to reroute this stretch of the road inland which would guarantee the route for a further 20 years or more. “The council has had positive discussions with the National Trust regarding relevant land in its ownership. We have approached the relevant government departments for their views on the rerouting option and the availability of funding for such works. Rough estimates suggest a figure of more than £20 million would be required to deliver this solution”.
Have they actually had other quotes or do they just go with the first one? 20 million sounds a lot to just move a road inland
First in line to quote will be our friends a Island Roads See if £20M sounds a lot then.
Second in line at £19.5 million will be CrownPark
20 m clearly is a lot of money. But that sum will be laughable in twenty years.
When you consider that it costs £140 per illegal, per night in Hotels, and a whole lot more when you add health care, education and eventually housing costs for each, and, as they have arrived with nothing, everything they will have in the future, will be supplied and paid for by us, then I know where I would rather my tax was spent.
I would prefer it if Seely was doing his “utmost” rather than his “upmost”. What a wally.
£10 million will cover consultants, meetings and brown envelope distribution.
Easy solution is scrap the floating bridge and get rid of 50% of the council workers
That £20 million will probably be swallowed up with feasibility studies, ‘consultant’ fees and exploratorily investigations and then hey ho, a few years later there is no money to do the work and it is declared unfeasible, sound familiar…
I agree, costs will always increase beyond early estimates if you factor in the various studies. Time is also a driver of costs and the longer the Council procrastinate over their decisions and allow investigations to take months (even years) we are looking at much higher end costs.
Build a massive concrete wall at the bottom of the cliffs to prevent further erosion. Cost << £20 million, last for 100 years.
Concrete wall is only effective if the ground is not sliding forwards on blue slipper etc.
No wall can hold back millions of tons of high cliff if it’s base is on the slide.
Far better to dig out the inland side as far as needed, radius the sides so not as sheer above the road, net it to stop bits falling onto the road and cars, and dump all the dug out chalk over the edge into the sea where it is going anyway.
Sure it will wash away over time, but will be cheaper than carting it away and enviro friendly IF that sort of lying guff excites you
Like many other king canute schemes the ultimate solution will be for nature to take its course, if the environment agency says no active intervention then good luck tapping up central govenment for cash,
Give me one reason why we should spend millions on a bit of road that is not of any help or importance?
I think we have other priorities to spend money on
I think you’re missing the point BB old chap.
How about we all pay extra council tax to keep the road open for holiday makers to drive along, cause more pollution and more global warming leading to higher sea levels and more erosion. That’s what we’ve been doing for years anyway so whats going to change whatever plan council come up with.
‘No active intervention’ yet the MR was commissioned as a key Island road artery and an attraction for commercial tourism that brings in big bucks for the Council coffers. I’m a supporter of AONB general policy but re-routing a small part of the road allowing nature to take back the old stretch feels like a basis for negotiation.
Let nature take its course…sooner west wight floats off the better.
If that floats away it creeps further inland.
Maybe you shoulda’ thought about this when you built it so close to the shore, because this wouldn’t have become a problem at all, Idiots!!
Well, I hope they don’t employ High Point Rendell again.
We all know how well they do a job don’t we? Mind you, given the way the council covered their huge backsides over their last involvement, anything is possible.