Solent Tunnel

Fixed Link Debate: Party members hear arguments ‘for’ and ‘against’

Thanks to Ed for sharing this latest news from the IW Labour Party. Ed


Labour Party members heard the arguments for and against a Solent Tunnel Fixed Link from speakers from the pro and anti campaigns at their meeting last week.

For
Chris Dodd, Secretary of the Pro-Link Campaign Association, set out the details for a link that should provide a £10 each way fare for cars and £60-100 for HGVs and produce considerable benefits for the Island economy and wage levels.

Against
David Henshall, who has been involved in Anti-Fixed Link campaigns, talked about the loss of jobs on the ferries, the likelihood of a merger of services with Hampshire, the effect on house prices and the danger of losing our Island uniqueness.

Results of straw poll
Ed Gouge, Island Labour Secretary said,

“Any decision on a Fixed Link will in the end be taken by Islanders but, given the cost and unreliability of the ferries, it is important that the issues are aired. A straw poll at the meeting gave a narrow majority against a fixed road link.

“Local party policy has been for a rail link and we want to see public control of the ferries. National policy is to bring rail franchises back into public ownership.”

Image: © Robert Forrest

Advertisement
Subscribe
Email updates?
187 Comments
oldest
newest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Mr Magoo
19, February 2014 8:14 pm

I respect what Councillor Seely has to say and his reasons for opposing this application. I would ask, however, if he would expand on his comment “Let’s aim to do something really special with it.”
What ideas does he have for the site and who will pay?

Joe
19, February 2014 8:53 pm

I also respect Councillor Seely’s reasons for opposing the application but question his comment ” Since the late 1960s the Island has built an economy on bungalow-style development and cheap tourism.” and I’d be interested to hear him expand on that.

Bob Seely
20, February 2014 12:39 am

Thank you to Mr Magoo and Joe for comments. What do I suggest? Not a process whereby a single entity (the holiday camp) is sold off plot-by-plot. Once it is sold off in mini-parcels it likely becomes, sooner or later, a housing estate. What’s the alternative? 1. Extension of the very popular camp site (one of the ten best in the UK according to the Guardian. 2.… Read more »

tiki
20, February 2014 5:41 pm

The place is an eye sore – either develop it or bulldoze it down.. simples

tiki
20, February 2014 5:46 pm

‘Questionable development’. Why then is Cowes allowed to be overdeveloped? Millionaires row along the waterfront is an absolute joke. Nowhere else on the island commands such prices and most are second homes. Yet some poor bugger wants to develop an old hotel in Sandown and it’s rejected. I really can’t understand the council on the island. We have heritage buildings going to rack and ruin, SOMEONE NEEDS… Read more »

Lydia Fulleylove
12, July 2014 10:54 am

As a regular walker in this area and nearby resident, I’m in complete agreement with Bob Seely’s comments on the proposed Atherfield development. The area is absolutely unique, ‘back of the Wight’, a SSI and a very special and surprisingly remote part of the island for visiting walkers especially. I regularly see barn owls, pipestrelle bats and kestrels on the site- and on the cliffs very close… Read more »

Cynic
12, July 2014 11:28 am

“Doug and Richard both spoke eloquently at the committee meeting.”

Does that mean that from now on the Planning Committee will hear presentations from those for and against planning applications during their deliberations?

reCaptcha Error: grecaptcha is not defined