Since May 2017 when the Isle of Wight council officially launched the new Floating Bridge (FB6) – a mere 48 hours later having to withdraw it from service – Islanders have been saying it was “not fit for purpose”.
Three years on, with losses of over £60,000 per month revealed (January-July 2020), the Leader of the Isle of Wight council, Dave Stewart now questions “whether the vessel is fit for purpose”.
He said that the last four years, “we’ve paid out a £1 for every passenger that’s had journey on it”.
Stewart: Contract was one of those that said we want it to do that, to do this, to do the other
This morning (Tuesday) Cllr Stewart told Paul Topping of Isle of Wight Radio,
“This is on the basis that we are now proceeding with legal action. The contract was one of those that said we want it to do that, to do this, to do the other. It wasn’t one of those that said it has got to be so high, although that was in the design.
“Those expectations were there and in my view, they should have been met. It was intended that it would boost our economy, provide more service to the community and the income generation is based on what we charged… disappointed will be the least. Factually, based on the figures I have in front of me, it has cost us a lot of money.”
Pre-action protocol underway
It was revealed at the end of last week that the council were considering legal action, but a number of stages have to be passed through first.
Papers for the Corporate Scrutiny Committee state:
The council, having received legal advice, consider that a number of the performance issues that the FB has suffered are as a result of the failure of the two companies contracted to design and build [Mainstay] the floating bridge to comply with the council’s requirements as set out in its contracts with the companies.
The council must now follow the prescribed pre action procedures set out in the contracts and by the courts in order to seek to appropriate redress in respect of the that arise as result of contractual failings. Therefore, the council have engaged with the builder and designer of the floating bridge as is required by the pre action protocol that governs how parties should approach potential litigation.
If the required pre action discussions do not conclude with a satisfactorily remedy for the losses suffered by the council, then it will be open to the council to issue court proceedings to seek remedy including financial loss. It would be inappropriate to comment further at this stage whilst we seek to find a resolution.
Ongoing losses
There have been a catalogue of failures associated with FB6 since it first launched in May 2017.
Last October News OnTheWight revealed losses since 2016/17 of £949,784.
As reported previously by News OnTheWight Floating Bridge 5 made a profit of between £140,000-£250,000 per annum, covering the cost of running the service and putting extra cash into the council’s coffers – even before foot passenger charges were introduced.
Stakeholders’ and Engineers’ Group
Cameron Palin of the Floating Bridge Stakeholders’ and Engineers’ Group told News OnTheWight,
“As we’ve said since day one, we need a new floating bridge immediately, as this one costs the taxpayer too much and hurts so many local shops and mobile businesses.
“In several formal meetings our engineers gave the Isle of Wight council and the Solent Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) – which provided the funding for Floating Bridge 6 – several documents that analysed the engineering problems and proved that this floating bridge is badly designed and too big, will never work properly, and will continue to damage the economy and waste taxpayer money.”
“Sell off the bridge” and buy a new one
He went on to say,
“Our recommendation continues to be to sell off this floating bridge to a country which needs to create a new river crossing or replace an existing one, and to build a new floating bridge similar to Floating Bridge 5.
“We ask that the Solent LEP provide funding for a new floating bridge with the project management to be led by professional engineering project managers, not Council staff or unqualified outsiders.”
Professional engineers ignored
He finished by adding
“It’s fine if the Council takes legal action, but I believe they are to blame for ignoring the professional engineers and keeping the floating bridge against advice these last three-plus years.
“We need an excellent floating bridge that doesn’t go out of service with breakdowns and breakages and to replace with parts that routinely wear out much faster than FB5’s parts.
“We need a bridge that shop customers want to use, not one where you have to wait a half hour to cross.
“A bridge that doesn’t bash into a pile when the wind and tide push it, or blind the driver, or need a big workboat to keep it from pushed away from the slipway.
“And I believe we must have a bridge that won’t waste millions more of our tax money and lost ticket sales over 30 years because the Council’s political leadership and cronies, as well as the senior well-paid staff (who pull many of the strings, including the purse strings) won’t admit that they made some mistakes and don’t appear to care how badly they are hurting the people of the Isle of Wight.”
