Council leader gives ‘truly disappointing performance’ during floating bridge debate says Cowes councillor

Thanks to Cllr Neil Oliver for this report from last night’s Cowes Town Council meeting, which included debate on the Cowes floating bridge.


OnTheWight has invited Cllr Stewart to respond. Ed


A rather disappointing performance from Leader of the Isle of Wight council (IWC), Cllr Dave Stewart, last evening (Thursday) at the Cowes Town Council meeting.

Invited to give a presentation and answer questions on the floating bridge, he said the IWC were reviewing the procurement process and restoring the new floating bridge – new chains seems to be the sum total of work carried out so far and ‘everything would be fine’.

Questions will be answered in ‘the report’
The report into the floating bridge would be published in the New Year and go to the IWC Scrutiny Committee on 9th January.

In the question and answer session most things seemed to be covered in ‘the report’, so weren’t going to be mentioned last evening (before it was in the public domain).

No Plan B
Cllr Stewart hadn’t crossed the river on the launch, so had no clear idea of the chaos it was causing to regular commuters, there was no plan’B’ if/when Floating Bridge 6 fails, no idea how a safe, regular, accessible and effective launch service might be provided.

I think his view might be summarised as: ‘Wait and see’, ‘it’ll all be alright in the New Year’, ‘a long term solution would be a bridge across further up the river’.

Truly disappointing performance
No clear answers on technical issues- weight and windage of the new bridge, chain clearance, un/loading process and times, passenger accommodation.

A truly disappointing performance!

Watch the video
Cameron Palin videoed the meeting via Facebook live. Anyone wishing to watch the proceedings can do so over on the Floaty McFloatfarce Page.

Image: © With kind permission of Allan Marsh

Advertisement
Subscribe
Email updates?
21 Comments
oldest
newest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
tyke
15, December 2017 9:05 am

How the Tories have managed to get themselves cast as villains of this particular piece really is quite baffling.

Craftus
Reply to  tyke
15, December 2017 9:42 am

They may not have been in charge for the procurement but the way they have handled the implementation goes some way to answer your query.. Ian Ward’s comments in August showed astounding arrogance and denial. “There was so much pressure from the community to get it in to service that it was put into service before the commissioning period was finished.” “An awful lot of noise about… Read more »

tyke
Reply to  Craftus
15, December 2017 2:40 pm

All true Craftus but had the thing been procured properly then Ian’s ill-judged remarks would never have been aired. The scandal here is that the holier-than-thou Indies delivered, at great expense and apparently without proper scrutiny, a vessel that was simply not fit for purpose. The result is all the well documented problems, a disadvantaged local community and spiralling costs. And, rather like Brexit, those responsible for… Read more »

Craftus
Reply to  tyke
15, December 2017 3:05 pm

But the procurement would have been carried by council officers, who are still in post? If you watch the Cowes Town Council meeting from last night it seems apparent that Dave Stewart’s presentation was written for him by officers, particularly when he turns to Chief Exec John Metcalfe to ask what CHC means. Come on Dave, at least read through the report first.. With council officers heavily… Read more »

tyke
Reply to  Craftus
15, December 2017 5:42 pm

In any authority that functions normally, a procurement project of this importance would have had oversight by political members. It should have been their job to agree or approve the broad parameters of the contract and then to scrutinise its delivery. You know, one may have had the gumption to ask an insightful question like, “will this £4 million new vessel actually work?” It is this type… Read more »

Robert Jones
Reply to  tyke
16, December 2017 6:42 pm

It’s a pity, in all the circumstances, that your comment got so many ‘down’ votes, because you do raise an important point – yes, such a project SHOULD have had oversight by political, as you put it, elected as I’d put it, members: but did it? I seriously doubt that it did; I suspect that elected members took officers’ advice without questioning it, because in my (limited)… Read more »

Robert Jones
Reply to  Robert Jones
16, December 2017 6:44 pm

Should NOT be able to palm bad decisions off on officers, rather. Sorry, eyesight failed me.

Ian Young
Reply to  Robert Jones
16, December 2017 9:44 pm

So at least four people seem to think it is ok for councillors to palm off bad decisions to officers.

If that is the case let’s just do away with elections, appoint a team of professionals and let them run the show.

Robert Jones
Reply to  Ian Young
17, December 2017 6:22 pm

My late uncle, who was a fairly senior civil servant (and always went to work in a three-piece suit, but that’s another story) believed that the country generally should be run by the civil service. I’m not sure that he envisaged any role at all for elected members at any level. I felt a twinge of sympathy for this position, given he’d seen MPs and governments generally… Read more »

Robert Jones
Reply to  Robert Jones
17, December 2017 6:28 pm

“far be it from me to be critical” that should have read: but a) the cataract surgery did not provide vision sufficiently improved to help me avoid such typos, and b) just over half the readers of this page will vote it down anyway, so take what you’re given and like it. Or not, of course.

electrickery
Reply to  Ian Young
18, December 2017 3:02 pm

The Italians were forced to elect a technocrat government and it worked just fine until Berlusconi got bored.

Robert Jones
Reply to  Craftus
17, December 2017 6:49 pm

Yes, it would. Of course it would. This is what happens when you get elected to a council, assuring everyone that it’ll work better under your watch than it did on your predecessors’, and yet still relying totally on the same officers who carried through the policy of those same predecessors. If councillors can’t run things, in coordination with officers of course, why do they stand for… Read more »

Robert Jones
Reply to  Craftus
17, December 2017 6:39 pm

Of course you’re right that investigation is urgently needed into who wrote the spec; who monitored it as the procedure was going through, if anyone did; on what evidence and expertise the council side of these negotiations relied. Nothing I have said, despite what some seem to think, absolves officers for lousy decision-making. But leaving any party political element out of it, tyke’s points are still well-made… Read more »

electrickery
Reply to  Robert Jones
18, December 2017 3:07 pm

Having read all the documents that we ignorant proles are deemed capable of understanding, ludicrously redacted as they are, I can say that if I were the Commercial Director of the builders and received that “spec” I would immediately have known that I was dealing with a bunch who would be perfectly happy as long as the paint was the right colour (seriously – count how mnay… Read more »

Ian Young
15, December 2017 7:09 pm

I love a bit of Tory bashing as much as the next person, but surely if the new floating bridge was procured under the last Independent administration it is they who are ultimately responsible. To be sidetracked by Mr Stewarts’ ineffective attempts to remedy the situation could be seen as letting the last administration off the hook and more importantly might prevent us getting to the root… Read more »

walkingwizard
Reply to  Ian Young
15, December 2017 7:54 pm

Surely the same officers were in post through both administrations, and it is they who are at fault for all of this. They are the ones project managing (and I use that term loosely) it and should be held accountable.

Ian Young
Reply to  walkingwizard
15, December 2017 8:27 pm

Very true walkingwizard.

Only thing is we don’t elect officers, we do elect Councillors and there by lies the difference.

Robert Jones
Reply to  walkingwizard
16, December 2017 6:23 pm

I have sympathy for this point of view, but also take Ian Young’s point: particularly since I have personal experience of this – not of the floating bridge, but of councillors’ attitude to contracts and project management. Without entering into invidious detail, and anyway it’s water under the bridge (unfortunate analogy..) now, I had a dispute with IW Council over the implementation of a contract which it… Read more »

Ian Young
Reply to  Robert Jones
16, December 2017 6:43 pm

Could not have put it better myself Robert, well said.

Alternative Perspective
Reply to  Ian Young
28, July 2019 1:12 pm

I guess the key issue is which incompetent administration sign off the project as all hunky dorey

Robert Jones
16, December 2017 7:02 pm

I get a little irritated, in passing, by the ease of casting ‘down’ votes without any need to defend them. Some press the down button without a second’s thought on entirely partisan lines – and to them I say: I don’t like you, either! But have a good Christmas.

reCaptcha Error: grecaptcha is not defined