Undercliff Drive engineering works after landslip

Government minister says no to emergency funding for Undercliff Drive

In August this year, the mayor of Ventnor Town Council (VTC), Jason Mack, wrote to the Minister for High Streets and Coastal Communities, Penny Mordaunt.

As the Government had committed £2m to assist Eastbourne Pier following extensive fire damage, the Ventnor Town Council asked for the same consideration to be made in respect of the impact of the Undercliff Drive landslip that occurred in February 2014.

Unfortunately for all those affected by the landslip, Ms Mordaunt wasn’t feeling quite so generous towards the Isle of Wight as she had been towards Eastbourne.

Money already given for the PFI
In her letter to the VTC, the Minister pushes the responsibility back onto Isle of Wight Council, citing the £477m grant the Government has committed to the council for the Highways PFI scheme over the next 25 years.

She does say that she’s truly sorry to hear about the landslip though and the impact it’s had on local residents and businesses.

See Ms Mordaunt’s letter in full. Jason Mack’s is on the second page.

Click on the full screen icon to see larger vesion


Advertisement
Subscribe
Email updates?
72 Comments
oldest
newest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
John Nash
6, November 2014 3:43 pm

Reality begins to dawn that the A3055 route through The Undercliff is not sustainable when there is a perfectly good route for the A3055 inland on stable ground. This has been the de facto route for over 10 years.

Time for an overview of the real situation.

derek
6, November 2014 4:13 pm

Penny Mordaunt MP(Portsmouth North) has it escaped your mind Islanders have to pay for this PFI, unlike your City Deal which Portsmouth is sharing with Southampton over £950m.

Cynic
6, November 2014 4:33 pm

Remember the name( Penny Mordaunt) and the party (Conservative) on 7 May 2015!

milly
6, November 2014 5:11 pm

How dare they fob us off in this way! It just shows you what the Con/Dem Government think about our island. For me now it has become a matter of principle on how we should be treated when there is an emergency (whether it is flood or landslip). It doesn’t matter whether there is landslip movement history, the Government has responsibility and it is abdicating. We should… Read more »

retired Hack
6, November 2014 5:17 pm

The clear inference of the Minister’s letter is that the PFI contract should have (but as we all now know didn’t) included provision for contingencies such as the landslip to be dealt with as part of the contract. I woner whether this was explained at the time to David Pugh and Eddie Giles.

phil jordan
Reply to  retired Hack
6, November 2014 10:18 pm

retired hack: The scheme was known to Government because it was one of the 18 geo-technical schemes around the Island specifically listed within the PFI contract. The funding was never meant to, and could not, fund an unforeseen occurrence such as happened here earlier this year. The funding under the PFI was intended for the entire general highways network of the Island. Not one geo-technical scheme that… Read more »

Robert Jones
6, November 2014 6:01 pm

The money was there to protect Undercliff Drive, but was handed back by the former council when we proved incapable of managing a contract with the expert company tasked with doing the job. The circumstances of that fiasco are still shrouded in mystery, gagging clauses, and compromise agreements. No one should be surprised that – in a different economic climate – government is unwilling to play fairy… Read more »

John Nash
Reply to  Robert Jones
6, November 2014 7:26 pm

The funding for the High-Point Rendel scheme was only ever provisional. It wasn’t a question of the money being “handed back”. By the time that the contractual scandal emerged, the scheme cost had escalated to at least £20 million (way in excess of the provisional funding figure) and the benefit/cost analysis was being scrutinised by GOSE and others and found to be wanting, when there was a… Read more »

Robert Jones
Reply to  John Nash
7, November 2014 1:41 pm

It was handed back, the money was lost. Whether HPR were “wonderful” or not, they at least knew what they were doing and were a damn’ sight better than anything we’ve seen since. This sort of “don’t hark back” comment reminds me of Blair’s “it’s time to move on”. There is no chance of reinstating the A3055 so far as I can see, and the money spent… Read more »

Cynic
Reply to  Robert Jones
7, November 2014 1:51 pm

Agree. “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” (Santayana 1905-6)

Cal
6, November 2014 6:07 pm

Whoa, I’m amazed: locals build a road for £2.5K, our Council gets given 477 MILLION POUNDS – in my mind that’s a fantastically huge sum – and go begging for more?!

I’m lost for words to truly express myself…

derek
Reply to  Cal
6, November 2014 6:56 pm

But as rH said it is not in the contract.

milly
6, November 2014 6:33 pm

It’s truly amazing that some people would prefer to turn in on themselves than point a finger at the Government.

This is not a matter of what mistakes were made in a contract.

it’s a matter of principle over Government responsibility towards its citizens.

The Government shouldn’t be allowed to stand on the outside and watch while Island roads fight it out with the Council and residents.

derek
Reply to  milly
6, November 2014 7:03 pm

Where are,Leader Cllr Stephens,Cllr Stubbings and Cllr Jordan on this?

phil jordan
Reply to  derek
6, November 2014 10:11 pm

derek: I’m still here….! We clearly have a different perspective to the Minister on funding for this enormous issue which is the largest inhabited geological fault area in Western Europe….(so I am informed!) The PFI…and hence funding from Government …. had a set sum for the repair of the (then) existing roadway at the Undercliff. It is unquestionably now impacted by an enormous geological event that was… Read more »

Joe
Reply to  phil jordan
6, November 2014 10:44 pm

This may be all well and good if the events that occurred would have happened if Island Roads had not been doing what they do. Do you know definitively that Island Roads Work did not contribute to the “geological event that was not forseen”?

John Nash
Reply to  phil jordan
6, November 2014 11:30 pm

I’m sorry, but several of your statements need correcting: 1. The Undercliff is not a “geological fault area”, it is a large landslide complex. The two things are not equivalent. You will not find fault lines mapped by the Geological Survey in The Undercliff. 2. What has occurred cannot be described as an “enormous geological event”. The slides which occurred are certainly not enormous and would be… Read more »

Amanda Huggan
Reply to  John Nash
7, November 2014 7:51 am

It’s refreshing to see someone who actually knows what they’re talking about commenting on the Undercliff – and willing to put their name to it.

Thank you very much John Nash for your insightful observations.

ThomasC
Reply to  phil jordan
7, November 2014 1:08 am

Phil, the change in the scope of the geotechnical project should be within the bounds of movement of the PFI. The whole idea of the PFI is that the private company takes some risk. It sounds to me like the IWC needs some professional advice to push back on Vinci because, as pointed out below Undercliff Drive was clearly included in the PFI. Maybe if Island Roads… Read more »

phil jordan
Reply to  ThomasC
7, November 2014 6:24 am

Hi Thomas:

It certainly should have included the change in scope….but it wasn’t. That’s not changeable now.
There are always opportunities to re-negotiate and we may see some of that happening in coming months.
I’m not sure how far we might get on the listed geo-technical listed schemes however, but there are areas of contracted operation that *might* be re-negotiable.

Alan T
Reply to  phil jordan
7, November 2014 7:55 am

I’d like to challenge Phil Jordan on the comment that the event was unforeseen. Bill Murphy is reported as saying in council meetings during this year that the council were expecting another slide to happen sometime around now. He said they had been monitoring movement for the last 10 years and were indeed aware that another slide might happen. So the event was not unforeseen and the… Read more »

phil jordan
Reply to  Alan T
7, November 2014 8:25 am

alan t: My final word on this… Of course it was foreseen….it has been moving one way or another for a very, very long time. You cut my sentence in two however…. if you continue reading I qualify that it was not foreseen in the context of “….planned for or funded before, during and after the contractual period of the PFI and for which the Minister refers… Read more »

lagger
6, November 2014 7:02 pm

I’d rather my rates money was spent on real services. Not trying to fix an unfixable problem for the benefit of residents who knew they were buying a house in an unstable area.

derek
6, November 2014 7:13 pm

Has Penny Mordaunt spoken/listen to Andrew Turner?

Steve Goodman
6, November 2014 9:31 pm

A lot of money has had to be paid out for PPI mis-selling; now consider our PFI mis-selling… We were assured repeatedly by the likes of Eddie, Jay, Stuart, & their gang on behalf of the local & national politicians keen to move more taxpayer’s money into private pockets that the contract, at no extra cost to us, would end our road worries. The Udercliff was specifically… Read more »

ThomasC
Reply to  Steve Goodman
7, November 2014 1:01 am

Yes, I remember all of these lies and calling them out on their figures not adding up and not getting responses to actually answer my questions because the session ‘was just for information’. Malcolm Smith, Eddie Giles and Jay Jayasundara are names that need to be closely and clearly linked to this PFI scheme that turned out NOT to be any different, or a better solution than… Read more »

Old Knobby
Reply to  ThomasC
7, November 2014 7:40 pm

Yes, we were clearly told that the PFI would secure the undercliff. If this isn’t the case, and the contract apparently allows that to be, then someone clearly lied to the electorate in the past. Given the well known instability of the area, it must have been a not insignificant factor in Island Road’s ‘quote’ for the contract. If they’re now not going to do anything about… Read more »

Steve Goodman
Reply to  ThomasC
8, November 2014 4:20 pm

I’m reminded that one of the 15 ‘lay assessors’ recruited by Island Roads ‘to feedback on their work’ is the aforementioned Eddie Giles, the former keen & confident(?)council PFI road contract supremo & salesman who could have something useful to say about all this, but who has instead chosen to become embarrassingly quiet; could he be waiting patiently for OTW or the CP to ask for the… Read more »

island guerrilla
6, November 2014 10:10 pm

Mp’s letter clearly states that the IWc has a statuary responsibility to maintain the roads on the island yet were told by Bill Murphy that the council have not statuary duties to the undercliff and can unadope the road as simply as it adoped it.Is he correct?

milly
Reply to  island guerrilla
7, November 2014 12:25 am

Yes, IG, and the Government are using this “responsibility” to duck and dive out of their own.

We shouldn’t let them off the hook so lightly.

isl
6, November 2014 10:34 pm

Presumably Phil Jordans ‘enormous geological event ‘is the catastrophic failure of the civil engineering of island roads and it’s resulting abandonment to the elements, assisting the undercliff on its way to sea.

James
7, November 2014 12:40 am

I don’t understand, this correspondence seems to me like a serious attempt to get something done for the residents by Ventnor Town Council and Steve Stubbings who is part of that Council.

Cynic
Reply to  James
8, November 2014 8:39 am

Down arrows but no answers- figgers! :-))

Cynic
Reply to  Cynic
8, November 2014 8:42 am

Misplaced- should follow my questions about IR issuing licences and charging fees.

Cynic
7, November 2014 8:11 am

CP today states “Island Roads, as part of the PFI contract, charges and issues licences on behalf of the IW Council…”

* What “charges and licences” are they?

* Are the charges passed back to IWC intact?

* Is it legal for a private contractor to issue public IWC licences and charge fees for them? Can such licences be legally enforced?

Mark Francis
7, November 2014 10:11 am

We all pay taxes to support one another in times of hardship. That’s if you like a kind of social contract. If the residents of Undercliff Drive are to be abandoned to their fate, then they should not have to pay taxes. Certainly not Council Tax. Actually, Do they have to pay Council tax? Wasn’t Mordaunt a suspect in the Gunpowder Plot? I think we should be… Read more »

milly
Reply to  Mark Francis
7, November 2014 1:25 pm

You are quite Mark, Isle of Wighters pay their tax like everyone else including Eastbourne. Trouble is it was more expedient for Cameron to support his Conservative vote by supporting the ill fated pier. Did you hear the latent excuse about supporting businesses there when asked why they did it? What about the businesses on the Undercliff? Relegated to second class again? …and Peggy, well she is… Read more »

John Nashn
7, November 2014 11:01 am

Phil Jordan quotes McInnes statement in “The Undercliff of the Isle of Wight” that ”Coastal instability within the Undercliff is controlled, fundamentally, by the underlying geology”. Well, surely that is stating the obvious since the underlying geology is fundamental to all earth processes. Out of context, the quote adds nothing to the understanding of the processes at work in The Undercliff. If little attempt is made to… Read more »

Cynic
7, November 2014 2:48 pm

CP reports that IWC PFI contract management team is under-resourced and that it will be managed in the interim by Bill Murphy. Any comments Phil?

phil jordan
Reply to  Cynic
7, November 2014 5:45 pm

cicero: I told the Scrutiny committee last night that we have indentified a number of key measures we need to take (in the whole PFI contracts management)and one of those is to add to staff resources within the contracts management team. An advert for a civil engineer/contracts mananger experienced person is due any day and we shall follow this in due course by recruitment for further staff.… Read more »

Joker
Reply to  phil jordan
7, November 2014 6:39 pm

Bill Murphy in charge of the PFI contract? Are you seriously being serious?

Cynic
Reply to  phil jordan
7, November 2014 7:50 pm

Thanks Phil- presumably as Portfolio holder you will monitor any decisions made by officers?

phil jordan
Reply to  Cynic
7, November 2014 8:09 pm

cicero:

It is important we work together to move this whole issue forward. Major decisions get aired at regular meetings and we input into those decisions. There are many ‘every day’ decisions that I would not expect to be involved in or know about. I would expect management to be overseeing those decisions.

Cynic
Reply to  phil jordan
7, November 2014 8:55 pm

Everyday decisions- yes. But I suggest that any “senior manager” that leaves the definition of what is, or is not, an everyday decision to those taking them is at risk and should cast an eye over those decisions from time to time.

tryme
Reply to  phil jordan
7, November 2014 10:08 pm

Give Cllr Jordan some credit Cicero. He’s not a small boy up before the beak.

Cynic
Reply to  phil jordan
8, November 2014 8:20 am

Rein back your white charger for a moment tryme and you will see that I respect Phil Jordan and reglarly a lot of credit. I was suggesting that the track record of IWC officers on decision-making and advice has not been the best in the past and as our elected representative Phil needs to keep his eye on them. (BTW I also am not some small boy… Read more »

tryme
Reply to  phil jordan
8, November 2014 10:11 am

a) You too sometimes support people here when you see them to be treated unfairly, Cicero, (eg.me!) It’s a shame to ridicule that positive impulse by referring to it as a “white charger”. b) Whatever else anyone thinks of him, I don’t think Cllr Jordan needs telling to keep his eye on what kind of decisions officers take. I think he’s thoroughly immersed in how IWC things… Read more »

tryme
Reply to  phil jordan
8, November 2014 10:18 am

I mean, Cicero, c) …my comment to you was not in the same vein as yours to Cllr Jordan, (etc)

Cynic
Reply to  phil jordan
8, November 2014 11:04 am

Pax tryme- I’ll sit on the naughty step! :-))

island guerrilla
7, November 2014 4:54 pm

Is Bill Murphy the man for the job in the light of his performance so far in managing this disfunctional road repair?

Robert Jones
Reply to  island guerrilla
8, November 2014 8:19 pm

Um,now let me think about island guerilla’s question for a second; shouldn’t take much more than that…..

So that’s a …………..No.

island guerrilla
7, November 2014 7:52 pm

If the road and pathway is to go ahead from the meeting on the 11th let’s hope a true civil engineering company is contracted to do the work (maybe from the mainland) not an unqualified exfarmer come ground worker.

JohnR
7, November 2014 7:53 pm

Very shortly the IOW Council will be employing as many people to manage the highways contract as they used to employ to do the job originally.
And that is alongside what we are paying Island Roads to do the job anyway.
Paying twice for the same job!

phil jordan
Reply to  JohnR
7, November 2014 8:12 pm

JohnR:

Far from it….. we have 3.5 FTE (full time equivelant) officers, a line manager and a (interim) contracts manager.

That’s it.

Ed Mew
8, November 2014 12:05 am

Love him or hate him, one of John Lydon’s (Johnny Rotten’s) famous phrases was “Do you ever get the feeling you’ve been cheated” Haha!!

davidwalter
8, November 2014 10:22 am

As I have said several times on recent threads on this subject, there is a very real possibility that the latest slippage was due to negligence by the IWC, IR, contractors, experts, advisors or a combination of those. In that case there should be liability insurance in place. Don’t expect any of those bodies to admit liability; to do so would probably invalidate their own liability insurance.… Read more »

davidwalter
8, November 2014 10:31 am

phil — Could you please clarify regarding the Contracts Manager; you said that it would be hard to find the right person. Is that because there is a world shortage of suitably qualified people or because of some particular circumstances associated with this particular appointment? Such as: a) Is the contract known in the profession to be difficult and best avoided? b) Is the IWC perceived to… Read more »

phil jordan
8, November 2014 10:56 am

david walter: I did say, david, there is “There are likely to be issues with finding a suitable applicant quickly and if that proves to be the case our preference would be to not consider another interim manager……” It is becoming evident that a whole range of factors are impacting our ability to attract suitable candidates for some posts. In general terms, we do not (and cannot)… Read more »

Braveheart
Reply to  phil jordan
8, November 2014 1:11 pm

As stated in the County Press: A NEW contract manager will be recruited to oversee the Highways PFI, which is under-resourced according to the Isle of Wight Council’s top officer. Current manager Tony Toynton, appointed on an interim basis in March, is due to leave at the end of the year. Isle of Wight Council managing director Dave Burbage said two or three officers with engineering and… Read more »

wightbri31
8, November 2014 12:31 pm

Penny Mordaunt has said the PFI money is to improve and maintain local roads, which would be fine if there was still a road there to improve or maintain…

island guerrilla
8, November 2014 12:39 pm

There is still a road it runs from Ventor to Niton it’s an A road forms part of the tourist route around the island a links the island communities together.

davidwalter
8, November 2014 2:06 pm

Phil, If Mr Toynton is any good we should keep him if he’ll stay. Clearly this is a very difficult contract to manage – remember those statements here about the contract files being x feet high? The recruitment cost plus relocation/housing will be huge. Do we have any idea how much? In excess of £50,000 for the recruitment on top of whatever we pay the CM. If… Read more »

tryme
Reply to  davidwalter
8, November 2014 2:23 pm

“If Mr Toynton is any good we should keep him”.
Where else could Cllr Jordan possibly go for such invaluable advice?

phil jordan
Reply to  davidwalter
8, November 2014 3:37 pm

davidwalter: You would not expect me to be discussing this level of detail in a public forum. Tony Toynton’s contract runs out in December and we need to find a permanent replacement. It really is that simple. As I mentioned, we are looking at a wide range of possible solutions. If extending his contract were a possibility then it would be considered. One caveat. We have already… Read more »

davidwalter
8, November 2014 3:57 pm

As you know, I was in the Scrutiny meeting when the matter was raised so I was able to judge the feelings of those present. I don’t think I was alone in being surprised. Shocked, more like, given the complexity of the PFI. But if, as you say, Mr Toynton has decided to move on….we’re stumped. I’m just not sure if it was the batsman or the… Read more »

davidwalter
Reply to  davidwalter
8, November 2014 4:33 pm

My previous post was, of course, intended to be addressed to Phil Jordan

phil jordan
Reply to  davidwalter
8, November 2014 4:41 pm

davidwalter:

David, I am not referring to – nor did the employment committee – short term contracted staff who are employed directly by the Council.

I am referring specifically to interim staff employed through an agency (especially) and/or with temporary employment arrangements that route their salary through a third party vehicle.

davidwalter
8, November 2014 5:20 pm

phil jordan Phil, being precise, because the Employment Committee’s was precise: “Interim staff employed through an agency (especially) and/or with temporary employment arrangements that route their salary through a third party vehicle.” does include Mr Burbage’s employment because his limited company is in law a third party and beyond doubt there will be some defined means to determine the contract, making it ‘temporary’. My point is not… Read more »

phil jordan
8, November 2014 7:15 pm

david walter:

He isn’t.

davidwalter
8, November 2014 7:29 pm

There’s often a work-around. Change of line manager, location. Hampshire? Part-time overview? Once we’ve got to the point of no further discussion it doesn’t really matter what weakness is exposed in a negotiation; anything on the table can be the basis of a compromise and agreement.

DB
9, November 2014 12:26 am

Forgive me Phil J but is Dave Burbage not due to leave in March next year based on full council agreements and the headhunting has already identified a replacement in Bill Murphy or John Metcalf? Unless Hampshire CC have thrown one of their hats in the ring?

phil jordan
9, November 2014 6:56 am

DB:

Dave’s current contract expires next year….yes. I wouldn’t want to comment on what has been “already identified” (if anything!) with regard to specific individuals….!

reCaptcha Error: grecaptcha is not defined