Last week the Leader of the Isle of Wight council (IWC), Dave Stewart, told members of the Scrutiny Committee that the IWC has submitted a substantial claim in relation to legal action in relation to the continued failures of Cowes Floating Bridge 6.
This followed Cllr Stewart announcing in September last year that IWC would pursue legal action with “the builder and designer of the floating bridge”.
A spokesperson for Isle of Wight council confirmed to News OnTheWight that those two companies are,
“Burness Corlett Three Quays (BCTQ) prepared the concept design and technical specification for shipyard tender phase, whilst Mainstay Marine Solutions Ltd (MMSL) were contracted for the technical design and production.”
BCTQ denied being responsible for design
However, back in February 2019, BCTQ said,
“BCTQ was not responsible for the design of the floating bridge. “
They went on to explain their technical specification included a “broad concept” of a new floating bridge (our bold/emphasis below),
“At the outset of the Floating Bridge 6 project, BCTQ entered into a technical consultancy agreement with the IW Council.
“Under that agreement, BCTQ was required to review the existing floating bridge, and provide a technical specification for a replacement.
“That technical specification included a broad concept of a new floating bridge, including a statement of requirements.
“BCTQ were also required to provide technical support to the IW Council in a number of ways throughout the build process, all of which was discharged to a high degree of care and skill.”
News OnTheWight have asked BCTQ this week whether that statement is still accurate. A spokesperson this morning replied,
“We will not be commenting further on the floating bridge while it is the subject of legal action.”
What do the IWC say?
News OnTheWight has asked the Isle of Wight council whether it was the ‘concept design’ that the Isle of Wight council were taking legal action against?
A spokesperson for the IWC told News OnTheWight,
“Further to your enquiry, due to the anticipated legal proceedings it would be inappropriate to comment further at this stage.”
Image: © With kind permission of Allan Marsh
