We always welcome a Letter to the Editor to share with our readers. This one from Peter Lloyd of East Cowes highlights some interesting facts in relation to the Cowes Floating Bridge. In his own words. Ed
Isle of Wight Councillor Margaret Webster,( East Cowes Ward) wrote in her February report to the town residents in the East Cowes and Whippingham magazine, that Cllr. Edward Giles (Osborne and Whippingham Ward) and herself were successful in convincing their ‘fellow Conservative members’ that East Cowes was in need of a little TLC.
She then went on to trumpet how Edward and herself persuaded the other ‘fellow Conservative Councillors’ to agree to the provision of a new Floating Bridge, and that during the life time of this Council foot passengers will not be charged.
This is great news and agrees with an IWC report to Members, (areas to be developed 2012/13) which states that a key consideration will be the existing policy commitment not to charge for foot passengers.
Disregard of public petition
But then she carried on to say that this floating bridge project was a new request, and wished to correct the perception that a petition handed to Cllr. Giles (Cabinet Member for Transport) last year had anything to do with the decision.
A couple of thoughts spring to mind:
- Does the IWC only have Conservative members, no Independents, Lib Dem’s or Labour, or were these groups possibly already in favour, not in need of convincing as to the urgency for a new replacement Floating Bridge?
- Is Cllr. Webster saying that public opinion does not count – that the 1800 signatures on the petition, the shaming of the IWC at a public meeting, the demonstration, marches, my interview on VentnorBlog and the fact that Waitrose supermarket were against them had no effect, although she has agreed with us about the traffic congestion at Coppins Bridge roundabout?
Pre-empted Post Graduate Floating Bridge Study Report
By making their announcement now, the IWC has pre-empted the Southampton Post Graduate students Floating Bridge Study Report, which is being carried out for free, and which, when invited, the IWC refused to support as – “they are only students”.
Also there has been no mention of the fact that the 1901 Floating Bridge Act of Parliament requires the IWC to maintain a link between the two towns.
All of this has had no impact on the decision? I beg to differ!
Residents voices made the difference
I would like to make it clear that if the residents had not done any of the above then Cllr. Giles, as Transport Cabinet Member, would have had his way last year, when he proposed the fare increase that every adult, disabled person, child, car passenger would be paying 50p each way to use the Floating Bridge. This was to raise, in the IWC words, £200,000 per annum to pay the mortgage on a replacement bridge and the £160,000 per annum to pay for the additional staff needed to collect the fares.
Do not insult residents
I think that Cllr. Webster may be tweaking it a bit to put them both in a better light, and gain some public confidence.
Please Cllr. Webster do not insult the residents by claiming that their views were not taken into account.
It is part of your remit as a councillor to represent the residents, their opinions and views.
Peter Lloyd, East Cowes
