Exposed roadworks on Undercliff Drive February 2014

Undercliff Drive: Concerns over cycle and pedestrian access answered

Several residents from across the Isle of Wight have raised concerns and criticism over the current planning application to reinstate vehicle access for residents to the landlocked properties on Undercliff Drive.

The planning application submitted by Island Roads seeks permission to build a new road further inland at the Western end of the section of Undercliff Drive that was hit by a landslip during geo-technical works by Island Roads in February 2014.

What about cycle and pedestrian access?
When the Isle of Wight council executive agreed to a budget of up to £500,000 to create an access road for residents in October 2014, it was also agreed that public pedestrian and cycle access would be reinstated through the entire site.

One of the major concerns raised about the planning application has been the reference by Island Roads (IR) to the road being for ‘private use only’.

The information provided by IR states,

“The proposal under consideration seeks to retain a gate system to limit access to private users only.”

Public access routes
OnTheWight raised this issue last week with Executive member, Phil Jordan, who told us,

“It is not the intention that the road and pathway are anything but public access routes.”

Following a query to the planning department, Niton and Whitwell Parish Council has received the following statement,

“Island Roads have confirmed that once the works are completed there will be access for walkers, cyclists and horse riders along the renewed stretches of the Drive, therefore allowing access right along Undercliff Drive.

“There will be locked gates for cars, but there will be an unlocked footpath gate at each end.”

We did ask the council two days ago about this issue but at time of publishing they had failed to respond.

Other issues in relation to the application, such as material facts being added as comments by Island Roads rather than in the original application are being looked into by the council.

The planning application closes to public comment on Friday 20th May. Full details can be found on the iwight planning Website.

Advertisement
Subscribe
Email updates?
45 Comments
oldest
newest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
dennisthegrockle
19, May 2016 4:55 pm

Wonder if we shall see any progress this year?

phil jordan
Reply to  dennisthegrockle
19, May 2016 6:48 pm

IR are tasked with finishing the whole scheme by the end of September and barring further unforeseen problems are confident with the timescale. No promises, I’ve learned the hard way at the Undercliff, but all being well it ought to be finished by end of September. We expect, again barring unforeseen problems, work starting in June. Bearing in mind quite a bit of work has already been… Read more »

Philip Hawkins
Reply to  phil jordan
19, May 2016 8:18 pm

This is the A3055 we are talking about. When did it become a private access road?

phil jordan
Reply to  Philip Hawkins
19, May 2016 8:21 pm

philip hawkins:

it didn’t.

But much of the road no longer exists….

and other parts of the remaining road are unsafe for traffic…

Island Monkey
Reply to  phil jordan
19, May 2016 8:33 pm

Phil, why are you so hostile to members of the public on here? Despite constantly blaming the last council, it is you who are responsible for the PFI, and it’s non-performance. If it really is the Tories fault, we may as well have left them running the council? You need to get a grip on this PFI, tell us why the works are not going to be… Read more »

VentnorLad
Reply to  phil jordan
19, May 2016 8:46 pm

“Phil, why are you so hostile to members of the public on here?”

I don’t think I’ve ever seen a “hostile” comment from Phil.

I’ve seen him take differing views from other contributors to the discussion, but never hostility.

If you find the eloquent expression of views different from your own to be an act of hostility, I’d respectfully suggest that the internet isn’t for you!

Steve Goodman
Reply to  phil jordan
19, May 2016 9:31 pm

I’ve also found Phil and other councillors responding and commenting here helpful rather than hostile – which is an improvement on what happened OTW before the previous election. One reason the last council lost control of the Island to more helpful folk like Phil was because they chose to spend less on road maintenance and more on switching to the PFI, and they bombarded us with bs… Read more »

Luisa Hillard
Reply to  phil jordan
20, May 2016 11:26 am

Island Monkey needs to understand that Phil (and the Council) are stuck with a 25 year contract. We can’t just re-write it to suit us. Neither can we easily break it because the Council has little to no capacity to carry out the statutory highway functions which were transferred to Island Roads as part of the contract. To procure a new contract would take at least 2-3… Read more »

John Nash
19, May 2016 5:55 pm

Phil Jordan,

Can we please have some joined-up thinking in this. You state that “there will be access for walkers, cyclists and horse riders” but then that “there will be an unlocked footpath gate at each end”.

How, please will cyclists negotiate a footpath gate? How please, will horse riders negotiate the main locked gate? – by jumping it?

You just can’t make this stuff up!

phil jordan
Reply to  John Nash
19, May 2016 6:42 pm

John Nash: The pedestrian/cyclist access for the through footpath/bridleway/ whatever you wish to call it… will be just that. Access. Are you honestly thinking that we would construct a footpath for cyclists and pedestrians that they cannot actually access….? The same applies to horse riders. (though more problematic) Have you considered that motorcyclists will try to access this pathway…? Do you think motorcyclists should have access…? If… Read more »

John Nash
Reply to  phil jordan
19, May 2016 7:08 pm

Phil Jordan,

I’m now even more confused. As a spokesperson for the Isle of Wight Highways Authority, can you tell us exactly what the use of this new stretch of highway is intended to be.

phil jordan
Reply to  John Nash
19, May 2016 7:44 pm

john nash: I have no idea why you are more confused…! you asked me about the pedestrian footpath to which I answered. You are now asking me about the highways. Which highway…? If you are using the term to mean the pedestrian footpath then the use of this ‘new’ pathway is to allow public access on foot or cycle (possibly horses..that is more problematic) through the Undercliff.… Read more »

Philip Hawkins
Reply to  phil jordan
19, May 2016 8:16 pm

The plans show “kissing gates” for pedestrian access. How on earth do you get a bike (or horse!) through those?

phil jordan
Reply to  phil jordan
19, May 2016 8:19 pm

philip hawkins:

The specification to the contractor is clear…. cycle and pedestrian access.

I would imagine gates are a fairly changeable feature…

Jon Young
Reply to  John Nash
19, May 2016 9:44 pm

John, he’s not a spokesperson for the highways authority, and he’s not the author of Island Roads’ quote which you repeated at 5.55pm. Phil is the Executive member who inherited responsibility for the Pfi contract and is, imho, doing his level best to untangle an intractable problem. You were correct in drawing attention, a week or so ago, to some flaws in Island Roads’ planning application. Niiton… Read more »

John Nash
Reply to  Jon Young
19, May 2016 10:50 pm

Fair enough, but why are these assurances and clarifications now being aired outside of the statutory planning application procedure?

Jon Young
Reply to  Jon Young
19, May 2016 10:59 pm

I think you’d have to ask Island Roads that, John.

Rick49
Reply to  phil jordan
19, May 2016 7:40 pm

If the path will stand the weight of a horse, there seems no reason not to allow motorcycles. They would do far less damage to the road surface than a horse will.

phil jordan
Reply to  Rick49
19, May 2016 7:47 pm

the material being used is a lightweight material not suitable for motor vehicles.

Horse access is problematic…

VentnorLad
Reply to  John Nash
19, May 2016 8:13 pm

“How, please will cyclists negotiate a footpath gate?”

Cycle to gate
Dismount cycle
Open gate
Walk through gate
Close gate
Mount cycle
Cycle away

I’m not sure that was the most challenging question I’ve seen here on OTW!

Bones
Reply to  John Nash
20, May 2016 9:44 am

Presumably the footpath will be wide enough for horses. I’m sure riders can get off and negotiate their horse through. I haven’t actually seen many horses on this road. Presumably motor cycles etc will be banned ?

bones
Reply to  Bones
20, May 2016 10:02 am

……sorry I meant to put gate not footpath.

Tim
19, May 2016 6:18 pm

I have every sympathy for those residents that have been affected by this but why exactly are the general public being asked to pay for a private road? Surely if all are paying for it, all should be allowed to use it?

phil jordan
Reply to  Tim
19, May 2016 6:45 pm

tim:

It will not be a ‘private road’ up to the turning heads. After the gated barrier (or whatever system is installed) only residents will have access to their properties either by key lock or number lock through the ‘barrier’.

Essentially, after the turning heads there will be no road works carried out (within reason).

alan
Reply to  phil jordan
20, May 2016 8:18 am

Tim.
You’re probably going to be found correct in the future. Half a million quid of public funds going to what will be, essentially, a private road as I see very few members of the public making use of it. It would have been easier and much, much cheaper to create a residents car park at one end.

phil jordan
Reply to  alan
20, May 2016 9:05 am

alan: …and the other end? Bear in mind this money was also already written into the contract…. Can I just dispel this myth … the road is a public road. It remains a public road as two cul de sacs with a turning head at each end for vehicles that arrive in the cul de sac (many on the end of sat navs) to enable a safe… Read more »

alan
Reply to  phil jordan
20, May 2016 9:22 am

Phil.
So it’s public access for motor vehicles up to the end of the cul de sac and then becomes a private road for motor vehicles for four properties with some possible but unlikely public foot traffic allowed in this area as well.
I stand by my original comment. Half a million quid of wasted public funds.

VentnorLad
Reply to  phil jordan
20, May 2016 9:25 am

I’d use the footpath.

Walking my dog that way has been much more difficult with the closure.

phil jordan
Reply to  phil jordan
20, May 2016 9:41 am

alan: Can you please understand that what remains of the road is still a public highway. It is ‘blocked off’ currently for a number of very good reasons. I am sure I do not have to detail those. The positioning of the ‘cul de sac’ with a turning head is appropriate to the safety of the remaining road. What remains of any road, or part of the… Read more »

Bones
Reply to  phil jordan
20, May 2016 9:51 am

Are some people just trying to be obtuse. The plans seem to be quite simple to understand. And the reasons for them. Philip is being remarkably patient.

alan
20, May 2016 10:24 am

Phil. The amount of detail in your replies really doesn’t cover up the underlying fact that the £500,000 would be far better spent elsewhere on items that would benefit far more people than four residences and one dog walker. There are well used public roads all over this fair island that are screaming out for repair work. There are well used public footpaths that are in desperate… Read more »

phil jordan
20, May 2016 10:39 am

akan: The undercliff was one of 19 listed geotechnical schemes within the contract. An original sum of money was set out and contained within the contract for those works. All of that money was not spent… You are perfectly entitles to your views about what capital money is spent where but, respectfully, they are just your views and many other people hold diametrically opposed views to your… Read more »

Island Monkey
20, May 2016 11:13 am

Enjoy the power while it lasts Phil. La Hofton today speaks for many when describing your administration and lack of responsibility.

Retired hack
Reply to  Island Monkey
20, May 2016 11:49 am

IM, you speak on behalf of a Tory opposition so desperate for power that they’ve decided en masse that island parents shouldn’t have to send their kids to school.
And I don’t recall you singing La H’s praises quite so loudly when she was shredding (excuse the pun) your MP’s expenses shenanigans a while back.

Barbara Penman
20, May 2016 11:38 am

All this talking, you have the money and the man power, plenty of them standing around, just fix the road, it’s been three long years.

alan
20, May 2016 12:04 pm

Phil. In this case the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many. (To paraphrase Mr Spock). In your capacity you had the opportunity to stop this expenditure until such time as all other more demanding roads/footpaths had been repaired. You could have taken a tough decision and said no, not yet. Unfortunately, You and your other executives chose the soft option instead. A decision… Read more »

dennisthegrockle
20, May 2016 12:21 pm

Oh come on Alan – how much longer must these poor people be so inconvenienced? We will be very pleased to walk along this stretch once again even if it looks as if driving along this beautiful road may never be possible again. Theses folk have suffered for over two years, the caravan site must have lost a great deal of income and yet some people carp… Read more »

bones
Reply to  dennisthegrockle
20, May 2016 1:36 pm

Shouldn’t Island Roads be paying for all this anyway. They are responsible for the whole debacle. I don’t see why we should be paying for their mistakes.

Phil jordan
Reply to  bones
20, May 2016 4:00 pm

bones: without getting into the reasons for the undercliff failing – and it’s complicated – the money for the works were and are part of the overall PFI contract – the money – without getting into the whole PFI approach and system – is roughly two thirds government and one third council I know that will not satisfy you bones but it is some attempt at mitigation… Read more »

Philip Hawkins
Reply to  Phil jordan
20, May 2016 5:03 pm

Phil

First of all let me say thank you for all your answers here, you must be fed up with the whole sorry business.

One more point, however:-

If this work IS part of the PFI contract, then why is it costing IWC an extra £500,000?

alan
Reply to  dennisthegrockle
20, May 2016 4:58 pm

Sorry Dennis but I can’t find any definition of the word poor that is applicable in this case. There are many people the length and breadth of the UK who do not have anywhere near the good fortune that these residents enjoy. Enjoy your walks while you can because I fear this publicly funded road will become private very shortly after completion as it will be of… Read more »

Phil jordan
Reply to  alan
20, May 2016 5:08 pm

alan:

with respect…. this road cannot become a private road without my agreement…

it will not be a private road under my watch

is that a help ?

alan
Reply to  Phil jordan
20, May 2016 5:14 pm

Spoken like a true dictator. I guess local elections are a thing of the past on the island now.

VentnorLad
Reply to  alan
20, May 2016 5:27 pm

That’s right Alan, Phil has unilaterally declared the Isle of Wight an independent nation state and installed himself as first King Emperor, a title which he retains for life along with Lord Vectis and Chief of the Vectis Defence Corps.

dennisthegrockle
1, July 2016 2:10 pm

We can’t wait to get back to the lovely Island again and are all very much looking forward to our next break there in August. I know this is the first comment on here since May but I wonder whether we will get a shock when we walk the Undercliff then? Has anything happened yet?

reCaptcha Error: grecaptcha is not defined