Having read some of the Undercliff Defence Committee’ concerns in the Chronicle recently, I wanted to get the low down on what’s being proposed and why. We did pop to the library a few weeks ago to look at the paperwork, but it’s like wading through treacle – there’s so much there and mostly jargon that we couldn’t make head nor tail of.
At the meeting, one criticism that Susan Scoccia raised, and that most people in the room seemed to agree on, was the lack of public consultation.
I am sure that there are many like us, who are confused about the scheme.
For this reason, we’ve decided to cover the issue on the blog and will be running pieces next week from the Undercliff Defence Committee who oppose the scheme, and David Groocock, Ventnor Hotelier, who supports the scheme.
I use the road several times a day and clearly something has to be done. Cracks are getting worse and dips are getting deeper. I guess the question is “is the proposed scheme the right thing?”
I’m trying to not let the circumstances of how High Point Rendel were appointed as consultants to the job cloud my views, but it’s difficult to ignore the wide coverage that investigative magazine, Private Eye have given it.
If this is an issue that you’re interested in, check back next week to hear both sides of the debate and make up your own mind (if you haven’t already). [Image courtesy of Back of the Wight]
A case against the High Point Rendell proposal
A case for the High Point Rendell Proposal
