A BOURNEMOUTH councillor who claimed Iford residents were treated poorly during the recent floods has been told he should apologise for his comments.

Liberal Democrat councillor Roger West was berated in an email from cabinet member Lawrence Williams after he said ‘questions needed answering’ about how the council, site owner and emergency services reacted to the threat of flooding at Iford.

He said the council could learn lessons from the way residents of a Christchurch park home called Beaulieu Gardens were treated.

His email sparked an angry response from Conservative Cllr Williams, which said: “This council has far exceeded expectations regarding help given to residents and the leader and chief executive have authorised whatever was required to make the Iford Bridge owners as safe and as comfortable as possible. “I take exception to your email and its contents and feel you owe an apology not only to me but to the leader, chief executive and of course the many staff members who work for the council who have spent many long hours working whilst most were on leave. They have done a remarkable job. Shame on you Councillor West!”

However, Cllr West’s call for answers has received support from Conservative Cllr John Adams, who is the chairman of Bournemouth’s Flood Advisory Group. He said the next meeting on January 20 would include a report on the Iford flooding and said: “I would have thought this was the ideal time to look into the matters that Cllr West refers to.”

Cllr West is also unhappy that he was told to leave a meeting at Iford on December 30.

He said he had been invited to the meeting by an Iford resident but Cllr Williams said it was a private meeting for residents.

Bournemouth council’s chief executive has threatened to report Cllr West to the Standards Committee because of his alleged ‘disregard for the member/officer protocol’.

Cllr West was rebuked by chief executive Tony Williams after he complained about being excluded from the meeting.

In his reply to Cllr West, Mr Williams said: “The email provides further evidence of your disregard for the member/officer protocol.”