Campaigners accused of wasting public money in Wightlink ferries fight

Campaigners accused of wasting public money in ferries fight

Campaigners accused of wasting public money in ferries fight

First published in News by

CAMPAIGNERS have been accused of wasting public money after losing another round of their battle against the latest generation of cross-Solent ferries.

The Lymington River Association (LRA) has again been refused permission to appeal against the Government’s decision to allow Wightlink to continue using larger vessels on its Lymington to Yarmouth route.

Wightlink said the dispute had cost the company £3.5m and had also been a burden on the public purse.

LRA members say the W-class vessels are harming environmentally-sensitive parts of the Lymington River – a claim Wightlink rejects.

In 2010 a High Court judge backed the LRA, claiming the introduction of the ferries was an unlawful violation of wildlife protection laws.

But the Government later backed the outcome of a 2011 planning inquiry that gave Wightlink permission to continue operating the vessels as well as creating new habitats to replace any damaged by the ferries.

The LRA has repeatedly been refused consent to challenge the Government’s decision in the courts.

The latest hearing followed a repetition of the earlier application.

John Burrows, Wightlink’s chief operating officer, said: “The LRA’s claims have now been considered and rejected by a planning inspector, the Secretary of State, the High Court (twice) and the Court of Appeal (twice).

“While we recognise the rights of individuals to challenge developments on environmental grounds, we believe that this case has gone too far.

“It seems quite wrong that a small group of individuals should be able to impose such a costly legal burden on the UK taxpayer and on our company.”

But the LRA hit back at criticism of its campaign and vowed to fight on.

A spokesman said: “The public inquiry accepted that the ferries would cause damage to the Lymington River and that has duly taken place.

“The long-term aim of the LRA remains the conservation of the salt marsh.”

A statement on the LRA website says: “Wightlink are causing loss of habitat in the Lymington River and are allowed to do so if they put mud on a section of marsh a mile away.

“This is clearly not what the Habitats Directive provides for, which is no negative impact.”

Comments (4)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

5:07pm Thu 24 Jul 14

fedupwithjobsworths says...

Should just build a road bridge across instead of giving rip off ferry company licence to print money. Road bridge would result in big economic gains for the islanders.
Should just build a road bridge across instead of giving rip off ferry company licence to print money. Road bridge would result in big economic gains for the islanders. fedupwithjobsworths
  • Score: 3

5:41pm Thu 24 Jul 14

Townee says...

These protesters need to either pay the cost of these appeals or just realise that people don't care about mud flats and reed beds. There are thousands of acres around the country that need protecting more than this a ear. People need to travel to and from the IOW so they need to just shut up.
It the same as all the tree huggers who protest about the wind farm, just build them and let those against it pay more for their power. Most don't work or have too much money to worry about a few quid more on their bill but some of us work for a living and need as cheaper power as possible.
These protesters need to either pay the cost of these appeals or just realise that people don't care about mud flats and reed beds. There are thousands of acres around the country that need protecting more than this a ear. People need to travel to and from the IOW so they need to just shut up. It the same as all the tree huggers who protest about the wind farm, just build them and let those against it pay more for their power. Most don't work or have too much money to worry about a few quid more on their bill but some of us work for a living and need as cheaper power as possible. Townee
  • Score: 2

6:03pm Thu 24 Jul 14

Hessenford says...

“The long-term aim of the LRA remains the conservation of the salt marsh.” .
.
Perhaps if the LRA had to pay for all these idiotic appeals and objections they would simply give up and go home, these groups of interfering tree huggers really do get my back up.
“The long-term aim of the LRA remains the conservation of the salt marsh.” . . Perhaps if the LRA had to pay for all these idiotic appeals and objections they would simply give up and go home, these groups of interfering tree huggers really do get my back up. Hessenford
  • Score: 3

7:00pm Thu 24 Jul 14

Ophilum says...

Bridge or tunnel it would be a boon to the IOW..... These imbeciles are of no use or ornament and should be made to pay up front for the enquiries and appeals. Greens and any progress do not mix, so they lie And exaggerate to delay where they can.
Bridge or tunnel it would be a boon to the IOW..... These imbeciles are of no use or ornament and should be made to pay up front for the enquiries and appeals. Greens and any progress do not mix, so they lie And exaggerate to delay where they can. Ophilum
  • Score: 3

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree