Isle of Wight Council Consultation on the reinstatement of Undercliff Drive to vehicular traffic Analysis of consultation responses September 2019 i Undercliff Drive - Analysis of Consultation Responses Consultation on the reinstatement of Undercliff Drive to vehicular traffic Analysis of consultation responses Version 1-1 September 2019 Produced by: For: Isle of Wight Council Contact: Ciaran Meyers Integrated Transport Planning Ltd. 32a Stoney Street The Lace Market Nottingham. NG1 1LL UNITED KINGDOM 0115 988 6905 meyers@itpworld.net www.itpworld.net Project Information Sheet Client Isle of Wight Council Project Code 2831 Project Name Consultation on the reinstatement of Undercliff Drive to vehicular traffic Project Director Denise Faber Project Manager Ciaran Meyers Quality Manager Denise Faber Additional Team Members Luke Turner, Tim Edwards Sub-Consultants N/A Start Date 6th May 2019 File Location F:\2831 Document Control Sheet Ver. Project Folder Description Prep. Rev. App. Date V1-1 F:\2831 Final LT/CM TE TE 23/09/19 V1-0 F:\2831 Draft LT/CM CM CM 20/08/19 Notice This report has been prepared for Isle of Wight Council in accordance with the terms and conditions of appointment. Integrated Transport Planning Ltd cannot accept any responsibility for any use of or reliance on the contents of this report by any third party. i Table of Contents Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................... iv 1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 1 Background context .................................................................................................................................... 1 Report structure............................................................................................................................................ 1 2. Consultation methodology ................................................................................................ 2 Approach ......................................................................................................................................................... 2 Survey ......................................................................................................................................................... 2 Public meeting ........................................................................................................................................ 2 3. Consultation responses ....................................................................................................... 3 Respondent demographics ...................................................................................................................... 3 Views on the proposals.............................................................................................................................. 8 Background information ..................................................................................................................... 8 Views on the reinstatement of Undercliff Drive to vehicular traffic.................................... 8 Consultation response from Ventnor Town Council ................................................................... 17 4. Summary .................................................................................................................................. 18 Consultation results.................................................................................................................................. 18 ii Undercliff Drive - Analysis of Consultation Responses List of Tables Table 3-1: Gender comparison............................................................................................................................ 4 Table 3-2: Age comparison .................................................................................................................................. 5 Table 3-3: Main reasons for agreeing and disagreeing with proposals .............................................. 9 List of Figures Figure 3-1: Gender of consultation respondents (n=771) ........................................................................ 3 Figure 3-2: Age of consultation respondents (N=771) .............................................................................. 4 Figure 3-3: Postcode locations of consultation respondents* (N=621) .............................................. 6 Figure 3-4: Map of postcode locations of consultation respondents* (n=621) ............................... 7 Figure 3-5: Views on the reinstatement proposals...................................................................................... 8 Figure 3-6: Views of Isle of Wight residents and non-residents on the reinstatement proposals .................................................................................................................................................................. 10 Figure 3-7: Comparison of views on reinstatement proposals by Isle of Wight postcode district ........................................................................................................................................................................ 12 Figure 3-8: Comparison of views of Isle of Wight residents on reinstatement proposals ........ 13 Figure 3-9: Comparison of views of Isle of Wight residents on reinstatement proposals by gender ....................................................................................................................................................................... 14 Figure 3-10 Comparison of views on reinstatement proposals by age............................................ 15 Figure 3-11: Comparison of views on reinstatement proposals by survey type ........................... 16 Appendices Appendix 1 Appendix 2 Appendix 3 Appendix 4 Appendix 5 Information on reinstatement of Undercliff Drive Consultation survey questions Consultation response analysis by question Consultation response from Ventnor Town Council Ventnor Town Council meeting minutes -19th July 2019 iii Undercliff Drive - Analysis of Consultation Responses Executive Summary The Isle of Wight Council carried out a consultation on the reinstatement of Undercliff Drive to vehicular traffic which was disconnected following a landslip in 2014. The consultation was carried out over a six-week period across June and July 2019 and involved a consultation survey supplemented with a public meeting. This report summarises the analysis of the consultation responses; 771 responses were received. A majority of respondents were in favour of Undercliff Drive being reinstated to vehicular traffic by the Isle of Wight Council – 57.5% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the reinstatement, whilst 39.6% of respondents strongly disagreed or disagreed. The remainder neither agreed nor disagreed with the reinstatement proposals (2.9%). The main reasons given by those in favour of reinstating the road to vehicular traffic were:  To benefit tourism and businesses on the island,  Increased traffic in other locations;  Improved convenience / accessibility; and  Loss of key route. The key reasons given by those against the reinstatement proposals were:  The cost of the work;  The risk of future landslips;  Adverse impact on walkers and cyclists; and  Ecological impacts. In a letter response to the consultation, Ventnor Town Council stated that they could not support the proposal to reinstate the road to vehicular traffic at this time. iv Undercliff Drive - Analysis of Consultation Responses 1. Introduction 1.1 The Isle of Wight Council carried out a consultation on the reinstatement of Undercliff Drive to vehicular traffic which was disconnected following a landslip in 2014. The consultation was carried out over a six-week period across June and July 2019 and involved a consultation survey supplemented with a public meeting. This report summarises the analysis of the consultation responses received. Background context 1.2 Undercliff Drive connects Ventnor to Niton, via St Lawrence. The road passes through an ancient landslide complex known as the ‘Undercliff’. Historic records of landslide events over the last 200 years have shown the area has been subjected to regular ground movement. Whilst some areas of the Undercliff have had a reputation for landslide movement, much of the developed areas of Ventnor, St Lawrence and Niton Undercliff have remained largely unaffected by major landslide events. The causes of ground movement along the ‘Undercliff’ have been studied extensively and as a consequence are well understood. Ground movement occurring in the area is often linked to periods of prolonged rainfall, particularly during winter. 1.3 During the winter of 2013/14, following a period of prolonged rainfall, Undercliff Drive was affected by major ground movement causing the loss of the road at two locations. The loss of road effectively ‘land-locked’ nine properties between the two sites of landsliding. 1.4 Following the two landslides the Isle of Wight Council implemented a scheme to construct a new access road at one of the two landslide locations. This work was completed in 2016 and allowed vehicles to reach the nine affected properties from Niton, to the west. A shared footpath/bridleway at the site of the second landslide was also constructed in the same year, enabling access for pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders but not for vehicles, from Ventnor to the east. Report structure 1.5 The remainder of this report is structured as follows: • Section 2 outlines the consultation approach; • Section 3 summarises the analysis of consultation responses; and • Section 4 provides a summary of the findings of the consultation. 1 Undercliff Drive - Analysis of Consultation Responses 2. Consultation methodology 2.1 In 2019 the Isle of Wight Council undertook a consultation on the reinstatement of Undercliff Drive to traffic after it was disconnected following a landslip in 2014. This section of the report sets out the approach used to consult on the reinstatement proposals. Approach 2.2 The consultation approach consisted of two components: 1) Consultation survey; and 2) Public meeting. Survey 2.3 A short consultation survey was carried out to find out people’s views on the reinstatement proposals. The survey was accompanied by information on what the reinstatement of vehicular traffic to Undercliff Drive would entail, a copy of which is included as Appendix 1. The survey itself asked whether or not respondents agreed or disagreed with the reinstatement proposals as well as collecting demographic data on respondents to ensure they are broadly representative of residents. A table setting out the survey questions is appended to this report as Appendix 2. Public meeting 2.4 A public meeting to discuss the consultation was held on Saturday 29th June 2019 at Niton Village Hall, Niton. 2.5 The meeting was overseen by Isle of Wight Council’s David Evans (Strategic Manager for Highways and Transport) and Peter Marsden (Group Engineer). The meeting ran for two hours between 14:00 and 16:00 and was attended by approximately 30 people. 2 Undercliff Drive - Analysis of Consultation Responses 3. Consultation responses 3.1 A total of 771 surveys were completed, made up of 725 (94%) online surveys and a further 46 (6%) hard copy surveys. In addition, a further response was received by letter from Ventnor Town Council. This section of the report summarises the key findings from the consultation responses received. Details of responses to each of the consultation questions are appended to this report as Appendix 3. It should be noted that not all respondents responded to every question and as such the number of respondents for each question is clearly stated. Respondent demographics Respondents 3.2 The vast majority (97%) of the respondents to the consultation were responding on their own behalf. The remainder were responding on behalf of businesses or organisations (2%), or on behalf of others, such as a family member or friend (1%). Gender 3.3 Figure 3-1 illustrates the gender reported by consultation respondents. Half of consultation respondents were male, approximately two fifths (42%) were female respondents and just under a tenth (8%) of respondents preferred not to say. Figure 3-1: Gender of consultation respondents (n=771) 8% 42% Female Male Prefer not to say 50% 3 Undercliff Drive - Analysis of Consultation Responses 3.4 Data from the 2011 Census for the Isle of Wight was analysed to determine whether the gender of respondents was broadly representative of Isle of Wight residents, as shown in Table 3-1. In this case those respondents who did not specify male or female were not counted to ensure comparability. There is a broadly even split of female and male islanders with fractionally more females in the population. The majority of survey respondents were male (55%). Table 3-1: Gender comparison Isle of Wight (n=138,265) Survey respondents (n=709) Male 49% 55% Female 51% 45% 100% 100% Gender Total Age 3.5 The age of consultation respondents is illustrated in Figure 3-2 below. The highest proportion of respondents were aged between 45 and 64 years, accounting for over two fifths (43%) of all respondents. A quarter (27%) of respondents were aged 65 to 74 years and just under a fifth (16%) of respondents were aged between 25 and 44 years. Only two respondents were aged under 18 years. Figure 3-2: Age of consultation respondents (N=771) 0.3% 4.5% 2.3% 7.3% 16.1% Under 18 18 - 24 25 - 44 26.7% 45 - 64 65 - 74 Over 75 42.8% Prefer not to say 4 Undercliff Drive - Analysis of Consultation Responses 3.6 Data from the 2011 Census for the Isle of Wight was analysed to determine whether the age of respondents was broadly representative of that of Isle of Wight residents. To ensure a fair comparison the proportions of residents and respondents under 18 were discounted, as shown in Table 3-2. 3.7 2011 Census data for the Isle of Wight shows a higher proportion of younger people, when compared to the survey responses. The comparison shows there to be a much higher response rate in the age groups between 45-64 and 65-74. Table 3-2: Age comparison Isle of Wight (n =112,097) Survey respondents (n=713) 18 - 24 9% 3% 25 - 44 27% 17% 45 - 64 35% 46% 65 - 74 15% 29% Over 75 14% 5% 100% 100% Age Group Total Location of respondents 3.8 More than three quarters (81%) of the 771 consultation respondents provided an Isle of Wight postcode district. Approximately one in every seven (14%) respondents reported that they did not live on the island and 40 (5%) respondents did not provide an answer. 3.9 Figure 3-3 shows the geographic location of consultation respondents according to the Isle of Wight postcode districts. Respondents from the Isle of Wight were predominantly based within the Ventnor postcode district (PO38), the area in which Undercliff Drive is situated. Almost two thirds (63%) of the 621 Isle of Wight-based respondents reported residing in Ventnor. A total of 82 respondents reported living in Shanklin, 43 (7%) in the PO37 postcode district and a further 39 (6%) in PO36. A tenth of respondents reside in Ryde (PO33). The remaining post code districts of the island received fewer than 20 consultation responses each. 5 Undercliff Drive - Analysis of Consultation Responses Figure 3-3: Postcode locations of consultation respondents* (N=621) 450 400 389 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 65 43 39 16 16 12 12 8 8 7 6 PO38 PO33 PO37 PO36 PO31 PO32 PO35 PO40 PO39 PO41 PO30 PO34 *Isle of Wight residents only 3.10 Figure 3-4 provides a map-based illustration of the location of Isle of Wight-based consultation respondents. 6 Undercliff Drive - Analysis of Consultation Responses Figure 3-4: Map of postcode locations of consultation respondents* (n=621) *Isle of Wight residents only 7 Undercliff Drive - Analysis of Consultation Responses Views on the proposals Background information 3.11 The consultation survey was accompanied by information setting out what the reinstatement of vehicular traffic to Undercliff Drive would entail. The majority (98%) respondents who answered the question reported reading the information accompanying the consultation survey. Only 15 (2%) respondents did not read the information. Views on the reinstatement of Undercliff Drive to vehicular traffic 3.12 A majority of respondents are in favour of Undercliff Drive being reinstated to vehicular traffic by the Isle of Wight Council. Figure 3-5 shows that more than half (58%) of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that Undercliff Drive should be reinstated. In contrast two fifths (40%) of respondents strongly disagreed or disagreed with the proposed reinstatement. Figure 3-5: Views on the reinstatement proposals 30% Strongly agree 49% Agree Neither agree or disagree Disagree Strongly disagree 10% 3% 9% N = 768 8 Undercliff Drive - Analysis of Consultation Responses 3.13 The survey asked respondents to explain the reasons why the agreed, disagreed or neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposals. Respondents gave a wide variety of reasons to explain their decisions, many of which were very detailed. The reasons given were coded to identify the key explanations respondents gave for their decision on the reinstatement proposals. Table 3-3 shows the four main reasons given by respondents for agreeing and disagreeing with the reinstatement proposals. Table 3-3: Main reasons for agreeing and disagreeing with proposals Decision Agree Disagree No. Reason for decision % 1 Benefit to tourism and businesses 37% 2 Increased traffic in other locations 17% 3 Improved convenience / accessibility 14% 4 Loss of key route 13% 1 High cost 38% 2 Potential future landslips 24% 3 Adverse impact on walkers and cyclists 20% 4 Ecological impacts 9% N values – Agree = 466; and Disagree = 398 3.14 The key reason given by those who agreed with the proposals to reinstate the road to vehicular traffic was the benefit to tourism and businesses on the island, with approximately two fifths (38%) of those in favour citing this as the reason for their answer. Those in favour of the reinstatement also cited the issue of additional traffic in Whitwell and Niton which had been displaced since the closure of Undercliff Drive, with nearly a fifth (17%) of respondents in favour reporting this as a reason for their support. 3.15 The main reason given by respondents not wanting the road to be reinstated was the high cost of the work required, accounting for almost two fifths (38%) of all respondents who strongly disagreed or disagreed and provided an explanation for their decision. The risk of potential landslips in the future which might destroy the link once more was the second most commonly reason cited by those disagreeing with the 9 Undercliff Drive - Analysis of Consultation Responses proposals, with a quarter (24%) of the 398 respondents who disagreed with the reinstatement citing it to explain their decision. A fifth (20%) of those who did not support the proposals cited the adverse impact on walkers and cyclists who currently benefit from the traffic-free route. 3.16 Respondents were also asked whether they had any additional comments to add. A total of 390 people added additional comments, the vast majority using the opportunity to expand, or repeat, the reasoning behind their answer to question 3, on whether or not they agree with the proposals but alternative suggestions to the proposed scheme, and in some cases additions to them, were also made. Alternatives to the proposals included: • Provide traffic signals; • Implementing a one-way system; and • Building a bridge. Location 3.17 Respondents views on the reinstatement differ based on their location. It is interesting to note that non-Isle of Wight residents are much more likely to support the proposal to reinstate vehicular access than residents, 79% either agreeing or strongly agreeing with the proposals in comparison to 57% for residents, as illustrated in Figure 3-6. Figure 3-6: Views of Isle of Wight residents and non-residents on the reinstatement proposals 70% 63% 60% 50% 48% 40% 30% 30% 20% 10% 0% 15% 11% 8% 4% 3% Strongly agree Agree 15% Neither Disagree Strongly Strongly agree or disagree agree disagree Isle of Wight Agree Neither Disagree Strongly agree or disagree disagree Other N values: Isle of Wight residents = 676 and Other = 52 10 2% Undercliff Drive - Analysis of Consultation Responses 3.18 The respondent data was disaggregated by postcode district to see whether the views of Isle of Wight residents differed based on their location. Figure 3-7 shows the views of respondents on the reinstatement of vehicular access by Isle of Wight postcode district. It should be noted that the number of respondents in the following post code districts were all below 20: PO31, PO32, PO34; PO35, PO39, PO40 and PO41. 3.19 The district with the highest proportion of respondents who strongly agree with the proposals is Ventnor (PO38), the area in which Undercliff Drive is located. Almost two thirds (63%) of Ventnor based respondents either agree or strongly agree with the proposals with a third (35%) disagreeing or strongly disagreeing. 11 Undercliff Drive - Analysis of Consultation Responses Figure 3-7: Comparison of views on reinstatement proposals by Isle of Wight postcode district 100% 90% 32% 80% 22% 38% 43% 36% 12% 17% 60% 16% 50% 2% 12% 40% 15% 13% 6% 6% 30% 14% 2% 2% 11% 11% 7% 8% 8% 7% 14% 20% 39% 38% 44% 42% 28% 21% 10% 22% 8% 2% 7% 7% 33% 45% 13% 6% 27% 11% 9% 24% 22% 8% 3% 46% 26% 39% 11% 70% 0% 13% 24% 25% 18% 56% 40% 33% 28% 18% 9% PO30 PO31 PO32 PO33 Strongly agree PO34 Agree PO35 PO36 Neither agree nor disagree PO37 Disagree PO38 PO39 PO40 PO41 Strongly disagree N values: PO30 = 57; PO31 = 16; PO32 = 14; PO33 = 59; PO34 = 9; PO35 = 12; PO36 = 36; PO37 = 42; PO38 = 344; PO39 = 15; PO40 = 18 and PO41 = 11 12 Undercliff Drive - Analysis of Consultation Responses 3.20 Analysis was carried out to compare views of all Isle of Wight residents on reinstatement proposals, as shown in Figure 3-8. The district with the highest proportion of respondents who strongly agree with the proposals is Ventnor (PO38), the area in which Undercliff Drive is located. Almost two thirds (63%) of Ventnor based respondents either agree or strongly agree with the proposals with a third (35%) disagreeing or strongly disagreeing. The views of Isle of Wight residents who do not live in this area on the proposals are less clear with 47% of respondents either agreeing or strongly agreeing with the proposals and an almost identical proportion (46%) disagreeing or strongly disagreeing. Figure 3-8: Comparison of views of Isle of Wight residents on reinstatement proposals 100% 90% 26% 70% 60% 8% 2% 7% 11% 14% 50% 6% 40% 12% 30% 29% 32% 80% 4% 9% 56% 47% 20% 36% 10% 0% PO38 Strongly agree Agree Rest of IoW Neither agree nor disagree All IoW Disagree N values: PO38 = 344; Rest of IoW = 289 and All IoW = 633 13 Strongly disagree Undercliff Drive - Analysis of Consultation Responses Gender 3.21 Figure 3-9 compares views on reinstatement proposals by respondent gender. A slightly higher proportion of male respondents strongly agree with the proposals to reinstate vehicular access in compared to the proportion of female respondents; however, the overall agreement is broadly the same. The proportions strongly disagreeing, disagreeing and neither agreeing or disagreeing were very similar. Figure 3-9: Comparison of views of Isle of Wight residents on reinstatement proposals by gender 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 30% 29% 10% 10% 3% 2% 7% 12% 34% 6% 8% 5% 40% 30% 20% 52% 45% 47% 10% 0% Female Strongly agree Male Agree Neither agree or disagree N values: Female = 320; Male = 386 and Prefer not to say = 62 14 Prefer not to say Disagree Strongly disagree Undercliff Drive - Analysis of Consultation Responses Age 3.22 Figure 3-10 provides a comparison of views on the reinstatement proposals by age of respondent. It suggests that support for the reinstatement proposals increases as the age of respondent increases, rising from a third (33%) of 18 to 24-year olds who agree or strongly agree to almost three quarters (74%) of respondents aged over 75 years. Figure 3-10 Comparison of views on reinstatement proposals by age 100% 11% 90% 30% 32% 80% 56% 70% 10% 60% 50% 17% 3% 5% 2% 11% 11% 11% 9% 5% 10% 40% 11% 30% 6% 69% 49% 20% 55% 43% 40% 28% 10% 0% 32% 3% 6% 8% 2% 100% 27% Under 18 18 - 24 Strongly agree 25 - 44 Agree 45 - 64 Neither agree or disagree 65 - 74 Disagree Over 75 Prefer not to say Strongly disagree N values: Under 18 years = 2; 18–24 years = 18; 25-44 years = 123; 45–64 years = 329; 65-74 years = 205; Over 75 years = 35; and Prefer not to say = 56 Survey type 3.23 A comparison of the views on reinstatement of respondents by method of response was carried out, as shown in Figure 3-11. Those completing hardcopy surveys were much more supportive of the work with four fifths (80.4%) of respondents using this method strongly agreeing or agreeing with the reinstatement proposals compared to 56% for respondents using the online survey. 15 Undercliff Drive - Analysis of Consultation Responses Figure 3-11: Comparison of views on reinstatement proposals by survey type 100% 13% 90% 4% 2% 4% 31% 80% 70% 10% 60% 3% 9% 50% 40% 76% 30% 47% 20% 10% 0% Online Strongly agree Agree Hardcopy Neither agree or disagree Disagree Strongly disagree N values: Online = 722 and Hardcopy = 46 Business respondents 3.24 Of the 17 businesses and organisations who responded to the consultation approximately three quarters (76%) were strongly in favour of the reinstatement proposals whilst a fifth (18%) of those responding either disagreed or strongly disagreed with the proposals. 3.25 Less than half (41%) of the businesses and organisations who responded provided their name or details of the type of work they carry out. Those that did included: • Two caravan parks; • A courier company; • A community group; • A parish council. • A holiday company; and • A tourist destination. 16 Undercliff Drive - Analysis of Consultation Responses 3.26 All but one was strongly in favour of the proposed reinstatement with one business reporting that they neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposals. Consultation response from Ventnor Town Council 3.27 Ventnor Town Council sent a response to the consultation having considered the proposal for the reinstatement of Undercliff Drive to vehicular traffic at its meeting on the 8th of July 2019. 3.28 Following a discussion, a vote was carried out with the resulting decision that Ventnor Town Council cannot support the proposal to reinstate the road to vehicular traffic at this time. The key concerns expressed by Members included: • The further cuts of £4.5 million a year for the next three years; • The possibility of a recurrence of the landslide as acknowledged in the consultation's background information; 3.29 • The absence of a risk assessment; • The absence of an economic case for the re-opening; and • The absence of any consideration of alternative routing. A copy of the council’s consultation response is appended to this report as Appendix 4. A copy of the minutes of the Ventnor Town Council meeting at which the reinstatement of Undercliff Drive was discussed is included as Appendix 5. The discussion of this topic is recorded as Minute 86/19. 17 Undercliff Drive - Analysis of Consultation Responses 4. Summary 4.1 In 2019 the Isle of Wight Council undertook a consultation on the reinstatement of Undercliff Drive to traffic after it was disconnected following a landslip in 2014. The consultation approach consisted of two components: 4.2 • Consultation survey; and • Public meeting. A short consultation survey was carried out to find out people’s views on the reinstatement proposals. The survey was accompanied by information on what the reinstatement of vehicular traffic to Undercliff Drive would entail. 4.3 A public meeting to discuss the proposals and the consultation was held on Saturday 29th June 2019 at Niton Village Hall. The meeting ran for two hours and was attended by approximately 30 people. Consultation results 4.4 A total of 771 responses were received to the consultation survey, the majority (94%) via the online survey with a further 46 (6%) hard copy surveys. The key findings of the consultation are: • A majority of respondents were in favour of Undercliff Drive being reinstated to vehicular traffic by the Isle of Wight Council – of the responses 57.5% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the reinstatement, whilst 39.6% of respondents strongly disagreed or disagreed with the proposed reinstatement. The remainder neither agreed or disagreed with the reinstatement proposals (2.9%). • The post code district with the highest proportion of respondents who strongly agree with the proposals is Ventnor (PO38), the area in which Undercliff Drive is located. Almost two thirds (63%) of the 344 Ventnor-based respondents either agree or strongly agree with the proposals with a third (35%) disagreeing or strongly disagreeing. • The views on the reinstatement proposals of Isle of Wight residents who do not live in Ventor are less clear with 47% of the 289 respondents either agreeing or strongly agreeing with the proposals and an almost identical proportion (46%) disagreeing or strongly disagreeing with them. 18 Undercliff Drive - Analysis of Consultation Responses 4.5 The main reasons given by those in favour of reinstating the road to vehicular traffic were: 4.6 4.7 • To benefit tourism and businesses on the island, • Increased traffic in other locations; • Improved convenience / accessibility; and • Loss of key route. The key reasons given by those against the reinstatement proposals were: • The cost of the work; • The risk of future landslips; • Adverse impact on walkers and cyclists; and • Ecological impacts. In addition to the online and hardcopy survey responses one stakeholder provided a separate consultation response by letter. Ventnor Town Council sent a response to the consultation having considered the proposed reinstatement at its meeting on the 8th of July 2019. In the letter Ventnor Town Council stated that they cannot support the proposal to reinstate the road to vehicular traffic at this time. The key concerns expressed by Members were further budget cuts, the possibility of a recurrence of the landslide and the absence of a risk assessment, an economic case for the re-opening and the lack of consideration of alternative routing. 19 Integrated Transport Planning Ltd Charles House, 148 Great Charles Street Birmingham B3 3HT UK +44 (0)121 285 7301 Integrated Transport Planning Ltd Castlemead Lower Castle Street Bristol BS1 3AG UK +44 (0)117 917 5155 Integrated Transport Planning Ltd 6 Hay’s Lane London Bridge London SE1 2HB UK +44 (0)203 300 1810 Integrated Transport Planning Ltd 50 North Thirteenth Street Milton Keynes MK9 3BP UK +44 (0)1908 259 718 Integrated Transport Planning Ltd 32a Stoney Street Nottingham NG1 1LL UK +44 (0)115 988 6905 www.itpworld.net