Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [greenwichcyclists] Footbridge over Deptford Creek - planning application

Expand Messages
  • Liz Delap
    I agree with Ray s (and others ) thoughts about the wheel channel or ramp. A ramp means people with buggies can also use it in preference to the lift (or when
    Message 1 of 3 , Jun 1, 2012
    • 0 Attachment

      I agree with Ray’s (and others’) thoughts about the wheel channel or ramp.  A ramp means people with buggies can also use it in preference to the lift (or when it is broken down).  I think we should press for that – presumably we will discuss on Wednesday.


      I think the design of the bridge is heavy and clumsy, especially when it is up high and very apparent – there are so many much more graceful bridges around.


      Kind Regards


      From: greenwichcyclists@yahoogroups.com [mailto:greenwichcyclists@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Ray
      Sent: 01 June 2012 08:45
      To: greenwichcyclists@yahoogroups.com; lewishamcyclists@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: RE: [greenwichcyclists] Footbridge over Deptford Creek - planning application



      First impression, can’t see cyclists using the bridge as proposed so business as usual. Not sure folks would want to wait for lifts up and down when you can go around. Take forever with a group. Sort of obvious I suppose.


      Second thought, with the track record of Greenwich and operating lifts in the foot tunnel I am not convinced they would be available and reliable. Had the opportunity to use the foot tunnel last week and guess what, on the way back the North Lift wasn’t working!! Nothing changes, business as usual!!


      Third thought, what is the reluctance to putting in a rail or channel to wheel bikes up and down steps. There is the example of the one in Lewisham, in the park, which has half the steps as a ramp. The Dutch do it.


      From: greenwichcyclists@yahoogroups.com [mailto:greenwichcyclists@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Anthony Austin
      Sent: 01 June 2012 08:27
      To: greenwichcyclists@yahoogroups.com; lewishamcyclists@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [greenwichcyclists] Footbridge over Deptford Creek - planning application



      Deptford Creek Bridge


      1. Introduction

      A planning application has been made by Galliard Homes to build a bridge over Deptford Creek to continue the river walk from Millennium Quay to the Greenwich Reach Development.


      The deadline is 12 June 2012 so there is not much time to consider this.


      2. Background

      A S.106 agreement was made when permission was given to the previous owners of the Greenwich Reach Development. This required them to build a bridge before completion.

      The original application in 2005 (which has now expired) was for a low opening bridge and this was approved in outline by the Council. However the Port of London Authority (PLA) raised objections that it would not be practical to operate in conjunction with the road bridge without causing delays to the river and road traffic.

      As a result Galliard have now made this new application for a fixed bridge which the PLA does not object to but is obviously a much more sizable structure. The plans show steps up to a raised walkway rather like a motorway crossing but with the addition of lifts either side for disabled access and bicycles.


      3. Planning Applications

      Go to the link below and search for the reference numbers referred to in this document.


      Galliard have submitted 12/1098/F which is the application for the bridge and related to this is 12/1101/F which seeks consent for a further two storeys on blocks K1 and K2 .

      Some of the relevant documents are below:


      The original application for a bridge over the Creek approved in 2008 was 05/1645/O


      4. Other Information

      Cllr. Matthew Pennycook is taking a lead on this issue and is fully aware of the proposals. There is some information on his web site here: http://matthewpennycook.org.uk/?p=271

      A large picture showing a mock-up of the proposal is at the link below. This shows the view from the MQ side. There is no mock-up from the other side.



      5. Galliard Homes

      Their position is that the PLA have rejected previous proposals for an opening bridge therefore they have no option but to propose this fixed bridge.

      They have explained that the height is required to give the necessary clearance required by the PLA for boats to pass underneath. The plans are to have a lift for disabled access and bicycles and their intention is to make a one-off payment to the Council who would take on the responsibility for operating the bridge in perpetuity.


      6. Port of London Authority (PLA)

      PLA say the originally proposed  bridge would cause delay for boats navigating the Creek. Asked why the two bridges could not simply be opened at the same time they said that they do not believe it would be practical as it would delay river traffic and also affect the road traffic as the road bridge would have to be kept open longer while boats complete the passage under both bridges.

      They have no objection to the fixed bridge and it must be the height proposed however they are willing to re-consider an opening type of bridge but only if a solution could be found that would satisfy their objections.


      7. Greenwich Council

      Cllr. Matthew Pennycook is taking a lead on this issue and is fully aware of the background and proposals that have been made.

      MQ Residents’ Association has requested that Galliard are encouraged by the Council to re-consider their proposals and raised a question as to how Galliard can justify requesting two further floors in their blocks in return for building the bridge when they are already required to do so under the original S.106.. MQ have also asked if the deadline can be extended to allow more time for consultation.

      Anyone with an objection may do so using the Council website. If there are 8 or more individual objections the application would have to be considered by Councillors rather than by planning officers which would ensure greater scrutiny and wider debate.


      Please remember the deadline is 12 June 2012.


      Page Title

      * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

      This email may contain information that is confidential, privileged or otherwise protected from

      disclosure. If you are not an intended recipient of this email, do not duplicate or redistribute it

      by any means. Please delete it and any attachments and notify the sender that you have received

      it in error.


      Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent

      those of TESLA, Inc. or TESLA (Europe) Ltd.


      TESLA, Inc. is a company incorporated in the Commonwealth of Virginia, with its registered office

      at 9201 Arboretum Parkway, Suite 120, Richmond, VA 23236-5403, USA.

      TESLA (Europe) Ltd. is a company registered in England (Registered No. 2777311), with its

      registered office at 42-43 Lower Marsh, London, SE1 7RG, UK.


      * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.