- Following discussion of this at our June Meeting I have submitted the following objection to Greenwich Council; Greenwich Cyclists have always favoured aMessage 1 of 1 , Jun 8, 2012View Source
Following discussion of this at our June Meeting I have submitted the following objection to Greenwich Council;
“Greenwich Cyclists have always favoured a bridge for pedestrians and cyclists to continue the Thames Path at this location. But we object to the design of the bridge in this proposal which we think will be difficult for both types of user to access and use. We thank the Council for applying the S106 stipulation and urge it to challenge the Port of London 's assertion that a low-level retractable bridge could not be operated in coordination with the road bridge on Creek Road . Greenwich Cyclists believe this location on the western approach to the Royal Borough calls for a bold and imaginative bridge. If the current proposal is accepted, we urge the addition of ramps alongside the stairs so that bikes can be pushed up and down.”
I have asked to speak at the Planning Board which will consider this application.
What I have learnt:
1. Galliard Homes are in a hurry to discharge their S106 obligation in order to start selling the 970-odd flats at Greenwich Reach East. They want permission to build 20 more flats on top of the two riverside blocks west of Wood Wharf , and are linking this to approval of their no-frills bridge. By some twist of the financial crisis, Ireland ’s “bad bank” National Asset Management Agency (Nama) has taken over the loan on this site in Greenwich - and some of London ’s landmarks including Battersea power station – and is leaning on Galliard to start coughing up.
2. Galliard acquired the site with outline planning permission from London Merchant Securities. The S106 requires them to make “every reasonable effort to obtain the necessary licences for a bridge over the Creek”, which is one lunch short of actually building the bridge. They have already asked Greenwich Council about the possibility of being released from the S106, unable to resolve the conflict between the PLA on the one hand which doesn’t want a bridge at all but would consider a fixed, high level crossing, and Greenwich Council which to its credit is or was in favour of the more elegant swing version.
Anthony Austin, Coordinator, Greenwich Cyclists