Joanna Lumley says that she is the person responsible for the decision to exclude cyclists from the proposed Garden Bridge across the Thames. She argues that their presence would prevent it from being ‘a peaceful place to walk’. The bridge, which will receive £60m of public money, will also be closed between midnight and 6am with groups of more than eight people having to apply for permission to visit.
The £175m Garden Bridge, which received planning permission from Lambeth council last week, would span the Thames between Temple and the South Bank – a site where there are already four bridges within just over a mile of each other.
Speaking at Lambeth's planning applications committee meeting, Lumley described a bucolic escape in the middle of the capital: “This will be a place where you can maybe slow down; hear birds singing; hear leaves rustling; get a little bit of calm; take the heat out of the situation.”
However, this oasis of calm will not be open to cyclists and Lumley says that she is the one responsible for that decision.
“Being a Lambeth resident and using the Tube, I walk a lot. I don’t walk in cycle lanes and that’s the reason why I – and I’m the only one you can blame for not having cycles on this bridge – I said that I believe that cyclists speeding over the bridge would stop it being a peaceful place to walk and a safe place maybe to take a wheelchair.”
Lambeth council’s recent planning report to its planning committee expands on this, explaining why cyclists would be able to push bikes over, but not ride.
“If cyclists were allowed to ride, to provide a safe pedestrian environment it would be necessary to incorporate segregated cycle lanes or wider shared paths. This would result in a much reduced planted area and erode the benefits of the bridge as a green space.”
While the plan is for the 6,000 square metre bridge to feature 270 trees, campaigners point out that more than 30 trees would be cut down and green space on the South Bank lost to house the bridge landing at Bernie Spain Gardens.
Groups of eight or more obliged to request a ‘formal visit’
On top of this, it seems large groups of people will also be unwelcome – or at best tolerated. The report reads: “All groups of eight or more visitors would be required to contact the Garden Bridge Trust to request a formal visit to the bridge.”
It is claimed that the policy would ‘assist visitor management’ and ‘discourage protest groups’.
The Garden Bridge Trust said that it had no intention to introduce ticketing for the bridge. However, in a statement it did suggest that the bridge could sometimes be closed for private functions.
"The Trust is exploring the possibility of holding a limited number of private events on the bridge each year. Every effort would be made to ensure the bridge remains open to the general public during these events, but there may be occasions where the bridge is closed."
No guaranteed right of way
The bridge will also be closed between the hours of midnight and 6am. The Independent reports how Green Party member of the London Assembly, Darren Johnson, feels this is unacceptable for a development which is set to receive £60m of public funding – half each from TfL and central government.
“I was really shocked to discover that this bridge is receiving £60m from the joint transport budgets of the Mayor and the national government, but the public have no guaranteed right of way.
"Central London is a 24-hour city, but under the current proposals there is effectively no bridge for at least a quarter of the day. Given the scale of public funding for this bridge I would have expected the Mayor to have pinned down guarantees that Londoners will be able to use this bridge to cross the river 24/7 in ten or twenty years’ time.”
48 thoughts on “Joanna Lumley claims sole responsibility for banning cyclists from Garden Bridge”
“Being a Lambeth resident and
“Being a Lambeth resident and using the Tube, I walk a lot. I don’t walk in cycle lanes and that’s the reason why I – and I’m the only one you can blame for not having cycles on this bridge – I said that I believe that cyclists speeding over the bridge would stop it being a peaceful place to walk and a safe place maybe to take a wheelchair.”
From national treasure to selfish tosser in 1 easy move. She believes but can’t provide proof. Selfishness in the exreme.
Sounds like a good idea to
Sounds like a good idea to just have pedestrians rather than bikes. There are plenty of other bridges nearby that cyclists can use if needed. If you want to take your bike over the bridge, get off it, walk with it and appreciate the surroundings.
You can’t, she has banned
You can’t, she has banned cycles. Read before replying. It helps.
Gus T wrote:You can’t, she
Oh the irony, read the article before replying to posts telling people to read the article…
Gus T wrote:You can’t, she
Excellent comment – except did you actually read it yourself?
Hoisted by my own petard.
Hoisted by my own petard. :)) :)) :)) Point taken but will Lambeth’s decision over-ride Ms Lumley’s?
It sounds like a nice idea!
It sounds like a nice idea!
It’s not as if I would ever
It’s not as if I would ever use it, but if it’s a garden, rather than a transport route, fair enough.
I don’t cycle in gardens, why should there be a right to cycle everywhere?
But it really shouldn’t get transport money, not if it will not be a right of way even for foot traffic.
I would bet this thing never gets built.
Flying Scot wrote:It’s not as
I don’t know that that’s enough, for me.
Not only is there the question of transport budget money, there’s also the question of whose river is it? I don’t quite understand the legal status of the Thames, but morally at least, to me, its at least partly public space, so anything permanently built over it should have as open public access as possible, sans any compelling argument to the contrary.
I’d like to see what the
I’d like to see what the environmental impact of this is.
I guess it’s just the fond
I guess it’s just the fond hope that there might one day be a way to cross the Thames on a bike safely that is appealing. I can see the sense of this as a garden and not a bridge; so it’s a new park that just happens to cross the river. Great. now could we get a cycle only bridge somewhere useful, that would be excellent.
But really, how much effort would it take to build a cycleway on one side of the bridge? Or under it? 1 million tops? Stump that up then Boris.
I have a much bigger problem
I have a much bigger problem with the bridge not having a public right of way.
There’s been a steady expansion of apparently public, but in reality privately owned space in London. It’s ridiculous to support the creation of another private space with significant tax funds, without any legal obligations for access to the public paying for it.
And for anyone doubting the importance of a right of way, Joanna Lumley has just demonstrated the problem. Why the blazes is she the one apparently singularly deciding how the bridge can be used? What policies might appear in the future on a personal whim?
£60m would buy a lot of
£60m would buy a lot of cycling infrastructure
Sounds fair enough to me.
Sounds fair enough to me.
Yes it would be great to have safer cycling routes across the river but that isn’t an objection to this garden bridge concept.
Walking across the river is a wonderful London experience which will be even better being able to amble through a park. Having to look out for bikes would detract from it.
It’s the same with the limit on groups. You’re having a peaceful time looking along the Thames and 60 people from a bus tour following someone holding a sign come streaming past and taking photos. Not very zen is it.
On the hours, I can see why they would want it closed in those times for security reasons. The chances of vandalism, attacks or other unwelcome behaviour in a setting like that are somewhat higher at 3am than 7pm I would have thought.
The only thing I would say is that if it is getting public funding then it should have an administrative board with representatives of government and public groups.
abudhabiChris wrote:Sounds
What’s so fair about using transport funds for something that isn’t for transport? Or using public money for something that’s not properly open to the public?
As for ‘having to look out for bikes’ – well easily solved, just build a bike-bridge right next to it and attached to it.
What on Earth is the point of
What on Earth is the point of this?
So Lumley has managed the
So Lumley has managed the standard rich bastard’s trick of socialism for the rich, sod all for the poor. Be nice to manage the reverse one day. Be nice to see a “mass trespass” by taxpayers as well.
This is a really nice idea –
This is a really nice idea – a calm, meditative space in the middle of London’s bustle.
Kadinkski wrote:This is a
We already have quite a few such spaces. There’d be more if only we could get rid of some of the bastard cars!
Kadinkski wrote:This is a
I find kew, richmond park etc suitable.
mrmo wrote:Kadinkski
You probably should check either your geography or your definition of the word “middle”.
abudhabiChris wrote:mrmo
You probably should check either your geography or your definition of the word “middle”.— Kadinkski
Would you rather i said Green park, Hyde park, regents park?
London isn’t a very big place,
Kadinkski wrote:This is a
Sure, if you find a small garden full of tourists calming. It’s being built right next to all the coach parking along the embankment. If you ignore the idyllic description and just look at the plan with the critical eye that the planning officers should have, it’s fairly obvious it’s not going to work as proposed.
Except it’ll be jam packed
Except it’ll be jam packed with tourists taking selfies – not very calm or meditative. And there are already plenty of calm, meditative spaces in the middle of London;you just have to look for them, it’s not that hard.
Spending £60million on a bridge that doesn’t address any transport needs is just a stupid idea.
Yes, there is plenty of
Yes, there is plenty of transport infrastructure in London too. I don’t really follow the point…surely if you think it will be jam-packed that goes to show that a city the size of London needs many, many more such places.
Don’t think of it as a bridge if that helps. Think of it as a hanging babylonian paradise above the Thames, does that make it less of a stupid idea? 😉
Purpose of bridge is to cross
Purpose of bridge is to cross from point A to B. I personally would not spend such a expensive bridge just for walking. If you want to go to the garden then go to your local one or other national parks with a garden in it.
I rather London build the £1 Billion cycle super highway to showcase the world we are ready for the future.
I think it’s fine to ban
I think it’s fine to ban people from riding bicycles from that bridge, after all there are apparently already four bridges within about a mile of each other there – I don’t see why it should cause any more of a fuss for cyclists than for motorists who will also not be allowed to drive through there. A place for pedestrians, why not?
And I can definitely appreciate that people might just want a place to walk around absent-mindedly or allow their children to do so, without always having to have eyes in the back of their head to spot any oncoming cyclist.
That being said, I do hate Joanna Lumley…
eurotrash wrote:I think it’s
Well motorists already dominate all those other bridges. If I remember rightly, Southwark bridge isn’t bad, but the others are not good for cyclists. Having ‘four bridges within a mile’ doesn’t help when those bridges are essentially for motorists (are you including Tower bridge? That’s particularly horrible, given the junction at the northern end of it)
edit – oh, yeah, and Vauxhall has that rather baffling layout at the southern end.
eurotrash wrote:I think it’s
There is already the millennium bridge which goes from the Tate modern to St. Paul’s which is pedestrians only. There is not one single bridge that is exclusive to cycle traffic across the Thames.
It will just be another privatised space in London paid for by the public, that will have a shitty for policy to keep out the ‘plebs’. Who can enter/use the space is already being decided by a single person while being paid for by millions.
Fuck Lumley and her shitty bridge. And I say that as a Lambeth resident.
Public money being spent on
Public money being spent on something not wholly available for public access ? You’re having a laugh. We’re still running a £100bn annual tax budget deficit and there’s money for this ?!
There are way more pressing issues rather than “Joanna’s folly” and as for public spaces in that area, try Battersea park, St Jame’s park and Green park for starters. Plenty of flora and fauna freely available there.
arfa wrote:Public money being
+1
arfa wrote:Public money being
There are many examples of public money being spent on establishments that are not wholly open to the public. Try Buckingham Palace, police stations, barracks, naval dockyards, airports, hospitals, the MI6 building, cemeteries, schools, doctors’ surgeries, mortuaries, council buildings and Stonehenge visitor centre just for starters.
I haven’t noticed too much protest over these.
None of those are public
None of those are public spaces. The bridge is, that’s the point.
mike the bike wrote:There are
But those are all buildings spent using the public monies earmarked for their particular sector (and very few of them built using completely Govt money any more, most are PFI loaners).
This bridge is being built using Department for Transport money, out of the fabled “common fund” for transport infrastructure, however it will not be a public right of way, nor open 24/7, and they admit it might be closed completely for unspecified amounts of time so they can rent it off for (very expensive, very exclusive) private events.
Its not even the same as the Severn Bridges – practically permanent tolls – , or the motorway system, where cyclists are quite sensibly excluded.
Can you imagine if they built HS2, then said that a fifty mile stretch in the middle would be closed for unspecified amounts of time so that people can run private rail journeys up and down it?
This a bridge in central (-ish) London. It certainly should have some access for cyclists across it (or under it, or next to it, as others have said).
To use the stretched resources of central government’s transport fund, to build a party park which will be run by a private company, is a terrible idea, and smacks (as others have said) of the creeping privatisation of public space – a second enclosure of the commons, if you like.
eurotrash wrote:I think it’s
I sort of agree with this, but it doesn’t sit very well with the fact that it’s a bridge, built with public money, and TfL money at that. The ‘transport’ bit suggests it should be for all Londoners, not just the ones Joanna Lumley approves of.
A little oasis of tranquility sounds great, and maybe it would be more tranquil without bikes buzzing through. But if that’s what they want to build, they shouldn’t take TfL money to build a bridge and then decide they want to exclude people from using it.
if you would like me to be
if you would like me to be more precise Mike, how about money from public coffers for public infrastructure (ie TfL money) ?
Boy I’m glad I don’t live in
Boy I’m glad I don’t live in London and have to cope with this sort if bollocks :/
Bikes or no bikes, is a red
Bikes or no bikes, is a red herring.
The real scandal here is it will be built with public money but privately managed, not always available to the public and rented to events on certain days. Groups will have to apply for permission to use it.
It is also likely public funds will be needed for its upkeep.
The bridge doesn’t need to be
The bridge doesn’t need to be evenly leveled all of the way, there could be a meandering segregated bike path at a slightly lower level being criss-cross by a few small bridges, Foliage could be used as a barrier to allay pedestrians cyclist fears. With complete segregation the cyclist – pedestrian issue is 100% nullified.
What a shame the creators of the bridge and Joanna Lumley have no imagination. This project should not be receiving public money.
£60 million for this Central
£60 million for this Central London vanity project!
Meanwhile elsewhere in the country local & central government funded services are being cut back to the bone, while thousands & thousands of public sector workers endure yet another year of pay freezes & pension raids.
I took my daughter to see the third Hunger Games film last night. Can anyone else see the analogy?
“Ban cyclists”
“Ban groups of
“Ban cyclists”
“Ban groups of people”
“Ban the plebs…”
Spend lots of public money making this a reality.
what an effing joke!
If you want to see a great “green bridge” with cycle and pedestrian access that was the first in the UK and has been very successful, look at the green bridge in Mile End Park, East London, that the Environment Trust used to link the north and south sides of the park together.
http://www.mimoa.eu/images/17204_l.jpg
Quote:“Being a Lambeth
Are we talking about wheelchairs that are pushed?
Or are we talking about those 8mph mobility scooters that terrorise the High Streets of many a town?
#OneSizeFitsAll
Another costly folly.
It’s
Another costly folly.
It’s reckoned that visitor numbers suggest that the bridge will be congested and there may be queues to get on. Never mind the damage to the local environment.
I only use the bicycle lane
I only use the bicycle lane in Kensington gardens, this is what I have to go through every night…
http://youtu.be/x_AndWvjx90
Frankly if Lambeth Council
Frankly if Lambeth Council planning department have caved in to the wishes of a second rate actress then they should, en-mass, resign or grow a pair and tell this “national treasure” where to go.
This is the worst of Johnson’s vanity projects and we have the prospect of that clown running the country some day.
Emigration looks a more appealing prospect X(
It got an absolute savaging
It got an absolute savaging from Observer architecture critic Rowan Moore yesterday, well worth a read: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/22/thames-garden-bridge-huge-expensive-folly
Anyone else with an ELABORATE
Anyone else with an ELABORATE HOAX seeking 60 million quid ?
Will it be named the ” Lumley bridge ” or the ” Hole in the thames “`
Every yacht owner already knows about that ” hole they pour money into “?
1: Lovely if we had the
1: Lovely if we had the cash…but clearly we do not.
2: We could be collectively mischievous and form a motoring coalition demanding right to drive through it at whatever speed is convenient to us citing the ever crappy ‘we pay road tax’ guff.
3: Why not spend £60,000,000 (count those zeros!) on acquiring small strips of land to create the UKs first cycling motorway running whichever way is best to form 60 miles of car free cycling heaven (I reckon £1,000,000 per mile would be plenty to form a tarmac strip maybe 12ft wide with centre division so that we have an option to train somewhere safe.
It would save countless lives per year, promote cycling as a sport, prevent thousands of other injuries, businesses could spring up alongside it such as cafes and shops and I for one would gladly drive three to four hours to relish the opportunity of up to 120 miles of completely safe training – I know I wouldn’t be alone.
That would be an amazing use of money and one desperately overdue, if Joanna Lumley wanted to put her name to something truly life changing that certainly would be absolutely fabulous.
Heck, if we had access to something like that I wouldn’t care if they named it after Jimmy Savill!