- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
The Garden Bridge as envisioned by Heatherwick StudioPlanning permission granted for London's controversial Garden Bridge - where bikes are banned
The City of Westminster has joined the London Borough of Lambeth in granting planning permission for the controversial Garden Bridge spanning the River Thames – but it wants Transport for London to commit to funding its annual maintenance costs for as long as it stands.
In granting planning consent for the proposed structure, on which cycling will be banned, the City of Westminster’s Planning Applications Committee said it “would make a significant contribution to Westminster’s vitality, character and role within London as a world city.”
However, the project is coming under increasing criticism, partly because the bridge, the brainchild of actress Joanna Lumley and designed by Thomas Heatherwick, was originally conceived as a privately-financed project but will now be part-funded by public money.
The estimated cost has almost nearly trebled from £60 million when it was unveiled last year to £175 million now.
Of that, £60 million of public money will be needed to finance its construction, £30 million each from HM Treasury and TfL – which may also be required to fund annual running costs currently estimated at £3.5 million.
TfL supports the construction of the bridge but its prime function does not appear to be to act as a piece of infrastructure that will help Londoners and visitors get from A to B as quickly as possible.
It will be closed from midnight to 6am, security staff will be on employed to deal with an estimated 7 million visitors each year, bicycles will be banned and groups of eight or more people will have to obtain advance permission to use it.
Lawyers at Middle Temple, which is located on the north bank of the Thames - the area releavant to the City of Westminster planning application - expressed concerns about forecast visitor numbers, believing they have been underestimated.
Moreover, some point out that it will ruin protected views of St Paul’s Cathedral from the South Bank and Waterloo Bridge, and it will also be closed a number of times a year so it can host private events.
But according to one of the Westminster councillors who gave planning permission by a majority of three to one, protected view or not, beauty is very much in the eye of the beholder.
Councillor Susie Burbridge, quoted in The Independent, said: “It comes down to whether you like views of trees or buildings. It’s a very subjective thing.
“There’s a magnificent view of the city from St James’s Park, but I often think it would be better if only they cut trees down a little more.
“But I love trees too,” she added.
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- neilmck 4 min 33 sec ago
It also means a detour which is a big deal when you have to pedal so cyclists will tend to stick to the road. Also such a cycle path will be used...
- eburtthebike 5 min 44 sec ago
You should learn to share the road: like the drivers do.
- Steve K 10 min 57 sec ago
I don't think Lime are anywhere near folding.
- Andrewbanshee 14 min 8 sec ago
As you said the pedals will be hidden anyway. My shoes, 3 pairs of them, have reflective strips on the heel and my winter trousers do too on the...
- Steve K 15 min 10 sec ago
Other drivers only care about disabled people when it gives them a way to object to cycling infrastructure.
- mark1a 8 hours 18 min ago
I'll put you down as a no then.
- chrisonabike 13 hours 44 min ago
Well if you *can* interview the original riders at all surely they worked, at least?...
- David9694 14 hours 13 min ago
Live: Car plunges over wall and lands on beach rocks...
- brooksby 19 hours 26 min ago
And finally: I wonder how many of the "more than 3,000" signatures on that petition are actually locals, who live or work there (and are not just...
Add new comment
24 comments
Apart from everything else, this will block the _free_ view of the City of London and St Paul's Cathedral from Waterloo Bridge. You know, the Wordsworth view, the Canaletto view:
EARTH has not anything to show more fair:
Dull would he be of soul who could pass by
A sight so touching in its majesty:
This City now doth like a garment wear
The beauty of the morning; silent, bare,
Ships, towers, domes, theatres, and temples lie
Open unto the fields, and to the sky;
All bright and glittering in the smokeless air.
Never did sun more beautifully steep
In his first splendour valley, rock, or hill;
Ne'er saw I, never felt, a calm so deep!
The river glideth at his own sweet will:
Dear God! the very houses seem asleep;
And all that mighty heart is lying still!
That'll be gone for ever.
Notice how the promotional views are always shown from an elevated view point. From Westminster bridge, this will be slap bang in the middle of the best free view in London.
And I'm pretty bloody upset about that.
There's a petition against the bridge as proposed for anyone interested.
https://www.change.org/p/eric-pickles-boris-johnson-put-the-garden-bridg...
The state guaranteeing a transfer of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money to private corporations for their business venture in a free-market democracy? Whatever would Mussolini say!
I like the idea, but I don't like the way transport funds could be used on a project that has nothing to do with transport.
Plus, if Joanna Lumley ‘longs for a haven, away from the noise and rush’ in the centre of London she only needs to walk a few yards from where the proposed bridge will be situated and into the gardens of Middle and Inner Temples, some of the most pampered and peaceful patches of grass in the UK. It won’t cost the public a penny and I’m sure they can be hired out by her rich chums for private parties if they want.
Whatever the mix of funding, the primary concern is that it would ruin a world-class riverscape if it were built. It is not a transport issue.
"Brainchild of actress Joanna Lumley" - enough said!
I like the idea, but I don't like the way transport funds could be used on a project that has nothing to do with transport.
Plus, if Joanna Lumley ‘longs for a haven, away from the noise and rush’ in the centre of London she only needs to walk a few yards from where the proposed bridge will be situated and into the gardens of Middle and Inner Temples, some of the most pampered and peaceful patches of grass in the UK. It won’t cost the public a penny and I’m sure they can be hired out by her rich chums for private parties if they want.
I think there might be enough crossing I am pretty certain we really don’t need anymore.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_crossings_of_the_River_Thames
How many are pleasant (and useful) to cycle across?
None.
But you won't be allowed on this monstrosity with your bike at all, so hardly an improvement.
One - Southwark Bridge (has kerb protected cycle superhighway).
But seeing as this bridge will be banning cycle crossing, this one won't be joining the mighty Southwark.
Anyway, the slenderness of that structure as pictured won't support substantial soil load, so it won't have trees except over the central pier. And that's if they can get any trees to survive a winter in the middle of the Thames (it's quie an inhospitable place). So they'll have to end up doing a Millennium Stadium and bring in fresh plants every summer. Plus bridges and trees don't mix well at all. A maintenance and design headache.
The popular mood seems to be turning quite sharply against this bridge now in London. Now that it's in the news again, I've heard quite a few friends and colleagues make quite negative remarks towards it.
It started off as a nice thought, but people are quickly realising it's simply going to be another tourist trap and the stroll across it will be as pleasant as any stroll involving large queues of Americans and Italians students and families, all with incredibly loud voices.
I think it's going to become a bit of a political football.
Leaving aside the implicit racism in the comments above, tourist traps are awesome because they encourage said tourists to spend their money here. This is a good thing and should be encouraged.
Awesome, let me know where you live and where you work so we can arrange for tourist attractions right there. After all, anything that encourages tourists to spend their money is a good thing no matter what the disruption or cost (don't worry about the money, we'll take it from your local transport budget).
And you didn't leave aside your accusation of racism, you decided to imply I am a racist. Say what you mean and then be prepared to stand by your words.
You appear to dislike Americans and Italian by virtue of them being American and Italian (respectively). How did I misunderstand your original post?
You're seeing what you want to see.
I've worked in half a dozen different countries including lots of time in America when I was younger. I suspect I'm better at identifying racism than you, I've seen plenty of it.
If you think that I'm a racist because I mentioned a nationality, knock yourself out. You've formed the strongest of opinions about me based on your view of a few words. I don't think there's anything now I can say to you, I suspect you're now set in your views about me. There's irony here, have a nice day.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Sounds racist to me.
If you think that lot are noisy, wait until the Spanish get here!
I'd be amazed if a tourist's decision to visit London and spend money here was swayed by the garden bridge. Yes, it would be a tourist attraction - but there are already loads of attractions even in that small pocket of the city, so it really isn't likely to significantly increase spending in the area, except on the bridge itself.
Is it a nice idea? Probably.
Is it a good idea where they've suggested it? Not really - it spoils the supposedly protected views and adds a tourist attraction to an area already heavy with them.
Would it work better on a less touristy stretch of the Thames with less exciting views? Probably.
Should we be spending that amount of money on it, at this point in an economic cycle? Almost certainly not.
"We are all in this together!"
London gets a new garden...
Devon loses hospital beds and respite care facilities...
Maybe the Government could close some more hospitals and the design could be changed to clad the bridge in Gold?
It would look great wouldn't it!
Before we get all Billy Bragg about this - both Lambeth and Westminster council have granted planning approval for the bridge. Neither of them are required to commit funds to the project, so not turning down the planning application for a pretty new bridge project sponsored by that woman who made all the fuss about the Ghurkas was a pretty easy decision for them to make. They have kicked the can down the road - to the Mayor, who apparently has the right to say no, to TfL (who have to provide guarantees for c.£35m of borrowings, I gather) and to Treasury (who - it is suggested in some articles - seem required to match the £35m that TfL put up).
Apparently (BBC), "[t]he Garden Bridge Trust says it has raised about £120m which will go towards running costs as well". Suspect this will be scrutinised pretty hard by Boris (as Mayor and as controller of TfL) and by Treasury before they put their hands in their pockets.
I have no problem with you criticising the government's spending priorities, but currently I don't think this is the correct boondoggle for you to take aim at.
One architect stated the cost is 10x what it should be, mainly due to its copper cladding...
Carbunkle.
What an absolute waste of money. Doesn't London already have enough visitor attractions!