The property developer of a new bridge that is part of a “masterplan” £3.3bn project to build “the first new town centre in London in 50 years” as part of “the UK’s most sustainable regeneration scheme” has deployed “security patrols” to ensure cyclists dismount and do not cycle across.
British Land oversaw the 170-metre-long red boardwalk in Canada Water that opened last week, designed by Asif Khan, the property developer confirming to The Telegraph that “patrols” would be undertaken to enforce ‘no cycling’ rules.
The boardwalk is part of the larger Canada Water development, a major regeneration project covering 53 acres, its website stating transport is a “key area of commitment” with £33m to be invested to “ensure 80 per cent of trips will be by public transport, walking or cycling by 2033” by helping to “enable people to use sustainable transport and reduce car use”.
There is no suggestion at this point that security would be looking to impose financial penalties on riders, such as has been seen under Public Space Protection Orders in the centre of numerous UK towns and cities in recent times, but British Land suggested security and signage has been included to make sure cyclists dismount and do not ride across the boardwalk.
A spokesperson told the newspaper: “Our approach to managing public space, which includes the boardwalk, will balance the safety of all those using the space with creating a welcoming environment for all.
“The boardwalk is to be a no-cycling area which will be managed by a mixture of signage and security patrols by our in-house property management team.
“Our security patrols are already in place and we’re reviewing shift patterns over the next few weeks and months to make sure the right amount of resources are in the right place at the right times.”
The British Land-led Canada Water project will see up to 3,000 new homes built over 10 to 15 years, as well as commercial buildings and offices with space for up to 20,000 workers. According to the project’s website it will “be the first new town centre in London in 50 years: a truly mixed-use new urban centre, built for the future” and is “the UK’s most sustainable regeneration scheme”.
While it all comes with the promise 35 per cent of the new homes will be “affordable”, the first properties from one residential building that went on sale last year started at £700,000 for a one-bed flat and went up to £2m for some three-bedroom properties.
Despite the messaging around the cycling ban on the new boardwalk, the project has pledged to install around 10,000 new cycle parking spaces with 1,066 during ‘Phase 1’, as well as cycle hire docking stations. The developers also say the project will see £33m invested in local transport and the amount of public car parking will be almost halved from 1,900 spaces today to 1,000 in the future.
“Our vision is to enable people to use sustainable transport and reduce car use,” one project document states. “Our proposed measures seek to ensure 80 per cent of trips will be by public transport, walking and cycling by 2033 and we aspire to achieve the mayor’s targets for inner London for 90 per cent to be by these modes by 2041.”
road.cc has contacted British Land for comment on alternative routes for cyclists and for more information about how the Canada Water project would achieve its “vision” of encouraging more active travel and public transport journeys.
49 thoughts on “Property developer deploys “security patrols” to stop cyclists riding across ‘no cycling’ bridge at new £3bn London neighbourhood… that is designed to “enable sustainable transport and reduce car use””
Quote:
That’s because well before the project is completed, the developer will go back to the council and say that unless the proportion of affordable homes is reduced (or done away with completely) then the project will not be economical and they’ll have to walk away…
Also reflective of the fact
Also reflective of the fact that on some of the larger developments more than 2,000 separate documents have to be produced and submitted before construction can commence.
And planning applications can sit for years without being approved by Councils – often requiring planning inspectorate intervention. So that years of project financing costs for the land in the interim.
These huge costs are on top of other levies already charged to developers.
In my experience, delays to
In my experience, delays to the planning process are usually down to the developers failing to do what they have been told time and time again they need to do. They appoint consultants that under-cut their competitors, but aren’t up to the job, and then blame the council as they charge much more in the long run than their competent and ethical competitors would have done.
And yes, lots of reports are required to ensure that buildings won’t fall down, won’t be dangerous to those who will be using them, that piling foundations won’t result in pollution of the water environment, that they’ve allowed enough space for bins, and that is’s possible for those bins to be emptied without a bin lorry having to reverse up a narrow lane with poor visibility and children playing. That there’s adequate drainage so you don’t contribute towards flooding, and capacity in the sewage system so that people can flush their toilets without it backing up.
If you are a developer/consultant that isn’t able to produce what’s required, either you are not up to the job or your proposed development isn’t suited to that location (and if you/your advisors were up to the job, you’d have worked that out at the start of the process).
Quote:
But mainly by public transport or walking, clearly…
The majority of the “proposed
The majority of the “proposed measures” will be not providing parking spaces for residents. Whilst that’s likely to disincentivise driving, I don’t think that the developer deserves any credit for it.
I can understand them banning
I can understand them banning cyclists on it honestly because it hasn’t been designed with them in mind. Also, like it or not, a lot of cyclists in built up areas are delivery cyclists on e-bikes and they don’t give a shit about anything but their delivery. Until something is done about these delivery riders, all cyclists are going to be punished for their dangerous behaviour.
And, judging from the picture
And, judging from the picture, there’s perfectly passable routes around the sides of the water, which I would choose over a no doubt slippery, undulating and congested boardwalk anyway.
Agree 100% – and more so
Agree 100% – and more so because most of the uber / deliveroo riders are actually motorists on illegal vehicles not cyclists.
I anyone still believe
I anyone still believe anything from official narratives about something “green”, “sustainable”, “bio”, “zero emissions”, etc. I have a much better bridge than this one to sell you…
Cynicism is tempting – so
Cynicism is tempting – so often it seems you can see “green” as having the other meaning meaning of “naive”.
Green housing? Still put up by folks driving fossil-fuel powered vehicles. Still made largely of steels, bricks, cement and now plastics (not known for being low embodied energy or zero-emissions in creation). Still forms a largely impermiable cover over previously green (or maybe brown field) spaces. Still inhabited by more humans using ever more resources and producing tons of waste.
But … there’s some wood on the outside, or the insulation’s a bit better, or we’ve planted some trees.
Or perhaps the colour “green” also indicates “something invisible” (or at least “not black and sooty”)? As in “zero emissions”, which seems to mean “emit elsewhere – somewhere out of mind”.
Of course some harm minimization is taking place – that is remarkable. And it’s frankly impossible to imagine humans suddenly dropping the anchors on our increasing resource usage, never mind reversing that. And in theory this all could lead somewhere which both retains some of the modern good stuff but is far more efficient and can be made to last for longer.
However Jevons Paradox often seems to apply to human affairs.
The core issue might be that
The core issue might be that even though the number of vegans/vegetarians, cyclists, green energy and EVs is rising, on the other hand meat consumption, ICE’s cars and traffic are also on the rise (EVs may already have peaked in Europe in 2024 btw).
At this point 95% of animals on Earth are now cattle, chickens, sheep, etc (not counting insects or fish in the oceans of course, only land vertebrates)… 75% of wildlife populations has disappeared in 50 years (while human population has more than doubled). These are WWF numbers, I can’t check them, but almost nobody realizes at what point the environment is being modified – and the trend is not changing!
So I wouldn’t say “cynicism is tempting”, but cynicism is the rule, 90% of these “efforts” are pure marketing, and 9% naivete…
… six of the nine planetary
… six of the nine planetary boundaries significantly exceeded, seven tipping elements within uncertainty bounds…
It’s difficult to imaging that this is all going to end well.
levestane wrote:
Fixed it.
brooksby wrote:
Further fixing – or possibly breaking…
brooksby]
Fixed it even further.
Do you think he knows what
Do you think he knows what this looks like in the UK? Good hi vis though.
As someone who use to live in
As someone who use to live in CW I can tell you (as seen in the photos) that the boardwalk is going to barely make a difference to cycling. Given its off road nature, any responsible cyclist will have to slow down such that, in truth, I don’t think anyone but the most irresponsible / reckless cyclists would gain any time by using over the roads that cover 3 sides of that particular body of water (which isn’t much bigger than a football pitch).
Honestly, I don’t see it as an issue, complaining about it banning bikes and saying they aren’t cycling friendly because they ban us from using a tiny minor possible shortcut (by distance if not time) is, respectfully going out of the way to create outrage. There are plenty of perfectly safe routes round there without you needing to put yourself in conflict with pedestrians.
In cases like this, I think
In cases like this, I think the issue isn’t so much commuter cyclists or recreational road cyclists but more likely ‘roaming kids on bikes’ like you see often riding up the high street with nothing better to do.
But we all love to paint anyone and everyone who so happens to climb onto a bicycle of any nature for any reason just as ‘cyclists’. And even though web pages like this complain about the broad brushing nature of this they are often just as guilty for the term.
The funny thing is that tons
The funny thing is that tons of adults are walking with nothing better to do too?
I’ve never seen road.cc try
I’ve never seen road.cc try and gatekeep cycling, quite the opposite actually
How are they going to enforce
How are they going to enforce this without assaulting someone ?
Quote:
I ride down there a fair bit (too often for my bank balance!) as my nearest Decathlon is at the edge of the water, alternative routes are really no big deal: as long as they don’t try to restrict access to riding on the broad promenades around the edge of the water, as one can now, it won’t be any hardship for cyclists not to be allowed on the boardwalk. Access might potentially save fifteen seconds or so, I think not having it is something we can live with.
All well and good, but it
All well and good, but it doesn’t explain why they didn’t design it properly in the first place.
It’s like saying a lift shaft
It’s like saying a lift shaft hasn’t been designed properly because you can’t ride a bike up it. It’s not meant to be a bike route. Honestly, there’s already plenty of stuff worth getting worked up about as a cyclist, this is not the boardwalk to die on (he says, while getting worked up about it).
quiff wrote:
— quiffExplain to me why not.
(1) Because that is not what
(1) Because that is not what they had in mind when they designed it. It’s stated purpose is to “provide a way for visitors to get up close and personal with the wetland habitat”. There may be cases where someone should be able to get “up close and personal” on a bike as mobility aid etc, but that doesn’t seem to be the complaint people are levelling at it.
(2) It’s only 170m long. Granted, there are shorter bike lanes out there, but there would be little point building this solely as an alternative, shorter transit route when the distance saving is so small and when…
(3) There’s already apparently good wide flat pedestrian and cycle access around the edge of the water which is likely to remain more convenient as a cycle route than a boardwalk with curves and inclines.
(4) Because of the marching bands and giant swans.
(4) no barrier for cycling
(4) no barrier for cycling (the band – I don’t know about the swans though)
quiff wrote:
FTFY.
The comparison was between
The comparison was between two things never intended to be used on a bike.
eburtthebike wrote:
I’m assuming because it would’ve cost an awful lot more money to incorporate a cycle lane for no real benefit to cyclists. It’s a pretty pointless piece of infrastructure even for pedestrians, it’s essentially a cosmetic vanity project designed to make the new development look a bit more spiffy. You know me, if I thought that cyclists were genuinely missing out here I would be up in arms, we really aren’t. I can honestly say that even if cyclists were permitted along there I wouldn’t bother using it.
Rendel Harris wrote:
— Rendel HarrisSo why are they employing security guards to stop all these non-existent cyclists?
eburtthebike wrote:
I said I wouldn’t use it, I can’t speak for others….I don’t actually approve of cyclists being banned, I’m just saying that being banned doesn’t really matter. There are far more important exclusion issues in the area than having to take a few more seconds to go round the edge.
So why did they not make the
So why did they not make the bridge wider, one side for cyclists and the other for pedestrians with a partition in between?
Don’t come round ‘ere with
Don’t come round ‘ere with your “why not fix it so that everyone can use it” nonsense!
No, it’s the UK so “but nobody cycles so that’s a waste of money”, “but cyclists can just use the roads”, “but cyclists ride too quickly (not safe)” and “but the only people on bikes are scofflaws, the antisocial yoof or frankly criminal”…
kingleo wrote:
Looking at these decorative (one would say useless) side beams all along the bridge (on both sides!), it seems that would provide more than enough material to add 2+ meters width for a bike lane…
Because it’s not designed to
Because it’s not designed to be a transit route? As the pictures suggest, and as others with knowledge of the area say, it’s really not a problem having to cycle around.
quiff wrote:
— quiffThe problem isn’t that you have to cycle around, it’s that the bridge wasn’t designed properly, so now they have to employ security guards to stop people doing something that any sensible, rational, informed designer would have incorporated.
I do so much look forward to the answer that road.cc gets from British Land. I imagine it’ll go something like
“Look, we know we’re committed to Green transport, but is cycling really green, and besides, there are those horrible ebikes and deliveroo riders so next we’ll be sticking in a PSPO and fining them thousands.”
I think it is because the
I think it is because the bridge isn’t planned to be part of the transport network. Looking at the masterplan and planning documents it was designed to be part of the pedestrian plan allowing for people to be closer to the wetland environment rather for anyone to get from A to B efficiently or safely.
kingleo wrote:
Cost! Lack of thought?
I know some of the team at
I know some of the team at British Land on this and how passionate they are about cycling both individually and corporately. Working in property myself I would definitely put them towards the top of the league table on whether they care or not.
Zazz53 wrote:
If they cared so much, then cycling would be allowed; ergo, they don’t.
They probably don’t allow
They probably don’t allow cycling inside their offices either – it’s not necessary or appropriate everywhere.
This story on its own says
This story on its own says that’s not true .
That said the security have literally no authority to do anything .The will rely heavily on compliance ,most cyclists will adhere to it ,tge real problem of road men in black with masks on wont give a toss
Reminds me so much of the
Reminds me so much of the bridges over the docks in Bristol, where cyclists were banned on the first despite it being on a council-defined cycle route, so the council swore that the next bridge would be better: it wasn’t, cyclists were banned from that too, even if Sustrans gave it an award. The third did allow cyclists, but the surface was that of a stainless steel cheese grater, which would handily shred any cyclist unfortunate to come off. The fourth was ok.
I have written articles about how badly bridges are designed for cyclists, and how the design is concluded before any consultation takes place.
Nothing says “welcoming
Nothing says “welcoming environment” like uniformed thugs, umm I mean “security patrols ” roaming the area.
Security literally have
Security literally have authority to do nothing ,if they touch anyone the will be sued / charged
Will pedesrains have to
Will pedesrains have to remove their shoes?
Benthic wrote:
Maybe everyone will be given those blue plastic shoe covers like they wear on police procedurals?
Benthic wrote:
That comparison might work in answer to the ill-considered “you can’t bring your bike in, it’s got dirty tyres” but not sure it’s apposite here as you’re allowed to wheel it across.