Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Saturday, 4th July 2009

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the n/a site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

A bridge too far?



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 19 July 2007
A NEW pedestrian footbridge has been labelled an "absolute abomination" by horrified residents.
The bridge is part of the Sainsbury's development at Cawdor quarry and is designed to provide a pedestrian access to the store.

But people living in its shadow are dismayed at the structure's size.
Isabella Stone from Snitterton Road said: "I would challenge you to find one person on this planet that would find it acceptable.

"It looks like a motorway bridge or something that should lead to a multi story car park in an inner city, not something in a little town like Matlock.

"I am very unhappy about the impact it has had on Station Yard.
"It is an absolute abomination."

Another resident added: "It is a big black ugly monster which is totally impractical and will be a blot on Matlock for years to come.

"The appearance of this crude structure is outrageous. It is like a throwback to the worst 1960s architecture."

Dave Brooks, head of planning and development services at Derbyshire Dales District Council said the bridge had to be designed in line with the standards of Network Rail and disability discrimination legislation.

He said: "The provision of a pedestrian route linking the Sainsbury's development to the town centre was an essential pre-requisite of the planning process when proposals for the redevelopment of Cawdor Quarry were initially formulated.

"The approach ramp disability discrimination standards dictate that the gradient must not exceed one in 12 and that resting platforms are sited every 7.5 metres.

"Furthermore, there is a construction requirement that the access ramp must have a 180 degree turn after a specified length.

"The district council has been in further discussion with Sainsbury's and engineers with a view to agreeing further hard landscaping works in the Station Approach that will mitigate its visual impact further."

Christian Wakelin, property project manager at Sainsbury's, added: "While we appreciate the comments from the local community, the final design of the pedestrian footbridge has been altered over the years to meet the requirements of Derbyshire County Council, as well as the design code standards set for the delivery of such a structure, including health and safety criteria."


What do you think of the new footbridge? Comment on the article by registering below, or take part in this week's vote to the right of this story.

The full article contains 395 words and appears in n/a newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 24 July 2007 4:37 PM
  • Source: n/a
  • Location: Matlock
 
Prev
1
2
1

voodoo doll,

19/07/2007 16:58:38
It is very sinister looking and appears to block the vast majority of the street, will cars be able to get past it?
2

Monkey,

19/07/2007 17:10:44
Nice and dark and secluded under there isn't it? It'll be a magnet for junkies and tramps, or even junky tramps - they're the worst.
3

Lone Starr,

Matlock Bath 20/07/2007 11:38:31
I can't see anything wrong with the new bridge. Didn't anyone look at the plans that were associated with the original planning permission application? I'm sure that the footbridge was clearly shown. What do you expect a footbridge to look like? I'm not sure how else it could have been achieved. The ramp is a necessary feature to allow for wheelchairs/pushchairs, and the 180 degree turn is a common feature to this type of arrangement to minimise the overall footprint. Perhaps we should all learn to levitate over the station, then a bridge would not be needed.
At the end of the day, a bridge is a bridge - it gets you over the railway track and achieves its aim. It will become a vital route for pedestrians to get to the new store. Or perhaps we should all use our 4-wheel drives to make the 500 yard journey?
What do you expect? The moon on a stick?
4

,

20/07/2007 11:38:39
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Duplicate
5

anony mouse,

matlock 20/07/2007 18:56:45
I can remember the plans showing a stone faced footbridge approach with a stone colonade at the bottom of the steps when I saw the plans over 2 years ago. It wasn't the ugly steel structure that has appeared on site although it was around the same size. I suppose the ugly option was less expensive.

It would be nice to know what happened to the original stone footbridge approach that was originally proposed. Maybe something that could be investigated!
6

,

20/07/2007 18:57:06
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Duplicate
7

,

20/07/2007 18:57:37
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Duplicate
8

mat centre res,

Matlock 27/07/2007 19:56:01
We are all at fault for not scrutinising the original plans. But yes, it is a monstrosity. And it is in the wrong place - people will want to walk across to Sainsburys from the public car park or bus station, so the bridge would be far better on the other side of the new bus station. Can Sainsburys be persuaded to move it?
9

no.politics.please,

MATLOCK 31/07/2007 21:36:39
Members of the public should not be expected to srcutinise plans. Town Councillors recently objected to proposed Sainsbury's signs near the bridge but made no comment at all on the bridge itself even though the dimensions were clearly shown. The Town Council and Civic Association are also involved in regular consusltation meetings with Sanisbury's but just wait for them to deny any knowledge.
10

squash,

matlock 01/08/2007 15:21:17
I still remember the attractive stone access ramp and steps that were originally planned. The overall size and dimensions were more or less the same. So why can we not have the stone approach which would fit in with the character of the railway station. Instead we have to put up with a crappy cheap 1970's reject. The sainsburys signs would have been ok and are nothing compared to this monstosity. Oh and ive also heard that network rail has refused to let peak rail use and upgrade the other derelict platform at matlock station.. great the area will look a complete hole now!
Prev
1
2

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.