Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Monday, 12th May 2008

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 Matlock Mercury site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

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

Official Matlock footbridge complaints lodged



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: 08 May 2008
CAMPAIGNERS against Matlock's new footbridge have made an official complaint to the district council.
Over 100 residents submitted their names to Derbyshire Dales District Council's complaints officer, outlining flaws in the way the footbridge consultation was conducted.

More than 20 local supporters have also been monitoring the bridge, linking Matlock Train Station and the new Sainsbury's, by counting pedestrian journeys to and from the store.

Spokesperson for The Matlock Footbridge Campaign Group Isabella Stone, said: "Our figures clearly show that the appallingly ugly ramp, which is supposedly there to help disabled people using non-powered wheelchairs, is not used by them at all.

"Over the two days, we counted a total of 2,323 journeys, of which only two were by wheelchair. Both of the wheelchair users were using electric powered vehicles.

"Fewer than one in a thousand pedestrian journeys to Sainsbury's were made by wheelchair on those two days."

She added that the district council claimed to have done 'widespread consultation' about the footbridge application but the group's investigations had highlighted several issues.

Mrs Stone said cthey were also complaining because not all residents and businesses affected received notification; the notices said that the development was in Cawdor Quarry, whereas the footbridge was in the station square; no conservation bodies were consulted; the word 'footbridge' never appeared on any of the planning notices or letters and objections that were made about the design of the footbridge were not sufficiently taken into account.

Protesters have identified a number of alternatives to the footbridge, which they want Sainsbury's, the local councils and the rail authorities to consider.

A meeting for supporters of the Matlock Footbridge Campaign will be held at the Imperial Rooms, Matlock on Friday May 16 at 6pm.

A spokesperson for the district council said: "All complaints are taken seriously by the district council and are dealt with under the district council's complaints procedure."

The full article contains 320 words and appears in Matlock Mercury newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 07 May 2008 1:27 PM
  • Source: Matlock Mercury
  • Location: Matlock
 
Prev
1
Next
1

Lone Starr,

Matlock Bath 07/05/2008 17:00:25
I'll be interested to know the outcome to this.

Recently the District Council have developed a very poor track record in public consultation. They don't seem to be bothered what the Dales residents want - they just plough ahead with their own agenda without thinking. I don't personally consider that they are acting in the best interests of the community.

The whole pedestrian approach to Sainsburys from the town centre is a mess. It is the most pedestrian-unfriendly hash-up that I've ever seen. The pedestrian crossings are all in the wrong place and the signalling makes it difficult to cross. Why on earth is there not a crossing at the bottom of Snitterton Road? I've almost been struck by several vehicles recently crossing that road.

IMHO, the pedestrian crossing needs to be further down towards the bus station, and there should be a footbridge over the river at the side of The Railway Hotel (as was originally on the plans). The road bridge needs to be completely pedestrianised as a matter of urgency, and that will help to reduce the congestion at that junction that seems to be getting worse instead of better.

Regarding the footbridge over the railway line, I agree that it is ugly, but that is because of the DDA rules that govern this sort of thing nowadays. Network Rail will never consider a pedestrian level-crossing, so I'm not sure what the answer is.
2

Observer123,

08/05/2008 12:16:58
Fascinating that the saga continues...yet interesting that almost every story in this regard has Isabella Stone as spokeperson...does no one else ever feel able to speak up and voice their opinions? Excessive coverage of a single individual's views can prove rather negative, and doesn't highlight the wider expression of opinion.

As for the footbridge itself, it will most certainly remain. The only crossings at tracklevel are those that existed before post-privatisation regulations came into force...these have in effect 'grandfather rights', after a risk assessment has been carried out and it is determined that an alternative is not required (hence the barrow crossing at Matlock Bath). Of course, in our H&S obssessed age, separating people and trains seems most attractive to those in higher places, and for the mistakes of an inconsiderate and reckless few, we are all bound by restrictions. DDA requirements account for the footbridge's design...and although it is not in keeping with its surrounds, it is now a permanent feature. We should now be moving forward and learning from the issue...there is much truth in the previous comment, as current authority consultations are neither effective or really aimed at sampling/appreciating local inclinations.
3

Whiffler,

Matlock 08/05/2008 22:23:58
Quite. Another dose of self-righteous moaning from the Matlock Foot-and-Mouth Campaign Group's 'spokesperson' (ahem...).

Perhaps Ms Stone would like to spend 24 hours in a wheelchair, then complain?

I DO hope that, on the way to their meeting, none of Matlock's Foot-in-Mouth Campaign Group uses their "Nemesis Bridge"...
4

bramble,

matlock bath 09/05/2008 00:11:00
Why are you lot still going on about this footbridge it is here to stay and I hope it is for my council taxes bill sake.I think Network Rail, sainsburys and the council have better things to spend the money on, for instance Network rail could be improving rail saftey and the overall condition of the rail network, sainsburys could be saving us money on our food bills as you all know they are going up and the council could save money by not increasing our council tax and improving leisure facilities in the dales. So you clever people who think they are doing good are not as you will put living costs up and reduce the rail networks performace and cause more delays through your complaining, the cost to remove and replace the bridge would be astronomical, the money could be better spent elsewhere. wake up matlock people it is you that is killing matlock not the council or sainsburys and regarding the bridge in matlock it should be left as it is, as is working well, they should remove the roundabout on crown square and put traffic lights in its place as most days you have to sit in the traffic in to matlock from the new roundabout on bakewell road.
Prev
1
Next

 

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.