Meeting documents

Katarina Connolly of Norfolk Crescent Green Residents' Association.

POTENTIAL NEW CROSSING TO NORFOLK CRESCENT

We welcome Amendment 56 and that "The case for any additional crossing will need to be demonstrated, including consideration of the impact on local residents."

We believe of the many impacts that development would have for us, this is potentially the most severe, due to its invasive nature and that it could even destroy our community.

For this reason and because this bridge is unnecessary, there being two very close by already, many residents objected during the formal consultation period and asked for its deletion. In responding, officers claimed that `The new bridge is considered to be an essential link between BWR and the area to the north. Linkages to BWR and the existing communities are a key principle of BWR'. There are no communities to the north and the only possible link is to Charlotte St Car Park. It is surprising that more easy access to parking is being planned as this would contravene Policies T18 and T19 of BANES Local Plan.

The two existing pedestrian bridges, Sainsburys and Victoria, at either end of BWR East, are already much used links between there, the Car Park and communities to the north and south. A third bridge between would split BWR East in half, removing valuable development land. Also without any obvious link to the car park, a route would be created into a closed community with pedestrians spilling out through it before finding the car park. This would bring noise and anti-social behaviour, particularly at night when revellers will be trying to find their way back from the Urban River Quarter! `Circulation' of pedestrians during daylight hours would also deny families enjoyment of the Green and pose security issues for young children who are currently safe to play here.

Any new bridge would fall immediately in front of the façade of the southern houses of Norfolk Crescent and cause irreparable harm to the setting of this listed building and potentially impact on the historic structure. Building costs would be high and viability is doubtful.

We recognise this proposal is speculative and appreciate your amendment guarantees that the impact on our community will be considered. However residents still feel deletion is the only way to guarantee that it never reaches fruition. We respectfully ask that some further consideration is given to deleting this proposal.

.