New Castle Park bridge is a "waste of money"

New Castle Park bridge is a

New Castle Park bridge is a "waste of money"

First published in News

A REPLACEMENT bridge linking Colchester’s Castle Park with Leisure World has been labelled a waste of taxpayers’ money.

Riverside Estate resident Graham Carrington said the money would be better spent on filling potholes or building a children’s play area and there was nothing wrong with the existing bridge.

Colchester Council said the money, from developerswho built Parkside Quarter in St Peter’s Street, had to be spent on improving walking and cycling routes.

Mr Carrington said: “If money was no object, I would like a few new bridges on the river and lots of things done to the park, but when people are up to their shoulders in potholes it’s different.

“When you look at all the things that need spending on, to waste money on this I find incredible as a ratepayer.”

See Monday's Gazette for the full story

Comments (14)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:31pm Mon 17 Feb 14

jim_bo says...

I said that 3 weeks ago when you broke the story!
I said that 3 weeks ago when you broke the story! jim_bo
  • Score: 0

8:44pm Mon 17 Feb 14

stevedawson says...

Dosnt the money for roads come from the county not cbc?quite agree with thesentiment but thats not how we are structured.sham democracy at work.
Dosnt the money for roads come from the county not cbc?quite agree with thesentiment but thats not how we are structured.sham democracy at work. stevedawson
  • Score: 8

10:54pm Mon 17 Feb 14

Reginald47 says...

'Colchester Council said the money, from developerswho built Parkside Quarter in St Peter’s Street, had to be spent on improving walking and cycling routes'.

Not potholes then Mr Carrington.
'Colchester Council said the money, from developerswho built Parkside Quarter in St Peter’s Street, had to be spent on improving walking and cycling routes'. Not potholes then Mr Carrington. Reginald47
  • Score: 4

12:22am Tue 18 Feb 14

Dark_Wolf says...

So they rather use a dilapidated narrow bridge that causes conflict amongst users (especially pushchair users) than have the developers pay for a far better, nicer looking bridge that would suit all & I'm more thinking of those in wheelchairs & mobility scooters. Time to stop pampering to these sort of whingers.
So they rather use a dilapidated narrow bridge that causes conflict amongst users (especially pushchair users) than have the developers pay for a far better, nicer looking bridge that would suit all & I'm more thinking of those in wheelchairs & mobility scooters. Time to stop pampering to these sort of whingers. Dark_Wolf
  • Score: 16

8:32am Tue 18 Feb 14

jammin says...

Reginald47 wrote:
'Colchester Council said the money, from developerswho built Parkside Quarter in St Peter’s Street, had to be spent on improving walking and cycling routes'.

Not potholes then Mr Carrington.
Maybe you should read what he wrote Reginald...."better spent"

Dark Wolf..have you looked at the proposed new bridge? its 1700mm wide, whats that, maybe 300mm wider than the current? Big difference for the best part of £100k.
You still wouldn't get two people in mobility scooters with the generous derriere's passing on it.
[quote][p][bold]Reginald47[/bold] wrote: 'Colchester Council said the money, from developerswho built Parkside Quarter in St Peter’s Street, had to be spent on improving walking and cycling routes'. Not potholes then Mr Carrington.[/p][/quote]Maybe you should read what he wrote Reginald...."better spent" Dark Wolf..have you looked at the proposed new bridge? its 1700mm wide, whats that, maybe 300mm wider than the current? Big difference for the best part of £100k. You still wouldn't get two people in mobility scooters with the generous derriere's passing on it. jammin
  • Score: 3

8:35am Tue 18 Feb 14

blockpaver says...

I use this bridge three or four times a week and have never encountered any conflict, the users get on well and show respect for each other. This issue is one of profligacy, if there were unlimited funds then fine, but as there appears to be very little public money it should be better spent on something else.
There has been no needs analysis carried out for this initiative hence there is no data to confirm that it is necessary, another “First Site” extravagance with the public purse picking up the tab.
As far as can be established the sponsors for this, Colchester Borough Council and Essex County Council, don’t yet know how much this will cost.
Incidentally the proposed bridge is the be constructed in part from wood so it wont just be the initial cost of construction of the new one and demolition of the old one there will be ongoing maintenance charges which ECC or CBC , that is you and me, will have to pick up.
I use this bridge three or four times a week and have never encountered any conflict, the users get on well and show respect for each other. This issue is one of profligacy, if there were unlimited funds then fine, but as there appears to be very little public money it should be better spent on something else. There has been no needs analysis carried out for this initiative hence there is no data to confirm that it is necessary, another “First Site” extravagance with the public purse picking up the tab. As far as can be established the sponsors for this, Colchester Borough Council and Essex County Council, don’t yet know how much this will cost. Incidentally the proposed bridge is the be constructed in part from wood so it wont just be the initial cost of construction of the new one and demolition of the old one there will be ongoing maintenance charges which ECC or CBC , that is you and me, will have to pick up. blockpaver
  • Score: 4

9:05am Tue 18 Feb 14

wearebeingwatched says...

To all the moaners out there.

Why do you not get off your rear ends and stand for election, anyone can do it, if you get elected then you can start to right the 'wrongs' that you believe you are seeing.
To all the moaners out there. Why do you not get off your rear ends and stand for election, anyone can do it, if you get elected then you can start to right the 'wrongs' that you believe you are seeing. wearebeingwatched
  • Score: 0

10:17am Tue 18 Feb 14

Scoot says...

Think under planning legislation a developer has to now consider such things as cycle routes, and pedestrian routes when they submit planning applications so although Mr Carrington thinks the money could have been better spent, the law dictated that it had to be assigned to a project like this.
Think under planning legislation a developer has to now consider such things as cycle routes, and pedestrian routes when they submit planning applications so although Mr Carrington thinks the money could have been better spent, the law dictated that it had to be assigned to a project like this. Scoot
  • Score: 0

11:25am Tue 18 Feb 14

Colonel Kurtz says...

The high street is dying the roads are gridlocked. Well at least its not another housing estate being built
The high street is dying the roads are gridlocked. Well at least its not another housing estate being built Colonel Kurtz
  • Score: 0

1:44pm Tue 18 Feb 14

Andyxyzzy says...

jammin wrote:
Reginald47 wrote:
'Colchester Council said the money, from developerswho built Parkside Quarter in St Peter’s Street, had to be spent on improving walking and cycling routes'.

Not potholes then Mr Carrington.
Maybe you should read what he wrote Reginald...."be
tter spent"

Dark Wolf..have you looked at the proposed new bridge? its 1700mm wide, whats that, maybe 300mm wider than the current? Big difference for the best part of £100k.
You still wouldn't get two people in mobility scooters with the generous derriere's passing on it.
From the planning application:

The proposed new bridge is 23.3m long, 4m wide and has 1.4m high parapets and can be used by pedestrians and cyclists.

http://tmf.colcheste
r.gov.uk/servedoc.as
p?doc_id=41999

So it will be 4m wide, I think the 1.7m was misreported in the original article. Current bridge is 1.7m.

Seems that this will allow service traffic access from Cowdray Ave and easier passage between both sides of the river instead of coming through the bottom of The Dutch Quarter. The current bridge does not allow vehicles.
[quote][p][bold]jammin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Reginald47[/bold] wrote: 'Colchester Council said the money, from developerswho built Parkside Quarter in St Peter’s Street, had to be spent on improving walking and cycling routes'. Not potholes then Mr Carrington.[/p][/quote]Maybe you should read what he wrote Reginald...."be tter spent" Dark Wolf..have you looked at the proposed new bridge? its 1700mm wide, whats that, maybe 300mm wider than the current? Big difference for the best part of £100k. You still wouldn't get two people in mobility scooters with the generous derriere's passing on it.[/p][/quote]From the planning application: The proposed new bridge is 23.3m long, 4m wide and has 1.4m high parapets and can be used by pedestrians and cyclists. http://tmf.colcheste r.gov.uk/servedoc.as p?doc_id=41999 So it will be 4m wide, I think the 1.7m was misreported in the original article. Current bridge is 1.7m. Seems that this will allow service traffic access from Cowdray Ave and easier passage between both sides of the river instead of coming through the bottom of The Dutch Quarter. The current bridge does not allow vehicles. Andyxyzzy
  • Score: 2

2:37pm Tue 18 Feb 14

wormshero says...

How is it a waste of taxpayers money when it's essentially being paid for by the developers? It's like this "news" article (read: opinion piece - whatever happened to the "letters" section by the way?) defeats itself in paragraph two. Surely at that point whoever was writing it should have thought to themselves "wait, this is pointless" and clicked "send to trash"
How is it a waste of taxpayers money when it's essentially being paid for by the developers? It's like this "news" article (read: opinion piece - whatever happened to the "letters" section by the way?) defeats itself in paragraph two. Surely at that point whoever was writing it should have thought to themselves "wait, this is pointless" and clicked "send to trash" wormshero
  • Score: 2

4:17pm Tue 18 Feb 14

William George says...

Dark_Wolf wrote:
So they rather use a dilapidated narrow bridge that causes conflict amongst users (especially pushchair users) than have the developers pay for a far better, nicer looking bridge that would suit all & I'm more thinking of those in wheelchairs & mobility scooters. Time to stop pampering to these sort of whingers.
Perhaps she's using an umbrella in-case the bridge is a total wash-out too.
[quote][p][bold]Dark_Wolf[/bold] wrote: So they rather use a dilapidated narrow bridge that causes conflict amongst users (especially pushchair users) than have the developers pay for a far better, nicer looking bridge that would suit all & I'm more thinking of those in wheelchairs & mobility scooters. Time to stop pampering to these sort of whingers.[/p][/quote]Perhaps she's using an umbrella in-case the bridge is a total wash-out too. William George
  • Score: 3

6:45pm Tue 18 Feb 14

colcestrian says...

The money being used to fund this new bridge is coming from Section 106 payments paid to the council by developers. Therefore the council wont be paying for it, if however they do not spend the 106 money in a certain time period they have to give the money back to the developers, ( something that has happened a few times ) in that case the council would have to fund the bridge themselves.
The money being used to fund this new bridge is coming from Section 106 payments paid to the council by developers. Therefore the council wont be paying for it, if however they do not spend the 106 money in a certain time period they have to give the money back to the developers, ( something that has happened a few times ) in that case the council would have to fund the bridge themselves. colcestrian
  • Score: 0

9:24am Wed 19 Feb 14

stevedawson says...

A bridge to far?
A bridge to far? stevedawson
  • Score: -3

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree