Click here for a pdf which the Society has put together on the proposals for the Avon Bridge, as a result of the consultation on 20th November, and the Society would like to collect members views.

Please could I ask you to read the pdf (opens in Adobe Acrobat) and if you wish to give your view then please reply by December 10 by email to this email address membership@stratfordsociety.co.uk 

Please could you indicate as to whether or not you agree with Question (1) or  (2) or  (3) and also add any further comments.

Two sets of concerns were expressed at our Town Hall meeting with John Deegan on 16 October about the proposed new bridge over the Avon. I have passed these on to him. First were the widespread concerns about the role of the proposed bridge as part of a wider movement strategy across the river and, second, there were a number of comments about matters of detail.

(i) Need for a Movement Strategy .

Many of the questions and comments about Lucy's Mill bridge, the Tramway bridge and the footbridge alongside Clopton bridge were really questions about the overall provision for cyclists/pedestrians wishing to cross the river. The worry was that the Avon bridge cannot be viewed in isolation -- it has to be seen as part of the wider currently (unsatisfactory) provision for cyclists and pedestrians wishing to cross the river. There was clear support for improving the connections across the river. However, the expressed concern was that any new bridge should form part of a wider program to improve connectivity across the river as a whole and also to rationalise the way each link was used. A key concern was that members did not want to see a new bridge and nothing else. They wanted to see improvements to Lucy's Mill bridge and improvements to the footbridge alongside Clopton bridge. The Tramway bridge should furthermore be restricted to pedestrians only, or it should be widened to cater for cyclists on a segregated cycle track.

To summarise. The people attending the meeting would have found it easier to understand the case for a new Avon Bridge had it been presented as part of a wider review of connectivity for pedestrians and cyclists across the Avon, linking clearly into the pedestrian/cycle desire lines on either side of the river. Some forecasts of expected pedestrian/cycle movements would also have helped.

(ii) Detailed Comments

There was concern about potentially increased pedestrian/cycle conflict. Could the cycle tracks be segregated in some way?

There was concern that too much emphasis was being given to recreational cycling. Getting commuters to use bicycles would be far more beneficial.

There was a strong view that only one of the proposed designs was acceptable.

There were questions about possible cost over-runs. Who will pay for these?

Who will be responsible for maintenance and who will pay for it?

There were concerns about the impact of cycle traffic on the tow paths. Would they cause undue wear and tear (particularly mountain bikes with ribbed tyres) and would this lead to demands for a harder surface? Beyond that specific issue was the question of where the cyclists and pedestrians would go once they had crossed the bridge. Where would the cycle tracks/footpaths be located?

There was concern about the need for lighting to make usage of the bridge safe at night.

There was a question about the composition of the jury panel.  The only representative from the town is the Editor of The Herald.  Could 1-2 other locals be added to the jury panel?

There was a call to extend the consultations to people who did not live in Stratford, but were part of the surrounding area that looked to Stratford as their main regional service centre.

Finally, it is worth noting that not all participants were opposed to the bridge. Some of those attending the meeting were positively in favour of the bridge, but did have concerns about the possible negative impacts and the need to mitigate them.

Go to Top

The Society welcomes the publication of the five possible bridge designs and also the public consultation process that started on the 27 th August. However, the Society remains concerned that the County and District Councils have still not addressed the two main concerns that worry our members.

First, why do we need the footbridge and does it justify spending £2 million? The footbridge was originally part of a scheme to divert visitors into car parks south of the river and to support wider pedestrianisation in the town. However, that case melted away and no alternative case has been presented. The case still needs to be made.

Second, the Society’s members remain seriously concerned about the impact of the bridge upon the Recreation Ground. This is one of the most important open spaces in Stratford with its unique atmosphere and location. The last thing our members want is to have the Recreation Ground turned into a giant car park and criss-crossed with paved footpaths and cycle tracks. What assurances can the local authorities provide to convince our members that the grass overspill parking will be removed and that the remaining number of parking spaces will be frozen, or reduced?

Some of the designs that have so far been published are “in your face” designs that do not respect the views down river towards Holy Trinity Church. However, the public cannot be expected to assess the designs until they have been convinced that the proposed bridge is needed and that acceptable assurances have been be given about the footpaths/cycle tracks and car parking.