Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Property developer deploys "security patrols" to stop cyclists riding across 'no cycling' bridge at new £3bn London neighbourhood… that is designed to "enable sustainable transport and reduce car use"

British Land says it wants to create a "welcoming environment for all", with "security patrols" and signage communicating cycling ban "already in place"...

The property developer of a new bridge that is part of a "masterplan" £3.3bn project to build "the first new town centre in London in 50 years" as part of "the UK's most sustainable regeneration scheme" has deployed "security patrols" to ensure cyclists dismount and do not cycle across.

British Land oversaw the 170-metre-long red boardwalk in Canada Water that opened last week, designed by Asif Khan, the property developer confirming to The Telegraph that "patrols" would be undertaken to enforce 'no cycling' rules.

Canada Water boardwalk (image credit: artist's impression Canada Water)

The boardwalk is part of the larger Canada Water development, a major regeneration project covering 53 acres, its website stating transport is a "key area of commitment" with £33m to be invested to "ensure 80 per cent of trips will be by public transport, walking or cycling by 2033" by helping to "enable people to use sustainable transport and reduce car use".

There is no suggestion at this point that security would be looking to impose financial penalties on riders, such as has been seen under Public Space Protection Orders in the centre of numerous UK towns and cities in recent times, but British Land suggested security and signage has been included to make sure cyclists dismount and do not ride across the boardwalk.

Canada Water boardwalk (image credit: artist's impression Canada Water)

A spokesperson told the newspaper: "Our approach to managing public space, which includes the boardwalk, will balance the safety of all those using the space with creating a welcoming environment for all.

"The boardwalk is to be a no-cycling area which will be managed by a mixture of signage and security patrols by our in-house property management team.

"Our security patrols are already in place and we're reviewing shift patterns over the next few weeks and months to make sure the right amount of resources are in the right place at the right times."

The British Land-led Canada Water project will see up to 3,000 new homes built over 10 to 15 years, as well as commercial buildings and offices with space for up to 20,000 workers. According to the project's website it will "be the first new town centre in London in 50 years: a truly mixed-use new urban centre, built for the future" and is "the UK's most sustainable regeneration scheme".

While it all comes with the promise 35 per cent of the new homes will be "affordable", the first properties from one residential building that went on sale last year started at £700,000 for a one-bed flat and went up to £2m for some three-bedroom properties.

Despite the messaging around the cycling ban on the new boardwalk, the project has pledged to install around 10,000 new cycle parking spaces with 1,066 during 'Phase 1', as well as cycle hire docking stations. The developers also say the project will see £33m invested in local transport and the amount of public car parking will be almost halved from 1,900 spaces today to 1,000 in the future.

"Our vision is to enable people to use sustainable transport and reduce car use," one project document states. "Our proposed measures seek to ensure 80 per cent of trips will be by public transport, walking and cycling by 2033 and we aspire to achieve the mayor's targets for inner London for 90 per cent to be by these modes by 2041."

road.cc has contacted British Land for comment on alternative routes for cyclists and for more information about how the Canada Water project would achieve its "vision" of encouraging more active travel and public transport journeys.

Dan is the road.cc news editor and joined in 2020 having previously written about nearly every other sport under the sun for the Express, and the weird and wonderful world of non-league football for The Non-League Paper. Dan has been at road.cc for four years and mainly writes news and tech articles as well as the occasional feature. He has hopefully kept you entertained on the live blog too.

Never fast enough to take things on the bike too seriously, when he's not working you'll find him exploring the south of England by two wheels at a leisurely weekend pace, or enjoying his favourite Scottish roads when visiting family. Sometimes he'll even load up the bags and ride up the whole way, he's a bit strange like that.

Add new comment

11 comments

Avatar
Smoggysteve | 52 min ago
0 likes

In cases like this, I think the issue isn't so much commuter cyclists or recreational road cyclists but more likely 'roaming kids on bikes' like you see often riding up the high street with nothing better to do. 
 

But we all love to paint anyone and everyone who so happens to climb onto a bicycle of any nature for any reason just as 'cyclists'. And even though web pages like this complain about the broad brushing nature of this they are often just as guilty for the term. 
 

 

Avatar
Carior | 2 hours ago
4 likes

As someone who use to live in CW I can tell you (as seen in the photos) that the boardwalk is going to barely make a difference to cycling.  Given its off road nature, any responsible cyclist will have to slow down such that, in truth, I don't think anyone but the most irresponsible / reckless cyclists would gain any time by using over the roads that cover 3 sides of that particular body of water (which isn't much bigger than a football pitch).

Honestly, I don't see it as an issue, complaining about it banning bikes and saying they aren't cycling friendly because they ban us from using a tiny minor possible shortcut (by distance if not time) is, respectfully going out of the way to create outrage.  There are plenty of perfectly safe routes round there without you needing to put yourself in conflict with pedestrians.

Avatar
S.E. | 2 hours ago
3 likes

I anyone still believe anything from official narratives about something "green", "sustainable", "bio", "zero emissions", etc. I have a much better bridge than this one to sell you...

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to S.E. | 2 hours ago
0 likes

Cynicism is tempting - so often it seems you can see "green" as having the other meaning meaning of "naive".

Green housing?  Still put up by folks driving fossil-fuel powered vehicles.  Still made largely of steels, bricks, cement and now plastics (not known for being low embodied energy or zero-emissions in creation).  Still forms a largely impermiable cover over previously green (or maybe brown field) spaces.  Still inhabited by more humans using ever more resources and producing tons of waste.

But ... there's some wood on the outside, or the insulation's a bit better, or we've planted some trees.

Or perhaps the colour "green" also indicates "something invisible" (or at least "not black and sooty")?  As in "zero emissions", which seems to mean "emit elsewhere - somewhere out of mind".

Of course some harm minimization is taking place - that is remarkable.  And it's frankly impossible to imagine humans suddenly dropping the anchors on our increasing resource usage, never mind reversing that.  And in theory this all could lead somewhere which both retains some of the modern good stuff but is far more efficient and can be made to last for longer.

However Jevons Paradox often seems to apply to human affairs.

Avatar
mctrials23 | 2 hours ago
6 likes

I can understand them banning cyclists on it honestly because it hasn't been designed with them in mind. Also, like it or not, a lot of cyclists in built up areas are delivery cyclists on e-bikes and they don't give a shit about anything but their delivery. Until something is done about these delivery riders, all cyclists are going to be punished for their dangerous behaviour. 

Avatar
quiff replied to mctrials23 | 2 hours ago
2 likes

And, judging from the picture, there's perfectly passable routes around the sides of the water, which I would choose over a no doubt slippery, undulating and congested boardwalk anyway. 

Avatar
open_roads replied to mctrials23 | 1 hour ago
1 like

Agree 100% - and more so because most of the uber / deliveroo riders are actually motorists on illegal vehicles not cyclists.

Avatar
brooksby | 3 hours ago
1 like

Quote:

Our proposed measures seek to ensure 80 per cent of trips will be by public transport, walking and cycling by 2033

But mainly by public transport or walking, clearly… 

Avatar
AidanR replied to brooksby | 2 hours ago
2 likes

The majority of the "proposed measures" will be not providing parking spaces for residents. Whilst that's likely to disincentivise driving, I don't think that the developer deserves any credit for it.

Avatar
brooksby | 3 hours ago
7 likes

Quote:

While it all comes with the promise 35 per cent of the new homes will be "affordable", the first properties from one residential building that went on sale last year started at £700,000 for a one-bed flat and went up to £2m for some three-bedroom properties.

That's because well before the project is completed, the developer will go back to the council and say that unless the proportion of affordable homes is reduced (or done away with completely) then the project will not be economical and they'll have to walk away…

Avatar
open_roads replied to brooksby | 1 hour ago
1 like

Also reflective of the fact that on some of the larger developments more than 2,000 separate documents have to be produced and submitted before construction can commence. 

And planning applications can sit for years without being approved by Councils - often requiring planning inspectorate intervention. So that years of project financing costs for the land in the interim.

These huge costs are on top of other levies already charged to developers.

Latest Comments