7 PERTH AND KINROSS COUNCIL 10/593
Enterprise and Infrastructure Committee – 24 November 2010
SUSTRANS RIVER TAY CONNECT2 PROJECT, PERTH - DESIGN OPTIONS
Report By Depute Director (Environment)
This report details the progress made on the Connect2 Project and seeks approval to proceed with the detailed design of Option A (Three Arch Bridge) following the outcome of the Design Options Survey.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee is asked to:-
(i) Note the contents of this report.
(ii) Agree to proceed with the detailed design of Option A (Three Arch Bridge) following the results of the Design Options Survey.
BACKGROUND
1. In the draft Area Local Plan of December 2004, the Council stated that it would “investigate the principle of construction of a pedestrian/cycle bridge across the River Tay between the North Inch and Quarrymill”. Although the overall plan was subsequently abandoned, the aspiration was re-stated in the draft Regional Transport Strategy in 2007 and carried through to the current TACTRAN Delivery Plan.
2. The purpose of the budge is to provide a cycle and walking link for leisure and commuting between the two banks of the River Tay, and is very much considered a community project. Studies carried out at similar sites by Sustrans demonstrate that the bridge is likely to generate considerable usage.
3. Prior to 2007 the subject had been discussed at a fairly informal level with officers, Local Members and cycling groups, but the Council had no firm commitment to it.
4. However, in 2007 a funding opportunity presented itself through SUSTRANS for a bid to be put to the Big Lottery “Peoples Millions” Competition to assist with the bridge funding.
5. Sustrans is an extremely popular charity and received a large amount of public support for the Connect2 Projects. This was demonstrated by the success of the bid committing £1.25 million to the project.
6. The new crossing will provide a link between Scone and Perth’s schools, colleges, hospitals and leisure facilities, as well as the commercial and
69 industrial areas, allowing pedestrians and cyclists to travel safely, away from the already heavily congested existing Perth bridges.
7. At the Council Meeting of 24 June 2009, it was agreed to proceed with the Connect2 Project and sign the Memorandum of Understanding with Sustrans, on the basis of a future commitment of funding from TACTRAN.
8. The Memorandum of Understanding between Perth and Kinross Council and Sustrans was signed on 3 November 2009. This document does not legally contract the Council to build the project but is the mechanism for reporting progress to Sustrans and the Big Lottery.
9. It is estimated that the bridge will cost in the region of £2.6 million to design and construct. Funding for this is in place and consists of £1.25 million from the Big Lottery, and £1.386 million from the TACTRAN Capital Programme.
10. Based on the investigations, surveys and design work carried out to date costs of the bridge are broken down as follows:
Item £ Notes Ground Investigation 100,000 Completed. Land Acquisitions/Agreements 10,000 Ongoing Detailed Design 185,000 Due to commence. Design Check 10,000 Alterations to golf course 100,000 Landscaping 40,000 Consultants Fees 245,000 Engineering Administration 50,000 Site Supervision 72,000 Construction of bridge 1,824,000 Start November 2011 subject to necessary permissions granted etc. TOTAL COST 2,636,000
11. As reported to Council on 24 June 2009, a number of routes for the bridge have been investigated. Six bridge locations were assessed and these are shown at Appendix 1a. This assessment determined that only one location (Site A) was considered feasible, based on geographical, engineering, environmental and cost factors, in addition to the convenience of the users and considerations of the effects on the North Inch and the Golf Course. Unfortunately, at this location almost the entire length of the west bank is occupied by the 15th hole of the golf course. Therefore, in order to minimise the impact on the golf course, further options were assessed at Site A to determine the best alignment. These are shown at Appendix 1b, with details of the assessment given at Appendix 2b.
12. Since June 2009 the project has advanced and the following is a brief update on progress and the current position.
70 Environmental Considerations
13. An Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the route has been prepared but can only be finalised when the design of the structure is known. The consultant, Atkins, has advised that there have been no major issues of concern identified to date.
Land Issues
14. A Title Search Plan has been carried out and all landowners affected by the project have been identified.
15. The land mainly affected by the route is on the east bank and is owned by Capability Scotland. Discussions have taken place with them and their security and segregation requirements have been met. The proposed parking layout has still to be agreed. Once this and the positioning of the bridge are agreed, the acquisition and servitude plans can be finalised and the formal process started.
16. With regard to the River Tay, the Crown Estate claims to own the entire riverbed width whilst Mansfield Estates also claims ownership. The solicitors representing both clients are in agreement that they would not wish to stand in the way of the project proceeding expeditiously. It has been agreed that they will both enter in to the requisite agreement for their respective interests. They agree that this will allow the bridge to be built and for the determination of ownership of the alveus to take its course.
17. A small part of the North Inch (at the Golf Course) is affected by the project. Since this is Common Good Land, Counsel Opinion has been sought to determine if the proposals would constitute a “disposal” of part of the North Inch in terms of s75 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. The Opinion of Counsel is that it does not and as such there is no requirement to petition the Sheriff.
18. In addition to Counsel Opinion, it will also be necessary to prepare a report to the Perth Common Good Fund Committee to provide them with full details of the project. The next meeting of the Committee is 15 December 2010.
19. Although not part of the bridge proposals, it is proposed to provide a pedestrian/cycle link to Scone through land on the east side of the A93. A number of route options are currently being investigated and will be presented to Committee in due course.
Design
20. Ground investigations on both banks of the river were carried out in June 2010. No major issues were identified.
21. The next stage of the process is to progress to the detailed design stage. Further details are provided later in this report under ‘Design of Structure’.
71 Planning Permission
22. There are no immediate planning concerns with the proposed bridge. However, the planning application for the project cannot be lodged until the EIA is finalised and the design of the structure confirmed.
Construction
23. In accordance with the conditions set out by the Big Lottery, the project must be completed by 31 March 2013.
24. A design and construction programme has been prepared and at this time construction of the bridge is planned for late 2011, with an estimated construction period of up to 12 months.
PROPOSALS
Design of Structure
25. Atkins have undertaken the feasibility design work for the bridge and in July 2010 prepared three design options:
• Option A - Bow tied arch (three arches) • Option B - Under deck truss (flat bridge) • Option C - Suspension bridge
26. Option A is a bow tied arch bridge with the following characteristics:
• central arch of 126m • two shorter end arches of 37m • highest part of main arch would be 20m (65ft) above the river banks • piers would be on the banks and not in the river • would cost in the region of £1.8million to construct • construction can take place at any time of the year.
27. Option B is a flat bridge with the following characteristics:
• supported on 4 piers and total length of 200m • highest part of the bridge would be less than 8m (26ft) above the river banks • 2 piers would be built in the river • could cost in the region of £1.4million to construct • construction works in the river could only take place been November and June due to the requirements of the Tay Salmon Fisheries.
28. Option C was excluded from the outset as the estimated cost was much greater than the available budget for the project.
29. Detailed drawings of Options A and B are attached at Appendix 3.
72 Design Option Survey
30. Given that community engagement forms a key part of the project, it was decided that the views of the public should be sought on the two bridge options. As a result a web survey was launched on 13 August 2010 and ran for a period of three weeks. The survey included information on the two designs, drawings, location plans and the opportunity to provide comments. The survey information is detailed at Appendix 4.
31. The survey was well publicised in the local media, with information boards and survey forms also placed at the following locations and events:
• AK Bell Library • Scone Library • North Inch Community Campus Library • South Inch Community Campus • 2 High Street • Quarrymill Visitor Centre • Capability Scotland • Muirton Community Flat • South Inch Community Fun Day (28th August)
32. The results of the survey are shown at Appendix 5. The results show that 699 people participated in the survey, with 69% selecting Option A (three arch bridge) as their preferred design. 45% of the people who undertook the survey selected “visual impact of design” as the reason for their chosen option.
33. On the basis of the survey results it is recommended that approval to progress with the detailed design of Option A is given.
Design Option Survey Comments and Questions
34. A large number of comments were given by members of the public as part of the survey. There are too many to include within this report but most related to the two design options. A number of contradictory general comments were made and the main points are summarised below:
• “a waste of money in light of the current financial climate” • “a road bridge should be a higher priority” • “bridge will enhance the area for residents and tourists” • “unhappy with decision to impact on the golf course” • “sooner this project is completed, the better” • “there is no option for abandoning the project” • “the bridge is a great idea”
35. Questions were also asked by a number of people who completed the survey. These are listed, together with answers, at Appendix 6.
73 North Inch Golf Course and Users
36. As detailed at Appendix 2, the proposed alignment of the bridge will run through the centre of the 15th green of the golf course, in order to leave the 16th hole unaffected. In turn this means:
• the 15th green will require to be relocated northwards by around 30m (if required the 15th tee can be moved northwards by about 15m to maintain most of the length of that hole)
• the 17th tee will require to be moved northwards by about 25 metres, because the approach embankments to the bridge will partially cover the existing 17th tee (this may result in changing this hole from a Par 4 to a Par 3).
37. The option of the locating the bridge such that it may affect the 15th and 16th holes was first mentioned at the AGM of the North Inch Golf Course Users Group on 24 March 2009, and again at a meeting on 5 May 2009.
38. Council Officers attended a meeting of the Golf Course Users Group on 14 September 2010 to discuss the impact of the bridge on the golf course, mitigation measures and the redesign of the relevant holes. At the meeting the users voiced their concerns and objections to the proposals and little progress was made on discussing the redesign etc. This has been followed up by many articles in the local media and a “Ditch the Bridge” campaign.
39. The Group have questioned why the bridge cannot be located further south such that it avoids the golf course. It has been explained that the bridge could be reorientated to cross the river on a high skew, running south westwards from the south end of Upper Springland’s grounds, in order to make landfall on the west bank, south of the 16th hole on the golf course (see Option 1 on plan at Appendix 1). However, this much longer alignment may cost an additional £500,000, and is therefore outside the budget available for the project.
40. It is possible that during the 12 months period of construction, the course will be reduced to fewer than 18 holes.
Community Involvement
41. Although there has been some recent criticism of the bridge, it is important to remember that the project has been driven by the community from the very start. When the Big Lottery Fund competition was held in 2007, it was thanks to strong public backing and the support of the local media that Sustrans were awarded significant funding to allow this bridge to be provided. .
42. A Steering Group for the project was set up in 2008 and consists of key partners to provide support and leadership on the delivery of the project. The Group includes Council Officers, representatives of Sustrans, TACTRAN and local organisations such as the Gannochy Trust, Scone Community Council,
74 North Inch and Muirton Community Council, Scottish National Heritage, ByCycle, Mansfield Estates and Capability Scotland. It had originally been anticipated that the project would be delivered without any formal Council involvement, but that has proved to be impossible. The Council has subsequently become involved to ensure that the bridge can be delivered for wider community benefit. The Steering Group meets regularly and has a key role in the delivery of the project by involving local groups in the project, by having local knowledge to input into the project delivery and by promoting the understanding of the project within the area.
CONSULTATION
43. The Head of Legal Services, the Head of Democratic Services, the Head of Finance, TACTRAN and Tayside Police have been consulted in the preparation of this report.
44. The Connect2 project has been driven by the community from the very start and their support and commitment to the project through the Big Lottery “Peoples Millions” Competition in 2007 has made it happen.
45. A key component of the project is community involvement and a Community Engagement Plan has been prepared. This Plan outlines the objectives of community engagement for the project and sets out the methods and actions which will be taken to meet these. This includes involving the public in community events, a portrait bench project and naming the bridge.
RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS
Capital
46. The capital project costs, including consultant fees, amount to £2.636m, of which it is projected that £397,000 will have been expended by the end of the current financial year. The balance, including the cost of construction, is expected to be incurred in 2011/12 and 2012/13.
47. Funding of £1.25m has already been committed by Sustrans, via a ‘Big Lottery’ grant and a total of £1.386m by the Regional Transport Partnership, (TACTRAN). TACTRAN is jointly funded by the Scottish Government and the partner Councils, including Perth and Kinross Council.
Revenue
48. Maintenance of the structure will vary over the life of the bridge with an occasional large spend (e.g. repainting of the bridge every 25-30 years). Costs are therefore estimated at £3,000 per year over the life of the bridge.
75 COUNCIL CORPORATE PLAN OBJECTIVES 2009-2012
49. The Council’s Corporate Plan 2009-2012 lays out five Objectives which provide clear strategic direction, inform decisions at a corporate and service level and shape resources allocation. This report impacts on the following:-
(i) A Safe, Secure and Welcoming Environment (ii) Healthy, Caring Communities (iii) Confident, Active and Inclusive Communities
EQUALITIES IMPACT ASSESSMENT (EqIA)
50. An equality impact assessment needs to be carried out for functions, policies, procedures or strategies in relation to race, gender and disability and other relevant protected characteristics. This supports the Council’s legal requirement to comply with the duty to assess and consult on relevant new and existing policies.
51. The function, policy, procedure or strategy presented in this report was considered under the Corporate Equalities Impact Assessment process (EqIA) with the following outcome:
i) Assessed as relevant and no actions are required to be taken to reduce or remove negative impacts:
ii) Assessed as relevant and the following positive outcomes expected following implementation: . a) The project will provide a shorter and safer route for pedestrians and cyclists (regardless of their equality protected characteristics);
b) Given their proximity to the proposed bridge, the residents and clients of Upper Springland (Capability Scotland), many of whom are wheelchair users with profound physical impairments, will benefit from improved access to the North Inch and Perth;
c) The project will provide opportunities for increased travel by foot and cycle.
d) The Equality Impact Assessment is a phased approach and will be added to as the planning process progresses and information from further consultations, where assessed as relevant to equality, will be included.
STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
52. Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) is a legal requirement under the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005 that applies to all qualifying plans, programmes and strategies, including policies (PPS).
76 53. The Connect2 Project is contained with the TACTRAN Delivery Plan, which has been formulated from the Regional Transport Strategy (RTS). An SEA Environmental Report was produced for the RTS, with the walking and cycling strategies within this considered under the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005 and the determination was made that the strategies are unlikely to have any significant effects on any of the areas defined in the SEA Guidance.
54. An Environmental Impact Assessment is being undertaken and subsequent to that a Habitat Regulations Appraisal will be undertaken to ensure that there are no significant adverse effects on the qualifying interests of the Tay Special Area of Conservation.
CONCLUSION
55. This report details the progress made so far with regard to the Sustrans Connect2 Project and the results of the Design Option Survey. It is recommended that the details design of Option A is progressed. The report also contains details of objections to the project which have been received so far.
JIM VALENTINE DEPUTE DIRECTOR (ENVIRONMENT)
NOTE
No background papers as defined by Section 50D of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 (other than any containing confidential or exempt information) were relied on to any material extent in preparing the above Report.
Report to Council on 24 June 2009 – Sustrans River Tay Connect2 Project (09/327)
Contact Officer: Jillian Robinson Ext No 772 [email protected] Address of Service: Pullar House, 35 Kinnoull Street, Perth, PH1 5GD Date of Report 06 October 2010
If you or someone you know would like a copy of this document in another language or format, (on occasion only, a summary of the document will be provided in translation), this can be arranged by contacting Alma Murray, Equalities Assistant on 01738 476558 or [email protected]
Council Text Phone Number 01738 442573
77
78
ts st o P
14 1 1 22
9 2
6 2 0 6
rw oyih.Alrgt eevd 0067 2010 100016971 reserved. rights All Copyright. Crown ©
8 5 82 IEPA 1:5000@A4 - PLAN SITE out u t ot ag Co es rto tt n Mui th So u
SubSt a b u lS E
0 7 1 t th Ho e y s at ht a u Str lSu ta ub S S El
20 2 8 3 6 4 8 os tsP
ra ta ou ay se ht H at tr S
6 URO BANK MUIRTON tathmoStra r o t
ALYPL ACE HARLEY
a 35 31 7 4 1
An ns t S
1 3
3
3 2
Tr a
6 c
k Course Golf
H
A R
LE Y
TE R
R AC E n le chIn e 8 Green Ha ld e h T 5th
ou seH b lu C
5 2
0 1 9
o lan s Woo d d
T
ra
c k ofCourse Golf 4th 1 Tee ot Inch North ayAr ea y la P Tee 5th
North
Inch
Green R
Tee 4th M i
4th ea v
H n
h ig
a e W
r Green te
pr S
s r 14th ing
T
a uice lu S y F B F Green 17th 15th Tee B F D E
C
H M Me
M & an
LW ig H
& h
e M
n 17th a
ow Tee L
M a W
& H ter P
LW M Sp h at
S gs rin
B F H&MLWS & MH
R hin le S g
i
B F v e
r
Green T Springland ing hi le S Tee 16th 5th 15 a y MLWS Green B Upper
6th 1
M e
an H
ig hW
a te
rS p
ring s
& H M
LW M S M
L W
S
M
H& M
L W A Sewage
Works
A
n
n
at
y
B
u
rn
M ea
n H
igh W
a te r
S pr i
ng s
S
M I H
& L M
L A W S R
O A ue s s Is D A 9 Quarrymill 3
pigadHouse Springland
K
i n Macmilla
athPa n
tlan at d o B
P a
at side rs te Wa Holmwood o th
cn Wood Scone
u
l l
Bridge
H
o
u n
s e rw oyih.Alrgt eevd 0067 2010 100016971 reserved. rights All Copyright. Crown © OAINPA N.T.S - PLAN LOCATION h Environment The Service .obnon binso J.Ro .obnon binso J.Ro 11/010 21/10/20 Greszczuk J R i oainOtos-Jnay2009 January - Options Location Six onc Footbridge 2 Connect oainPlan Location FRGP jcsConet2 ect ojects/C onn SF/RJG/Pr ra wing d See FRGP jcsConet2/01 ect ojects/C onn SF/RJG/Pr 1a Appendix
79
80
4 11 12 os tsP 2
9 2
6 2
0 6
82 rw oyih.Alrgt eevd 0067 2010 100016971 reserved. rights All Copyright. Crown © 8 5 IEPA 1:5000@A4 - PLAN SITE ut uit tt ge ta s ot irto C ou n Mu th S
lSu ta ub S S El
70 1 tr ht ous Ho ra e th ta y St SubS ta u lS E
2 8 3 6 4 8 sts o P 20
tr h yHous e thtSt ra o ay H
6 URO BANK MUIRTON t hm or th mo a Str
ALEP ACE EYPL HARL
a 31 7 4
35 1
1 3 nn s St A
2
3 3 T
6 ra
c k Course Golf
H A
RL E
Y T E
R RA
C E ele nc h n I 8 reenG heHald H Th e 5th us e o H
Cl ub
5 2
0 1 9
ood nd la s Wo
Tr
ac k ofCourse Golf 14th Tee ot Inch North l ea re Pla A y Tee th 5
North
Inch
Green R
i
e v 4th M Tee
n 4th a Hig
W e h
te reenG a
p rS
ng r ri
14th s
T
ui e ic lu S a y FB Green 17th 5th 1 Tee
FB
M M
& H an e
W ML i H
& gh
M
n 7th 1 ea
o Tee L
W w
H M e at
L M & S r at P
S W g rin p h s
FB H&M WS ML & MH
R gle in h S
i
FB v
e
r
reen G T Springland ngle in h S
Tee 16th 15th a y S ML W Green Upper
16th
M
e an
H igh
W a
te rS p
r ing s
H M
L M &
S W M
2 L
3 W
M S
H &
M L W Sewage
Works
A
n
n
a
1 ty
B
u
r n
oainA Location
M
ea n
H igh
W a t
er S p
ri ng s
M I
L
& S H
M A L W
S R O
A ss ue s I D A 93 Quarrymill
pigadHouse Springland
K
i n Macmillan
th at P
n
oatlaBo nd a P
at si e id rs te Wa a Holmwood o th
cn Wood Scone
u
l l
Bridge
H
o
u
s e rw oyih.Alrgt eevd 0067 2010 100016971 reserved. rights All Copyright. Crown © OAINPA N.T.S - PLAN LOCATION h Environment The Service /0210 1/10/201 2 inson J.Rob inson J.Rob Greszczuk J R NOTES: pin3(rfre alignment) (Preferred 3 Option 2 Option 1 Option orLcto pin ac 2009 March - Options Location Four onc Footbridge 2 Connect oainPlan Location FRGPoecsCnnc 2 nect cts/Con SF/RJG/Proje drawing e Se FRGPoecsCnnc /02 2 nect cts/Con SF/RJG/Proje 1b Appendix
81
82 Connect2 Footbridge, River Tay, Perth
Reasons for Choosing the Current Bridge Location/Alignment (Assessment of 6 Sites)
Site Advantages Disadvantages A Mid range span – 150m
On “demand line” for pedestrians Likely objections from residents of private to/from the town centre. properties on the east bank to the visual intrusion. No ecological problems envisaged. Not on the “demand line” to/from Perth Grammar and St Columba’s Schools. Short approach embankment on the New foot/cycle path parallel to Isla Road west bank of the river. required (300m long). Sited on a straight section of the river. Potential impact on golf course. A safe crossing facility on Isla Road can Potential difficulty in accessing the east be provided. river bank from Isla Road through Capability Scotland land. Site A is considered to be the most appropriate location in terms of engineering and the environment. It is considered to have less impact on the golf course than Site B. It will provide a route on the demand line and the path will exit onto Isla Road at a point where a safe crossing facility can be provided.
B Shortest span – 120m
On “demand line” for pedestrians Not on the “demand line” to/from Perth to/from the town centre. Grammar and St Columba’s Schools
No ecological problems envisaged. Deviation from “demand line” also required on the east riverbank (+160m). Sited on a straight section of the river. Major disruption to the golf course. Both 15thand 17th holes affected - particularly the 15th which would require to be shortened by a considerable length). A safe crossing facility on Isla Road can Approach embankment on the east bank be provided. will run across the view of the river and North Inch currently enjoyed from private properties. Potential difficulty in accessing the east river bank from Isla Road through Capability Scotland land. New foot/cycle path parallel to Isla Road required (300m long). Due to the major disruption to the golf course and the deviation from the demand line on the east riverbank Site B was rejected.
83
Site Advantages Disadvantages C Fairly short span – 130m
On the “demand line” to/from Perth Major visual intrusion on the east bank to Grammar and St Columba’s Schools. the residents of Upper Springlands. Simplest land purchase. On the west bank, requires a deviation northwards from the “demand line” for pedestrians to/from the town centre (+300m). Potential ecological problems in the Annaty Burn “corridor”. Felling of mature trees required. Difficult to engineer an approach to the east abutment along the south bank of the Annaty Burn (north of Upper Springlands). Sited on a bend of the river. A path across the golf course between the 4th and 17th greens may be created as a short cut. However, a formal path could be constructed. Minor disturbance to the 15th tee on the North Inch golf course. Unable to provide a safe crossing on Isla Road due to road alignment. Site C was ruled out for a number of reason. It would be very difficult to engineer an approach to the east abutment. The Environmental Assessment Scoping Report identified a number of ecological problems relating to bats and otters. There is also a requirement to fell mature trees. Additionally, it is not possible to provide a safe crossing facility on Isla Road.
D Mid range span – 160m
Sufficient distance is available for the On the west bank, requires a deviation approach embankment along the west northwards from the “demand line” for bank of the river to connect to the pedestrians to/from the town centre existing path network. (+300m). On the “demand line” to/from Perth Potential ecological problems in the Annaty Grammar and St Columba’s Schools Burn “corridor”. Minimal disturbance to North Inch golf Additional bridge required across the course. Annaty Burn. No visual intrusion at the east bank. A path across the golf course between the Limited, more distant view of the bridge 4th and 17th greens may be created as a from Upper Springlands. short cut. However, a formal path could be constructed. Unable to provide a safe crossing on Isla Road due to road alignment. Sited on a bend of the river. Felling of mature trees required.
The Environmental Assessment Scoping Report identified a number of ecological problems relating to bats and otters. An additional bridge would also be required to cross the Annaty Burn. There is also a requirement to fell mature trees. Additionally, it is not possible to provide a safe crossing facility on Isla Road. As a result Site D was rejected.
84 Appendix 2a
Site Advantages Disadvantages E Longer span – 185m
On the “demand line” to/from Perth Longer span. Grammar and St Columba’s Schools No disturbance to North Inch golf On the west bank, requires a deviation course. northwards from the “demand line” for pedestrians to/from the town centre (+250m). No visual intrusion at the east riverbank. Potential ecological problems in the Annaty Limited, more distant view of the bridge Burn “corridor”. from Upper Springlands. The topography is much better on the Felling of mature trees required. north bank of the Annaty Burn for the approach from Isla Road. More difficult to fit in the approach embankment on the west bank of the Tay. Unable to provide a safe crossing on Isla Road due to road alignment. Sited on a bend of the river. A number of ecological problems were identified following the Environmental Assessment Scoping Report. This included issues relating to otters and bats. There is also a requirement to fell mature trees. Additionally, it is not possible to provide a safe crossing facility on Isla Road. As a result Site E was ruled out.
F Longest span – 190m
No visual intrusion from the east bank. Longest span. No ecological problems envisaged (as On the east bank, requires a deviation route avoids Annaty Burn corridor). northwards from the “demand line”. Limited disturbance to North Inch golf West approach to bridge conflicts with course. existing path and flood wall. East approach to bridge relatively Route follows Isla Road northwards for simple to engineer. 160m (new foot/cycleway required?) In addition, the level rises about 8 metres (26 feet) over that distance. Sited on a straight section of the River Unable to provide a safe crossing on Isla Tay. Road due to road alignment. Site F was rejected because it would not be possible to construct a suitable cycle path adjacent to Isla Road, due to land issues and the gradient. Additionally, it is not possible to provide a safe crossing facility on Isla Road. As a result the route linking the bridge and Quarrymill cannot be achieved. This would also be the most expensive due to the length of span.
85
86 Connect2 Footbridge, River Tay, Perth
Reasons for Choosing the Proposed Bridge Alignment (Assessment of 3 Options at Site A)
As detailed in Appendix 2a, the proposed location (Site A) for the footbridge was selected as a result of geographical, engineering, environmental and cost factors, in addition to the convenience of the users and considerations of the effects on the North Inch and the Golf Course.
It is important to note that on the east bank of the river, it is not possible to locate the bridge further south than its current location, due to the presence of large private houses and their grounds, lying between Isla Road, Perth and the River Tay, the grounds being contiguous for a kilometre to the south. Therefore, locations south of this point were not assessed.
Unfortunately, almost the entire length of the west bank, opposite the Upper Springland site, is occupied by the 15th hole of the golf course, which, with the short 16th hole, extends southwards until it is opposite the most northerly of the houses on Isla Road, mentioned above. In light of this, to minimise the impact on the golf course, three alignment options at Site A were assessed to determine the best alignment:
Option 1 The bridge could cross the river on a high skew, running south westwards from the south end of Upper Springland grounds, in order to make landfall on the west bank, south of the 16th hole on the golf course. This would mean that the golf course would be unaffected. However, this much longer alignment is ruled out on cost grounds. It is estimated that it could cost in the region of £0.5million more than the available budget.
Option 2 This option would run through the middle of the 16th hole and lead to its permanent loss. As the 16th hole is a ‘signature hole’ on the North Inch Golf Course, this option was ruled out.
Option 3
Option 3 would run through the centre of the 15th green of the golf course but the hole would be retained as it would be possible to relocate the green northwards by approximately 20 to 30 metres. To partially mitigate the reduction in length, the 15th tee could be moved northwards by about 15metres. This would maintain most of the length of this hole.
It is understood that the 16th hole is regarded as a ‘signature hole’ and this option would not affect this hole.
In addition, the 17th tee will require to be moved northwards by about 25 metres, as the approach embankments to the bridge will partially cover the existing 17th tee.
Under this option, the 16th (signature) hole can be retained as it is presently, once the bridge is completed.
Conclusion
Based on the assessments carried out, it is not considered possible to construct the bridge without it impacting on the golf course in some way. Option 1 above was rejected on cost grounds. Option 2 has been ruled out because it causes a major disruption to the golf course, as the present 16thhole would be permanently lost. Option 3 has the least impact on the golf course as it allows the 15th hole to maintain most of its length, following redesign.
87
88 89
90 91
92 Appendix 4
Have your say on the Connect2 bridge Design
Members of the public are being invited to tell the Council which design they would prefer for a proposed pedestrian and cycle bridge which will span the River Tay from the North Inch to Isla Road at Upper.
You can have your say by completing a two-minute online survey [hyperlink - http://pkc.Connect2bridgeoptions.sgizmo.com] between now and midnight on Friday 3 September 2010. It is hoped as many people as possible will take the time to respond and help decide how the bridge will look.
What is the Connect2 bridge?
In December 2007 Sustrans won a national TV vote for its Connect2 project and was awarded funding of £1.25 million from the Big Lottery. This was to invest in communities across the UK, including Perth, to provide networks of walking and cycling routes linking into new and improved crossings of busy roads, railways and rivers. Since then Perth & Kinross Council, Regional Transport Partnership, Tactran and Sustrans (the sustainable transport charity), have been working together to take the Perth project forward.
Improvements are also planned to local walking and cycle routes, linking them to the bridge and enhancing access for anyone walking or going by bike through Perth.
Some feasibility design work and ground investigations have been undertaken and the next stage in the development of the bridge is to agree the design of the proposed bridge.
What are the design options?
There are two design options:
Option A: Three Arch Bridge Option B: Flat Bridge
Key Information: Key Information: This would have a central arch of 126m This would be supported on four piers, and two shorter end arches of 37m and would have a total length of 200m. each. Option B would be around 25% There would be no need to build bridge cheaper than option A. piers in the river with this option. The highest part of the bridge would be However, the two piers on the banks less than 8 metres or 26 feet above the would need to be bigger and stronger river bank. than the bridge piers in option B. Two of the piers would need to be built
93 Option A would be more expensive than in the river. As Tay Salmon Fisheries option B. do not allow work in the river between The highest part of the arch would be July and October, this would restrict quite tall, almost 20 metres or 65 feet work to the months of November 20111 above the river banks. to June 2012.
How can I have my say on the bridge design?
You can complete the online survey [hyperlink -http://pkc.Connect2bridgeoptions.sgizmo.com] between now and midnight on Friday 3 September 2010. Paper copies can be requested by calling 01738 475046, and should also be returned by Friday 3 September.
What will happen next?
Once the consultation has ended the Council will make a decision on the chosen design, based on the feedback from the consultation. This will be communicated on the Council’s website and in the local media. Proposed plans, based on the chosen design, will then go forward to the planning process.
Members of the public will also be involved in some future decisions, such as the naming the bridge as the project progresses.
94 Option A 95
Option B
96 Response Summary Report
Response Summary Report
September 08, 2010
1. Which option for the bridge design do you prefer?
Item Count Percent % Option A 484 69.24% Option B 215 30.76%
Page 1 of 11 97 Response Summary Report
2. Which of the following most affected your decision to select your chosen option?
Item Count Percent % Visual impact of design 317 45.74% Visual impact on landscape 206 29.73% Environmental impact 95 13.71% Cost 75 10.82%
Page 2 of 11 98 Response Summary Report
3. How often do you think you would use this bridge?
Item Count Percent % Weekly 225 32.66% Monthly 173 25.11% Less frequently 168 24.38% Daily 67 9.72% Never 56 8.13%
Page 3 of 11 99 Response Summary Report
Appendix 2: Do you have any comments?
Open Text Responses: I think both options are worth considering but Option A is the more attractive. I would welcome a link to Perth further up the Tay, I often walk between Perth and Scone, and this would provide a more attractive route for me. neither of the designs capture the imagination. option A looks twee and hence option B is simple and has less of an impact. these designs look like something from the 1980`s and earlier! looks like no design has been thought about! will it be painted? or metal colour Total waste of money especially when key services and jobs are being cut Not convinced this bridge is being built in the correct location! Should it not be located nearer to Quarrymill? We've been waiting 2 years for this and the designs look as if they've been put together by a 5 year old! This is a chance to design and construct a much needed bridge which will fit in with the surroundings but yet, should be a bold statement for the 21st century! There is a wealth of design talent in Perthshire. Please think again about these designs. Why can't you do a modern take on the Faskally footbridge at Pitlochry. It's a tourist attraction in itself and provides a great aspect of the river and the Pitlochry Dam. We can do much better than this pathetic effort! how will it be protected by vandals (or neds in general) The arch gives a focal point much more that option B. Also easier to build at any time of the year given option Bs river piers. Better to have something that is a visual enhancement than go down the route of something mundane Completely un-necessary for the bridge to no-where. The monies could be put to better use in upgrading amenites for children in the parks why waste money on a footbridge when a road bridge is required? no. A Bridge which carries motor vehicles would be much more appreciated, this would make every other road in the town more cyclist friendly and reduce pollution and congestion in Perth city. A cycle and pedestrian only bridge is a complete waste of tax payers money and an unnecessary luxury. It's a no-brainer! Waste of money Such special and unique a setting as this deserves a bridge crossing of stature and grace to compliment it's surroundings. Whilst I appreciate the additional costs associated with this bring, the environmental impact is lower on the river, whilst the design of the bridge is more attractive - if we are going to spend a significant amount of money (much of which is granted to us anyway) I would rather that we spend money that will leave a lasting architectural impact to Perth as well as minimising the environmental impact. I suspect that if we go for the cheaper option, it will look just that - oh, look, PKC spent a small fortune on a new bridge, but its just dull! Don't understand why you are putting the bridge at Quarrymill as it is not the easiest place to get to if you wish to cycle. There are already two bridges to cross, what is the point in wasting money on a third. Be sensible and put the money towards somthing that is actually needed A bridge is a one off statement , it can be a landmark, an attraction and a symbol of ambition and commitment. The choice is to stand up strong or hide with the ugly sister or just let the car win again and not bother. I have selected visual impact but I also think the environmental impact is important as well and would prefer they not build in the river. Long overdue! Option A is a better looking design but the higher cost can't be justified. I think this bridge will help me as a Scone resident to walk or cycle to work & leisure without having to go all the way around by bridge end which will help me to avoid the traffic. It will cut down on my travelling time as well. I feel this will help with the traffic problems at the Bridges into Perth. I think the sooner this project is completed the better (which was my main reason for Option A along with the environmental impact as it seemed to be less disruptive and not so restricted by time) don't let any doubters stop this from happening - my children and everyone's elses will benefit so much from this development - good luck with the project [email protected] well done perth, this is what the city needs for its citizens and tourists. I cycle fom almondbank to perth and back using the cycle paths and it would be fantastic to be able to incoperate a run to scone in my exercise regime, money worth spending. May I suggest installing cctv to help prevent the bridge from being vandalized by these sad yobs.. D test test
Page 4 of 11 100 Response Summary Report
Open Text Responses: Whilst I prefer the appearance of Option A, concerned about the height that the bridge will protrude above the riverbank. Was of the impression that the bridge was going to be positioned further up the north inch, ie. flood gates at top of golf course. Design A is simply better looking. There is no option for abandoning the project which is ridiculous as it would without doubt gather the most votes. It makes a mockery of the consultation. I feel that the nature of these presentation illustrations are of a very poor quality and will not be fully representative of the finished article. I feel that option B when fully realised will be much more sympathetic to the existing landscape and also is the cheaper option. I feel that the construction times issue is pointless as it can be programmed to take the salmon into account. This has taken far too long to get to this stage and I just hope that it won't be a further three years before there is a safe cycle crossing of the River Tay Option A would enhance the local surroundings and is certainly more pleasing to the eye. Perth is a lovely city and I feel that option B would not do the city justice with it being so plain in design. Appreciate cost and environmental impact are very important considerations in the decision making process but if such a bridge is required then it should be of a design that is recognisable and that the residents of Perth would be proud of for years to come. Option B looks like it is just meeting the minimum requirements and will potentially have an adverse imapct on the river bed. Whilst Option A may not a unique iconic design it is much more attractive than Option B with no impact on the river bed. Just becuse it will be more visible than Option B does not mean it will have an adverse visual impact. This is a bit of a deprture from the iconic structure that was origianlly envisaged and only option A looks remotely like a half- decent design. We have to make sure we get the design right Option A has a bigger and more interesting visual impact than option B, which is a rather bland, non-descript design, and is more photogenic. This would make it more likely to be used in photographs to promote Perth as is has more impact. Both designs are very poorly detailed, and I would hope you would get a specialist bridge architect involved to improve whichever goes forward. Why has a suspension bridge not been considered, as it would be very well suitd to this span and layout? Any bridge built will have an impcat on landscape and environment. It would be hoped that the public would make use of the bridge and that statistical infromation has been gathered to support the feasibility of building the bridge don't like either bridge, but the better of the two options. What's 25% anyway! :) Option A will create a higher profile than Option B. Which will promote the use of the bridge. neither design is particularly dynamic, however the location and link created is great. option eliminates the need for posts within the tay and is a little more interesting in design. It will sit higher over the river and therefore will be able to sustain any effects of future floods. I like both bridges for different reasons - Bridge A looks a better design, however do not want to subside bridge costs through increased council tax This design is more in keeping with the other two bridges, and in the current financial climate it is difficult to justify the increased cost of option A. I think it is a good project for Perth & Kinross I think the bridge is an excellent project which will encourage people to visit areas of Perth on foot rather than use cars. I walk from Scone to Perth on a regular basis and I think this will greatly enhance the quality of the journey. I can't understand the reasoning in putting the bridge so far down the river. It surely isn't an easy access to Scone unless you can cycle through Quarrymill which I know is not allowed. The hill up to Scone would surely inhibit many people from using it. This seems to a good idea in principle but the cost of carrying it out is surely not viable in the current economic climate. Would the painting of a new bridge, of whatever design, be decided by the council or a letter in the PA. Lets not spend too much : this is not on at present It would have been better to build a bridge for all types of traffic, from the Inveralmond roundabout across the Tay and through Mansfield land to the Scone road. But we don`t want to offend his Lordship, DO WE! Long overdue. Excellent project! NO NO NO NO NO I currently live in Scone and would like to take up cycling to work but the thought of the large lorries on the road into town is rather daunting. I would definatel use this bridge.
Page 5 of 11 101 Response Summary Report
Open Text Responses: I would like to see the design with protection so that the cycilists and walkers are protected from any stray golf balls from the golf course. Assuming most cyclists will also use the path leading from Quarrymill to New Scone, why is the proposed bridge to be sited next to Holmwood rather than at Macmillan House or Upper Springlands where the river appears to be narrower and where the 'desire' line would be much less convoluted? The bridge will be more useful for cycle & possibly pedestrian commuters from Scone. Potentally less useful for Perth to Scone. Apart from Quarrymill there is nothing to encourage pedestrian or casual cyclists to Isla Road. I think this bridge would suit the local city and create a visual impact to update the city I don't see the reason for another bridge as the three there already are enough and look good together a new bridge for veichles is requied more than a foot bridge. The amount of traffic is every increasing an feel that this bridge is a waste of money. I'm not sure that this bridge is actually needed and neither design has the visual impact that would be expected from modern design, although A is better than B An iconic bridge design would have been nice. very glad to see this bridge being built at last! Both of the designs look ... grately lak in appeal, even the composite bridge in Aberfeldy looks better, with such a budget... i am shure the designers could have come up with something better. This bridge will be associated with City of Perth for many decades to come. Let it be a nice sight. It would be nice to go for a more iconic design that helped to promote Perth and attract more people. Plan B has very little visual interest. build the bridge as soon as possible Would have been more handy for traffic! It should not be built. Millers comment that "this isnt new money" just shows how out of touch our council leaders are. They should be focussing on reducing the waste inherent in PKDC and the incessant jollies for inept councillors Option A Option A looks more elegant and avoids digging up the river bed to put in piers and then affecting the river's natural flow. I live 25 miles from Perth, but would use the bridge to walk or cycle to the Scone area, avoiding the busy road bridges across the river. It links really well with the River Tay & Almond cycle / walking paths. please hurry up and build it we've waited long enough!!! Cant wait so I can get on my bike for a safe cycle to work instead of risking life and limb on the A94 I am really pleased that the council ask for the public's opinion on these matters. Cost is 100% the most important factor in building this bridge particularly in the current economic climate. Building the more expensive one would just be a waste. What isn't mentioned is the cost of ongoing maintenance. The build cost is all very well but what would the cost of build + maintenance be over, say, the next 10 years. The bridge is a great idea giving people chance to walk to scone, quarrymill and the race coarse. I don't think any imposing designs would be of any use or asthetic purpose or benefit, the cheaper in the basic drawing tends to blend better any way. Hopefully this will not impact greatly on the residents of upper springlands too much. I look forward to new footbridge. I'd love to see a new road bridge crossing, perhaps over a9 to stormontfield area! Probably not in my lifetime!!! Option A looks far nicer than Option B Its looks much nicer :) It's not clear to me why this bridge is needed at all, how much benefit it will provide, and to whom. It seems like a lot of money is being spent to benefit a small number of people. I don't think the expense is justified. Don't see any need for it, it's a waste of money. Pity it's only for cyclists and pedestrians. Should there not be a road connection from the A93 to the A9? Would just love to finally get this bridge built befor somebody gets seriously hurt crossing main bridge. I hope that work is put into bike paths leading from the upper springlands side to Scone, so people will actually use the bridge, as cyclists can't go through Quarrymill The new bridge is a great concept and should add greatly to the walking and cycling options in the area. I think option A will look best in this setting on the River Tay New bridge will enhance an already wonderful city to walk in. Hopefully this will get people walking again and cut the traffic in Perth. Very imaginative development Will cycle access be permitted to the Quarry Mill walk? How will bridge users be safeguarded on the golf course side? I live in the Carse of Gowrie and consider the bridge a helpful addition to the acute access issues faced by folk in the Scone/Bridge End area. Cost, in these desperate financial times is the most significant factor. I'm sure option B can be made to look visually attractive and sympathetic to the surrounding landscape.
Page 6 of 11 102 Response Summary Report
Open Text Responses: Option A is preferable - lower disturbance of the river, available sooner (?) and aesthetics. However, if option A were to be too costly then option B is acceptable too. The key thing is to have a bridge as soon as possible! Option A is far nicer, however in the current financial climate, we should only spend what is required. A proper road bridge across the Tay is also required at the Inveralmond Roundabout to cut town conjestion. Keeping the bridge piles out oif the river must be a strong consideration - impact on the R Tay SAC (pearl mussels, salmon etc). Also to minimise obstructive impact on high flood flows - The flow of flood waters obstructed by the piles (and anything trapped against them) would go somewhere else - would the adjacent £22M flood defence scheme need to be reviewed and upgraded to cope with this? I prefer the arch bridge as it's a more impressive design and would stand proud in it's environment. The flat bridge looks cheap and nondescript, as if built as a temporary structure by the military. residents of perth will be happy with the state-of-the-art bridge and allso the next generation in years too come will be happy Waste of money when we need a proper third bridge for cars, lorries and buses etc.. hope it goes ahead really good idea Make it a road bridge Does the £1.25 million funding from the Big Lottery cover all the costs of the project ? ASpart fomr the great leisure aspects I think it would be of great benefit to Scone and make cycling to work or for shpooing from Scone to Perth there a much safer and more practical option than at present, also easing traffic pressure on that access route into and out of Perth I think this is a great asset to Perth and would encourage people to use bikes and walk into Town for both business and pleasure. One would assume that the cost comparisons undetaken have considered the risk of additional costs associated with delays not only due to winter working but other environmental issues. Also, the long term maintenance programme has not been mentioned anywhere in the profiles. Has a strategy been established for dealing with this. Although I don't live in Bridgend/Scone I am sure a number of people would take advantage of walking/cycling into Perth rather than continue to conjest the traffic system at Bridgend. It is not clear exactly where this bridge is going to be situated - a map of this as well would have been helpful Minimum visual impact on lovely river views is vital, but cost is also important in current climate. A key concern is to ensure the new bridge is flood proof given worsening climate. Neither design are very inspiring! I know cost is a major factor - but something a bit more striking would be better in my opinion. The bridge will be there for many years and well used,therefore it is important to build one with environmental and visual impact. Unclear on how wide this bridge will be? adequate width would be my main concern to make it's use safe with 2 ways cyclist and pedestrians Personally I would rather there was no bridge at all, but if it must go ahead the one with the least visual impact would be preferable in order to maintain the natural beauty of the river. Can't wait! Can't wait! I feel the Option A design would create a lasting feature with character rather than a bland level crossing. Can't wait! This will be a great addition to the cycle routes and facilities available in Perth and Perthshire. Option A is more aesthetically pleasing and would have less impact on the river bed. However, the difference is not sufficient that it should delay construction if the cost is inhibitive. As a resident living on the edge of the North Inch & being a active daily walker & cyclist along the various river paths I welcome this additional bridge & the proposed site. All other existing bridges in Perth are flat & I feel Option A is a feature in itself well worthy of this beautiful setting & site. I feel that if we have a pedestrian bridge it should be one that's pleasing to the eye as well as functional, hence I chose option A. The fact that it's the more expensive option was not the prime consideration for me as although on the face of it the other option should be cheaper to construct, given the restrictions to build within the river itself, it may not work out so cost effective in the long run as it could be dependent on the Scottish weather and delays invariably cost money. I don't find either design particularly inspiring and would hope that the final version compliments the existing landscape and that it's design is aesthetically pleasing and not just functional. Frankly I think both designs are very poor. The first new bridge over the Tay for decades should be a casue for celebration. Our friends on the continent would throw out both options and submit a radical, iconic and exciting structure. These are mundane, safe, and at best average. When I think about the good bridges over the Tay and the variety of forms they take I struggle to see how these design add to the stock of more interesting structures like Wades Bridge in Aberfeldy, Smeatons bridge at Perth, The plastic suspension bridge at the golf course in Aberfeldy to name a few. I am against spending so much money in the current finacial climate on a footbridge, and also the impact it will have on the Golf Course on the North Inch. I don't think there is a high demand for the bridge
Page 7 of 11 103 Response Summary Report
Open Text Responses: This bridge is desperately needed as it is extremely hazardous cycling from Bridgend to Perth centre not to mention unpleasant. Although I chose option A I don't really mind which bridge gets built so long as something is put in place quickly and this doesn't turn into a long and unnecessarily drawn out process. It is so important to encourage more cyclists but this won't happen until the cycle routes are improved. In a time when the council in meant to be saving money i would have thought the scraping of this scheme would be a key option. I am a cyclist who cycles in excess of 70 miles a week, I live in Rose Terrace on the North Inch and am not really convinced of the need for this bridge. I am not saying this from any viewpoint other than thinking it will be a waste of money. Will use the bridge to go to work This money was awarded to perth three years ago.It seems to have taken a long time to get to this stage.Walking and cycling into perth is not a pleasant experience at rush hour. This bridge could potentially cut the amount of traffic in Bridge End as more people from Scone and further away choose to cycle or walk into Perth. Option will be less environmentally damaging because it avoids works in the river - but if Option B is unavoidable then the bottom line is that it is better to have a cycle/walking bridge than no bridge at all Must adopt a scheme with flair & stands out as a bridge to be proud off, over the river tay and not a cheap & boring solution why do we need a third bridge? you can cycle and walk perfectly well across the other two - and i've counted the rate of cyclists crossing smeaton's bridge, and it's about one every ten-fifteen minutes - surely there's somewhere that needs this bridge more than perth does - wha't the matter with keep ig the north inch looking nice and verdant, or does the council feel that industrialising it with a modern bridge will enhance the amenity - muppets Whilst I am more in favour in saving cost and the Council making cost effective decisions the design for option B is very bland and I would much prefer a design that will help the cosmetic appeal of the town. We are a wealthy city, with the money set aside anyway. Perth is an iconic city with its existing architectural treasures. Option A will not only be practical addition but itself become a city icon in future generations. My view is that the cost to the council of should be kept to a minimum - this biridge is a ''nice to have'' rather than a ''must have'' Perth is a beautiful city and I think the bridge should increase its beauty rather than simply be utilitarian Option A is a more practical and elegant design solution as the river flow remains unrestricted. I would have been useful to know how much more expensive it potentially is. Why is this the only two design options being offered. What about a suspension bridge. I don't like the idea of piles disturbing the river bed. I also think is has significant visual appeal We should make the most of public buildings, they should be the best we can make them. It is a more elegant design and minimizes river disruption. Don't hide away the bridge but add to the landscape like the Viaduc de Millau Bridge in France. Add value with simple viewpoint cameras with PTZ function which give another window to the world of Perthshire. our opinions won't be taken to consideration anyway! How would the differance in cost be funded Neither design is very ambitious or attractive. I would have thought many other options could have been illustrated, tested. Option B is a nice simple design with unobstructed views from the bridge... it also happens to be the cheaper option! Concerned about the bridge discharging pedestrians into the middle of the North Inch Golf Course! In No. 2 I wanted to tick 2nd option - visual impact on landscape as well as cost. The sooner the better. I HOPE THIS DOES NOT AFFECT THE 15TH. AND 16TH.HOLES ON THE GOLF COURSE, AS I PLAY THIS COURSE 3 OR 4 TIMES A WEEK.THE DRILLING WAS BAD ENOUGH SO LETS HOPE THE CONSTRUCT WILL BE LESS BOTHER TO THE GOLFERS.AS WE ARE ALL SEASON TICKET HOLDERS. I'm really excited by the prospect of this bridge and hope it actually does get built as soon as possible! This is an absolutely fantastic idea for walking & cycling in Perth, we need more of this!!! i would use the bridge for commutig betwen city center and friends that life over the water option B will end up even more expensive with bridge piers and the piers will just snag debris and trees and cost more in maintenance. I am most surprised that option B is 25% cheaper to build and would suggest you are perhaps being a bit simplistic and are not really in a position to give any clarity on the cost and the 25% figure is a very crude estimate. Considering that there are major risks associated with works carried out in the river during the winter months I would be interested to see how this has been taken into account. Also, how have you taken account of operating costs? Longterm maintenance of bridge piers, bearings etc must be greater for option B. Has the whole life cost been considered? A much needed bridge that I would use for cycling across to scone to avoid traffic. I can't wait until it is completed. I know it's all about allocation of funds but I would suggest that in the current economic climate the money could be put to far better use elsewhere and maybe a proper road bridge could be considered for the future. Such a bridge would be of benefit to more than just walkers and cyclists and would serve to relieve traffic congestion. The new bridge should have impact to the area rather than blend in so option A is the best will make my walks into town easier
Page 8 of 11 104 Response Summary Report
Open Text Responses: The bridge should be more than just functional it should be a thing of beauty and a suitable legacy for generations to come It looks like option B would be more expensive in the long term given the construction and maintenance challenges of being in the water (and with the construction in winter); also it is the less visually attractive of the two. Will be a great asset to Scone residents. The sooner it is built the better. It is preferable to avoid having to build supports in the river. The arch is much more iconic & less disturbance to riverbed. Faster build also ? My children will use the bridge a lot more than I would. While A looks better, it is too high at the Inch end and is therefore visually intrusive. Keeping costs at a minimum are essential. The bridge would become a valuable and useful landmark for Perth. I look forward to its completion. the path links to it are crucial As little money as possible should be spent on this bridge, if it has to be built at all. I am assuming Option A would do better in a flood. Whatever the design is please, please go ahead with this. An alternative to the road bridges is needed I think Perth actually needs a third vehicle bridge as bridgend is a complete choke point I think Design A is preferable in terms of asthetics but understand the financial constraints currently affecting the public sector so if Design B is more cost affective I would be happy to accept a decision in favour of that. Please get on with it! The Tay brings down massive amounts of debris-no river piers are suitable.Make sure low maintainance by galvanising all steel components Not sure that this is a priority at a time of financial restraint. If funds permit then option A would be visually more attrcative for the longer term. Keep the cost down long over due for a bridge to enhance walking safely with dogs or young children walking to I am pleased it has got to this stage. Option A would be an asset visually while B would be mearly functional This is a good looking bridge - environmental and preferable in terms of build access/times. It's design is reflects that of the arches on the old bridge in Perth and further reflects that of General Wades Bridges found within Perthshire and North Scotland - by far the better statement of design, aesthetics, environment and history - in terms of cost, 25% is alot but this has been a long time coming! This bridge is a luxury, not really needed. A larger structure is badly needed to carry road traffic and reduce congestion in and around Perth. Really looking forward to using this bridge and seeing how others will benifit from it. It will be great for Perthshire. It is essential to all non motorised transport that this link is established as the present system does not make for safe cycle commuting into Perth over the existing bridge. This link would allow safe commuting stright to the centre. The choice of design is less important than the creation of the link. Can't wait for the Bridge to be built. I have always liked cantilever bridges as a preference to either A or B. Just pleased that a bridge is being built. Option A would give a much nicer look than B which is dull. Also B takes longer to make due to salmon which may erode the proposed 25% saving anyway as cost of materials always rise. Why is there not an option for - No Bridge? It is apparent that PKC is hell bent on spending our tax on this project which we never asked for. If there is a couple of Million sloshing about in the coffers much better we had a vote on what to spend it on. If Sustrans had not first come up with this idea then we (the people of Perth) would not have built it. Just because they have offered to part fund it does not mean it is a good offer or use of tax spend. I vote - none of the above! I would also like to see some planning for the North Inch to make it more attractive e.g. lighting round the Inch for winter useage to compliment bridge, community artwork, floral areas etc My fear would be the damage to the fishing if there are a number of arches. Plan A would solve this and allow a vital bridge to be there as well. No conflict of interest, or as little as possible anyway. Now that you have finally gotten round to doing this bridge, please build something that looks worthy of spanning the Tay and not a flat industrial eyesore. I welcome the opporunity to have a say in the design and further consultation with the public would be beenficial. I think you should strive for a bridge with iconic design and features (e.g. lighting). Although you summarised some of the issues involved with each design it may have been useful to include more information on the impacts of each design to help me make a more informed decision. I do not like the idea of having to drill down into the riverbed to construct support pillars. The other bridge looks boring and horrendous. It should not be chosen just because it is cheaper. All the best bridges in the world have something a wee bit special. This bridge will be here for a long time so it should be something decent to look at. Personally I think even Option A is not that architecturally inspiring. You should perhaps look at some of the more interesting bridges on the Clyde for ideas but no doubt that would be far too costly.
Page 9 of 11 105 Response Summary Report
Open Text Responses: It may cost more but it will impact less on the river and look more appropriate for Perth's style. The options are weighted, in this financial climate, to a no-brainer - B. concern over the access from North Inch - Why have the bridge come onto the golf course and not onto the already existing path network a few hundred metres up river? I can't wait to use this bridge on my way to work. It will save me at least half an hour each way. Good to see some progress The idea of a footbridge is excellent however placement of it so close to existing bridge appears nonsensical. Why has it not been placed much further up towards Scone Palace where the finished bridge would also not spoil a beautiful river aspect? The single span is visually much more attractive and of course can be achieved by the arch form of structure shown. Presumably other forms of single span bridges have been investigated eg cable stayed. There has been recently been built in UK may attractive forms of single tower cable stayed foot bridges. A bridge is a monument and needs to make a statement which will last for a 150 years. Flat multi span railway type girder bridges as shown in option B cannot be justified on even on cost grounds given todays construction materials available. The bridge should also have a curved soffit easily achieved with a single tower cable stayed span and as gradients need only accomodate foot/bycycle traffic. Come on Perth do something that will appear on a picture post card ! Dr Gordon Crighton FREng (former Perth Academy pupil) Unless you ensure that the pedestrian and cycle elements of the bridge are seperated, ensure that there are facilities in place to take cyclists to the bridge and that those facilities have workable solutions regards crossingmain roads such as isla road, the majority of cyclists will continue to use the road in order to reach town by bike as it will be more convenient. This leaves the bridge being used infrequently for commuter travel. I would use the birdge to cycle into town with my children but if the bridge is going to be used infrequently, would the awarded money be better used improving facilities elsewhere like extending and improving the facilites that run up the side of the tay towards luncarty and almondbank. Please remember that shared facility paths don't work. Cyclist pass pedestrians to quickly, and pedestrians wander all over the path, often with dogs - dogs tend not to like bikes! I believe this will enhance the attraction and use of the North Inch and also provide a useful route for cyclist commuters into Perth. Golfers are not the only folk to use the North Inch! I am in favour of the bridge over the Tay, but very unhappy with the decision to site it over the golf course. It will be much to the detriment of all golfers to lose the 15th green. It is one of the most scenic and challenging holes on the golf course. can the bridge land south of the 16th hole thereby avoiding the golf course entirely A bridge should be a lasting legacy, not just in terms of the link that it will create but visually too. The River Tay and its tributaries have a mixture of bridges of differing ages and designs. Some are visually appealing, monuments to engineering and good design and the Connect2 bridge is an opportunity to create another structure that will also be a monument to engineering and design. Option B does not do this. It is a simple bridge that although serving its purpose, it fails to add anything visually to the local environment. To sum up my views the bridge has to be a landmark, it has to be something that generations will look at and be impressed by. Go for Option A and create something special! b is the best out a best choice I thought the new bridge was to be much further up the river...a crossing from roughly Scone Palace? I like the idea of a new bridge, but where's the sense in wasting all that money to build one just a few hundred metres from the existing bridge? Also, whatever the design, at the proposed location it's going to ruin a beautiful river view when walking along the path at the North Inch. This is a tourist town...why spoil a natural asset in this manner when a location further upstream would make more sense from a practical and tourism point of view? I don't want any new bridge in your proposed location. This bridge should be the catalyst for a cycle route right round the outside of Perth, specifically for cycling, walking and jogging only, away from the main roads. Option B, as well as being cheaper, would appear to blend in with the surroundings and would not detract from the natural beauty of the river as much as Option A. I am a runner so would use the bridge at least once a week. I can go to the sports centre. It is a good idea. Easier for me to get into town. Good idea & bad Idea. It would be good to know exactly where it will be built. May want CCTV camera. Please ensure there are lights and I can access at night with my wheelchair. Easier to maintain. (Option B) Security is very important, should be well lit to ensure safety. Great idea - do it asap Helpful for walkers and cyclists to have a crossing Option B would have an adverse affect on Stormont angling fishings in the "sawmill stream" (assuming the bridge is placed opposite Springlands). I walk through Quarrymill every week and have yet to see a cyclist so I fail to see the bridge being used by cyclists. A location for the bridge would have been useful in this survey Will there be CCTV cameras on the bridge to deter jumpers Perth planners should be more forward thinking
Page 10 of 11 106 Response Summary Report
Open Text Responses: Have you checked the maximum flood level for height of the bridge? Totally unnecessary! It impacts on the view down river towards Perth Bridge. How many people, especially women, will use the bridge in the winter when it is dark morning and evening. Perhaps consideration should be given to have a wider and bigger bridge to cater for cars/vehicles usage. Perth needs another road bridge badly. Doing a bridge is a good idea I hope that the path beyond the bridge will be of a smooth (cycleable) standard Great to see this is going ahead and the Council have decided not to cut it because of the current climate. It will be a real asset to Perth. Get it built! Hopefully the tech used will be "state of the art"! the Tay is a precious and beautiful resource. this would open it up further and enhance the quality of life for citizens and tourists It would be really helpful! Caitlin I would walk around It would be a great thing for getting over to Scone Can't wait for this Great idea. Another road bridge is going to be absolutely vital at some stage soon too to ease congestion. The option B is just an easy boring option. I feel option A is easier on the eye and something a little different Difficult to know exactly. However it would open up opportunity to walk with children further! Visitor from Fife Difficult to "hide" the bridge (option B) therefore make it (the bridge) a focal point and pleasing to the eye and less impact on the river banks. Why must the bridge access the golf course at all. Can't it be placed 20m south, thereby miss the course. Just as long as the bridge is built, does not matter what it looks like! The quicker its built the better! The sooner the better! This bridge does not solve the congestion of traffic!! Surely the next issue to be resolved! Another waste of money Would be great if we could also get one for traffic (cars etc) to ease congestion on the other bridge. Please build a bridge that can take cars, it would help ease traffic congestion in the Fair City! I feel the bridge is in the wrong location. I can't wait for the bridge to be built so I can cycle over it! I guess that option B would have lower maintenance costs as well as lower capital cost. For the public's view to be meaningful I think they should have been told the location of the bridge. This obviously has a huge bearing on the environmental impact. If it is to be sited close to the 15th green on the golf course as the trial bores would suggest, I think it is far too close to Perth bridge and would do untold damage to three very nice holes on the golf course and would completely spoil them. A far better location would be at the path leading from South Muirton cottages, a but further upstream. Although more expensive, I think option A would provide a more attractive and interesting new bridge. I also that it is good to have fewer obstacles built into the river bed. Option A looks more like a landmark, which is good. Work won't disturb the river - very important. More cost (A) but more attractive. No obstacles in river. Good luck!!! Hope this is a success! Could you fall of Bridge (B) Spicy bridge wohoe It's nice ya man B looks ugly and could have an effect on the fishing times As the bridge is a foot/cycle path, a large impact on the environmental beauty would be a waste
Page 11 of 11 107
108 Design Option Survey – Questions ask by respondents
Questions asked Answers
1 Will it be painted? or metal colour The structure will be painted steel. The colour has yet to be decided.
2 Not convinced this bridge is being built in the correct location! The proposed location has been determined as a result of Should it not be located nearer to Quarrymill? geographical, engineering, environmental and economic factors.
3 How will it be protected by vandals (or needs in general)? No specific anti-vandalism measures are proposed.
4 Why waste money on a footbridge when a road bridge is required? Public consultation on the potential for a new road bridge will run between October 2010 and January 2011. The consultation is more about the principle and the need for the bridge rather than defining an exact alignment at this stage although outline options 109 for a potential route are shown.
5 Both designs are very poorly detailed, and I would hope you would Coloured sketch drawings formed part of the survey, but more get a specialist bridge architect involved to improve whichever goes detailed drawings of each option could also be viewed. A forward. Why has a suspension bridge not been considered, as it Structural Engineer from our consultant, Atkins, will design the would be very well suited to this span and layout? bridge. A suspension bridge was considered but ruled out because of cost.
6 What's 25% anyway! :) Option A costs £1.8 million, whereas Option B costs £1.4 million.
7 Would the painting of a new bridge, of whatever design, be decided The colour has yet to be decided. by the council or a letter in the PA?
8 Assuming most cyclists will also use the path leading from The proposed current location for the footbridge is a result of Quarrymill to New Scone, why is the proposed bridge to be sited geographical, engineering, environmental and economic factors, next to Holmwood rather than at Macmillan House or Upper in addition to the convenience of the users and considerations of Springlands where the river appears to be narrower and where the the effects on the North Inch and the Golf Course. 'desire'?
9 Will cycle access be permitted to the Quarry Mill walk? How will Under the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 cyclists currently bridge users be safeguarded on the golf course side? have the right to access Quarrymill.
10 Does the £1.25 million funding from the Big Lottery cover all the No. The project cost is in the region of £2.6 million and funding of costs of the project? £1.386 million is being provided by TACTRAN.
11 Unclear on how wide this bridge will be? Adequate width would be The width of the bridge will be 3m. This is considered adequate for my main concern to make it's use safe with 2 ways cyclist and use by cyclists and pedestrians in accordance with national pedestrians. guidance.
12 Why do we need a third bridge? You can cycle and walk perfectly The bridge is proposed to provide a safe crossing for pedestrians well across the other two - and I've counted the rate of cyclists and cyclists. crossing Smeaton's Bridge, and it's about one every ten-fifteen The bridge will bring economic benefits to both Perth and Scone minutes - surely there's somewhere that needs this bridge more by opening up a direct route for people to travel between the two than Perth does – what’s the matter with keeping the North Inch towns. It will be available for commuter and recreational use and looking nice and verdant, or does the Council feel that will enhance the use of the North Inch.
110 industrialising it with a modern bridge will enhance the amenity?–
13 Why are there only two design options being offered? What about a A suspension bridge was also considered but was ruled out suspension bridge? because of cost.
14 How would the difference in cost be funded? The project is being funded in full by TACTRAN and the Big Lottery.
15 The idea of a footbridge is excellent however placement of it so The proposed current location for the footbridge is a result of close to existing bridge appears nonsensical. Why has it not been geographical, engineering, environmental and economic factors, placed much further up towards Scone Palace where the finished in addition to the convenience of the users and considerations of bridge would also not spoil a beautiful river aspect? the effects on the North Inch and the Golf Course. 16 The single span is visually much more attractive and of course can A number of design options have been considered but we are be achieved by the arch form of structure shown. Presumably other limited by to the funding available. forms of single span bridges have been investigated e.g. cable stayed. There has been recently been built in UK may attractive forms of single tower cable stayed foot bridges. A bridge is a monument and needs to make a statement which will last for a 150 years. Flat multi span railway type girder bridges as shown in option B cannot be justified on even on cost grounds given today’s construction materials available. The bridge should also have a curved soffit easily achieved with a single tower cable stayed span and as gradients need only accommodate foot/bicycle traffic. Come on Perth do something that will appear on a picture post card!
17 Unless you ensure that the pedestrian and cycle elements of the The bridge will not separate cyclists and pedestrians and is being bridge are separated, ensure that there are facilities in place to take designed in full discussion with Sustrans, a leading cyclist cyclists to the bridge and that those facilities have workable organisation. The design will conform with national guidance and solutions regards crossing main roads such as Isla Road, the standards. majority of cyclists will continue to use the road in order to reach town by bike as it will be more convenient. This leaves the bridge A Toucan Crossing facility is proposed on Isla Road. being used infrequently for commuter travel. I would use the bridge to cycle into town with my children but if the bridge is going to be The funding from the Big Lottery has been allocated to this project used infrequently, would the awarded money be better used only. It is not possible to spend the funding on other projects. improving facilities elsewhere like extending and improving the
111 facilities that run up the side of the Tay towards Luncarty and Almondbank. Please remember that shared facility paths don't work. Cyclist pass pedestrians too quickly, and pedestrians wander all over the path, often with dogs - dogs tend not to like bikes!
18 Can the bridge land south of the 16th hole thereby avoiding the golf Yes, it can. However, to do this would increase the cost of the course entirely? project by around £500,000.
19 I thought the new bridge was to be much further up the river...a The proposed current location for the footbridge is a result of crossing from roughly Scone Palace? I like the idea of a new geographical, engineering, environmental and economic factors, bridge, but where's the sense in wasting all that money to build one in addition to the convenience of the users and considerations of just a few hundred metres from the existing bridge? Also, whatever the effects on the North Inch and the Golf Course. the design, at the proposed location it's going to ruin a beautiful river view when walking along the path at the North Inch. This is a tourist town...why spoil a natural asset in this manner when a location further upstream would make more sense from a practical and tourism point of view? I don't want any new bridge in your proposed location.
Appendix 6
20 Good idea & bad Idea. It would be good to know exactly where it Location plans were provided as part of the survey. It is not will be built. May want CCTV camera. proposed to install CCTV but the bridge will be lit.
21 Please ensure there are lights and I can access at night with my Yes, the bridge will be lit. wheelchair.
22 Security is very important, should be well lit to ensure safety. The bridge will be lit.
23 Will there be CCTV cameras on the bridge to deter jumpers? It is not proposed to install CCTV but the bridge will be lit.
24 Have you checked the maximum flood level for height of the Yes. At the proposed bridge location the maximum (1 in 200 bridge? years) flood level is 8 metres above Ordnance Datum and above the river, the bridge will be designed to have a minimum clearance of 1.5 metres above the maximum expected flood level.
112