The existing footbridge linking Lavery’s filling station in Portadown to an adjacent car park
The owner of Lavery’s filling station at Obins Street in Portadown has been refused planning permission for the retention of a pedestrian footbridge over Corcrain River.
The footbridge links a car park owned by filling station proprietor Kevin Lavery to an adjacent car park, and the applicant had hoped plans for an improved footbridge – raised by 0.53m and with handrails – would be fully compliant with all the relevant planning criteria.
However, the proposed design fails to cater for people with reduced mobility as it includes steps, and it is deemed redundant given the proximity of the nearby Corcrain Road bridge.
Concerns over floodplain issues were also flagged up by ABC planning officers.
The planning application had been lodged by Daly, O’Neill & Associates Ltd Architects, Portadown, on behalf of Kevin Lavery.
Planning officers wrote in their report: “The bridge is approximately two metres above the river and has a concrete base with metal railings. The bridge connects between a hair salon on the eastern bank and a shop, garage and takeaway on the western bank.
“The pedestrian bridge has been installed 16 metres downstream from the Corcrain Road bridge. It is made of concrete-reinforced slab and features a guard rail on both sides. The opening of the bridge is approximately 5.28m (width) and 2.6m in height.
“The bridge is to be raised by 0.53m and provide four steps with handrails. The proposal has been designed to take account of existing surroundings and is inoffensive in terms of materials and finish.
“Officers are satisfied that the proposal in the context of this urban location has been sensitively designed and is acceptable in terms of scale and massing, layout and finished materials.
“In the opinion of officers, the [proposed] structure [is] of sufficient quality, in terms of design and materials, to make a positive contribution to the townscape, and to be sensitive to the character of its surroundings and appropriate to its location.”
The introduction of steps, however, does raise issue, as the report outlines: “The bridge is currently flush with the level of the car park, but the proposal seeks to introduce steps at either end and raise the height of the bridge by 0.53m.
“The bridge will not cater for individuals with mobility issues, instead they will have to use the main bridge which is 16 metres west of the site. The bridge will not be accessible by all and by virtue is almost rendered pointless given the existing alternative 16 metres away.
“The proposal would involve the bridging of a small section of the waterway to provide pedestrian access between two portions of land owned by the applicant.
“However, the bridge is 20 metres from an established vehicular and pedestrian bridge, and there is no indication that the bridge is necessary for access between the two banks.
“There is also no indication that the bridge is required for any engineering reason. The applicant has failed to provide sufficient justification for the artificial modification of a waterway.”