UPDATE - February 2016

We have followed with interest the unfolding story of the Garden Bridge. The proposed location for the bridge, between Temple and the Southbank, is some way outside our geographical area of interest, and consequently the Society is not taking a position on the issue. However, we are aware that many of our members feel strongly on this subject, and also that this high-profile project bears many of the hallmarks of a planning system which is too often susceptible to vested interests. 


Below are some links to articles and organisations both for and against the bridge. We have also included a link to the anti-bridge petition, for those who may wish to oppose it. 

Petition 'Against'



The Thorney Island Society is not taking a position on this issue as it is very far outside our geographical area of interest. However, as Londoners, most of us will have formed an opinion and may want to express it.  If you haven’t, there have been several articles in the papers on the subject, for instance:



This presentation by the designers:


explains the genesis of the design and how they envisage the bridge working.  But the reality, as you may have read, is now likely to be rather different, because public access will be restricted in various ways.  Apart from the arguments about how it will be used and its accessibility, there are differing views of how it will look. Many people are very disturbed that views up and down the river will be destroyed.  This is how the designers envisage the bridge :

This is how Michael Ball thinks it will look: 

Michael Ball is head of the Waterloo Community Development Group, who are opposing the project, and he wrote the following, which expounds various arguments against the bridge:


Ball has just been granted a judicial review of the planning permission already given by Lambeth. This review will be largely to do with the maintenance funding for the bridge (£3.5m per year). But since then Boris Johnson has suggested that this will be underwritten by the GLA, thus negating the promise that the bridge will be mainly privately funded.