text: The footpath already "extends" to the road, which in itself is an approximation, though implicitly allowed the previous left-side sidewalk (part of the road via sidewalk=left) to connect to it for walking routing purposes.
  I simply propose to allow this same connection, given that the new footpath would be the preferred new road-parallel route. Wheelchairs could not make it before (curb or footpath), so that is rather a separate issue (please add surface tags if that works, and wheelchair=no perhaps).
  Regarding an alternative connection closer to Wivenhoe, that does seem like another option, but also assumes that there is a sidewalk on the other side for a small distance, which there isn't (now, anyway).
  If nothing else, I would suggest that the safest option is directly opposite the footpath, though ultimately it is down to people walking the route.
  From my point of view we a) first want a connection so we can get a valid route (ie. it's practically connected) b) could map it in more detail to give other options, if there are other reasonable ones c) ultimately want the council to improve it in some way such as actually putting in an indication that people may cross, or a bit of pathway towards the footpath, etc.!