Print Page - Car parking at Kemble railway station

From the Wilts and Gloucestershire Standard (http://www.wiltsglosstandard.co.uk/news/10023952._/?):

Quote

Residents in Kemble take action over problem parkers

Problems caused by rail users parking all day in a Gloucestershire village and clogging up the roads is being tackled head-on.

Kemble Parish Council has been concerned for some time about commuters driving into the village to use the rail station and, rather than paying to use the train station car park, parking for free on the residential roads.

Reports have been made of some cars being left in the village for up to two weeks, causing obstructions on the roads.

At a recent meeting of the Parish Council, chairman Cllr Roger Pettit said there were a number of possibilities the council could explore to relieve the problem, such as setting up a new low-cost car park near the station.

^I think its incumbent on us to explore options further,^ he said. ^We are not enthusiastic about yellow lines in the village ^ I^d like to think there may be other options.^

He added he hoped residents would co-operate with the council in finding a solution to the problem.

^If residents are so upset then they may be prepared to make a contribution via a council tax levy for example,^ he said.

Cllr Gabi Somerville said she felt that, even if a low-cost car park was provided, many commuters would continue to park on the road.

^The street is free and if it^s closer to the station they they^re going to park there,^ she said.

She added an option may be to enforce residents-only parking restrictions throughout the village.

The council agreed to set up a working group to work with Gloucestershire County Council^s highways department to find a solution to the problem.

GCC local highways manager for Kemble Scott MaCaulay-Lowe said the council was working with Kemble Parish Council to address the problem and would be meeting with them soon to discuss it.

From the Wilts and Gloucestershire Standard (http://www.wiltsglosstandard.co.uk/news/11746917.Standard_launches_petition_for_more_car_parking_spaces_at_Kemble_railway_station/):

Quote

Standard launches petition for more car parking spaces at Kemble railway station

(http://www.wiltsglosstandard.co.uk/resources/images/3498753.jpg?display=1&htype=0&type=mc2)
The car park at Kemble which is often at capacity

For years, commuters using Kemble rail station have struggled to find a space in the car park at peak times because there are simply not enough to meet demand.

As a result, commuters are parking in streets near the station, causing congestion and road safety issues. And with thousands of new homes set to be built across the Cotswolds in the next few years, parking at the station will become an even bigger problem.

After being contacted again and again by people who are fed up with the situation, the Standard has launched a petition demanding action.

There are currently 220 spaces in the car park, and it is generally felt that around 100 more would be sufficient.

Supported by Cotswold MP Geoffrey Clifton-Brown and Cotswold District Council leader Cllr Lynden Stowe, our petition calls for First Great Western (FGW) to create more parking spaces.

But to make this happen, we need you to sign the petition too, and the deadline is Saturday February 28.

You can add your signature at change.org/p/first-great-western-create-more-parking-spaces-at-kemble-rail-station A hard copy of the petition will be available at Kemble post office in Windmill Road, near the station. Once all the signatures are in, Mr Clifton-Brown will hand the petition to FGW, which is responsible for the car park, and raise the issue in Parliament.

Mr Clifton-Brown, who has been campaigning for more car parking spaces at the station for years, said: ^I will continue to press First Great Western, Network Rail and the government on this, and other issues relating to Kemble station.^ Mr Clifton-Brown has raised the issue with MP Claire Perry, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Department for Transport.

He said: ^She has responded by saying that First Great Western have presented plans for an additional 2,500 car park spaces across the entire franchise. I have asked her to provide some more specific information about this when it is available.^

Cllr Stowe is equally determined to see the petition succeed. ^Anything we can we can do to increase car parking capability at Kemble station has to be good for the Cotswolds,^ he said.

He said the recent redoubling of the Kemble to Swindon rail line will lead to more traffic in the future so it is important that parking is improved.

Camlefh Khudusam , postmaster at Kemble post office, said cars parked in the road are driving trade away from his business. He said: ^If there are two or three cars parked on the front, customers cannot stop anywhere. They cannot stop to get a newspaper or a pint of milk. We need more car parking spaces. It is causing congestion and bad feeling throughout the village.^

Bob Williams, who lives near the station, explained that cars parked all along the Station Road and Windmill Road sides could cause an accident. He said: ^When the car park is full there is an accident waiting to happen at the bottom of Station Road and Windmill Road because you cannot see around the corner coming out of Station Road.^

Mr Williams explained that the car park side of the village is worst affected by congestion. He said that if plans to build 2,350 new homes in Cirencester are approved there will be an even greater need for more spaces at the station.

Find the petition at change.org by searching for ^Create more parking spaces at Kemble rail station^.

The Chairman of Kemble Parish Council has noted the following in his column in the lastest Kemble Parish News:

Quote

News too from Last Great Western. Negotiations on the lease of the extra land for the station car park extension remain very much alive, albeit at a finely balanced point.

Meanwhile, the railway company is pressing ahead with preparations toward achieving planning consent, including preliminary design and an architectural survey which is a pre-requirement.

Not only that, the architectural surveyor has been spotted carrying out his labours in the field.

I realise that the saga makes reporting of the Chilcot Enquiry look like a rushed job but it does now look as though events are coming to a head.

At least no one has taken a pot-shot at the surveyor unlike in times past......

ST

From the Wilts & Glos Standard:

http://www.wiltsglosstandard.co.uk/news/14228999.Dramatic_increase_in_spaces_at_Kemble_could_spell_end_to_parking_crisis/ (http://www.wiltsglosstandard.co.uk/news/14228999.Dramatic_increase_in_spaces_at_Kemble_could_spell_end_to_parking_crisis/)

Quote

YEARS of fervent calls to improve parking at Kemble train station may finally be coming to fruition.

Previous plans to upgrade the 220-space car park with an additional 333 spaces were submitted last March but were deemed ^unworkable^ because of the village^s one-way road system which has now been revised.

The news could spell an end to commuters struggling to find parking spaces at the station and cars being left parked haphazardly around the village.

Residents, councillors, Cotswold MP Geoffrey Clifton-Brown and a Standard petition signed by more than 1,000 people have all called for more parking.

^The road plan was completely unworkable,^ said Cllr Tony Berry, of Kemble Ward. ^There was a one way system that meant you wouldn^t get half of the agricultural machinery over the bridge.

^We got around the table and found the problem was having to put a footpath from the car park to the station, without that they wouldn^t need a one way system.^

Great Western Railway (GWR) has now brokered a deal with brewery Arkells to run the footpath alongside the Tavern Inn, which will mean the one-way system can be scrapped.

Commuters will breathe a sigh of relief if the plans make it through CDC^s planning committee in March, especially with thousands more houses looming on the horizon.

^There^s still a few things that will need to be ironed,^ said Cllr Berry. ^People will want this built tomorrow. Along with the station in Moreton-in-Marsh this is the gateway to the Cotswolds^

The long, thin car park will lie to the south of the pub along Station Road.

A GWR spokesman said: "Recognising the key role that rail plays in supporting the national and local economy, we are delighted to announce our proposal to expand car parking capacity at Kemble Station.

^Subject to planning approval, the ^1.4million project will deliver an additional 333 spaces.^

Mr Clifton-Brown said: ^I have been personally campaigning for what seems like an awfully long time for extra car-parking spaces at Kemble Station.

^We desperately need extra spaces and I hope that the CDC will now get behind this application so that the necessary engineering works can be prepared and the spaces can provided as soon as possible.^

To comment on the application use reference code 15/00786/FUL

It looks as if the access issue is resolved.

But that poor man in the Land Rover is still driving round looking for a space over a year on...

It^s getting there. This is actually the third iteration of the plans and at long last is something sensible. The original scheme was actually better than the second, but seemed to depend on using redundant signal gantry platforms to create a steel walkway from the new car park and totally ignored the size of modern agricultural machines, or indeed the access required by HGV^s bringing in the various Network Rail road/rail machines.

When the original scheme was announced there was a sharp intake of breath locally at the quantity, (332 or 333 new spaces depending at which drawing you looked at) but after it was explained how usage has doubled, a probable latent demand due to lack of parking, and forecast increases the figure was accepted as being in the right ball park.

However, the designers showed a complete lack of awareness of how the village road network actually operates; a failure to understand that Kemble is still a country village and that trying to plonk an industrial type car park on to this is simply not on.

Nevertheless, the Parish Council and Cotswold District Planners have stuck to their guns, and give GWR their due as well in making changes, a good a scheme as what you can expect has evolved and should pass at the March 2016 planning meeting. Much better landscaping and more but lower lighting columns have been agreed as part of this. If they has listened to local opinion in the beginning and talked to Mr Arkell earlier a good six to nine months could have been saved.

The main issue to resolve is that of a Parking Scheme for the village with a permit system for residents to minimise fly parking.

Sapperton Tunnel

It looks as if the plans for the new car park will not now be discussed at the Cotswold District Council's March Planning Meeting, but may be delayed until the April one. Amendments have been made with due regard to Landscaping and Lighting, causing the delay, and are out for comments; they are now much better, but have been a long time about.

It also appears that FGW/GWR have found a new source of passengers:

(From the Design and Access statement)

Quote

An unobtrusive but efficient lighting scheme is to be provided. Low spillage luminaires with recessed LED lamps have been chosen to minimise light pollution.

They are to be mounted on 6 metre high columns and will be fitted with time clocks, daylight sensors and an automatic dimming function to ensure that the area is not over illuminated.

Special care has been taken to avoid light spillage onto the perimeter hedges in order not to be detrimental to commuting bats.

!!

Sapperton Tunnel

Quote from: ellendune on February 25, 2016, 17:38:16

Quote from: Sapperton Tunnel on February 25, 2016, 12:59:49

Sapperton Tunnel

I assumed that might also be where the bats are commuting from!

Sadly, not. They are tree and hedgerow inhabiting Bats.

Contrary to my previous post and just to be precise, the new Car Park at Kemble will be discussed at the next Cotswold District Council planning meeting on March 9th.

The Planning Officers have recommended approval of the scheme, with delegation of the final details, which are still out for public consultation, to the Planners, providing there are no significant objections. If there are unresolved objections, then it is back to the full committee for probable refusal, although this is unlikely.

I'm afraid that this is just another example of the convoluted and tortuous path that this application has been through.

I'll bet the Bats don't have a clue of all the discussion and reworking carried out on their behalf. Bet the little b*****s migrate elsewhere!!

Sapperton Tunnel

Well, Cotswold District Council Planning Committee voted in favour of the new Car Park at Kemble Station at their Planning Meeting today, 9th March.

The new Car Park will have 333 spaces and doubles the existing capacity. It will have its own access road to the main A429 road and should reduce a little bit of traffic on village roads.

The principle of more car parking has always been accepted by the village and the new park does encroach onto open agricultural land but I think most people involved understand that a bit of a sacrifice has been made.

This is not quite the final hurdle as iteration 4 is still out for Public Consultation and the Highways Engineer and Natural England still have to report back with their comments.

What the Planning Committee actually did was to delegate authority to the Council Officers with a recommendation to 'Approve' providing that Iteration 4 comments from the Public and the other consultees are not materally significant. If there are major changes then it is back to the Planning Committee and a probable refusal. It is not thought that this will happen, though.

A final decision by the Officers will likely be around Eastertime.

Sapperton Tunnel

Quote from: Chris from Nailsea on March 10, 2016, 23:43:51

Quote from: Stroud Valleys on March 10, 2016, 13:19:09

I'm surprised they haven't looked at developing bus services to cirencester.

... or even reopening the branch line. :P ;) ;D

John Prescott tried increasing the bus services in the late 1990's, but nobody used them - the number arriving or leaving the station without a single passenger was incredibly high, ridiculed locally and a total waste of money. Today, there is a reasonable bus service that does have a patronage, but you need to consider where most passengers travel to or from.

If you want to travel to Swindon or Cheltenham from Cirencester then it is quicker to take the bus direct from Cirencester rather than via Kemble and changing. And where would the buses come from, route wise? If they come from Cirencester then you have to get into the middle of Cirencester to catch the bus. It is quicker to go directly to Kemble. To have the buses go round the various estates in Cirencester to pick up the odd passenger would be plainly uneconomic - even the local town services require subsidy - and it would take even more time.

Yes, there are folk who have to catch the bus and there is a half reasonable service, which could be improved, but no one seems to think there is the demand to warrant much of an increase.

To be perfectly honest, those using Kemble are quite affluent and the catchment area is quite interesting. A lot depends on travel time to and from the Station. There are users from afar as Wotton under Edge - a good 20 miles as it takes only a little over half an hour on a good day. Also from Leckhampton and Charlton Kings on the outskirts of Cheltenham as it can be quicker than Cheltenham rush hour traffic, plus it is quicker and cheaper than using the train from Cheltenham station itself.

Until the 1980's if a passenger missed a Swindon or London train at Cheltenham by just a few minutes, then Cheltenham would telephone Kemble to say that that a passenger was driving to Kemble and would or wouldn't need a ticket and would they look out for them. Usually they would arrive with about 3 or 4 minutes to spare and sometimes the train would be held.

The catchment area also goes quite close to Swindon to avoid the Swindon traffic and parking issues at Swindon Station, with some passengers happy to pay more for a less attractive journey time and frequency than from Swindon.

Re-opening the Cirencester Branch is talked about from time to time including on the Coffee Shop:

http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=14439.0 (http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=14439.0)

I really don't think they will get far as the route has been built over in Cirencester and that means that you would have to travel to a station on the outskirts for a 3 mile ride to Kemble.

Nice but hopeless.

Sapperton Tunnel

From Wilts & Glos Standard - http://www.wiltsglosstandard.co.uk/news/15069305.Work_on_new_333_spaced_car_park_near_Kemble_train_station_begins/ (http://www.wiltsglosstandard.co.uk/news/15069305.Work_on_new_333_spaced_car_park_near_Kemble_train_station_begins/)

Quote

WORK on a new 333-spaced car park adjacent to Kemble train station has begun, following years of campaigning.

The new car park is a result of a bid by First Great Western that secured £145,000 of funding from the Department of Transport’s Station Development Facility.

The project was supported by Mr Clifton-Brown, who lobbied the government on the extension.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown was joined at the station by site manager Lee Jones, parish council chairman Roger Pettit and First Great Western representatives Matt Barnes and Adrian Gilby.

The station's usage has more than doubled since 2012 and in recent years the disruption of poor car parking capacity and further redoubling work has slowed additional growth.

Commenting on the commencement of work the MP said: "I am delighted that after years of hard work and perseverance by myself, Cllr Pettit and First Great Western that the much-needed car park extension has come to fruition.

"Hopefully, this will be the beginning of further transport growth in the constituency, which will strengthen our local economy.

"Not only will this be excellent news for commuters but hopefully it will begin to solve the long running problem of commuters parking cars and blocking gateways and streets in the village of Kemble."

Cllr Pettit said: "Starting work on constructing a new station car park is great news for our village residents and for commuters.

"The capacity of the existing car park has been outgrown and commuter parking on village streets has become a major problem for us.

"Fully supported by our MP Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, County Councillor Shaun Parsons and District Councillor Tony Berry we have been working on a solution with GWR for a very long time.

"This scheme should meet requirements for the foreseeable future.

"Once it is up and running car parking for users of our station will cease to be a problem and restrictions can be introduced in the village to prevent any nuisance parking by commuters. "

Good news in spite of the sloppy journalism: First Great Western? I suppose technically they made the original bid, even though Cllr. Pettit then gets it right in his quote... And there's that 'train station' again. Grrr. ;)

As promised, there’s a lovely new 333-bay car park to the west of Kemble station – finished, landscaped and lit but missing just one thing. Cars.

It seems there a consultation going on concerning the removal of the planning condition (Condition 4) that states that the car park cannot be brought into use until a scheme of on-street parking restrictions has been implemented in the village. The applicant (Great Western Railway) suggests that the on-street restrictions cannot be properly assessed until the impact of opening the new car park has been evaluated. They are proposing that the car park should open and then a 12-month survey take place prior to the assessment and subsequent introduction (if warranted) of on-street restrictions.

The general feeling in the village (from planning comments and Parish Council minutes) seems to be that ‘nuisance’ parking occurs whether or not the existing car park (to the east of the station) is full and that commuters who opt not to pay the car park fee and park in the surrounding streets will continue to do so whether or not the new car park opens. In the absence of any restrictions, the on-street parking is presumably perfectly legal but creates congestion, nuisance and parking problems for locals.

The station therefore has a splendid new car park with locked gates and no cars.

Quote from: patch38 on July 19, 2017, 17:30:05

I cannot imagine why GWR would not do their best to comply with the condition. I suspect what we have here is a dispute between a local planning authority (Cotswold District Council) who set the planning condition and the Highway Authority (Gloucestershire County Council (GCC)) who would have to make the Traffic Regulation Order to introduce the waiting restrictions.

I suspect GCC are saying they have to go through certain procedures before they can make the Order and that would include demonstrating it is needed after the Car Park is opened.

If this is the case GWR are just stuck in the middle of a dialogue between two tiers of local government. Of course only GWR can make the application as they are the ones who have the planning condition.

The issue is one of GWR's own making - coupled with a degree of incompetence from Gloucestershire County Council (GCC).

The requirement for a parking scheme for the village of Kemble are part of the conditions for granting planning permission for the new car park. Permission for the new car park was granted in March 2016 by Cotswold District Council (CDC), so GWR have known since then that a parking scheme will be needed. Indeed, a parking scheme was part of GWR's initial planning application made in February 2015

However, progress on the parking scheme has been painstakingly slow. Firstly, GWR did not send in their application to GCC until January 2017 and the public consultation (roadshow) by GCC was not held until the end of April 2017.

The proposals in the roadshow were totally incompatible for a country village - they were based on that for an urban environment. The GCC Officials at the roadshow were unable to answer some basic questions and for instance located a loading bay outside the school entrance, which is currently protected by the yellow zig-zags. It was apparent that the Officials had no local knowledge, had not even walked around the village and only managed to get there courtesy of their Sat-Nav. In short, the public consultation roadshow was a disaster.

At that point, GWR realising that it would take at least another 6 months for GCC to come up with new proposals, put in a planning application to delay the parking scheme for a year whilst the actual traffic patterns were monitored in a survey. There is also a rather unfortunate statement in the application 'This survey data will then inform whether new parking restrictions are required within the village.....'

A parking scheme is intrinsic with the conditions of the planning approval, and opinion is that GWR are now trying to wriggle out of it. This a big NO.

Problems with fly parking in the village by station users gradually came to the fore in the late 1980's and have continued ever since, despite increases in parking spaces from time to time. Verges have been torn up, entrances blocked, roads made impassable to modern agricultural vehicles and footpaths parked on. The village has tolerated and accepted this as part of modern life and a proposal for the constabulary to ticket fly parked vehicles for causing an obstruction was rejected as unfair as there is nowhere else to park. Instead, pressure has been placed over the years to increase the car parking substantially and this has finally came to fruition. Land was identified and planning permission obtained. In fact it was near-do as CDC were inclined to reject it as it impinged on an attractive rural landscape and it only passed when it became evident that there was a lot of local support as well as being of strategic importance to this part of the Cotswolds.

The new car park has been ready since May - and indeed it fits better into the landscape than many thought it would; full marks to GWR on that front - but is locked out of use until the parking scheme issue is resolved. There are two schools of thought - 1 - the parking scheme is an integral part of the application and the car park should not open until an acceptable one is in place and 2 - open the car park and wait twelve months to see what happens and then do the parking scheme.

The potential for not doing the parking scheme is not regarded as an option. The survey may show that conditions are now acceptable and therefore a scheme is not required, but what happens in ten or twenty years time when the new car park starts to fill up and or the rates are hiked such that fly parking becomes a nuisance again?

Considerable discussions are taking place between all parties to get this resolved.

Quote from: John R on July 21, 2017, 15:55:54

I'm puzzled as to why a parking scheme was a requirement of planning permission. All other things being equal (and I'm particularly thinking about parking charges) I would have thought that additional parking spaces could only be beneficial to any issues with parking within the village.

Without going into too much detail, in summary, the whole village is to become a residents parking zone. Residents will receive and will need to display a parking permit to park on the streets. Residents will also be issued with Visitors permits, and more of these will be purchasable for tradesmen etc for short term use. There will also be time limited loading bays for postmen, milkmen and other delivery drivers.

Thus anyone without a residents or visitors permit will be parking illegally and issued with a ticket. This will encourage rail users to use the new car park and not fly park for free on verges, in front of people's houses etc.

Quote from: ellendune on July 21, 2017, 17:53:28

Quote from: Sapperton Tunnel on July 21, 2017, 14:34:25

The issue is one of GWR's own making - coupled with a degree of incompetence from Gloucestershire County Council (GCC).

I really do not understand how this can possibly be of GWR's own making.

Seems like joint incompetence of CDC and GCC. CDC should never have put in a planning condition that GWR did not have any control over without GCC first agreeing to do it.

If there was such an agreement and GCC have backed out then that is GCC's incompetence and if there was not such agreement then it was CDC's incompetence!

No, sorry, it is entirely GWR's responsibility. When planning permission was granted they had an obligation to provide a parking scheme for the village as part of the conditions. That is an entirely legal and proper demand by Cotswold District Council to insist on. The physical implementation of conditions is absolutely nothing to with CDC.

Gloucestershire County Council is in effect the contractor to GWR to implement that condition as they have the legal powers to do so. GCC were a consultee as part of the original application for the planning permission, understood that a parking scheme was required and made comments which were incorporated into scheme revisions by GWR.

It is GWR's responsibility to make an application to GCC for the scheme (as required by the planning permission conditions) and this they did in January 2017, 9 months after receiving the planning permission for the car park. It is up to GWR to find out from GCC how long it takes to implement and make the application in a timely manner. No one has backed out, but GWR appear to have got a bit of a short straw as the visibility given off by GCC is again one of incompetence.

It is GWR's responsibility to ensure that all conditions of the planning consent are met, including all the environmental and ecological requirements specified.

Let's see if I've understood this.

There's been a parking problem near Kemble Station with people leaving their cars there - legally but a nuisance - for the day.

GWR proposed to build a 333 space car park, but the planning authority (CDC) felt this wouldn't do any good, as people would continue to park in the streets and the new car park would be little used. So the planning authority indicated they were inclined to reject the car park. So GWR got together with the highway authority (GCC) and arranged that they (GCC) would bring in some restrictions to ensure that people couldn't park in the streets any longer and would have to use the station car park (or, heaven help us, the bus from Cirencester!)

With the arrangement that the highway authority and GWR had put together, the combination looked sensible to the planners, so they passed the car park but with the proviso that it couldn't be used until the street parking restrictions were in place.

Small problem - GCC hasn't (yet) put the parking restrictions in place, so the car park - although built - can'r (yet) be used. Oops.

Why not look at CDC's reason for the condition? In the decision notice, they said:

Quote

4 Prior to the occupation/use of the proposed car park, a scheme of on street parking restrictions shall be implemented broadly in accordance with the details contained in Appendix J of the Transport Statement/Assessment.

Reason: To ensure that safe and suitable access through Kemble is maintained as a result of the scheme hereby permitted in accordance with paragraphs 32 and 35 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Well, that provides a reason not to bother looking - it makes no sense, because the new car park has better access; direct from the A429 rather than (as now) through the village or from the north.

I practice, planners tend to exploit their one chance to affect development - the planning decision - to bolt on a few goodies out of their box (marked "planning guidelines" or "policies"). They also (as in this case) cite these as reasons, whether they fit or not, because the real reason may not have one. Then they approve the whole package, with no account of which bits logically depend on which others.

But in this case I can think of two aspects of the new parking that do logically depend on parking control, because what is approved might make things in the village worse. "Worse" here means worse than some other possible proposal, not the status quo ante.

One is the size - if even more parking will be needed within a short time, the planners will ask themselves whether they should have insisted on that now. The other is the charging - if a hypothetical expanded car park might have been free, or cheaper, then the one proposed (I assume at much the same rates as now) might only be approved if it does in reality stop on-street commuter parking.

The consultants' study shows you how this works. Appendix J, on the parking control scheme, (though weirdly entitled Parking Schematic) includes:

Quote

A parking scheme in the Kemble area of Gloucestershire is needed in support of proposed additional car parking at the Railway Station. A review will be necessary and should include a number of consultations with local residents, businesses and other organisations in the neighbourhood.

The main existing issues with parking arrangements in the area arise from rail users fly parking on quiet, narrow, nearby residential areas, to avoid paying for parking at the station. If the car park arrangement were to include charges, the problems with fly parking could well make the current situation worse or intolerable, preventing safe assess for emergency vehicles.

To address this issue, particularly rail users parking on the street, the County Council has requested a proposal for a new parking scheme covering an isolated area of Kemble. These proposals are presented for inclusion in the Transport Assessment. Neither a pay and display scheme, nor a permit scheme are desired.

Note the bit that says "if the car park arrangement were to include charges, the problems with fly parking could well make the current situation worse or intolerable". What the planners were thinking (assuming AKS Ward Construction Consultants have understood it correctly) was that charging for the new parking could be used to trigger the parking scheme, even if it is needed even more for the old car park (which provides them with no leverage).

Quote from: grahame on July 21, 2017, 18:53:41

Almost there.

GWR proposed to build a 333 space car park due to the demand for rail travel in the locality. Growth at Kemble Station has been stunted in recent years compared to other railway stations in the area and this has been ascribed to lack of car parking capacity. Often, the car park is full and travellers park in the village and two types of 'parkers' have been identified - firstly those who arrive after the car park is full and genuinely have nowhere else to park and secondly those who habitually park in the village, to avoid the car park charges.

After years of pressure, plus realisation from the DfT and the commercial need for GWR to increase passenger numbers and hence revenue, that there was an unfulfilled latent demand at Kemble, more car parking spaces at Kemble was included in the GWR franchise agreement.

The additional car parking provided a route to implementing a residents parking scheme for the village with the intent of removing fly parking in the village by ensuring rail users use the railway car park.

This was one of the conditions of the planning consent, in the same way that, for instance, the conservation of existing hedgerows, an approved landscape and planting scheme and low level lighting were also conditions.

These conditions were determined by CDC and accepted by GWR. The residents parking scheme is no more or no less of a condition of all the others required in determining whether the application was approved or rejected.
Grahame's sentence beginning "So GWR got together with the highway authority ......" and from then on is accurate

Quote from: stuving on July 21, 2017, 19:40:31

Why not look at CDC's reason for the condition? In the decision notice, they said:

Quote

This point refers to existing conditions of certain roads in Kemble. Due to the fly parking they are not currently considered safe and providing suitable access through Kemble (especially for emergency services and fire engines in particular). The new car park and residents parking scheme will enable safe and suitable access through Kemble, which would most likely get worse with more patronage at the station and no car parking expansion.

The cost of the residents car parking scheme is rumoured locally to be in the region of £250,000. Kemble Parish Council certainly does not have this sort of money (annual precept £15,000) nor does Cotswold District Council. Stuving is absolutely correct in that the opportunity to implement a residents parking scheme and remove fly parking at someone else's expense (ie GWR) was used as a bargaining chip.

I heard it direct from the horses mouth that the conversation (to GWR) went along the lines of "No (residents) car parking scheme, which you pay for = No car park". That's the nub; it was as simple as that and the Planners were required to word it as appropriate.

Quote from: Sapperton Tunnel on July 21, 2017, 18:35:43

Quote from: ellendune on July 21, 2017, 18:13:44

I agree with JohnR

The additional parking could not make the fly parking worse! So do the residents parking scheme regardless of the parking not as a condition of it!

I am sorry if I am a bit thick, but I do not understand your sentence.

Apologies for not being clear.

Building a new car park will not make the fly parking any worse. If the problem is not enough parking it could only make it better.

It is therefore perverse to link the provision of a residents parking scheme as a condition of building the car park.

A planning condition is to mitigate the impact of the development. The fly parking is as a result of the station not the extra car park! In this case, unless the car park can be shown to make the fly parking worse it is ultra vires to include such a planning condition.

If CDC refuse GWR's release of the condition and GWR appeal then a planning inspector would find fro GWR.

If CDC simply wanted GWR to fund the residents parking scheme then this would have to have been done through a S106 agreement to provide the funding, but it could not bind GCC to implement such a scheme.

This is an abuse of the planning system and should be called out as such!

That said I am not unsympathetic with the residents problems. It is just that the solution as proposed does not seem to me (I am not a lawyer) to be a proper use of the planning system.

Quote from: John R on July 21, 2017, 21:04:44

I'm surprised GWR didn't pull out if that's the case and go and spend the money where locals would be a bit more appreciative of the investment.

I'm afraid that I find that to be a little arrogant.

How would you like it if your driveway was blocked by a parked car and you couldn't get out all day and missed a hospital appointment?

How would you like it if you had arranged a furniture removal van, put cones out the night before, only to find next day that a fly parker had moved them and parked there, leaving the removal men to hike your furniture and possessions 200 yards down the road in the wet to the van, which also had to keep shuttling to let traffic by?

I could go on and on with lots of examples, but I think you get the jist.

It is not up to GWR alone to decide where the investment goes. The current GWR franchise is an agreement between the DfT and GWR. In that agreement if I recall correctly GWR were to provide 2000 new car parking spaces at a number of stations including Kemble. The pressure to include Kemble on the list came from both GWR for commercial reasons and also from the DfT due to longstanding pressure from the local MP and others.

My recollection of dates is a bit hazy, but FGW as it was then approached the landowner to lease the land in late 2013 or early 2014. It was thought at the time that the land required would be for about a 200 to 250 sized car park.

Initial approaches were made to Cotswold District Council sometime in the middle of 2014 regarding the planning situation and the reaction was mixed - the site would affect the landscape, but on the other hand they understood the strategic importance of it, plus the need to resolve the increasing fly parking in Kemble.

FGW were told at that time that in developing their proposal, a parking scheme for Kemble would need to be included and they should factor this into their calculations.

FGW submitted their first planning application in February 2015 for 333 spaces. This was somewhat of a surprise, compared to the expected 200 - 250 number, but FGW explained that their calculation of the latent demand due to lack of parking, plus the existing growth, plus additional growth from an IEP hourly service to and from London would indicate the new car park would be full in the 10 - 30 year horizon. This was formalised in a later planning document.

It was also thought that FGW were struggling a bit to create the 2000 new spaces, so bumping up the number at Kemble a bit at a cheaper cost than in urban areas would help.

The locals are appreciative of the investment, but as I have previously said the new car park and the residents parking scheme are intrinsically linked and FGWR have understood that from day 1. They have also lost a nice landscape. There is no difference between this situation and wishing to build a new industrial estate and being required to build the new roads that serve it.

In summary, GWR want to increase their business at Kemble by building a new car park. Providing a residents parking scheme is part of that solution.

Quote from: ellendune on July 21, 2017, 21:56:46

Quote from: Sapperton Tunnel on July 21, 2017, 18:35:43

Quote from: ellendune on July 21, 2017, 18:13:44

I agree with JohnR

The additional parking could not make the fly parking worse! So do the residents parking scheme regardless of the parking not as a condition of it!

I am sorry if I am a bit thick, but I do not understand your sentence.

Thank you so much for making things simple for me to understand.

Firstly, there are two types of fly parkers. There are those who arrive later and genuinely cannot find a space in the car park because it is full. There are also those who fly park because they do not want to pay for their parking for whatever reason. It is these parkers in particular that cause a nuisance and both the village and GWR in good neighbour mode want to see use the new car park and GWR collect the car park fee as well.

The fly parking has been going on since the late 1980's and the car park has been expanded several times. We now have a large enough expansion where at long last a residents parking scheme is affordable within the business case for the car park. The new car park could become full in anywhere from 10 to 30 years time and without a parking scheme we could be back to square one, fly parking wise, relatively soon. The long view is being taken.

I am actually rather fond of GWR and think on the whole they do a good job. However, suppose they loose the franchise and a new company takes over who raises the car parking fees to £10 or £12 per day levels. There would be double parked fly parking then and Kemble will have one of the best skateboarding venues in the South West.

With regards to the legality of the residents parking scheme, I am told it is entirely legal. There are numerous instances where local authorities in urban areas have created car parks and then painted double yellow lines to stop on-street parking and introduced residents parking schemes. It is entirely legal to intrinsically link the provision of a residents parking scheme to that of providing a new car park.The parking scheme is of equal rank to that of proving a new car park, not a mitigation so a Section 106 is not required.

Quote from: rogerw on July 21, 2017, 21:24:25

A residents' parking scheme seems to me to be a bit of overkill here. Apart from the costs of setting it up there is the ongoing cost of maintaining it both for the council and the residents who will have to pay for permits. Perhaps GCC should look at schemes elsewhere where restrictions on parking in the middle of the day have achieved the same result of removing commuter parking and at much lower costs. I am also still of the view that the condition is not valid in law and thus cannot be enforced.

The emerging local preference is to have two short periods during the day for the parking restrictions to be enforced - from around 11:00 am to 11:30 am and 2:00 pm to about 3:00 pm. This, it is thought, will eliminate 95% of fly parkers.

The same procedure has to be gone through whatever the period of the restriction and the legal, sineage and consultation costs are said to beapproximately the same. The village actually wants the 'light touch', however the GCC at the roadshow stated the operational period was to be 8:00 am to 8:00 pm and when challenged could give no good reason why - one of the reasons why their roadshow was considered a disaster.

Quote from: John R on July 22, 2017, 16:25:41

I have a lot of sympathy for the parking problems faced by the residents of Kemble. However, the conditions imposed by the council to link planning permission with a parking scheme appear unreasonable when, prima facie, the car park can only improve the situation. Surely it's for the local council to sort out the parking issues, with or without an enlarged car park?

As an aside, my local station desperately needed an expanded station car park a couple years ago. In that instance the council put its money where its mouth is, dipped into its pocket and paid for it, and as far as I can tell, it has solved the problems of fly parking locally.

A village the size of Kemble (population under 1500) rarely has a train station at all, let alone an hourly service each way with many trains being through to London. I suspect this might add to the value of properties within waking distance of the station rather more than "fly parking" decreases the values. I'm not sure where this is leading me - just having the thought that there may be another element to the balance that hasn't yet been mentioned.

We have the middle-of-the-day restrictions on Church Lane and Dyers Hill, the two streets nearest to the station, here in Charlbury. They prevent residents from being able to leave their cars outside their houses (most houses in central Charlbury don't have off-street parking) and simply move the fly-parkers further into the town - particularly the bottom of Nine Acres Lane, which has become increasingly dangerous due to the number of parked cars. There was a recent case where the District Council's enforcement team prosecuted a Church Lane resident for parking outside their house during the midday period, and the case was thrown out by the court.

I would very strongly recommend against adopting such a scheme in Kemble. We would do much better here with a full residents' parking scheme, but unfortunately West Oxfordshire doesn't have the revenue to implement one thanks to their regressive free parking policy.

Quote from: John R on July 22, 2017, 16:25:41

Cotswold District Council have taken a different approach to your local council. The philosophy is that if there is no railway station then there is no parking problem. There is a parking problem and therefore incumbent on the railway to help solve it. If the railway could guarantee that the car park would be free of charge for ever then again I doubt if there would be a parking problem. But they can't. So an entirely lawful condition has been included in the granting of planning permission which results in the cost going to GWR.

Quote from: Richard Fairhurst on July 22, 2017, 16:55:21

Thank you, Richard.

I will pass your comment on to the Parish Council and District Councillor as I guess posts on here are regarded as being in the public domain?

Forgive the rambling on this as a number of posts have appeared since I started and I have tried to keep up to date with the comments.

Quote from: Sapperton Tunnel on July 22, 2017, 16:22:48

With regards to the legality of the residents parking scheme, I am told it is entirely legal. There are numerous instances where local authorities in urban areas have created car parks and then painted double yellow lines to stop on-street parking and introduced residents parking schemes. It is entirely legal to intrinsically link the provision of a residents parking scheme to that of providing a new car park.The parking scheme is of equal rank to that of proving a new car park, not a mitigation so a Section 106 is not required.

There is a difference between building a new road and a residents parking scheme.

If the planning condition had been for GWR to build a access road they could build the new road at their expense without the need for the County Council to do it for them. The County Council could refuse to adopt the road (take over the maintenance of it), but the road would have been built and if that was a condition of the planning permission then they would have complied with it.

You are correct that a residents parking scheme is perfectly legal. However GWR cannot implement a residents parking scheme because that would require a further legal instrument called a traffic regulation order (TRO) under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. TROs can only be made by the highway authority (in this case Gloucestershire County Council (GCC)). GWR is therefore powerless to comply with the planning condition.

If the only barrier was that GCC needed GWR to cover their costs of making the order and putting up the signs and painting the yellow and white lines, then I think this would have been covered by a Section 106 agreement. However, residents fees would have to pay for the ongoing running costs.

A further complication is that the procedure for making such orders is set out in regulations. I am not an expert in this area but I would not be at all surprised if the regulations required GCC to demonstrate that it was necessary to make the order. In that case GCC may not be able to make the order without the car park first being opened. That would be a catch 22.

Quote from: John R on July 22, 2017, 16:25:41

As an aside, my local station desperately needed an expanded station car park a couple years ago. In that instance the council put its money where its mouth is, dipped into its pocket and paid for it, and as far as I can tell, it has solved the problems of fly parking locally.

This seems a better solution it works elsewhere to my knowledge e.g. in Stoke Gifford near Bristol Parkway Station. However it would still require GCC to make a TRO.

Quote from: Sapperton Tunnel on July 22, 2017, 16:56:53

I cannot see how it can be lawful to impose a condition that the applicant has no power to comply with, particularly if GCC are unable to make the order without the car park first being opened!

Quote from: grahame on July 22, 2017, 16:47:57

Quote from: John R on July 22, 2017, 16:25:41

Kemble is the railhead for the Cirencester, Tetbury and Malmesbury areas, plus regular commuters from as far as Fairford, Charlton Kings (Cheltenham), Birdlip, Wooton-under-Edge and Dursley.

The fly parking problems are mainly in the Housing Association (Ex Council) type houses area. Some are privately owned but the fly parking does not really affect property prices. Some of the residents are quite vocal in their opinion of the fly parkers (Posh C***s) etc.

There are a several commuters who live in the village and work in London and they just add to the mix. I think that a rural atmosphere just about still exists with most folk looking out for each other and the feeling of fly parking is one of the whole village relates to, irrespective of the value of the property and wealth of the occupant. The station does add to property values and thus increases the unaffordability for couples born and bred in the village; there is some resentment but probably not enough to disturb the 'balance' that Grahame hints at.

The Parish Council has a long term policy of slow but steady increases in the housing stock. The idea is to have sufficient population to keep the village school and shop open. The policy does get knocked sideways from time to time with developments but overall it is going in the right direction. It is not a village wanting to be kept in aspic.

Quote from: ellendune on July 22, 2017, 17:18:15

Forgive the rambling on this as a number of posts have appeared since I started and I have tried to keep up to date with the comments.

You are correct that a residents parking scheme is perfectly legal. However GWR cannot implement a residents parking scheme because that would require a further legal instrument called a traffic regulation order (TRO) under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. TROs can only be made by the highway authority (in this case Gloucestershire County Council (GCC)). GWR is therefore powerless to comply with the planning condition.

Exactly. GCC have said that they said that they will do all the necessary work and make the legal order providing GWR will foot the bill, which GWR will do as part of the planning condition. GWR have in effect a contract for GCC to do the work.

I am assured that is exactly the same obligation as when a local authority such as a District Council asks the highway authority to make a street one way, impose parking restrictions etc etc.

Yes, the new car park opened for business on 31st July.

There are notices at the Station and in the car park itself.

Referring to earlier posts, it was agreed between CDC (Cotswold District Council), KPC (Kemble Parish Council) and GWR that the car park could open now with the Village Parking Scheme trundling on through its bureaucratic machinations at its own pace.

Previously, the opening of the car park was dependant on the Village Parking Scheme being implemented beforehand.

The only other action was for GWR to confirm (presumably after discussions with the DfT) that ongoing costs of the Parking Scheme would still be paid by future franchisees after the expiry of the present one.

GWR then withdrew their planning application to delay the traffic survey and the car park opened.

So far, I have noticed between zero and eight cars in the new car park at random times, (capacity 333), but we are not quite yet into the autumn season when the previous car parks were full and overcrowded.

There is still significant fly parking, so not every car driver is as altruistic as some hoped.

All in all, with a lot of prodding and poking, GWR have listened to local voices and have come up with a highly creditable scheme. The car park sits well into the topography and when the flora has grown, visual impact will be minimised as much as reasonably possible. Part of the planning permission granted includes maintenance intervals and routines so it should be kept clean and tidy.

I understand that the Opening jamboree will take place when the Parking Scheme is implemented.

Quote from: Sapperton Tunnel on September 14, 2017, 13:04:37

So far, I have noticed between zero and eight cars in the new car park at random times, (capacity 333), but we are not quite yet into the autumn season when the previous car parks were full and overcrowded.

There is still significant fly parking, so not every car driver is as altruistic as some hoped.

I used the Kemble overflow car park for the first time on Tuesday. There were five other cars in it when I arrived at 08:00 and 23 when I returned at 16:45. Some of the bays at the front of the car park look like they have never been used.

Lovely car park (and a nice, landscaped, well-lit path to the station) and under half the price of Swindon Main. But at this rate it's going to be a long return on investment for GWR!

From the Great Western Railway (GWR) press release:

Quote

HRH The Princess Royal Re-opens Kemble Station Car Park

Parking at Kemble Station has recently doubled, following the completion of work on a new car park officially opened by HRH The Princess Royal.

The £1.4 million works will provide 333 additional spaces at a new, separate car park, and was re-opened by Princess Anne driving through a ribbon at a special event to mark the occasion. A plaque was also unveiled at the station.

Delighted to welcome a member of The Royal Family to the station GWR’s Ben Caswell said: “More and more people are turning to rail for their local and long distance journeys; to meet this demand we recently launched our new Intercity Express Trains on the GWR network, offering more seats and more frequent services; and customers will see these new trains operate on the South Cotswold route next Summer.

“GWR is dedicated to supporting the communities it serves and this new car park now complete, and improved rail services, will enable the local economy to continue to thrive both now and into the future.”

Presently Kemble Station 335 long stay, plus four short stay parking bays. The new car park adds an extra 333 paces.

Or spaces, presumably. ::)

Great Western Coffee Shop

Journey by Journey => Swindon to Gloucester / Cheltenham => Topic started by: Lee on July 25, 2007, 15:46:00