There has never been a full commitment from the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) for 2 trains per hour Swindon - Gloucester - Cheltenham. There have been plenty of assumptions that this would happen, including from the Cotswold MP^▸ (Member of Parliament) Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: "I am disappointed that the opportunity has not been taken to increase the train service now that the Swindon to Kemble line has be doubled".

However, service level commitment 3a of the current franchise, which was the one due to be implemented in December 18 does have a half hourly service in the Swindon-Gloucester direction in the peaks - between 07:15 and 08:44 and 20:15 and 21:44, made up of the hourly Padd - Chelts, plus Swindon - Gloucester locals. In the Gloucester - Swindon direction there is one extra service  between 17:00 and 18:30, plus the hourly Chelt - Padds.

The August 2015 Network Rail Western Route Study talks of extending the 1 train per hour (tph) Padd - Chelt to Worcester, plus 1 tph Paddington - Gloucester, plus 1 tph Swindon - north west local service via Worcester and Birmingham by the year2043.

Electrification Swindon - Kemble is talked about in the Study, but I understand First/GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) would prefer a reversing facility a Chippenham anyway, so I think electrification is pretty much dead in the medium term. 

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^▸ (Great Western Railway) 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^» (Department for Transport - about)) 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.   

One final post.

A phone call to someone in the know suggests that a resolution is fairly imminent with final details being worked through by officials.

GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) seem to be fairly confident of opening soon as the ticket machines were installed this last week.

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.



   

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.

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?

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^▸ (Great Western Railway).  

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.

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.

 

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^» (Department for Transport - about) 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^▸ (Member of Parliament) and others.

My recollection of dates is a bit hazy, but FGW^▸ (First Great Western) 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^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) 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.

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^▸ (Great Western Railway)) 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. 

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^» (Department for Transport - about) 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

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

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. 

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.