Train GraphicClick on the map to explore geographics
 
End of through trains
Bristol to Waterloo?

 
Please sign our petition
(more information)
 
Campaign links here
Travel & transport from BBC stories as at 05:15 29 Nov 2021
* Covid: Dutch police arrest quarantine hotel escapee couple
- Covid: South Africa's president calls for lifting of Omicron travel bans
- Venezuelan migrants seeking a new home in Chile
* Barbados prepares to cut ties with the Queen
- The underwater 'kites' generating electricity as they move
Read about the forum [here].
Register [here] - it's free.
What do I gain from registering? [here]
 03/12/21 - TWSW AGM - online
09/12/21 - Award Event - CRN
19/01/22 - MTUG - regular meeting
08/03/22 - WWRUG AGM - B-o-A
Random Image
Train RunningCancelled
04:57 Reading to Redhill
06:43 Redhill to Reading
06:46 Reading to Gatwick Airport
07:01 Shalford to Reading
08:32 Gatwick Airport to Reading
Short Run
21:15 Penzance to London Paddington
Abbreviation pageAcronymns and abbreviations
Stn ComparatorStation Comparator
Rail newsNews Now - live rail news feed
Site Style 1 2 3 4
Next departures • Bristol Temple MeadsBath SpaChippenhamSwindonDidcot ParkwayReadingLondon PaddingtonMelksham
Exeter St DavidsTauntonWestburyTrowbridgeBristol ParkwayCardiff CentralOxfordCheltenham SpaBirmingham New Street
November 29, 2021, 05:31:52 am *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Forgotten your username or password? - get a reminder
Most recently liked subjects
[221] Stranded on a train for 17 hours !
[128] Masks To Become Compulsory On Public Transport Again
[84] XC short notice alterations due to driver unavailability.
[53] Are the railways fit for their (future) purpose?
[52] Day one - cruising in the time of Covid
[36] Great Western Railway: on-board catering, buffets, Travelling ...
News: A forum for passengers ... with input from rail professionals welcomed too
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
Author Topic: New car park for Banbury  (Read 15595 times)
IndustryInsider
Data Manager
Hero Member
******
Posts: 8929


View Profile
« on: August 06, 2012, 11:57:17 am »

At last, a proper purpose-built car park for Banbury, rather than lots of little ones and nowhere near enough spaces to cater properly for future demand.  Looks like the new car park will be positioned on the east side of the station with a new link bridge connecting it to the station, presumably attaching directly onto the existing footbridge leading to platform 1?

The end of a lease on land currently used for parking will mean that 376 spaces are set to be lost next summer, but is more than offset by the 707 spaces provided by the new car park.  There was also a bid for a 'temporary' 149 space car park submitted for land near the football stadium, but I'm unsure as to whether that is going ahead as well?

http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/Press-Releases/PASSENGERS-SET-TO-BENEFIT-FROM-BETTER-PARKING-FACILITIES-AT-STATIONS-1b33/SearchCategoryID-2.aspx

http://www.chilternrailways.co.uk/news/banbury-station-multi-storey-car-park-plans

http://www.thisisoxfordshire.co.uk/news/9810744.Banbury_multi_storey_car_park_bid_would_create_700_spaces/

Logged

To view my GWML (Great Western Main Line) Electrification cab video 'before and after' video comparison, as well as other videos of the new layout at Reading and 'before and after' comparisons of the Cotswold Line Redoubling scheme, see: http://www.dailymotion.com/user/IndustryInsider/
ChrisB
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 10656


View Profile Email
« Reply #1 on: October 12, 2012, 12:41:04 pm »

Hmmm, don't believe all the hype.....

There is a lot of relevant objection from local (I Mean *very* local, as in across the not very wide access road) residents (both in traffic congestion on their road and local junction as well as a monstrosity across from their dwellings) - and neither are the tramway units currently leased and used as car parking, unrenewable. They wouldn't get a long-term lease granted, but 2-3 years is definitely obtainable - that area is not going to be redeveloped in this timescale.

The *real* reason that Chiltern want his project is as follows -

One of the original ideas several years ago was to relocate the Network Rail base in the current main car park across to the eastern side & utilise the then rectangular shape of this current car park for a multi-storey. Trouble was, Chiltern had to pay for it all at that stage, so it was quietly dropped and tramway units more cheaply leased. The plan for the new NR» (Network Rail - home page) base was drawn up - I know the architect & the plans exist, so it got quite some way before it was dropped.

There is a franchise requirement of November 20, 2013 to provide this car park.

Hence it is now urgent. Chiltern have now obtained various grants for this work, meaning they haven't a penny to spend - but what's the betting that they'll still use the provision of this multi-storey as an excuse to put up Banbury fares more than RPI (Revenue Protection Inspector (or Retail Price Index, depending on the context))+1% within the basket of fares though?!!

Their proposal is the only project that might have met this franchise deadline - it would take too long to relocate NR and the two sidings - BUT, the old plan is still executable, but the grant funding won't relocate NR. BUT it *would* make far more sense to build the multi-storey within the current car park. No resident problems, and contains any congestion caused within the confines of the car park and access road.

However, because of the size and number of objections from both Councillors and residents, along with Highway authority objections to the congestion it will cause, the time it will take to adjust plans mean that consent is already behind their schedule to complete by the franchise date. Chiltern have admitted as much.

So, I'm hoping they'll give up on this scheme and go with the original idea using the grant funding to at least pay for the majority of the project - rather than have a fight with both local residents and the planning authority which won't endear them to either.

Of course, if they break a franchise commitment, we know what follows, don't we?
Logged
IndustryInsider
Data Manager
Hero Member
******
Posts: 8929


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: October 12, 2012, 01:05:02 pm »

So, I'm hoping they'll give up on this scheme and go with the original idea using the grant funding to at least pay for the majority of the project - rather than have a fight with both local residents and the planning authority which won't endear them to either.

Yes, moving that NR» (Network Rail - home page) centre would certainly be a better location for a 2 or 3 tier multi-storey car park than where they are talking about - presumably the two stabling sidings would also have to be moved southwards to where the old south goods yard used to be?  Sounds like a bit of an awkward situation that Chiltern find themselves in!
Logged

To view my GWML (Great Western Main Line) Electrification cab video 'before and after' video comparison, as well as other videos of the new layout at Reading and 'before and after' comparisons of the Cotswold Line Redoubling scheme, see: http://www.dailymotion.com/user/IndustryInsider/
ChrisB
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 10656


View Profile Email
« Reply #3 on: October 12, 2012, 02:57:16 pm »

Indeed - but one of their own creation. They've known for years that the parking situation at Banbury needed sorting permanently & that the Tramway units were scheduled for a canal-side development demolition. Living on borrowed time never works for long.

The relocation of the heavily-used sidings is the reason they couldn't complete the multi-storey project on the current site within a year....
Logged
gwr2006
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 137


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: December 17, 2012, 05:02:51 pm »

To Moderator, can this topic be moved to the 'Chiltern Railways Services' thread as they are the operator of Banbury Station. Thank you.
Logged
ChrisB
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 10656


View Profile Email
« Reply #5 on: January 07, 2013, 10:32:24 am »

The application was recommended, as predicted, for refusal by Council Planning Officers. Highway authority (County Council) concerns over traffic congestion at a local junction together with the overbearing result on local residents are given as reasons for refusal.

At the Planning Committee meeting held last Thursday, the decision was deferred, to allow Chiltern to meet with both authorities on site to try and sort out the reasons for refusal.

Chiltern have offered a measley ^100k for road improvements - a sum that won't scratch the edge of the layout improvements necessary. And the overbearing aspect isn't sorted either - officers suggested they remove the top storey, something Chiltern say they can't do as the grant funding is for a 707 space car park.

I think this'll get messy before Chiltern give up on the Franchise deadline and design something more suitable.
Logged
IndustryInsider
Data Manager
Hero Member
******
Posts: 8929


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: January 07, 2013, 11:18:45 am »

I think this'll get messy before Chiltern give up on the Franchise deadline and design something more suitable.

Would they claim they tried their best (by submitting an application that was refused) and therefore avoid any penalties for breaking the franchise agreement?
Logged

To view my GWML (Great Western Main Line) Electrification cab video 'before and after' video comparison, as well as other videos of the new layout at Reading and 'before and after' comparisons of the Cotswold Line Redoubling scheme, see: http://www.dailymotion.com/user/IndustryInsider/
ChrisB
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 10656


View Profile Email
« Reply #7 on: January 07, 2013, 12:44:46 pm »

Probably, knowing Chiltern.....:-)

But the DfT» (Department for Transport - about) might read this thread.....:-o

Chiltern, in my view, knew ages ago that they needed better car park arrangements at Banbury, but weren't inclined to spend their own money. Instead, they've spent a lot of time applying for various grants, and now find themselves out of time (even if this application does eventually curry favour) to build it within the deadline.

A self-inflicted problem, IMHO (in my humble opinion). The local User Group discussed a perfectly usable solution over two years ago, but as I said, they put it on the back-burner as it would cost money. Now they'll have to re-consider it, as its the only likely alternative to spending ^million+ on road improvements to get the current application past the planners - and they're likely to have to ditch one floor too.

I do have sympathy, but its limited. In the meantime, they'll have to temproary renew rental of current spaces that expire in August & October.

On a better note, for those that know the Banbury station area, I'm hearing that Chiltern have finally purchased the strip of land that runs from their station car park out to Tramway Road, which may assist in developing other plans. Fact yet to be confirmed direct with Chiltern though.
Logged
ChrisB
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 10656


View Profile Email
« Reply #8 on: January 26, 2013, 07:11:57 pm »

On a better note, for those that know the Banbury station area, I'm hearing that Chiltern have finally purchased the strip of land that runs from their station car park out to Tramway Road, which may assist in developing other plans. Fact yet to be confirmed direct with Chiltern though.

Fact turned out not to be true....

Meanwhile, Chiltern are going to discuss the Highway objections with them & the plan will return for Council determination on February 28.
Logged
IndustryInsider
Data Manager
Hero Member
******
Posts: 8929


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: February 28, 2013, 12:06:00 pm »

The concerns are still there, but it looks like the multi-storey car park is still very much on the agenda having been passed as acceptable by Cherwell District Council.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-21613675
Logged

To view my GWML (Great Western Main Line) Electrification cab video 'before and after' video comparison, as well as other videos of the new layout at Reading and 'before and after' comparisons of the Cotswold Line Redoubling scheme, see: http://www.dailymotion.com/user/IndustryInsider/
ChrisB
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 10656


View Profile Email
« Reply #10 on: February 28, 2013, 12:21:56 pm »

Indeed.

Banbury Town Council have it spot on though. While additional, permanent space IS required, the site chosen is NOT the place to locate it.
Logged
swrural
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 647


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: February 28, 2013, 02:37:22 pm »

The problem is that if the CC highways had no objection, and the DC (Direct Current) officer does not consider it overlooks, then the chance of refusal is slim at committee.  The newspaper article is most confusing as it reports the meeting had taken place ('discussed.... earlier') but does not actually positively report the outcome.

I am afraid that what TCs(resolve) and PCs think, often carries no real weight with planning officers, as they know the reality of the typical capability of these bodies to measure proposals against the Development Plan.     
Logged
ChrisB
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 10656


View Profile Email
« Reply #12 on: February 28, 2013, 03:53:49 pm »

Unfortunately, its often the TC(resolve) or PC that has the local knowledge.

Its about time that planning regs forced the officers to consult *and take into account* the local view.

Also, in these circimstances where the Highways authority has done a complete volte-face, they should be compelled to produce a document detailing why, and what measures have been agred as conditions. The document in this case has few specifics
Logged
swrural
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 647


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: February 28, 2013, 04:10:21 pm »

If it has been determined (I still could not see that from the article) then the p.a. has to state its reasons for approval, just as much as the reverse.  So the residents could see if they can spot a flaw.  It could, however, only be proved that the officer (and then committee) had not taken everything into account if the officer did not refer to their Objection (the TC(resolve) is a statutory consultee) in his report.  He will have done though, I am certain.  So that's the 'taking into account' bit.

The TC has no recourse in that event other than requesting call-in or JR (as do the residents).  Otherwise, third party right of appeal is not allowed under present legislation.  The dice are thus loaded in favour of the developer, who can appeal if refused, and this Government (and the last) has shamefully ignored the request to allow third party appeals on planning grounds.

If everyone knew all this, my apologies.     
Logged
Network SouthEast
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 492



View Profile
« Reply #14 on: February 28, 2013, 04:30:18 pm »

The Planners (21:00 tonight on BBC2 and BBC» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page) HD) provides a useful insight in to the planning process. Anyone that hasn't been following it, would do well to tune in and watch an episode as I think it gives a reasonable portrayal of the Planning Officers, applicants, objectors and the Committees themselves.
Logged
Do you have something you would like to add to this thread, or would you like to raise a new question at the Coffee Shop? Please [register] (it is free) if you have not done so before, or login (at the top of this page) if you already have an account - we would love to read what you have to say!

You can find out more about how this forum works [here] - that will link you to a copy of the forum agreement that you can read before you join, and tell you very much more about how we operate. We are an independent forum, provided and run by customers of Great Western Railway, for customers of Great Western Railway and we welcome railway professionals as members too, in either a personal or official capacity. Views expressed in posts are not necessarily the views of the operators of the forum.

As well as posting messages onto existing threads, and starting new subjects, members can communicate with each other through personal messages if they wish. And once members have made a certain number of posts, they will automatically be admitted to the "frequent posters club", where subjects not-for-public-domain are discussed; anything from the occasional rant to meetups we may be having ...

 
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
This forum is provided by a customer of Great Western Railway (formerly First Great Western), and the views expressed are those of the individual posters concerned. Visit www.gwr.com for the official Great Western Railway website. Please contact the administrators of this site if you feel that the content provided by one of our posters contravenes our posting rules (email link). Forum hosted by Well House Consultants

Jump to top of pageJump to Forum Home Page