Great Western Coffee Shop

See link below.
http://firstlatewestern.blogspot.com/2007/07/question-of-priorities.html

A report into a train derailment at Kemble on January 15 last year has found the accident was caused by debris left on the track after a wall collapsed (link below.)
http://thisisgloucestershire.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=231771&command=displayContent&sourceNode=231754&home=yes&more_nodeId1=231776&contentPK=20254963

The Rail Accident Investigation Branch (RAIB) said heavy rainfall, poor drainage of the cutting slope and a reclassification of the cutting by Network Rail, which led to less frequent examinations, were all contributory factors to the accident.

The RAIB has made two recommendations as a result of the derailment, both relating to the management of wall structures and their infrastructure.

The inestigatory body will also hold a further investigation into the management of earthworks by Network Rail, specifically looking at the earthworks at Kemble.

"The A433 between Cirencester and Tetbury in Gloucestershire had to be closed to traffic after a heavy goods vehicle hit a railway bridge.  The lorry struck the Thames Head bridge just after 1100 GMT on Tuesday.  The lorry driver was not injured, although trains were stopped while engineers assessed the damage.  A spokesman for First Great Western (FGW) Trains said the bridge was fine and trains would resume running normally."

See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/gloucestershire/7695161.stm

Apparently it was struck by an Irish Articulated Lorry, not that it makes any difference  ;D

Malcolm one of the Station Staff at Kemble, suffered a heart attack whilst at work this week and has since sadly passed away in hospital, if you are a regular user of kemble station you will know that Malcolm was truly passionate about providing an outstanding level of customer at all times .he will be sadly missed by all who knew him . my deepest sympathy to all of his family

Thanks for posting that, dog box.

I'm sure there are quite a few members here who knew Malcolm, and on behalf of all of them, may I offer condolences and sympathy to his family and friends, from this forum.

Chris.  :(

Hello, my name is Andrea Glennon and I am a reporter for the Wilts and Glos Standard. We cover Kemble and having read your post I was wondering if you have any tributes to pay to Malcolm. You can email me at andrea.glennon@gwent-wales.co.uk or call me on 01285 627320. Please pass on my details to friends who also want to pay tribute. Thank youvery much.

Picture taken during my visit to Kemble Station this afternoon - In memory of Malcolm:  :(

(http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/7404/picture136y.jpg) (http://img690.imageshack.us/i/picture136y.jpg/)

Wilts & Glos Standard obituary is here http://www.wiltsglosstandard.co.uk/news/4854101.Tributes_flood_in_for_Kemble_station_worker_who_died_on_platform/

Thanks for posting that, willc.

Greetings, will be spending a few days in the Cotswolds, may catch a train to London from Kemble, does anyone know how much a day parking ticket is and is there sufficient parking around?  Thanks  :)

Just don't park in the breaker's yard up the road ...

(http://www.wellho.net/pix/kem2.jpg)

220 spaces at Kemble Station - see http://www.apcoa.co.uk/carparks/kemble-station for details of charges.  ;)

At the station the car park will cost you ^3.20 for the day from the ticket machine. Or ^2.80 via Apcoa Connect.

336 spaces according to FGW.

Others will no doubt know whether that car park fills regularly.

Cheaper than the ^10/day at EXD !  Bargain  :)

220 spaces according to National Rail - see http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/stations/kem/details.html  ::)

Wifey can count them while I get "Apcoa connect" to work  ::) :D

Good one, Donkey Guard!  ;) :D ;D

I'm by no means a frequent visitor to Kemble Station, but from my very limited experience, I'd suggest that the total number of spaces is probably nearer 336 than 220 - but they are generally full during the day.  However, I don't know how early in the day they get filled.

Hope this helps.  :P

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

From the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-23446694):


Nice to see a few more plants and a few less weeds, which was what I saw on my visit to Kemble station on 5th June this year. The garden will no doubt look amazing once the plants start to grow out.

Sadly, when I visited, I got neither a meet and greet with local dignitaries or a commemorative plaque.  :D

(http://i598.photobucket.com/albums/tt68/bignosemac/100_2316_zps04d038e9.png)

Kemble is a gem of a station, beautifully kept and maintained. A credit to all the staff involved in its presentation. If only more FGW stations had such care and attention....

Intrigued to know how the health & safety gurus managed to get permission to cover over that manhole cover in time for the Prince's visit.

Possibly only for the few minutes he was there?

Be even nicer if you could change there for Ciren and Tetbury... :)

..and for the sake of clarity and continuity as someone from this parish would say (and he does like Kemble too!) - the manhole cover was back in evidence this morning

(http://www.mbob.co.uk/rforum/kemble.jpg)

I only had five minutes between trains but I couldn't see a plaque to say our future King had officially opened it, but then me eyes ain't as good as they used to be....

Can't you get maintenance covers in the form of a tray, so that you can fill them with gravel or pavers? Perhaps we should club together and buy them one?

I'm wondering why it was felt necessary to temporarily cover it in the first place.

Were Brian's security detail afeared of militant republicans coming up from the sewers?

Well as you will know, they breed in the sewers, and eventually you get evil-smelling flocks of huge soiled militant republicans flying out of people^s inspection covers infringing their personal freedom.

You can indeed, but they are not rigid enough and so they get stuck and you cannot open them. Also if you just filled them with gravel you would not be able to see them so it would be difficult to find when you needed it.  I know you could have a good plan but it would just get lost and never be made available to the bloke sent to sort any problem.

... that'll be me, then?  :o ::) ;D

Could the photo simply have been photoshopped?

Possibly.

The following ITV West Country news report briefly shows the drain cover in one shot. I'd assume the shot (at 1:19) was taken on the same day as HRH's visit. The shot could, however, be from before or after the royal visit; pre- or post- temporary replacement.

http://www.itv.com/news/west/update/2013-07-25/full-report-on-prince-charles-visit-to-kemble/

But photoshopping of the Press Association image is just as likely.

The Press Association and/or BBC photoshopped the image.

I was intrigued enough to contact the garden redevelopment team leader, and received the following response:

Hmm ...  ::)



That's not a camera angle playing tricks.  :-X

I think the Kemble station garden redevelopment team leader is being commendably diplomatic in her response.

I do, however, share her hope that I, too, will have the opportunity to travel through Kemble again fairly soon!  ;) :D ;D

As if we didn't have enough controversy with HS2...


Of course, no-one will be travelling through Kemble for a little while just now, despite the kind sentiments expressed by Ms Tennant-Bell.

On reflection I think it might well be the camera angle. Or rather, where the photographer is standing and the focal length used.

In the Press Association photo, Brian is to the left of the bottom edge of the far bench, almost in line with the middle of the far small crescent shaped patch of garden.

In my and bobm's photos the drain cover is almost in line with the nearer of the two crescent shaped patches of garden. The PA photographer was probably stood on or very near said drain cover. Focal length, photographer position and parallax differences between the PA, my and bobm photos have created the impression that the drain cover wasn't there during Brian's visit.

The next time I'm at Kemble I shall try to replicate the PA's photo and prove my theory.  ;)

There's nothing can compare with a Royal cover-up story though. Not even HS2.

I'm sure you're right - the 'Brian' pic was taken with a Why Dangle Len's.

I can't compete with Sapperton Tunnel's excellent photos.

However I spent an enjoyable half hour at Kemble station the other night.

Came across this sign connected with the redoubling - shame the proof reader had a day off.

(http://www.mbob.co.uk/rforum/kem1.jpg)

..and as darkness fell an excuse to use my new filter...

(http://www.mbob.co.uk/rforum/kem2.jpg)

Loving that second photo. Nice filter.  ;D

Looks like the sort of thing used by 'Top of the Pops' vision mixers back in the day. Only thing missing from the photo is a pop band riding high in the hit parade.  ;)

As for the first picture.... 'Gloucesrer'?  ::)

Agree with you there BNM ...you could set up a dance troupe called Justin's Jerkers rather than Pan's People..... :o :o

Probably second only to Nailsea & Backwell, Kemble is my next favourite station. Melksham is a noble third, obviously.  ;)

Taunton is a non-starter, so far as I'm concerned - as readers of this forum will probably have gathered by now.  :P

Just for you Chris - the Kemble ghost train...

(http://www.mbob.co.uk/rforum/kemhst.jpg)

What a couple of fantastic photos, bobm. They are far, far better than mine. The 'Ghost Train' taken from the footbridge is incredible. The windows in the end screen are incredibly sharp. That was not an easy shot to do - the floorboards on the footbridge flex when you walk over them for a start, so I presume that you did not use a tripod, but rested the camera on the handrailing.

This is actually one of the best shots I have ever seen taken from the footbridge and just oozes atmosphere of the station settling back down again after the interruption from a train that dared to call.

Going back 50 years or more we used to bike to Kemble Station and cause a bit of mayhem. It was easy to climb onto the roof from the footbridge and I shall never forget the look on the driver's face of a Hymek hauled Swindon to Gloucester train as he looked around from the water tower to see 4 lads sitting on the edge of the roof above those windows!!
   

We will agree to disagree on who has the best photos ST!

You are right though - I did use the footbridge as a rest rather than a tripod - which I try to avoid using on railway property for obvious reasons.

It is the first time I have taken a photo in that style - and part of the credit must go to bignosemac who put the idea in my head.

The most remarkable thing about the photo is that it features a train I had just got off!  A bit of a rush to the footbridge to be in place for its departure.   ;D

Why, thank-you, Sir!

My only recent long exposure night shot at a station wasn't as good as bobm's though. Still, not bad for a digital compact. Again with the camera resting on a footbridge:
(http://i598.photobucket.com/albums/tt68/bignosemac/Spring%20Into%20Summer%20Prize%20Picture%20Quiz%20June%202013/Quiz6_zps9d791e89.jpg)

Definitely not Taunton.  :P ::) ;D

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/):

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


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


ST

Plans for a new Car Park at Kemble Station were submitted for Planning Approval on 20th February and are now out for comments:

http://publicaccess.cotswold.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=NK2V91FIM6H00 (http://publicaccess.cotswold.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=NK2V91FIM6H00)

The new car park will have 333 spaces, making a total at the station of 553 when added to the existing 220.

Campaigns such as the Wilts and Glos Standard one were just jumping on the bandwagon when the real work had more or less been completed between the combined efforts of the Parish Council, the MP and FGW.

ST

Blimey, 553 spaces.  Not bad for a village!  Just shows how important these railheads can be in rural locations with larger settlements that don't have stations nearby.  Hanborough is another such location.

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/)


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)

!!

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

Is there a link to the planning application to see what the plans/map of the site will be once completed?

I think it is this one (at least, it was on the committee agenda for yesterday):
15/00786/FUL (Alternative Reference CT.6491/M)
documents at:
http://publicaccess.cotswold.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=NK2V91FIM6H00

Thank you. It's interesting to see just how much the plans have changed over the years, but it will bring lots of benefits to the already overcrowded car park at kemble.

I'm surprised they haven't looked at developing bus services to cirencester. The existing service is poor and has lots of potential if linked to various housing developments in 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/)



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.

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.   

Great Western should go ahead and open the car park as the condition is almost certainly ultra viries. Cotswold District cannot impose a requirement on a third party (GCC) by means of a planning condition on an application to which they were not a party.

In a less confrontational approach (they may need to cooperate with them later) GWR should apply to Cotswold DC to lift the condition (which they are doing) and if it is refused simply appeal (which they may have in mind).

 

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.



         

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.

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!

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.

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!

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. 

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

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:

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:

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). 

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

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.  

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?

Technical note.  All posts (including pictures) remain copyright of the author. However, they may be quoted onwards in critical review or comment.   You should always be AOK if you send people links to threads here, and speaking for myself I'm quite happy to be quoted in moderate chunks away from the board - happier still if I'm credited, and even happier if approached first.

Where something's posted to "Frequent Posters", "And Also", or the TransWilts Community Rail board, permission should always be sought before quoting away from here, even if the quote onward is not in public.

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.  


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.  


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.  


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!  

By all means.

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.

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.



   

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 seem to be fairly confident of opening soon as the ticket machines were installed this last week.

Somewhere upthread, the cost to villagers of Residents Parking Zone permits was mentioned. This need not be expensive at all. There's quite a range in permit prices around the country. In Bristol it's just £48 a year – less than a pound a week! – while in some London boroughs it's £150. There are similar variations in how many permits each household can apply for, treatment of driveways (Bristol lets you park on the street at the end of your drive for free, some places require a permit) and so on. It seems unlikely that prices in Kemble would be anywhere near the upper end of this scale, in fact there's nothing to stop Cotswold CC issuing them for free.

According to the Kemble Parish Council GWR are paying for two vehicle permits per household.

Having looked through a few meeting minutes the KPC is continually bothered even with residents' parking habits, as they refer to writing to miscreants parking on pavements, on narrow roads etc

Well, that's a relief.  At least I should have some chance of delivering essential groceries to a Kemble village resident without being 'slapped with an ASBO', or whatever the local penalty for transgression might be.  ::) :o ;D

 

ASBOs? Please... This is rural Gloucestershire - you'll be blackballed from the Polo Club instead  :D

For those who are following developments, there's a neatly summarized update from Kemble & Ewen Parish Council on their publicly-viewable notebook page:

http://www.kemble.co.uk/images/ParishCouncil/Other/Parish_Notebbok_July_Aug_2017.pdf (http://www.kemble.co.uk/images/ParishCouncil/Other/Parish_Notebbok_July_Aug_2017.pdf)

Can anyone confirm that the new car park is now operational?

We had a very lavish envelope and brochure from GWR drop onto the doormat today announcing "We heard you couldn't find a space at Kemble station..." and going on to explain the new facilities and charges, so I'm guessing it's either open or imminent.

Customer Panel last week - in GWR achievements, slide said "we have openED" past tense, and the speaker goig though the slides also used past tense.  So that's not a definite, but a further suggestion that it is open.

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.   

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:


Or spaces, presumably.  ::)

station on Wednesday morning 14 august.
Posted for info only

The reason BBC Points West were there today was in relation to a story about the annual fares increase. The Stroud Valley Line was chosen as stations on this route have some of the highest pence per mile fares in the country.

On the main bulletin this evening, Stroud's MP, David Drew (Lab) was interviewed. He said that fares along this line had always been expensive. This was so, he said, pre-privatisation, pre-Beeching, and even pre-Brunel. Quite how he knew about fares pre-Brunel (which would have had to have been stagecoach fares) is beyond me.

As I recall, he was not above opening his mouth before his brain was engaged when he was in the same form as me at Kingswood Grammar School in 1963. Some things never change...

Stagecoach been going that long?  My local bus provider is Go South Coast.  ;D

Incidentally there was a member of this forum briefly featured in the same programme.

There was.

(https://i598.photobucket.com/albums/tt68/bignosemac/me_zpsrnn0czup.jpg)

That's me in the background with the bright orangey pink polo shirt and rucksack slung over my shoulder.  The camera operator picked up my best side. ;D

(OFF TOPIC. BBC Points West interviewing a charity collector for St Margaret's Somerset Hospice. Said hospice's Yeovil inpatient unit is facing closure. Something actually close to my heart. Its where my stepfather spent his final days. An excellent facility that's facing closure for financial reasons. Quite what those are and how they've come about is a bit of a mystery. Trustees and Chief Exec initially blamed NHS funding cuts. Then they said they were having trouble recruiting. Then it was discovered the management wage bill has tripled in the last two years. No problems recruiting high paid managers it seems. Its also been discovered that a funeral company set up by the charity, despite surveys saying it wasn't needed, has so far cost the charity over £300,000 and hasn't shown a profit. A lot of anger locally that Yeovil faces losing an excellent facility with rumours that this is because of financial mismanagement).

He probably got the details of the pre-Brunel prices from the Member for the 18th Century

Ah, but where did he get that toupee?

It looks hand-knitted to me, and specially coloured to contrast with the real residual hair.

Be sure your sins will find you out here - not just BNM keeping an eye on proceedings, but tales from the schoolroomtoo! Although I thought you had to go to Eton to be able to represent the common people.

Sup up your beer and collect your fags there's a row going on down near slough !...

What a nice day for eating trifle!

Meeting rescheduled 26th September 2020 (according to RailFuture website, Branch page) awaiting confirmation and not sure if it's going to be the AGM if it happens.

Notification in the latter half of last month this was going ahead - "Hope to see you at Kemble on 26th September", but I understand from the vice chair of the branch that the committee had a zoom meeting the other day and he (the vice chair) has questioned the legality and practicality for late next month.     Still in my diary ... the committee meeting (I am told) did not get right though the agenda and will resume and come to a conclusion (?) in the next few days.

Railfuture branches are largely independent of the national board and groups;  Severnside's Committee comprises five individually elected officers and a representative of each associate member organisation, but no opportunity for ordinary members to be on the committee unless they want to take on the extra commitment of an officer's role. It leaves them somewhat out of communication with the rank and file individual members in the area, who have not had an opportunity to meet either in person or online since last November.

From my email, in response to a question I asked during today's Zoom meeting with GWR.   Notes / comments from that to follow at http://www.passenger.chat/23977 - probably tomorrow morning!

but from RailFuture Severnside Branch page a few minutes ago (https://www.railfuture.org.uk/Severnside+Branch)


Not seen any member communication yet, but can't say I'm surprised.  Thought it was a long shot a week ago.

Bet that didn't go ahead, either?!

Correct - I would (purely personally, and I might be in the minority) love to have these meetings replaced by something online to keep us in touch.

Make your point to the Branch?....I have offered by paid-for Zoom account to the organisation already for hosting this type of meeting - but only one nranch in the East has taken me up on it so far. Another thinking about it.

I have (made the point), a while back.  As only one branch has taken this up, Chris, perhaps the majority of the branches (there are about a dozen [note for other readers]), perhaps you and I are in the minority in thinking it's a good idea worth implementing, or feel it can be done without a branch member vote for which a meeting would be needed  ;D