Kemble - station, facilities, improvements, events and incidents - merged posts

[whole diary]

[Sapperton Tunnel]

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

... or even reopening the branch line. 

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

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
 



       

[patch38]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"This scheme should meet requirements for the foreseeable future.

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

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

[patch38]

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.

[ellendune]

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^▸ (Great Western Railway) 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.   

[rogerw]

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.

[ellendune]

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^▸ (Great Western Railway) should apply to Cotswold DC^▸ (Direct Current) to lift the condition (which they are doing) and if it is refused simply appeal (which they may have in mind).

 

[Sapperton Tunnel]

The issue is one of GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway)'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.



         

[John R]

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.

[ellendune]

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

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

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

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

[Sapperton Tunnel]

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

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

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

[ellendune]

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!

[Sapperton Tunnel]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Sapperton Tunnel]

I agree with JohnR

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

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

[grahame]

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^▸ (Great Western Railway) 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.

[stuving]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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