Town centre parking survey

Mark Sulik
👍 1

Mon 8 Apr, 04:04

More parking places in Woodstock.

Hans Eriksson
👍 5

Sun 7 Apr, 11:27 (last edited on Sun 7 Apr, 11:27)

It seems Woodstock and Charlbury have about the same population, but Woodstock appears to have many more businesses, and probably many more tourist visitors. Parking is time limited there. I would guess that will have to come to Charlbury at some point in the future. 

Stephen Andrews
👍 8

Sun 7 Apr, 09:11

Not sure how many people commute to Charlbury for work where a business does not provide onsite parking, but there are other alternatives. We are fortunate to have a good local bus and train service. There are also cycle to work tax schemes, saving the cost of a bike and equipment and finally there is Liftshare facilitated by this very website. 

Simon J Harley
👍 3

Sun 7 Apr, 07:43

I’m sure that people who park all day in a car park do so for a reason.  If you no longer allow them to park there, they will need to find somewhere else to park. In Charlbury, I’m not sure what other options they have.  On street parking is difficult at the best of times and will be impossible if the car park is no longer available to use for parking over 2 hours.  People who commute to Charlbury for work have to have the ability to park, if they can’t park, they will not be able to work, if they cannot work, we will have no businesses for people to use.  Is that what people are really suggesting?

Alan F Harrison
👍 2

Sat 6 Apr, 20:27 (last edited on Tue 9 Apr, 17:03)

Philip Ambrose gives important points.



Maybe ALL the public parking spaces in the Spendlove Car Park should be limited to a maximum of 2 hours daytime parking to dissuade commuter use and deliver benefits to the maximum number of people? That’s plenty for a shop, football or tennis match, dental, veterinary or doctor’s appointment.


…..enlightened businesspeople in Charlbury would avoid parking all day in the Spendlove if that released a place for a dozen or more customers during the working day. Limited time parking throughout would also kill off commuter parking. It is surely better to benefit more people for a shorter period of time? 


The main problem with this car park is those who park all day and night.

Mark Sulik
👍 1

Sat 30 Mar, 16:42

The fact remains and the topic of the need for parking in the town centre is the primary consideration - station parking is GWR issue. Connected but the need for spaces required for the visitors and users of all amenities available for all to use !

Stephen Slack
👍 1

Sat 30 Mar, 14:54 (last edited on Sun 31 Mar, 14:09)

I agree that there is a strong case for both the expansion of the station car park and the introduction of a residents’ parking scheme, and welcome the steps being taken towards that.  But my points were about the fact that the parking problem was more acute than usual last week - partly because many people chose (understandably and predictably) to drive to Charlbury to pick up the train here and partly because some of the station parking was closed off to accommodate the rail replacement buses.  And my point about non-enforcement related not to the single yellow lines (which rightly are not enforced) but to the double yellow lines (which rightly are enforced, but only sporadically).  The fact is that there was rather more parking on double yellow lines last week than is normally the case.

Liz Leffman
👍 4

Sat 30 Mar, 09:11

The problem of the station car park being full is not unique to last week - it is now full most weekdays after 9am, which causes problems for people travelling from the outlying villages. There is an agreement in place with OCC that there will be no enforcement on Dyers Hill or Church Lane because of the problem this causes for residents.  Which points to the urgent need for a solution, hence the parking survey.  I think we definitely need to consider a residents' parking scheme, but that doesn't make it any easier for people who have to drive to reach the station. I am in discussion with GWR about this, but again, there isn't a simple solution.

Stephen Slack
👍 1

Sat 30 Mar, 08:43

The problems Philip Ambrose describes were entirely foreseeable and led to problems in Dyers Hill where a large number of cars were parked on double yellow lines and in some cases partly on the pavement.  But I saw no sign of any enforcement.

Philip Ambrose
👍 1

Fri 29 Mar, 20:37

I think that this week’s experiences with the rail line being closed beyond Charlbury highlighted the nature of the problem in no uncertain terms,  as Charlbury became a railhead with no adequate parking provision. Commuters who would normally park at Kingham or Moreton drove to Charlbury instead and found a full station car park.

The rail replacement bus service took 2 hours to get from Honeybourne to Charlbury via Evesham,  Moreton, & Kingham

Alexander Tomlins
👍 13

Fri 22 Mar, 18:08 (last edited on Fri 22 Mar, 18:09)

We don't need to spend money on additional parking facilities. We should consider implementing a resident parking scheme like they did in Woodstock last year (approved by the cabinet member for highways at OCC). 

Resident parking schemes are designed to regulate parking to reduce highway obstruction and to give priority over available space to residents and their visitors. This would only apply to specific streets e.g Market Street & Dyers Hill (not the whole of Charlbury). Businesses, contractors and visitors would have their own permit and couriers would still be able to load & unload accordingly. 

 This will reduce congestion in the town centre and encourage those to use public transport, which would lead to a stronger business case for Stagecoach to run a Sunday bus service into Charlbury.  A cost effective, green solution that will make a meaningful difference in the local community like they've done in Woodstock.  

 More use of public transport = more car parking spaces 

https://www.oxfordshire.gov.uk/residents/roads-and-transport/parking/where-park/new-parking-schemes

Mark Sulik
👍 2

Fri 22 Mar, 10:39

The demand for parking in Charlbury is obvious, the supply is insufficient. Very simple imbalance . As typical on a Friday , parking available on Market Street and Dyers Hill . Noted 2 vehicles were parked and did not move for a period of over 30 days ! 

Philip Ambrose
👍 2

Thu 21 Mar, 23:39

Simon,

Conversely, if the unrestricted parking spaces in the Spendlove are filled with commuters, that leaves no spaces for Co-op workers QED! 

The Spendlove car park is best used for short stay parking to benefit the greatest number of people.

Use Council Tax to pay for a multi-storey car park for unrestricted all day parking? I don’t think so!

Maybe in the fullness of time a driverless town shuttle minibus would be the answer?

Simon J Harley
👍 7

Thu 21 Mar, 06:47

Phillip, to use the co-op as an example, your staff can no longer park in the carpark for more than 2 hours.  There will be no on street parking, as this will be filled by the commuters, so what would you propose they do?  Just have 2 hour shifts, get rid of staff and put in more self service tills?  I don’t have the answers, but I certainly cannot agree with a solution that will cause more problems than it will solve.

I fail to understand why people do not take Tims solution more seriously with putting another layer on the carpark.  Yes, it might not be a pretty solution, but sometimes, you can’t have it all.

Philip Ambrose
👍

Wed 20 Mar, 21:43

In answer to Simon Harley’s post, enlightened businesspeople in Charlbury would avoid parking all day in the Spendlove if that released a place for a dozen or more customers during the working day. Limited time parking throughout would also kill off commuter parking. It is surely better to benefit more people for a shorter period of time?

david cook
👍 3

Mon 18 Mar, 10:11

Larger vehicles pay more in road and fuel tax but there is no evidence the extra monies raised being used to repair the roads they allegedly damage? 

Rod Evans
👍 2

Sat 16 Mar, 16:52

Stone cold sober Stephen, just getting bored by the end there!  And perfectly serious - it would need capital expense upfront but in time might become self-financing, maybe some spaces could be reserved eg for the Bull customers.  And why not charge more for the vehicles which cause more damage?  Feasibility study anyone??

david cook
👍 4

Sat 16 Mar, 10:52

Perhaps what appears to be the abandon Blenheim Estates housing development

in the centre of Charlbury could make a suitable spot for a public car par? Agree with most of Rod's comment but do not agree to charging per vehicle type.

stephen cavell
👍 1

Sat 16 Mar, 08:10 (last edited on Sat 16 Mar, 08:16)

Rod I like and agree with your analysis.  I also like your solution but is it slightly tongue in cheek? Or could you have been over imbibing in the Deli French wines?

Rod Evans
👍 2

Fri 15 Mar, 16:46 (last edited on Fri 15 Mar, 17:14)

Avoiding personal responses (Reg, discuss over a pint sometime??) this to my mind is a planning/transport/infrastructure issue.  And as so often, it’s about balance and trying to meet the often conflicting needs, demands and pressures as best one can (which includes all the environmental aspects). 

 Places like Charlbury were obviously not designed for motor vehicles.  But trying to tell other people how they should conduct their lives is to ignore our diverse conditions and needs and anyway doesn’t work – it needs a more subtle approach, putting the structures & facilities in place first to incentivise and then who knows.  But we all know about the constraints on public expenditure….

So where is the middle way? One that will cater for as many people as possible while doing as little harm as possible or even avoiding it? While alleviating the problems – and dangers – of (tank!) parking around the centre.

 Knowing now (thanks Liz) that Spendlove CP is owned by WODC, here’s a kite I flew once before, bearing in mind our designation (see post below) as a Rural Service Centre.  Instead of acquiring more land,  excavate the CP, provide 3 tiers but only to 2 storey height above ground, cover it in greenery (subject to archaeological investigation!).  Devise systems for: charging according to vehicle type; residents’ schemes; blue badge and short term spaces eg by the Pharmacy; proper enforcement; temporary facilities with guaranteed restoration and enhancement; seeking contributions from those who’d benefit; keep working on measures to encourage/facilitate other forms of transport than the private car.  Whatever you do, accept that you’re never going to please everyone.

 I could elaborate – but I’d rather talk about something else.  Rivers, for example or why the sea is boiling hot and whether pigs have wings….

Oh and the Deli!!

Andrew Chapman
👍 7

Thu 14 Mar, 20:18

Perhaps the bus companies could be persuaded to redesign their vehicles so they look more familiar to those customers – Range Rover-styled charabanc, anyone?

Christine Battersby
👍 2

Thu 14 Mar, 19:17

If our late night buses (lost a year ago) were reinstated, the customers in the eateries could get home -- or at least as far as Oxford -- and also have a drink or three. Not that I think many of the customers in the fancy pubs and restaurants would opt to travel by bus.

But buses on a Sunday would certainly help.

Also there is a late train back to London (except on a Sunday) if only GWR were more reliable.

Matt Bullock
👍 2

Thu 14 Mar, 18:46

My comment refers to those coming to Charlbury to our various eateries, who are mainly responsible for the traffic issues. There’s no way they could all get here and home again late in the evening by public transport, coming from dozens of different places in the region. I use bus train and bike too but I’m not travelling in, say, from Leafield to eat at Chloe’s on a Thursday night.

Richard Fairhurst
(site admin)
👍 15

Thu 14 Mar, 18:01

I couldn’t disagree more. I honestly can’t remember the last time I drove the car. We have an hourly train (better at peak times) plus regular buses which cost just £2. I needed to get to Shorthampton on Sunday, so I went by bike. (It has an electric motor to help me up that hill. I’m not proud!)

Yes, many people do and will need to own a car. If that’s you then that’s fine, I’m not questioning your choice.

But to say there’ll “never” be a viable alternative to car ownership just isn’t true for some of us. With a little investment in alternatives – safe cycle routes, more reliable trains, car clubs, a commitment to keeping the bus service going – it could be better still. Charlbury isn’t exactly deepest Powys!

Matt Bullock
👍 3

Thu 14 Mar, 17:50

Public transport is never going to be a viable alternative in a rural area.

Claire Wilding
👍 1

Thu 14 Mar, 17:26

It won't be long til the cars can drop their occupants at the pub and then drive themselves home. 

Reg James
👍 21

Thu 14 Mar, 15:49

I find it hard to believe that in 2024 this discussion is going on. How to spend thousands of pounds on more parking facilities to encourage more car use with consequent increase in pollution and carbon emissions. My suggestion, in order to reduce car use, is free public transport for all and no expenditure on more car parking. We can't afford not to do it. (I love double negatives)

Matt Bullock
👍 6

Thu 14 Mar, 13:01

We put one of those modular Meccano type decks in at the John Radcliffe many years ago. They're ugly things and I hope they've scaled up the size of the spaces to suit modern cars, as it was very tight even back then! I think its still in use, but I wouldn't like to park a large car in it.

There's no solution to this that will suit everyone. I know there are ownership issues to overcome with the various bits of land, but there will be whatever the solution. I'd look at taking a small sliver of land in several locations (most already mentioned in the thread) to have 15 or so spaces in each so you don't take away a large green space but you do spread the parking around the town. 

Mark Sulik
👍

Thu 14 Mar, 12:46

Clarification :

The land to the left of the entrance to Shilson Lane , having a ready made junction / entrance/ exit would be considered as being a suitable location and being connected to and in a short walking distance to the town centre .

Also an ideal location for future development/ housing / new primary school ???? 
put forward as an option for the sub committee to take a ‘ holistic’ view on ! 

Tim at Cotswold Frames
👍 5

Thu 14 Mar, 12:02 (last edited on Thu 14 Mar, 12:49)

I went to a town council meeting about a month ago where they were discussing parking solutions in the town centre and I was allowed to do my little 3 minute speech I had prepared prior to the meeting which included the perfect solution  from siderpark.com/ who specialise in modular steel framed parking systems that can be installed without fixed foundations on an existing surface car park, so basically you build a Meccano second layer kit on top of the existing carpark ( not all of it just the main large rectangle part of the car park section directly by the co-op then instead of the 38 spaces currently there it could be increased to 76 parking spaces by going up ) obviously there is a cost but after talking to the company they said they would be happy to come out and take a look.

Despite this being the an ideal solution for the town as in you would not be losing any precious green spaces it would be just the cost, which until we have the company round to do an estimate we will never know. 

Alas during that meeting it was decided I believe to form yet another  subcommittee and I believe they said that this subcommittee would take the "Holistic approach " Whatever that may be ( in my mind I can picture the subcommittee walking around swinging crystals on handwoven vines chanting  rhythmic chants to create positive changes in the parking situation, good luck with that 🙄 )

John Munro
👍 3

Thu 14 Mar, 11:49

Mark, can you please explain your very cryptic 'Shilson Lane' comment?

Shilson Lane is a private roadway owned by the various residents of Shilson Lane.

Are you proposing some form of compulsory purchase and even if that were the case where are you suggesting people actually parked in Shilson Lane!

Liz Puttick
👍

Thu 14 Mar, 11:03

All solutions to the growing parking problem will be unpopular with some residents and visitors - whether residents' parking, (part) charges in Spendlove Centre or using land. Nevertheless solutions are needed so hard decisions have to be made!

Mark Sulik
👍

Thu 14 Mar, 09:48

Shilson Lane ????

Liz Leffman
👍 4

Thu 14 Mar, 08:59 (last edited on Thu 14 Mar, 09:02)

Rod, WODC owns the Spendlove car park. I'm not quite sure where else in Charlbury the council could find a suitable piece of land that would be close enough to the town centre to make it possible for people to park and use the amenities. The field on Wychwood Paddocks was suggested to me.  I can imagine the Forum thread if that or Nine Acres was seriously proposed!  Maybe I will propose a Charlbury Park and Ride at Ticknell Piece as OCC owns that land.

Rosemary Bennett
👍

Wed 13 Mar, 23:26

Richard, the proposals were not plans, but talks about talks, if you like. The proposals came from residents who cared deeply about Charlbury, who between them had experience, vision, enthusiasm, energy and imagination. (All wasted, as it turned out.)

I was not against the Community Centre and it’s not clear to me why you implied it. I’m not submitting further thoughts. Thanks all.

Gareth Epps
👍 3

Wed 13 Mar, 21:05

For those living in Charlbury outside the limited area this survey was sent to, particularly those with blue badges or otherwise affected, it would be helpful if there was a shareable link, so people felt able to take part.

Rod Evans
👍 5

Wed 13 Mar, 20:59 (last edited on Wed 13 Mar, 21:06)

I've only (sic) been here for 10 years and I'm not involved with the TC survey but parking - or the lack of it - has probably attracted more attention in that time than any other single topic on this forum.  From memory it was a major if not the biggest concern expressed in the town survey back in 2016 - I still have the paperwork somewhere!

Worth remembering that Charlbury is designated as a Rural Service Centre in the (WODC) Local Plan.  The title kind of speaks for itself - and is borne out factually by the services available here and by some of the posts on this thread.  The clue there is also in the title 'Rural' - so a lot of people travel by car to make use of those services, not to mention holidaymakers, pub guests etc.

Policies encouraging alternatives to car use - and more importantly, actual steps to achieve them - are important but it would be naive to think that by themselves, they can 'buck the trend' of ever increasing car ownership and especially the (to me) inexplicable rise in the popularity of SUVs.

Both Chipping Norton - a 'Main' SC - and Burford - like us a RSC - I believe have Council run car parks.  Yes I know Burford has far more tourists - long may that remain so!  But if Charlbury is to 'perform' as a RSC - as it increasingly seems to be aspiring to and WODC says it is - why shouldn't WODC acquire land and provide the visitor parking needed to enable it to do so? Combined with some kind of residents' scheme - I don't say it would be easy!

I have great respect for our elected district councillors (would you do it??) so please don't take this as a personal criticism - but if WODC feels that responsibility elsewhere, why doesn't it here?  I mean that as a non-party question even if in practice the answer is there's no money....

As a PS, I wonder what the welcome sight of traffic wardens yesterday and today - did I really say that? - will achieve...

Gary Harrison
👍 2

Wed 13 Mar, 15:50

Jane, have sent you a private message with the details.  As Richard has said this is an initial data gathering exercise to inform a wider consultation if required.

Emily Algar
👍 1

Wed 13 Mar, 14:28

Jane, you would either need to be in the select streets the survey has gone to to receive one, or you need to contact the Town Clerk.

Jane Crane
👍 3

Wed 13 Mar, 14:07

Could someone answer my question please ..where do you access the questionnaire and I agree all of Charlbury should be asked and definitely us living Market Street 

Emily Algar
👍 7

Wed 13 Mar, 10:04

All of these posts raise valuable points, but the sense I get is that the TC has not publicised the steps it is taking to resolve the parking problem in Charlbury. A questionnaire is a good first step, but there needs to be accompanying comms so people aren't left wondering why they have or haven't received a questionnaire. 

Richard Fairhurst
(site admin)
👍 1

Wed 13 Mar, 09:56

Asking people who live in the town centre for specific issues they’ve encountered doesn’t preclude asking the rest of Charlbury at another date.

Rosemary, I would far rather that space in the town centre was used for the Community Centre, and for homes for people to live in, than for yet more storage space for cars.

Simon J Harley
👍 12

Wed 13 Mar, 06:50 (last edited on Wed 13 Mar, 06:56)

So if you were to limit the whole Spendlove carpark to 2 hours, people who work in Charlbury, and are unable to find on street parking, would have a very short working day! Are you actually trying to kill off all of the local businesses?

Anyway, let’s keep this post to the original subject. Surely all homes and businesses in Charlbury should be involved in this survey to get a true reflection of people’s thoughts and opinions?

Alison Marshall
👍 1

Tue 12 Mar, 20:39

I agree with you Philip.  My daughter is one of those people who has to come in regularly with her two small children and she often has trouble parking.  This is made worse by people without children parking in the parent and child spaces, which happens more often than you'd imagine. 

Philip Ambrose
👍 2

Tue 12 Mar, 19:46

However laudable such a survey may be, it will be of very limited value if it fails to include those living further afield whose nearest supermarket, library, sports facilities, dental, GP or veterinary surgery are located in Charlbury.

Maybe ALL the  public parking spaces in the Spendlove Car Park should be limited to a maximum of 2 hours daytime parking to dissuade commuter use and deliver benefits to the maximum number of people? That’s plenty for a shop, football or tennis match, dental, veterinary or doctor’s appointment.

GWR ought to provide enough parking spaces at Charlbury Station for its customers, probably at a reduced rate for its long suffering annual season ticket holders?

It is disingenuous of the developers of Eynsham Garden Village and OCC to suggest that Charlbury and Hanborough stations have a role in delivering green transport solutions for that jobless commuter dormitory town, unless car parking capacity issues at those stations are addressed.

Rosemary Bennett
👍 1

Tue 12 Mar, 18:34

As a long term-term resident, bang in the centre, I would like to say this. There have been one or two precious moments in time when plans could have been made for a decent car park to serve the town, well into the future. This is history now and a sad story it is, too. The centre of town did have an opportunity when the Spendlove School and its swimming pool were demolished. Nothing very remarkable came of it, but the amazing people of Charlbury eventually built the Community Centre despite the later debacle over the Primary School.

The biggest opportunity came when the Gifford Trust negotiated with a building company to demolish the Primary School and build housing. But. The trust was ill advised, and naive, and despite much positive opposition, and presentations of suggestions, it was agreed, hook, line and sinker, to go ahead. Much of what was promised within the ‘deal’ never came to fruition. And it was a lot. A terrible decision where none of the alternatives was considered seriously, if at all. 
So, there is no solution for the centre of town. There’s nowhere to do anything properly, now. Every green space has been optimised financially, within a framework of stone, concrete and tarmac.
Hopefully the Playing Close will not even be suggested as it is not ours, nor anybody else’s, to steal. It is held in trust, as it is, for the people of Charlbury, as I understand it.

Christine Battersby
👍 2

Tue 12 Mar, 12:08 (last edited on Tue 12 Mar, 12:15)

Alison, the survey hasn't even gone out to those who live in Charlbury, except to those who live in a very limited number of very central streets.

It's a rather odd decision to only distribute the questionnaire to those few streets, since any attempt to introduce residents' only parking = or perhaps severely restrict parking time except for residents who live the central area - is likely to have dire consequences for those Charlbury residents who live outside this very central area and who find walking to the centre of town either impossible or extremely onerous. 

The residents of this central area do have extreme difficulties in parking, and I of course recognise that these difficulties are now made much worse by the numerous visitors to the pubs and restaurants which have opened in the town. But, on the other hand, the residents who live in the town centre live within easy walking distance of the pubs and shops. The rest of us do not! 

Blue Badge parking is only available to those whose mobility problems are likely to last three years. As such, many Charlbury residents in the "outer" areas of town (including The Slade, and areas to the north, east and west) are likely to feel fearful that they will be unable to access the amenities of the town centre, at least during the daytime when the town centre shops and businesses are open. 

There's a Town Council AGM this Friday, and I am sure I won't be the only person wanting and hoping for some clarification about why the decision was taken to only leaflet these few streets.

Alison Marshall
👍

Tue 12 Mar, 10:24

Is the survey available online for people who live in the surrounding villages and have to drive to Charlbury for appointments, clubs etc?

Jane Crane
👍 4

Tue 12 Mar, 10:09

How do you access the form for the survey ? I’ve asked my neighbours and they too have not had a form…we live Market Street 

Nicolette lethbridge
👍 4

Fri 8 Mar, 14:26

the Town Council have sent out a Town Centre Parking Survey form to households and this is a very sensible idea and they are to be commended for it. But they have missed out one sizeable group of people. These are residents who do not have cars to park in the road outside their houses but do have elderly and/or mildly disable visitors who need to park out side the house and workmenwho need access to their vans for tools etc. The traffic wardens used to turn a blind eye to the latter but that is not a happy situation

You must log in before you can post a reply.

Charlbury Website © 2012-2023. Contributions are the opinion of their authors. Heading photo by David R Murphy. Code/design by Richard Fairhurst. Contact us. Follow us on Twitter. Like us on Facebook.