Parking impacting local business (Roads)

Sun 5 Oct, 19:00 (last edited on Mon 6 Oct, 06:58)

This thread seems to have gone – as they do – into a different discussion.

 Can I bring it back to Becky & Debi's opening question?  Which is important if you want to keep local services going...   

Charlbury is designated under WODC’s Local Plan (which runs to 2031) as a…

Long post - click to read full text

Tue 30 Sep, 11:56 (last edited on Tue 30 Sep, 11:57)

Announced at the Labour Party Conference: WMT will transfer from Transport UK on 1 Feb 2026 (already announced); GTR will transfer from Govia (Go-Ahead/Keolis) on 31 May 2026; Chiltern and GWR will transfer (from Arriva and FirstGroup respectively) later in 2026 (specific dates not announced).

Avanti, Cross-Country and EMR are likely to transfer in 2027. Apparently, Cross-Country (the worst!) can't be transferred until October 2027 at the earliest. 

Mon 29 Sep, 07:41 (last edited on Mon 29 Sep, 13:11)

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/when-will-my-local-train-operator-be-nationalised/

The above report lists the end dates of rail franchise contracts and the end of core time after which their contracts can be ended with notice.  GWR have already passed the contract core time.

How about a resident funded bid to finance a second storey on the station car park?  There are good returns on car parking.  

Tue 23 Sep, 14:56

And if you want an even weirder example, the concourse at Oxford station is managed by GWR, while the roof of the station is Network Rail's responsibility 

Tue 23 Sep, 11:08

I suppose the key point is that with Labour plans to transfer the franchises to GBR as they come up for renewal, GWR will not have a long term view on income generation and therefore we need an independent assessment of the cost of another layer on the car park, not to rely on GWR who will not wish to do it.

Tue 23 Sep, 10:40

It’s complicated. GWR is the ‘Station Facility Owner’. The station freehold is owned by Network Rail but leased to GWR. There are various forms of station lease (some very long) – I’m not sure which one Charlbury is, but regardless, GWR as leaseholder is the company responsible for car parks, whereas Network Rail was responsible for the platform extensions.

The rail industry is absolutely accursed when it comes to this sort of split – there is a whole arbitration case about whether a peacock is a “small bird” (in which case the train operator has to fork out for delays caused by hitting one) or a “large bird” (in which case it’s Network Rail’s fault for not putting up fencing).

Tue 23 Sep, 10:24

Thank you Hamish.  It was a real spaghetti dish of propaganda.  I wondered why they repaired the station itself but I supposed that they did it with Network Rail funding and approval, simply because it was listed.  My spell check keeps changing Network Rail to Network Raid !

Tue 23 Sep, 09:56

Unless GWR have purchased the land recently, which I doubt, then Alice you are correct. Network rail own the railway lines and station land. There's an interesting map of collated information here: https://map.whoownsengland.org/ (click on Network Rail in the map legend).

The ownership of the land at the stations is the same reason that enforcement of the parking charges come under Railway Byelaws (different to private car parks).

Tue 23 Sep, 06:31 (last edited on Tue 23 Sep, 07:11)

Sorry Liz I had assumed that they only borrow the infrastructure because they only franchise to run the rail service.  Network Rail own all the infrastructure and pay for most of the trains I understand.  They must have bought the surrounding land. What an odd business decision.  Makes taking back control of the lines a bit more complicated when their franchise ends.  I had to remind myself of ownership structure because it was such a stupid thing to tell the public it had been privatised.  

Mon 22 Sep, 22:22 (last edited on Mon 22 Sep, 22:25)

The land belongs to GWR not GBR/Network Rail. GWR own land around the stations in  Hanborough and Kingham as well and are working on plans for extra parking at both stations, and we have explored all possible options at Charlbury station with them.  But then what do they or I know.......

Mon 22 Sep, 16:19

Agreed Hamish.  GWR only manage the land as a car park under the terms of their contract I presume. The land still belongs to us, or GB Rail I suppose we are called now.  We have a longer view than GWR and it is in our interests that this land be more intensively used.   Taking additional green space to use as car parking is the wrong solution. 

Oxford City built a two storey car park in Opens Meadow over a weekend. Bicester Village built a two storey car park with no problem.  Maybe we shouldn't have asked GWR - we should have asked Network Rail/GBR.

Mon 22 Sep, 13:33

I believe GWR are making excuses rather than being genuinely interested in solutions. 

It wouldn't cost millions and with thoughtful design there would only be a handful of spaces lost, for the addition of 50 - 60 extra spaces. A car park design specialist budgets this £600-£720k, though even adding 50% contingency this still isn't millions.

However, what would it benefit GWR? They only get a proportion of the revenue with APCOA managing the car park on their behalf, and would it result in 50-60 more train ticket sales? I'm not sure they're really that bothered, so they'll inflate cost estimates to avoid having to do anything.

Mon 22 Sep, 10:39 (last edited on Mon 22 Sep, 10:41)

The cost of adding an extra layer to the parking at the station was recently estimated by GWR to be in the millions, while delivering little extra parking space because of the need for ramps in both directions.  The Spendlove could possibly be reconfigured to add a few extra space, which is what WODC are assessing. 

Mon 22 Sep, 08:09 (last edited on Mon 22 Sep, 08:10)

Other ideas - widen the pavements at the bottom of  Browns Lane, place bollards down the edge and make the road one bus width/one SUV wide.

More from me - chevron style parking down Church Street, the only street wide enough. Put another layer on the station car park in the dip. It wouldn’t be visible, The Bull already run a pick up service for visitors who struggle with walking short distances.

The Spendlove car park owned by WODC has no extra space to magic up. Disabled spaces are needed and parking bay sizes need to be increased not decreased because of the choices people are making in vehicle design and purchase. Parking for the community centre, vet, dentist, doctors etc is theirs and should be kept theirs.  We’ve already lost a valuable recycling facility to the motor vehicle.  Access to all businesses and public facilities by all people, not just a select few, needs protecting.

Fri 19 Sep, 18:10 (last edited on Fri 19 Sep, 18:11)

I have asked the Town Council to consider adding Becky and Debi's suggestion to the list of changes to the current scheme which was discussed last the last TC meeting and which is being submitted to OCC officers.  Which by the way already includes more permit-free parking on Brown's Lane and near the cemetery, another place where people coming into the town need to be able to park.  WODC are going to be reviewing the arrangements at the Spendlove, which they own, to see if more spaces can be made there.

Fri 19 Sep, 18:08

Richard makes a good point Posting on the forum gives us an outlet but direct feedback is the best way to help local businesses

Fri 19 Sep, 15:41 (last edited on Fri 19 Sep, 15:41)

I’m not sure any of this is particularly helpful to Becky and Debi’s original point.

Changing the one-hour restriction on Sheep Street to three hours (like Market Street) seems very doable.

OCC certainly do listen to consultation responses – I was reading earlier today that the latest Witney High Street plans have been revised following feedback from businesses along the street. There are several OCC staff who live in Charlbury, so it isn’t the case that they can’t imagine “a town without regular public transport and multiple car parks”. (Even though Charlbury surely does have regular public transport!)

If you think the change is worth making, then do send feedback as Becky and Debi ask.

Fri 19 Sep, 09:31

A referendum and a consultation are not the same thing

Thu 18 Sep, 19:07

Simon's argument if true would mean that there was not a majority who voted for Brexit. 

Thu 18 Sep, 15:31

Important point from Alan, and agree as a social scientist. These stats also seem to be in line with comments on local media eg Oxford Mail and BBC Oxfordshire, most of which were objections. The same point applies of course to the Charlbury parking consultation.

Thu 18 Sep, 12:21

I don't have any particular views to offer on the scheme under discussion, but as someone whose degree involved a significant amount of statistics I would just like to take issue with the idea that because only 1% of the population responded, the answers cannot be seen as representative of the views of the population as a whole.  This is a fallacy.  In terms of statistical reliability, the absolute number of respondents is far more important than the proportion of the population.  (What does matter is the likelihood of selection bias, eg are opponents of the scheme more likely to respond than supporters, or vice versa.  I suspect that is likely to be less of an issue for this particular consultation than for many.)

Thu 18 Sep, 10:48

Regarding Oxford, there were 7,165 respondents, "In the survey, 66% of people said there should not be a charge, while 74% said it would negatively affect them.", As of June 2023, the population of Oxford City (ONS figure) was 165,200. The population for Oxfordshire is give as 763,200. Therefore the actual figure of people who responded negatively, is a very small number when compared to the population of the city or the county. Statistically it is not a representative figure and it should not really be stated that it is i.e. it is not "an overwhelming rejection". If anything, the figures show that a majority of people are not bothered by the proposal and subsequent costs. Of course that will be seen as the 'silent majority who have no voice' etc.

Thu 18 Sep, 08:15

I would suggest that the businesses affected write to their local councillors on OCC as part of the problem is that OCC policies prevent businesses having permits. Noone seems to have realised this until the scheme was so far in progress that noone wanted to pull it. There’s no reason that OCC cant change it, even if they change it just for Charlbury, Staff working in OCC probably can’t imagine a town without regular public transport and multiple car parks. 

Wed 17 Sep, 14:10

The long and short of it is that the people in charge of the scheme do not care about the normal people like all the businesses commenting on this. They are only interested about their own pockets, and the people who bought houses with out driveways who now decide to moan about parking don't care either. 

Nothing will happen whenever the "review" takes place. All consultations are a waste of time. Look at the new Oxford congestion charge they have shoehorned in despite the overwhelming rejection on the consultation. If the council want to do something they will do so without regard for the people it impacts the most. 

I do feel sorry for all the people this ridiculous scheme will impact. 

Wed 17 Sep, 13:47

I think Becky's concerns are valid and her suggestions are sensible. I really hope these issues and concerns are taken into consideration by the people in charge of this scheme and positive changes are made in due course. Keeping a business running during these times is tricky enough, and especially hard for small local businesses and self-employed tradespeople. 

Please let's support the businesses/ tradespeople that we have in Charlbury!  

Wed 17 Sep, 11:35

With traffic wardens giving out tickets as late as 9.30 in the evening a visitor from Chadlington received a fine as missed the new signage!
As Christine mentioned less mobile folk now struggle to complete visits into town. Perhaps they could issue some ‘in car badges’ for residents or those working around town. They could then use the several empty resident spaces, as whole areas seem ‘blocked’ now.

I had to park on double yellow lines to collect urgent prescription from Averose, stress is not good.

My other gripe is that with spaces for 3 cars, many are just parking across them, leaving half a car width free either side, so… frustrating.  These spaces need making as 3 cars.

Tue 16 Sep, 19:17

My car is my toolbox,  so if I work in charlbury town centre I need to park my car where I work. 

This has become almost impossible since the new restrictions have been introduced. I'm sure after the years trial nothing will change as those people who have permits are perfectly happy. 

Apart from using a hand trolley which has been  smugly suggested by permit holders, I'm struggling every day to park for work. Trade permits maybe..

Mon 15 Sep, 07:53

It's not just visitors who need longer than 3 hours in the Coop car park, it's also locals who live outside the very centre of the town, especially those with mobility problems but who don't qualify for Blue Badge parking.

This includes many elderly Charlbury residents and younger people with temporary disabilities (eg broken bones). It's already difficult enough! 

Mon 15 Sep, 07:34

I have also been told that it would be difficult if I wanted to park to do regular garden maintenance as residents aren't provided with spare permits to allow for something like this?

Mon 15 Sep, 05:55 (last edited on Mon 15 Sep, 09:36)

I firmly believe that there needs to be parking somewhere so you can stay longer than 3 hours. I appreciate your suggestion that local businesses would be looked after with a permit scheme, but what about people visiting the town who need to stay longer? As local businesses are not entitled to visitors permits to issue to people, what about an electrician for example who are working all day for you?

Sun 14 Sep, 21:51

Should this actually say “maximum” of 3 hours. . . ?

To prevent the Co-op carpark being misused by commuters and non-permit holders this needs to be restricted, minimum of 3 hours.

Sun 14 Sep, 20:57

Hello Charlbury,

Becky and Debi here, co owners of Clarimore Beautique - Sheep Street.

Since opening the salon in 2017 parking hasn’t been easy and as popularity grew parking became more difficult. Although the new restrictions have helped stop the commuters unfortunately we find the restrictions too limiting for our…

Long post - click to read full text