Starting Gate site to be developed Options

[CrackerJack]

Plans for a Tesco Express have been submitted to WBC for approval. 400sqm of the pub car park will be gobbled up with the building and other parking spaces will be reserved for customers to the store.

The Starting Gate car park development

This could be interesting seeing as the parents at Robert Sandilands School are already up in arms over the introduction of parking fees/tickets by Punch Taverns to prevent them using it to drop their kids off. I think they may have hoped that the pub landlord will eventually relent and let them back in, but if Tesco (or other superstore) have got their foot in the door then there will be no return and so chaos will reign in Digby Road and other roads in the area as parents turn up earlier and earlier in the afternoon vying for the best parking spots.

Is this all part of a gentrification of Brummell Road? The junkies flats on Kersey Crescent have been demolished, now there's to be a store (more up-market than the current and rather grandly titled "Brummell Superstore" at the corner of Burchell Road run by Mr & Mrs Rai).

Whatever next? Refurbishing the Gate and turning it into some wine bar with a new poncey name?

[blackdog]

Can the addition of a Tesco store really be called gentrification?

[Turin Machine]

So, where do the pub customers park?

[CrackerJack]

Can the addition of a Tesco store really be called gentrification?

I wasn't completely serious and a Tesco Express is hardly Waitrose or Fortnum & Mason, but I'd argue it's perhaps part of a wider scheme to gentrify the estate. The Kersey Crescent renewal is full steam ahead and once that's occupied the demographic profile of the estate may change and Tesco see that as an opportunity.

Older, established residents watching their pennies can continue to shop at Brummell Superstore (corner shop). More aspirational residents (and ones living closer to the Gate) may pop into Tesco. It's the 'thin end' approach Tesco are employing to gather customers.

Definition of GENTRIFICATION. : the process of renewal and rebuilding accompanying the influx of middle-class or affluent people into deteriorating areas that often displaces poorer residents.

If however The Starting Gate is refurbished and becomes The Elephant at Speen, or The Frog and Dandelion or other pretentious name then we'll know that the gentrification process is underway.

[CrackerJack]

So, where do the pub customers park?

The highways report on the WBC Planning link states:

28 car spaces are proposed for both the store and pub, including one disabled space. Based upon the total GFA for the proposed store, 372sqm, 13 parking spaces are required. This then affords 15 spaces for the pub. The TS includes TRICS data for parking demand, although I note this data has been based upon ‘public houses without restaurants’. I am aware the Starting Gate pub currently serves meals.

It is recognised that many public houses have taken up serving meals to stay in business. It follows that a pub that serves meals will probably generate more vehicle movements than a pub that serves only drinks...... (etc) ... In light of the above menu I do not consider the type of TRICS data, i.e. public houses without restaurants’, will generate a robust representation of the number of vehicular trips the Starting Gate may generate, not necessarily currently but potentially in the future.

I am also aware the pub car park is currently used on a short term basis by parents who walk their children to the nearby Robert Sandilands school. Whilst there is no entitlement for the car park to be used by visitors to the school in this way, I have concerns the loss of some or all of this informal parking facility as a result of the proposals will lead to parking on-street, some of which will be inappropriate and illegal and will cause inconvenience to residents on the surrounding streets.

[CrackerJack]

Well this wasn't on the website last night when I posted:


Robert Sandilands parents annoyed at parking

“The idea of putting a shop there is as good as saying they are willing to risk children’s lives in a place where they are most vulnerable

.
I'm willing to bet that a good proportion of the parents that drive to the school and therefore contribute to the traffic congestion in that area could very easily walk to and from home. Perhaps this idleness and increased number of cars presents the most regular and unnecessary risk to children's lives?

[blackdog]

I wasn't completely serious and a Tesco Express is hardly Waitrose or Fortnum & Mason, but I'd argue it's perhaps part of a wider scheme to gentrify the estate. The Kersey Crescent renewal is full steam ahead and once that's occupied the demographic profile of the estate may change and Tesco see that as an opportunity.

Older, established residents watching their pennies can continue to shop at Brummell Superstore (corner shop). More aspirational residents (and ones living closer to the Gate) may pop into Tesco. It's the 'thin end' approach Tesco are employing to gather customers.

I'd call the process one of improvement rather than gentrification - Kersey Crescent was an embarrassment that needed to go; the replacement is high density low end of the market housing. Gentrification would involve lower density - and a deli/coffee shop, not Tesco's.

And I suspect Tesco's prices are lower than those of the Brummell Superstore, those watching their pennies may be delighted to see them on the estate.

[CrackerJack]

And I suspect Tesco's prices are lower than those of the Brummell Superstore, those watching their pennies may be delighted to see them on the estate.

True. And I suspect that's why Mr & Mrs Rai have objected.
The permanent loss of parking spaces for parents may also improve health locally as those parents currently driving 500m to pick their kids up may have to consider... using.. their... legs..?

[On the edge]

I've often thought it odd that we still have major issues with street parking; after all, we've had cars for well over 100 years now. Should we not have properly designed streetscape to cope? Oh yes, we can go back to the fifties when kids walked to school and dad went to work on a bike; leaving just mum at home - but who honestly does that now? Equally, why is 'gentrification' or actually doing up an area seen as a bad thing? So long as the homes remain within everyone's reach, surely we all want a better domestic environment - free of litter and busted curbs etc?

[Andy Capp]

Yes and having a decent store might help reduce car movements to town.

[On the edge]

I wholly agree; particularly the small Tesco branches that have appeared in various places round London, where doing up the area (or 'gentrification) can actually increase the density of dwellings at the same time as significantly enhancing quality and so increase the potential market size. Surprising what can be done when you deliver what people actually want rather than what is assumed!

[CrackerJack]

I wholly agree; particularly the small Tesco branches that have appeared in various places round London, where doing up the area (or 'gentrification) can actually increase the density of dwellings at the same time as significantly enhancing quality and so increase the potential market size. Surprising what can be done when you deliver what people actually want rather than what is assumed!

That's not a view entirely supported by certain residents of Brixton and other London communities where gentrification (or 'improving') is meeting with opposition due to associated rise in house prices...
Brixton gentrification protests

Anyway I digress. This post was about the removal of parking and the anger of parents that seem incapable of walking more than 400m to pick up their offspring.

[Turin Machine]

Strikes me that with only 15 places the pub won't last long anyway. Still, nice building plot.

[x2lls]

That's not a view entirely supported by certain residents of Brixton and other London communities where gentrification (or 'improving') is meeting with opposition due to associated rise in house prices...
Brixton gentrification protests

Anyway I digress. This post was about the removal of parking and the anger of parents that seem incapable of walking more than 400m to pick up their offspring.

You know that for a fact do you?

[MontyPython]

You know that for a fact do you?

Well as he made the original post I suppose he does. Even if it wasn't necessarily apparent.

[On the edge]

That's not a view entirely supported by certain residents of Brixton and other London communities where gentrification (or 'improving') is meeting with opposition due to associated rise in house prices...
Brixton gentrification protests

Anyway I digress. This post was about the removal of parking and the anger of parents that seem incapable of walking more than 400m to pick up their offspring.

That's why I said ' So long as the homes remain within everyone's reach, '. I know a good few people who live in Brixton right now - their issue really is 'affordable homes' - so be careful what you wish for. Similarly, this isn't the first spat about school parking and if you took a little time to investigate, you'll find that it isn't anything to do with 'incapability of walking'. Its actually to do with not being able to deliver kids to school quickly and efficiently - nothing more, nothing less. Since your day, schools have much wider catchments and a good few pupils have no other realistic choice. The absence of frequent and economic public transport provides no other alternative. However, it is quite simple and straightforward to design attractive road schemes that do enable these problems to be eased or even eliminated. Frankly, a far more needed scheme than the state school feeding scheme. It really isn't the job of commercial organisations to do the local council's work.

[CrackerJack]

Since your day, schools have much wider catchments and a good few pupils have no other realistic choice.

Being a bit presumptuous there Mark. What do you think constitutes 'MY day'? Would this maybe be the same as 'YOUR day'?

Similarly, this isn't the first spat about school parking and if you took a little time to investigate, you'll find that it isn't anything to
do with 'incapability of walking'. Its actually to do with not being able to deliver kids to school quickly and efficiently - nothing more, nothing less.

That is absolute rubbish. You know it. I know it.
There are parents at EVERY school who could walk if they could be bothered or if they weren't scared to death of the thought of doing some exercise.
Within 1 mile catchment is achievable. The criteria for children getting free transport to school is TWO miles for children under 8 and
THREE miles for older children. Anything under that distance is therefore considered suitable and I think you could pick every other
parent parking on Brummell Road on an afternoon to be within that distance.

'Incapable of walking' is an alternative term for 'bone idle'. Some would drive their children in through the school gates, down the
corridor and throw them out at their desks if the option was available and it meant they didn't have to walk.

In any case they don't have to park directly outside the school. They could park a number of roads away and only walk a short
distance to the school if walking was such a frightening prospect. That would relieve congestion around the school gates where
there is the greatest hazard and the greatest potential for parked cars to cause problems for vulnerable pedestrians wanting to
cross the road.

...it is quite simple and straightforward to design attractive road schemes that do enable these problems to be eased
or even eliminated. It really isn't the job of commercial organisations to do the local council's work.

Pie in the Sky 'Blue Sky Apolitical Thinking' cobblers. I think you need a reality check.
You're dealing with a road network which has remained similar in layout since the 1960s. Unless you have the funds for
compulsory purchase where necessary and the will to face the flak from residents that object then in the real world you have to
work with what's available. And funding in the current climate is not 'simple and straightforward'.

[Andy Capp]

Being a bit presumptuous there Mark. What do you think constitutes 'MY day'? Would this maybe be the same as 'YOUR day'?

That is absolute rubbish. You know it. I know it.
There are parents at EVERY school who could walk if they could be bothered or if they weren't scared to death of the thought of doing some exercise.
Within 1 mile catchment is achievable. The criteria for children getting free transport to school is TWO miles for children under 8 and
THREE miles for older children. Anything under that distance is therefore considered suitable and I think you could pick every other
parent parking on Brummell Road on an afternoon to be within that distance.

'Incapable of walking' is an alternative term for 'bone idle'. Some would drive their children in through the school gates, down the
corridor and throw them out at their desks if the option was available and it meant they didn't have to walk.

In any case they don't have to park directly outside the school. They could park a number of roads away and only walk a short
distance to the school if walking was such a frightening prospect. That would relieve congestion around the school gates where
there is the greatest hazard and the greatest potential for parked cars to cause problems for vulnerable pedestrians wanting to
cross the road.

Pie in the Sky 'Blue Sky Apolitical Thinking' cobblers. I think you need a reality check.
You're dealing with a road network which has remained similar in layout since the 1960s. Unless you have the funds for
compulsory purchase where necessary and the will to face the flak from residents that object then in the real world you have to
work with what's available. And funding in the current climate is not 'simple and straightforward'.

Do you have data to back all that up? Do you know what percentage of pupils get a lift compared to pupils that walk? And what the average distance is for those that get a lift?

[On the edge]

Being a bit presumptuous there Mark. What do you think constitutes 'MY day'? Would this maybe be the same as 'YOUR day'?



That is absolute rubbish. You know it. I know it.
There are parents at EVERY school who could walk if they could be bothered or if they weren't scared to death of the thought of doing some exercise.
Within 1 mile catchment is achievable. The criteria for children getting free transport to school is TWO miles for children under 8 and
THREE miles for older children. Anything under that distance is therefore considered suitable and I think you could pick every other
parent parking on Brummell Road on an afternoon to be within that distance.

'Incapable of walking' is an alternative term for 'bone idle'. Some would drive their children in through the school gates, down the
corridor and throw them out at their desks if the option was available and it meant they didn't have to walk.

In any case they don't have to park directly outside the school. They could park a number of roads away and only walk a short
distance to the school if walking was such a frightening prospect. That would relieve congestion around the school gates where
there is the greatest hazard and the greatest potential for parked cars to cause problems for vulnerable pedestrians wanting to
cross the road.




Pie in the Sky 'Blue Sky Apolitical Thinking' cobblers. I think you need a reality check.
You're dealing with a road network which has remained similar in layout since the 1960s. Unless you have the funds for
compulsory purchase where necessary and the will to face the flak from residents that object then in the real world you have to
work with what's available. And funding in the current climate is not 'simple and straightforward'.

I just didn't want to suggest you were as old as I am. That is, when the kids at my school all lived within 15 minutes walk and it was quite safe to cross the A3 without a lollipop man. Of course, there are a few who live close and yet still drive. Just as there is at work. Nonetheless, large numbers can't - parents have a choice these days.

Apolitical thinking, no such thing. Apolitical is about considering everyone's view; not just accepting a party line. So I'm just bringing some other views to this particular issue. Just blocking any change 'because we don't like it' or 'because we didn't invent it' is the prerogative of other parties. I'd like to see a real debate;and that means properly considering other real alternatives, not just shouting them down.

As far as those alternatives are concerned, I wish they were the fruits of my own mind, but no, they've come from examples and experiences elsewhere, in both UK and Europe. As for funding, it's around. After all, we seemed to find money to buy up derelict buildings, instal exercise equipment in parks etc. We have also been given large sums to 'fix the roads'. Some of the alterations need not cost much at all, simply some kerb adjustments etc.

If we really do want to make all kids walk to school; then all we have to do is bring back the 1944 arrangements - strict catchment areas. Be careful though, remember back then most housing was built on the basis of 1 car per 10 dwellings. Nonetheless, that would solve the problem at a stroke.

[CrackerJack]

Some parents clearly are limited in options and the most appropriate thing is for them to drop the kids off on their way to work. Others have limited options due to catchment criteria - although some go out of their way to send children to schools further away than the nearest to their homes out of choice, which exacerbates the problem for all.

Others could make arrangements to share the responsibility of walking a group of children to and from school - the 'Walking Bus' scheme - which would cut down on car numbers outside schools. 'Park & Stride' is another initiative to remove cars from the school gates.

But others still are just idle. Turn up a hour before schools close in the afternoon and sit in their cars reading. I've seen it quite regularly.

Do you have data to back all that up? Do you know what percentage of pupils get a lift compared to pupils that walk? And what the average distance is for those that get a lift?

The figures on WBC website show that there are 241 pupils currently at Robert Sandilands school. 193 of them live within 1 mile. 49.6% walk but 42.8% go there by car with the rest either cycling or 'other'.