Hello guest, if you read this it means you are not registered. Click here to register in a few simple steps, you will enjoy all features of our Forum.

Our community forum is now open, a warm welcome to all Richings Park residents. Please register in order to be able to post and start new threads (March 23, 2015)


Poll: Do you oppose the new 250 space car park?
Yes
No
[Show Results]
 
Note: This is a public poll, other users will be able to see what you voted for.
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Construction of a 250 vehicle commuter car park in Richings Park
#1
Thumbs Down 
Hi All,

Please see the link to the new 250 vehicle car park for Iver Station and my comments strongly opposing the development below.  

I am in support of a new station car park and a controlled parking zone for Richings Park but strongly believe the Thorney Lane Business Park scheme is far better as due to its closer proximity to the station and benefits from the relief road.


https://publicaccess.southbucks.gov.uk/online-applications/caseDetails.do?caseType=Application&keyVal=OMGDYSOHM4400



Please see my comments below opposing the application.  

I am opposed to the new station car park for the following reasons.

1. 750 car parking space including 500 as planned in the Thorney lane business park development is not required.
2. The Thorney Lane Business Park scheme is far better as due to its closer proximity to the station and benefits from the relief road.
3. The car park will attract increased traffic on Thorney Lane and Bathurst Walk.
4. The scheme will attract more commuters from further afield as it’s by far the biggest car park in the area compared West Drayton and Langley.
5. The zebra crossing will cause extra traffic while people are crossing during peak traffic flow. Also the zebra crossing is too dangerous to cross due to the current speed limits and location on a hill. A bridge will be far more suitable.
6. Will increase air and noise pollution.
7. The scheme is in the wrong location and it is at least 1.1 km to the station.
8. The scheme will permit infill housing development or increased parking space in the future.
9. The existing noise from the motorway will increase once the car park is completed.  There are no acoustic barriers designed in the scheme.
10. The car park is on green belt and  has not been included in the SBC local plan
11. The path required to access the station behind Bathurst walk is not safe to walk and will result in people walking on Bathurst walk and increasing the amount of litter on the road.
12. No details have been provided regarding CPZ in Richings Park as residents are very concerned South Bucks council may charge the residents of Richings Park and my visitors to park on my road.
13. Commuters will still park on Richings park roads if the CPZ allows for free parking at night
14. The car park will be a complete eyesore.
15. The car park is too isolated and will attract crime.
16.    The quantity of the number of car parking space is too large taking into consideration that the developer’s     Angry reports showing the vast majority of the Iver station rail users commute to the station by walk.

West Drayton has 15 No. car parking spaces
Burnham has 59 No. car parking spaces
Langley has 83 No. car parking spaces.
Why does Iver require 250 No. car parking spaces for a small village and potentially 750 including Thorney Lane redevelopment???

17.  The developer and SBC should encourage more sustainable methods of transport for rail users eg. Buses, cycling or park and ride and not large car parks encouraging commuters to travel from neighbouring towns and potentially airport users to use the car park.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)