See if you can guess the town concerned before you click through to the article:
MORE than 140 businesses have objected to controversial plans to put students' flats on St Clement’s car park... The developer, the Watkin Jones Group, is planning to build accommodation blocks to house 141 students on the ... Council-owned car park.
If the £8m scheme gets approval from city council planners only 76 of the 120 car parking spaces will remain. Digging work has already started to find out if there are any significant archaeological remains on the site and traders say this has already taken up about 30 spaces next to Angel Meadow...
The council has pledged to look for a location for a temporary car park while the work takes place but so far a suitable place has not been found. Clinton Pugh, who runs Kazbar, Cafe CoCo and Cafe Tarifa in Cowley Road, fears businesses would be forced to shut.
He said: "Earlier this week the city council received objections from 145 businesses in St Clement’s, Cowley Road, High Street, King Edward Street and Turl Street. If this scheme goes ahead, there will be nowhere for shoppers to park for about a year and it will be incredibly damaging to shops and businesses in St Clement’s and the surrounding area.
"This plan will destroy St Clement’s and without a shadow of a doubt it will put some traders out of business. I personally knocked on the door of lots of shops and the traders I spoke to were happy to add their objections."
Spotter's Badge: Angry People In Local Newspapers.
Tuesday 7 June 2011
NIMBYs Of The Week
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
25 comments:
Yay, I got it right. Do I win a prize?
Ah well, Cowley Road, Turl Street, et al. rather give it away.
Being against greenfield development on car parks is a new one for me though!!
It does seem a reasonable objection from traders if the only car park near to their shops is being halved in size. They are not objecting to the deveopment per se - I doubt that a single one would be objecting if the flats were being built instead of say, a factory or a private car park, or a builder's yard or whatever.
Surely if the car park is being halved in area, the answer is to build a four storey car park on the site. That way you can actually increase the number of public spaces and still have the student accommodation, including some extra parking for the new tenants. So the shopkeepers would have nothing to complain about. In fact they would now have more potential customers than before.
Even if you just went for a two storey car park you could guarantee the same number of public spaces as previously existed. So the council should make planning permission dependent on the developer's plans ensuring no reduction in car parking availability.
And as for the temporary disruption, the traders should (in the best of all possible worlds) be able to claim a reduction in their Business Rates bill for the year. Or failing that they should be able to demand that the developer pays compensation for loss of business caused by the disruption.
Of course without Land Value Tax, this is not the best of all possible worlds, so I can see why they would be worried about their chances of being compensated.
If the traders are that bothered, why didn't they buy the car park?
@Derek: have you ever tried getting a Rate reduction from a Local Authority due to building work etc?
I have personal experience of someone who owns a small shop in a street the LA closed for months. He was unable to get a reduction for ages, and then only in arrears. At the time of the loss of trade he had to pay the full amount. That could be enough to finish some businesses, especially in the current economic climate.
I don't think that opposing a development such as this is nimbyism. I think it is totally reasonable self interest.
CD, yes, you get gold medal.
BE, silver for you.
B, I refer you to BE's second comment. These particular traders may object to loss of custom, but let's give it ten years until the flats are accepted as part of the scenery and the traders have adapted to the captive market of students popping out for munchies or computer cartridges at eleven o'clock at night - what would these hypothetical traders say if the council proposed to knock down the student flats and build a car park instead?
D, yes, completely agreed to both comments. LVT is the answer to pretty much everything.
BE, exactly - why didn't they? If they think that car parking is a better use (which it might well be, I do not know), then they should have put their money where mouths are.
S, which is why LVT (or its close relative Business Rates) has to be re-adjusted regularly - if there is such major disruption, then the council can buy people off by giving them a six- or twelve-month LVT or BR holiday.
This won't be so popular with people whose LVT bill goes up from one year to the next, but hey...
@Sobers, I know exactly what you mean and for once I agree completely with what you say. Small traders get an exceptionally Raw Deal whenever there are any roadworks or building works in the immediate vicinity. It's not fair and that's why I qualified my comment with "in the best of all possible worlds". I am sadly aware that the UK does not fall into that category at the moment.
My town. Oxford Uni surely represent one of the biggest landowners in the country. Mcvay has it right in the comments, this is Oxford Uni protecting their interests over the potential expansion of Oxford (Poly) Brookes onto their turf. The site is quite close to the city centre, traffic is an issue - I wouldn't choose to drive there. I reckon most people accessing these businesses (and having a drink) are on foot, bicycle or bus.
"but let's give it ten years" by which time they could be out of business. For that matter they could be out of business after six months.
"what would these hypothetical traders say if the council proposed to knock down the student flats and build a car park instead? "
Yippee!, would be my guess. Student flats are ten a penny in Oxford, whereas parking places are like rocking horse shit.
"then they should have put their money where mouths are."
Come on Mark, you know that's bullshit. Once the land has planning permission on it, no-one can afford to use it as a car park. There's a perfectly reasonable solution as proposed by Derek. Anyway, car parking is one of the services that are supposed to be covered by your business rates. You know, nearby car park = higher rentable value = higher business rates.
DNAse, indeed, Oxford Uni get bonus points for this: "Oxford University... says this would result in an unacceptable impact upon the amenity of postgraduate students."
B, yes, if we look into this in detail, we might find that the fall in local Business Rates (because the shops get fewer high paying customers) outweighs the increase in Council Tax receipts (because students are by and large exempt) and so on, what struck me was the sheer unmitigated NIMBYism of it all.
If, as Derek suggests, the local council earned revenue from LVT and LVT only, then it would take these things into account - but under current legislation it keeps zero per cent of Business Rates and one hundred per cent of Council Tax plus per capita grants for every local resident from Whitehall, you can understand why councils tend to look kindly on conversion from commercial to residential.
"Once the land has planning permission on it, no-one can afford to use it as a car park."
Thus proving that there is not a genuine shortage of car parking space in the area. Because if parking was at such a premium as you suggest then people would be willing to pay enough to make it profitable not to sell the land to developers.
BE, yes, that is where there is a mismatch.
IF all the local shopkeepers owned the car park collectively, then they would be able to make the correct trade off (your suggestion) for themselves, which may or may not be the optimal outcome for "Oxford" as a whole.
Consider - if a public park belongs to 'the community' or 'the council' it is likely to stay public, adding to overall well being. If you as a private individual own such a space, you'd be pretty stupid not to build up to the maximum permitted density.
IF the local council owns the car park and earns nothing from Business Rates (pooled at national level) but gets extra money from Council Tax or per capita grants, it males sub-optimal decisions (real life)
IF the local council earned money from LVT at the same rate from residential as from commercial uses (or Business Rates and Council Tax, whatever) it would lead to an optimal outcome for everybody. It's the Homeys and Faux Lib's who rail against such a system, not me.
"what struck me was the sheer unmitigated NIMBYism of it all"
But it's not NIMBYism: as I pointed out before, the traders are not objecting to the flats. Indeed, if there was to be no loss of parking spaces, temporary or permanent, they would supporting the development, as you point out. NIMBYs would be against it whatever the developer offered. Effectively, the Council are proposing to reduce the service they offer to the community in that area (shoppers as well as traders) and the community are objecting. Wouldn't you?
"Thus proving that there is not a genuine shortage of car parking space in the area. Because if parking was at such a premium as you suggest then people would be willing to pay enough to make it profitable not to sell the land to developers."
It doesn't prove anything of the sort. This particular area of Oxford is in effective competition with other areas of Oxford that are offering the same services. If parking becomes very difficult or expensive in this area, then customers are simply going to go to other areas and the businesses in this area will close.
B, yes, I do have sympathy for these traders, but let's assume that they lose some of their parking spaces and customers go elsewhere.
Firstly, one trader's loss is another trader's gain and secondly, can't the traders go elsewhere as well? If they are tenants, it's a bit of a shag but not the end of the world.
That rings a bell.
"If they are tenants, it's a bit of a shag but not the end of the world."
They're probably leaseholders.....
JH, and a bronze medal for you!
B, if they are tenants then why go to the faff of asking for Business Rates reduction, they should be asking for a rent reduction, problem solved.
As an Oxford resident I can report that parking (and driving) is an issue everywhere. In the center it is extremely limited and yet the town is always very busy(!?) The St.Clements area is a short walk from the city center and on multiple bus routes (including to central London). The local businesses are chiefly supported by students and young professionals living nearby, the majority of which I would say do not run a car. In fact I would stick my neck out and say that having increased accommodation over parking spaces would mean more trade. I've been here 10 years (with a car) and have never used that car park, I have however, frequented these businesses. Now I can see how in a places such as Milton Keynes (where everyone drives) removing parking from one area would be bad for local businesses but not so here.
DNAse, brilliant, nothing like the cool waters of local knowledge to douse the fire of prejudice.
"B, if they are tenants then why go to the faff of asking for Business Rates reduction, they should be asking for a rent reduction, problem solved."
Which rather supports my contention that they are leaseholders...
My, albeit limited knowledge of local politics tells me that traders have a fixation about parking which is more religous than empirical, e.g. they tend to fight any pedestrianisation scheme tooth and nail despite overwhelming evidence that it is good for trade, simply because motorist can no longer park outside their shops, even when the number of parking spaces lost is only one or two. So they are wrong on this one, but that doesn't make them NIMBYs.
Well, I grew up in Oxford and the Council there is the most virulently anti-car one I have ever experienced (which is saying something). Their transport department basically thinks it is their job to make it gradually harder and harder to use a car anywhere in the City.
Their answer to congestion is to deliberately make it worse by closing roads, in order to discourage car use and therefore improve congestion.
In this case, their anti-car ethos is no doubt reinforced by the money they will get from the developer by selling the land once they've given themselves planning permission.
Post a Comment