Official news..having failed to sell a lot of the commercial premises of Tabard Square, apparently they are planning to turn the parking into Supermarket paid parking...isnt that just what everyone wants? Cars coming and going all day, everyone getting their car biffed, UGH! More black marks to Berkeley Homes.
Er....Ivanhoe...very cryptic, not sure what you mean. I have absolutely no axe to grind over Tabard Square, not my neck of the woods, just horrified that people who have thought they are getting a building with private parking are going to find all the supermarket traffic there instead...Ah well, yes, I see that you think it's more of the same regarding what's happening in Metro Central Heights. Believe me, if I had a choice, I'd have the supermarket cars rather than that huge tower and two years' banishment to the streets on the Rockingham Estate which is what we are being "compensated" with.
As someone who will confess to taking a sneaky peak at the Tabard Development a while back, I understood that there were always two sets of parking contemplated - allocated parking for residents and the businesses there, and some paid parking for those making use of the businesses. They were intended to be in seperate bits of the parking facility.
Not sure what the position is now - they may well have altered the ratio of car parking between residents and shoppers - but at £15,000 per allocated space, the residents parking is not exactly losing money for Berkeley Homes !
I just meant that it was a bit over the top imho to draw a causal line starting with change of use of car parking spaces and ending in "everyone getting their car biffed".
I'd imagined that the amount they charge for residential car spaces (£15k/space, as Siduhe says above) would be an amount set so that the developers make "enough" return on their money. Therefore, my train of logic runs that if anyone wanted a residential space, and if there were spare spaces going, then the developers would be happier to sell the spaces as residential ones.
Add to that the fact that anyone who wants a residential space is probably likely to have that requirement as a condition of buying a (much more expensive) flat in the development, I would have thought that residents were in the driving seat in any negotiations (unless the supermarket was prepared to pay a heck of a lot more per space, and then build that into their cost structure).
And if there was always going to be parking for hte shops, then any potential residents would know that before buying (and would presumably weigh up any inconvenience caused by that against the convenience of having a supermarket downstairs).
But apparently the supermarket ISNT downstairs. As you say, they're not selling their parking spaces so B.Homes (my favourite people) are coining it in elsewhere. Of course they wont necessarily be biffed, but a better chance of it if there's a continual coming and going rather than residential parking.
jackie, do you mean that the space designated for a small s/market is now not going to be let and the uptake on the other retail units is poor? If so, I assume that we can look forward to a long spell of walking past yet more boarded up fascias at ground floor level, typical of a number of new mixed use developments around here.
The space designated as a supermarket will be used as such - look at the large (and not inexpensive) loading doors and area that has been built facing onto Tabard Street.
Berkeley Homes probably aren't in a big rush to let it - it won't be the most profitable part of the devlopment by a long way. I imagine its value will also increase when the housing is finished.
My understanding is that in the early stages of the development, negotiations reached an advanced stage with a major high street name to let the space. As a part of that deal, they wanted 50 parking spaces for their customers. The deal fell through and those spaces will not now necessarily be sold/let with the commecial space. At £25k a go, it is probably more lucrative for BH to try to sell them to residents or maybe let them on licences to the 'affordable' housing residents.