Campaign to keep traders at Crimdon

Most people reading these pages will already be aware of an ongoing issue at Crimdon where traders have been refused licenses to operate, some of them well established and respected businesses - all of them extremely popular with residents and the increasing number of visitors to Crimdon.

 

From a handful of comments noted on social media it would appear there’s some confusion about the current position, and particularly about our involvement as local councillors, so I thought a brief outline of events to date might help to clarify a few points.

I was first alerted to a potential problem when one of the traders contacted me a while ago expressing concerns that they were to be moved off-site at very short notice. The reason given by the local authority was that the businesses were having a detrimental impact on the natural environment. 

My initial reaction was one of surprise, given that some of these businesses had been on-site for many years without any complaints or event a hint of disruption. Without delay I contacted the relevant departments at county hall to ask for clarity on the reasons for removal, and also to issue a request for officers to meet with me and Stacey as local county councillors and potentially affected traders. In response I was advised that the council would be seeking to relocate small businesses to more suitable locations at Crimdon - and I believe this remains an option pending contact with traders. 

In addition, last month I raised a number of specific points with officers at county hall on behalf of one of the traders. I've reproduced below the full response I received from the relevant service at DCC (personal details have been redacted for GDPR purposes):

Dear Cllr Crute 

Further to your emails on behalf of ****, please accept my apologies for the delay in providing a response to you. 

With regard to the specific queries you have raised, we can advise as follows:         

What is the process used in applying for a licence to occupy DCC land, and what are the criteria used in reaching a decision on who or what qualifies to occupy DCC land? 

Licences from the council are provided to formalise occupation of land on a short term basis for various purposes.  As a result of this Corporate Property and Land receive various requests for licences and each request follows a similar process. However, there are some slight differences relating to approvals depending on the nature of the request, such as event licences, grazing licences etc, but all ultimately require delegated approval to be entered into. 

The licence process in this respect followed the standard process which starts with consultations with the appropriate services/teams to ascertain the position with the land.  This includes the client service responsible for the day to day management of the property as well as any statutory consultees such as planning, highways and ecology. Consultations are also carried out with local Councillors and the relevant Portfolio Holder(s).  Licences cannot be granted unless all parties consulted are satisfied that the short term occupation of the land can proceed.  In addition this stage also identifies any other requirements outside of the licence terms, such as the requirement for the licensee to obtain planning permission or any other statutory or legal approval that may be required to facilitate legal occupation of the land. 

Was **** told about this process at any point in the past? 

**** was informed of this process by the Property Management Team, Corporate Property and Land during a telephone conversation on 4th June 2021. 

The Council’s Community Protection Team also advise those applying for Street Trading Consents that they need to seek Landowner’s consent prior to trading, plus obtaining any additional approvals that may be required, such as planning permission. Street Trading Consent is not Landowner’s consent and this was explained to **** during the telephone conversation. 

Which services were ‘consulted’ prior to ****’s letter to ****, and what were their responses?

Teams consulted on this site included Heritage Coast, Ecology, Planning, Clean and Green, and Countryside. Ecology advised there were concerns as stated in the question below. Heritage Coast were also concerned with the proposal and of a similar position to Ecology. Planning also advised that planning permission for a change of use of the land could be required. 

What specifically are the ‘ecological’ issues referenced in the letter, and how are they relevant to ****’s business? In addition, if ‘ecological’ issues are the ‘main’ concern, what are the others?

The DCC Ecology Team are not supportive of the proposal due to concerns over the impact on the adjacent land, which is a designated Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). As part of the Natural England Site Improvement Plan for Crimdon Dene it has been determined that both breeding Little Tern and non-breeding waterbirds are adversely affected by recreational beach users.  This includes walkers, dog walkers and other activities.  The proposal to site traders on the Crimdon site is likely to attract visitors to the site and encourage them to stay longer thus exacerbating the recreational disturbance level at the site.  The Council’s Ecology Team have confirmed that they would be happy to discuss these concerns further. 

As a result of the management requirements of the site, areas are also to be fenced off soon to further protect the grassed area which is currently being used as an informal car park by visitors.  The inability for visitors to use this space means the available formal car parking spaces are the only option for car parking. 

Other points raised during consultation were concerns over the lack of toilet provision for visitors, the further reduction in the number of formal parking spaces available due to traders taking up these spaces and the potential increase in waste that would be generated in the area. 

Who triggered the direction to leave DCC-owned land on this particular occasion when it appears not to have been a problem until this point?

The Council received a request from a trader for a licence to occupy land at Crimdon Dene Area and specifically for tables and chairs. Investigations were carried out and it was found that there were several traders operating without a property agreement (Licence to Occupy). Street Trading Consents were issued by the Council but the traders had not then requested the required licence to occupy the land. 

Considering **** has been on-site for some time why has this become an issue now?

Following the approach mentioned above it was consequently found there were up to 5 traders operating at the Crimdon Dene Area. As a result letters were issued via the DCC Community Protection Team, due to GDPR requirements, to **** and all the other identified traders with Street Trading Consents.  **** has advised **** that we will try and locate an alternative site (if and where possible) and [they] can contact us with area preferences if this is something [they] would like us to assist with. 

We trust the above information is of assistance and we are currently preparing a response to the letter received from ****’s solicitor on 25^th June.

Much of the information supplied here appears to contradict the whole purpose of developing visitor attractions like the Coastal Hub at Crimdon. In addition the stance adopted by the council in this instance threatens to stymie any additional future events and development in the area - something that deeply concerns me given that Crimdon and the rest of the Durham Coast have enormous potential to drive economic regeneration in this area and beyond.

Following further developments earlier this week whereby the council appeared to want to defer a definitive legal decision until next summer I contacted officers again to seek clarity on the process used by the local authority to move traders off-site, and again to request a meeting between the council, affected businesses and me and Stacey as local councillors. I have reproduced my most recent correspondence to officers and relevant directors below (again personal details have been redacted):

Good morning ****

Thanks for the update. I’ve passed details of the council’s position to **** for attention.

My personal opinion of the the current situation is that **** and other traders at Crimdon have been treated very unfairly, given that the council appears to have no firm legal opinion on the clarity or efficiency of its trading licences function at the current time. 

With that in mind I would be grateful if you could consider the option of maintaining the current position where traders are left on site in the interim until the council has secured external legal advice on the efficiency of its current licensing system. 

In addition, from the hundreds of comments on social media recently, I am aware that the council’s reputation is suffering considerable damage over its perceived attempt to remove what residents and visitors see as competition for the Crimdon Hub cafe which is scheduled for completion in the next few weeks. I’m hopeful this could be addressed if the council could reverse its current position. 

In the hope of raising the profile of this campaign, and also gathering wider support, I have offered one of the traders my help in contacting local and regional media outlets. They are currently considering their options. 

Until these matters are resolved please continue to demonstrate your support for our local traders and small businesses at Crimdon by going to Facebook and signing their petition to the council asking to remain on-site.

Overgrowth on the Black Path

I’ve been contacted recently by residents expressing their concerns about the condition of the Black Path so I took a walk along its length earlier this morning to see for myself the extent of the problems created by vegetation growing into and over the pathway from the sides and from above.

Although the path is accessible from one end to the other the grass and other vegetation is very long, deep and overgrown in most parts and certainly needs cutting back - particularly those on the Blackhall Colliery side. 

I noticed this morning that some of the longer grass had been flattened and left lying across the pavement in four or five specific locations - which appeared curious given that the equally long grass in other parts in between remained upright and untouched. It would appear that either children have been playing in the grass, or animals have flattened it, and left it obstructing the pathway. Either way I’ve pushed that back into the side to make it passable again and also prevent any trip hazard in the short-term at least.

I also noticed this morning that there are fencing repairs needed at a couple of locations so I’ve asked that the relevant sections at DCC and other organisations carry out repairs as soon as possible.

When I raised these matters recently with the council’s public rights of way (PROW) officer I was advised that there were different areas of responsibility for cutting back the overgrowth from the path and from overhanging trees and bushes in specific locations. I was also told that relevant agencies are to be approached with a request that they address the issues above where applicable. For its part the council has confirmed that contractors will be contacted today with a request that its specific maintenance responsibilities will be met - hopefully within the next week.

I’ll continue to monitor developments with this issue and update on progress as often as necessary.

Highway repair requests at Blackhall Rocks

Almost two weeks ago, following a query raised at a parish council environment committee meeting held on Wednesday 14 July, I reported several sections along the back lane behind Leaholme Terrace and Meadow Avenue for inspection and repair where necessary. Later that week I received the reply shown below, confirming that the highways section does not consider the road sufficiently dangerous or hazardous or warrant further attention at the moment. 

I believe some sections of this road surface require attention so I’ll persist in pressing the highways section to carry out repairs in the worst affected areas. However, the highway section also confirmed that the stretch of road between Glenholme Terrace and the allotments is not owned or maintained by the highways authority and consequently works at this location cannot be carried out by the council.

Littering at Crimdon Beach

I was contacted today by residents concerned about the amount of rubbish left at some locations on the beach recently. I’ve raised this matter with the countryside team and they have confirmed that it will be removed by tomorrow at the latest.

Following similar concerns raised with the countryside team earlier this year officers have also confirmed that signage will be erected at this location directing visitors to take their litter off the beach with them and dispose of it in the bins provided.

Hi Rob, after on-site meeting last week we are looking at putting in permanent metal signage at the main access points along the beach. This may take a little time to get the necessary design and agreement with Coastal Heritage but we hope this will be feasible and in place ASAP.

In the meantime if you’re visiting Crimdon soon please respect the environment and take your litter home with you or leave it in one of the many bins along the promenade.

Hutton Henry Parish Council’s ‘Meet & Greet’ Event

Stacey and I had a fantastic time yesterday meeting residents from Station Town and Hutton Henry as part of their parish council’s first ‘Meet and Greet’ event, held at St Francis’ Village Hall in Hutton Henry to introduce their recently elected parish councillors and their new clerk to the community. 

For our part as local county councillors we got to talk to dozens of residents about the things they liked about their villages and the things they would like to see improved. These ranged from pothole and pavement repairs to more complex issues around health, housing, highways and employment. We also got the opportunity to meet representatives from the main local organisations in the two villages who work so hard every day to keep the people and their communities engaged and connected.

We’ll now spend the next few days making enquires on behalf of residents and contacting officers at the local authority and their partner agencies to make a start on addressing some of the issues raised by the people of Hutton Henry, Station Town and the surrounding area.

We would like to take the opportunity to thank the chair and clerk of Hutton Henry Parish Council for taking the initiative in organising this event and for inviting us along to meet them and the residents and key organisations in the parish council area.

If you couldn’t get along to the event yesterday and would like to raise any issues with us please get in touch at:

Rob: rob.crute@durham.gov.uk or Stacey: stacey.deinali@durham.gov.uk

Have Durham’s Lib Dems really caved-in to demands from their Tory coalition bosses?

At last week’s Durham County Council meeting held at Spennymoor Leisure Centre the authority’s Labour Group was set to support a motion to retain a £20 uplift in Universal Credit by tabling an amendment to extend it to legacy benefit claimants too. It seemed sensible enough to protect vulnerable residents and working families against the impact of ongoing central government austerity, whilst at the same time helping our local economies to recover from the pandemic by putting more money into the pockets of local people. 

So everyone there was taken aback when the Lib Dems decided at the very last minute to withdraw their motion in support of maintaining the uplift - and rumours spread rather quickly that they’d been ordered by their Tory coalition bosses to withdraw the motion. 

Had the Lib Dems really been put back in their box, simply to avoid embarrassing senior members of the Tory-led coalition in control at county hall? No one seems to know for sure, but the article shown below from today’s Newcastle Chronicle puts a compelling case for that scenario. Take a look and decide for yourself:

https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/the-exact-opposite-levelling-up-21101962?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar

Tory-led coalition denies social care funding crisis

Yesterday (Wednesday 14 July 2021) I tabled a motion at a meeting of Durham County Council which highlighted the impact that a decade of central government austerity continues to have on the people and communities of County Durham. The motion, and my introduction to it, are reproduced below in full:

Two reports submitted to the council’s Cabinet last week (Wednesday 7 July 2021) confirmed what we’ve all known for years: that a decade of needless austerity has had a devastating impact on this council’s finances, and in turn on the people and communities of County Durham.

Since the Tory/Lib Dem coalition first got together back in 2010 c£245m in central government funding has been lost to this council - all in the name of political austerity, designed to punish the poor for the mistakes of the rich. The impact of austerity on local authority services has been significant, with funding for children’s social care being hit particularly hard, and the costs of adult’s social care being essentially abandoned by government and burdened onto local council tax-payers through the adult social care precept.

It is noted in figures released by the LGA that spending power across County Durham has been reduced by £343 (or 16%) per household since 2011, while other local authorities, notably those in Wokingham and Surrey, have seen an actual increase in their household spending power.

In addition, these years of unnecessary cuts have led to an ‘extremely uncertain’ financial outlook for this council – caused in part by persistent delays to the government’s Comprehensive Spending Review, its Business Rates Retention Scheme and its Fair Funding Review – and all compounded by the seemingly permanent delay to the government’s proposed funding model for social care.

The cumulative impact of this constant delay can be seen in almost every town and village in County Durham, and also in the restrictions imposed on this council in properly planning ahead, particularly in the medium to long-term as set out in last week’s Outturn report to Cabinet which highlighted ‘significant risks to the council’s funding’.

With that in mind we believe it’s high time this government finally got its act together, and began to deliver on its promise to ‘level-up’ across all parts of the country by properly funding local authority services to the needs of their residents, instead of handing over tens of £billions of public money on contracts for failed schemes to their friends and neighbours. In other words, it’s time to put need before greed.

Therefore this council resolves to:

Write to the prime minister and call on the government to:

• demonstrate its commitment to ‘levelling-up’ by assuring this local authority that it will not lose out financially as a result of the government’s ongoing Fair Funding Review, Business Rates Retention Scheme and forthcoming Comprehensive Spending Review
• and also commit to resolving the funding crisis in Adults and Children’s Social Care and the uncertainty, potential risk and financial burden it creates for this council and the people of County Durham

As you can see the motion is direct in its aim of raising concerns about the impact of central government austerity and in its request to ask prime minister Boris Johnson and his government to deliver on their promise to ‘level-up.’ It was neither confusing nor contentious so I’d fully expected the Tory/Lib Dem coalition and their supporters to stand with us in encouraging the government to do nothing more radical than to come up with a fair funding deal for County Durham.

The door was left wide open for coalition members to recognise the devastating impact of austerity on council services and on the people and communities of County Durham, and particularly the way it’s limited the way the council can properly plan ahead for the future in addressing the crisis in adults and children’s social care funding. Instead the Tory deputy leader of the council rose to declare that writing to Boris Johnson would be a waste of time because ‘a letter to No10 would not get us very far’! But perhaps most damning for the coalition – and a true measure of how out of touch they are with reality – he actually denied that there was a crisis in social care! In this extraordinary statement he blithely dismisses the impact of the government’s refusal to adequately fund adult social care by passing the burden over to local council tax payers instead.

In an attempt to claim ownership of the motion he then moved an amendment which simply shifted words around the page without changing the impact of its content. In other words it was entirely unnecessary and nothing more than a device to take control - something of a concern as the deputy leader of the council apparently believes the use of motions like this, which actually draw public attention to the inequalities created by austerity ‘wastes a stamp’. The fact that motions from Labour have the impact of holding the government and council leadership to account, whilst at the same time revealing a few uncomfortable and inconvenient truths for the Tory party, may be the real reason he believes motions are ‘pointless’.

Perhaps the biggest concern though was that not one single member of the coalition or their supporters challenged the comments of their Tory deputy leader. Whilst several Labour members rose in turn to drive home the point that austerity was nothing more than a scam designed to hold back working class areas and then transfer the blame to local councils for spiteful central government funding cuts – all with the ultimate aim of rigging the system in favour of wealth and privilege – not a whisper of condemnation was heard from the coalition and its supporters.

Looking the other way while our communities suffer at the receiving end of political austerity will not bode well for the Tories, Lib Dem’s or their supporters in county hall. Labour will continue to hold power to account wherever it resides, and if that reveals inconvenient truths for the coalition so be it. By tabling motions we’ll continue to hold out the opportunity for them to condemn the inequity and unfairness enabled by Tory government austerity – and who knows, one day they might find the courage and the voice to stand alongside Labour members in condemning it. But on yesterday’s performance that may be some time away.

Footpath repair works from The Seagull to Crimdon Dene

A few weeks ago I published details on this site about footpath repair works scheduled to take place along the A1086 Coast Road between Blackhall Rocks and The Seagull at Crimdon (for background details please see post dated Saturday 22 May 2021: https://robcrute-blackhall.blogspot.com/2021/05/coast-road-footpath-repair-works.html).

Those repair works have now been completed, however following further queries about the potential of additional footpath repairs to be carried out along the last stretch of footpath between The Seagull and the entrance to Crimdon Dene (shown in red on the map above) we have now received confirmation from highways engineers at county hall that resurfacing works are scheduled to take place along this stretch of pathway from Thursday 5 August, weather permitting.

I will update on arrangements closer to the date, but in the meantime I would like to take this opportunity to thank Lynda, the clerk to Monk Hesleden Parish Council, for her continued support in securing much-needed repair works along this stretch of pathway and others in and around the villages in our patch.