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
With regard to the specific queries you have raised, we can advise as follows:
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.
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 25th 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.
