Although I'm not a member of the Highways Committee I submitted a request to address committee members at its meeting this morning to consider the council's proposals to introduce parking charges along the sea front at Crimdon Dene.
As regular readers of these pages will know I've opposed plans to introduce parking charges at Crimdon since they first came to light. I don't believe they will do anything at all to tackle the central problem of obstructive parking at a specific location to the southern edge of the sea front, and furthermore I'm convinced that the council's intention is not to manage or control traffic at Crimdon. In my opinion their only purpose in introducing parking charges is to open up a revenue stream to off-set gaping holes in the council's budget and raise cash from our communities in East Durham to fund the coalition's pet projects in Durham City.
In truth these proposals are nothing but a cash-grab, and the proof lies in the council's own MTFP (Medium Term Financial Plan) and Budget papers published last year in which it is estimated that the council can raise almost £450k by introducing parking charges at Seaham and Crimdon. Incidentally the MTFP also refers to an additional cost burden of £600k every year to keep the new art gallery and restaurant at the former DLI building ticking over - so you can work out for yourself that we're suffering parking charges in East Durham to subsidise a high-end restaurant in Durham City!
I spoke at length this morning about the damaging impact that parking charges would have on visitor numbers and the local economy. Despite my arguments however, every coalition member on the committee supported the council’s plans to introduce parking charges at Crimdon. For the record every Labour member on the committee agreed with my position, stood by my comments and opposed the parking charges.
In accordance with the council's constitution the committee’s recommendation to approve the charges will now be passed to the corporate director for a final decision made under delegated authority. Unfortunately the last line of local resistance fell today and the final decision is a foregone conclusion.
Finally, my thanks go to the hundreds of people and businesses who have supported the campaign, especially those who took the time to contact me directly or respond to the council’s public consultation. Although we haven’t managed to get over the line on this occasion the campaign has been a success in bringing our community together in opposition to these unfair proposals.
Background details to this complex and often confusing issue can be found in this link: Objections to revised parking charges at Crimdon
I've reproduced below an initial draft of the comments I made to the highways committee this morning:
Crimdon Dene Coastal Car Park
Comments to Highways Committee, Tuesday 17 September 2024
Committee members will have already had sight of my written response to the public consultation exercise on the introduction of parking charges at Crimdon Dene, so my comments this morning will cross reference the points I raised in that response.
It’s fair to say that there have been one or two reports of
obstructive parking at Crimdon, but these are isolated to one specific location
and are infrequent – and certainly nothing of the magnitude to warrant this
kind of response.
To begin with, over the past year or so I’ve raised residents’ concerns about obstructive parking in one particular location along the southern edge of the sea front in Crimdon, but these incidents occur infrequently at only at one or two peak times and apply mainly to the summer months and on the occasional Bank Holiday.
I discussed potential solutions with the highways team
at the time and recommendations were made to prohibit obstructive parking at
the junction to the bungalow and at the approach to the beach from the Ponyworld building at the southern edge of the site.
Critically, back then parking charges were never once
suggested as part of that proposed solution, which begs the questions - why
now?
I’ve noted officers’ comments this morning on their reasons behind the
potential introduction of parking charges, but to me the proposals completely miss the
point and fly in the face of reason and public opinion.
My main concern is that after the measures we’ve put in
place to attract more visitors to Crimdon, including the council-owned Dunes
café and visitor centre, the council now appears determined to drive visitors
and tourists away.
Crimdon as a visitor attraction holds a fairly unusual
position in our neck of the woods in that it is one of the only remaining
visitor destinations where people can come to the coast and park for free. But
instead of using that as a unique selling point, and promoting Crimdon as a
welcoming destination, the council risks displacing visitors elsewhere for the
sake of raising revenue.
To me that is a short-sighted approach that is
completely at odds with the need for a long-term ambition to bring the good
times back to Crimdon and at the same time attract more visitors to the Durham
coast.
Without exception, every member of the public and every
local business that has taken to time to contact me directly about this issue agrees
with me that we should promote the coast as a tourist destination alongside a
developing nature reserve, and at the same time take the opportunity to boost
the local economy.
Consequently they view these parking charges as a retrograde
step that will have a negative impact by repelling visitors and taking custom
away from shops and other businesses in nearby villages like Blackhall Colliery
– at a time when local businesses would love the opportunity to welcome more visitors through their doors.
If proof is needed on this point I would draw attention to the impact that parking charges have had recently on businesses and visitor numbers just up the road in Seaham. Once thriving businesses, and some newer enterprises, are now struggling to make ends meet as potential visitors bypass the town and go elsewhere.
Finally, I have concerns that parking charges at Crimdon
Dene are being used as a cash-raising initiative, rather than an exercise in actually managing or controlling traffic flows and obstructive parking.
A look through the MTFP (14) papers published last year will show that a shortfall of over £400k is to be met by the introduction of parking charges along the Durham coast. This reinforces the point I made earlier that a regressive measure like introducing parking charges at Crimdon Dene is an ill-conceived intervention that will have a long-term impact on visitor numbers and the local economy in nearby villages like Blackhall Rocks and Blackhall Colliery, and also in others right across East Durham.
I acknowledged earlier that there are occasional incidents of obstructive parking at one specific location, but if there are persistent and widespread problems associated with over-parking at Crimdon I haven’t been made aware of them. Besides there are
others means of addressing that issue. Either way, the approach recommended by the council appears to be taking a
sledgehammer to crack a nut. It appears to me (and many others) that this a regressive, revenue raising exercise that risks driving visitors away from Crimdon, and one that could well have dire consequences for the
wider economy in East Durham.
For the reasons I’ve set out this morning I would urge
members of the highways committee to reject the proposal to introduce parking
charges at Crimdon Dene and recommend that the relevant director reaches the
same conclusion under delegated authority.
Rob Crute
Blackhall Ward
Durham County Council
