The Chamber of Trade have commented on the planning portal in support of the car park application. We would like to challenge their statement point by point.
1. “To main and improve the economic viability of the Town sufficient car parking capacity is required to meet current peak demand and to provide capacity for growth.”
Fair enough, but car parking should not be at the expense of heritage and iconic views. Berwick Civic Society have done a survey of parking and conclude that only better signage to existing parking is required. But there are also several areas that could be exploited for peak-time parking.
2. “Businesses located in the immediate vicinity of the proposed car park overwhelmingly support the proposal and understand the benefits to them.”
If you ask a business if they would like more parking, then obviously most will say yes. However, parking can be placed judiciously and does not have to be destructive. These businesses will be happy if sufficient parking is found in a different location.
3. “...and in some cases, the plan may be crucial to their survival.”
This is grossly exaggerated. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and that is not forthcoming. Firstly, have we heard about this struggle for survival previously? There has not been an outpouring of feeling about it before. And secondly, this application is for a temporary car park only. Are we to suppose that at the end of the 5-year period, businesses will be fighting for their lives again? Thirdly, as stated above, if parking space is found independently of this particular site, is this still going to be a survival issue? Obviously not. This urgency strains credibility, especially when the purpose of the car park was to relieve pressure due to the Maltings redevelopment.
4. “Parking on Main Street, Tweedmouth is currently congested…”
Better signage to existing parking near the Old Bridge in Tweedmouth – and there is already copious parking there – would alleviate this. People need to be encouraged to park a little further away. As well as the many spaces available under and near the New Bridge, there are spaces in West End, a row of about 6 mixed permit and 2-hour spaces, at Blakewell Road, and a 12-bay all-day parking area at Riverside Road, affording a very pleasant walk back to the Old Bridge after parking. All of this parking, in addition to short-term parking on Main Street, adds up to sufficient parking for the relatively small number of businesses on Tweedmouth’s Main Street.
5. “The proposed investment may also encourage other businesses to open in the immediate area, with the benefit of more jobs, more visitors, and an improved economy.”
This is wildly optimistic, as there are no empty shops on Main Street. There simply won’t be a significant expansion of the local economy in this location, as may be confirmed by asking Tweedmouth businesses.
Significantly, in their report on Coastal Erosion, the council's own assessment says that the car park will bring "little economic benefit to the local community."
6. “The proposal will also allow more people to park in Tweedmouth, and enjoy the lovely walk across the Old Bridge, bringing more visitors to a wide variety of independent businesses, on Bridge Street, West Street, and beyond.”
This is grimly ironic since the “lovely walk” conflicts rather dramatically with the proposal to blight the end of the Old Bridge with a car park instead of the green space it is now. It is also not going to be at all “lovely” for pedestrians attempting to exit the car park (no pedestrian access has been accounted for), or trying to walk past the car park to access either Tweedmouth from the Old Bridge, or vice versa. In fact it will be downright dangerous, because at this point there is a junction of no fewer than six roads! And people drive fast here, with very little thought for pedestrians. The hope that people will park in Tweedmouth to access shops in Berwick is again optimistic. But if you want people to do that, direct drivers to the existing parking in Tweedmouth under the New Bridge and beyond, which has plenty of capacity.
We have the impression that pressure for this supporting comment is largely coming from the Berwick streets noted above. An uncharitable observer might think that shops in these streets on the north side of the river are comfortable with Tweedmouth sacrificing the integrity of its conservation area, and to some extent the quality of life for immediate neighbours of the putative car park.
7. “We acknowledge concerns of the sensitivities of the proposed site and the changes that will result if the plan is approved. However, the site is not currently providing any economic value to the Town…”
There is no discussion here of the merits of retaining and enhancing the heritage – it is quickly dismissed. And as for economic value, this is to ignore the possibilities of making the site into a magnet for tourists and customers by beautifying it, allowing it to be used to enjoy the views from this side and as a possible museum or visitor centre that provides a heritage destination.
The economic value of beauty is hard to measure, but it’s what Berwick is largely about. The golden goose is in danger of being plucked.
8. “It is not well maintained…”
This is a rather strange argument that we often hear in relation to neglected (and difficult) sites with heritage value. Raze the site to the ground to tidy it up, is the suggestion. This is plainly fatuous. To maintain this small patch of land would be just as possible as maintaining the Queen’s Garden, and Wilson’s Workshop could be the recipient of heritage funding to restore it and use it for a new and interesting purpose. But the promised face-to-face public consultation has not materialised, and so alternatives have not been permitted to emerge.
9. “Opportunities for alternative uses will always be limited due to its very close proximity to a Sewerage Pumping Station which is managed by Northumbrian Water and requires regular maintenance.”
This is another odd argument. The pumping station stands some way apart from the site in question, and if the occasional presence of trucks pose any inconvenience to a public garden, then think how much more inconvenient and dangerous it would be for cars attempting to enter or exit a car park if trucks are parked in the access lane. In fact this should be a red flag not to complicate this site even more with an increase in vehicular traffic.
In summary, the supporting comment is full of statements without evidence, and fails to justify the plan’s resulting harm to Berwick and to Tweedmouth's conservation area.