Parking alternatives to on beach parking
Introduction
At busy periods the beach at patch is heavily used as a car park. CCW have asked whether there is any means of reducing the impact of cars on the beach. At the same time Ceredigion might wish to see some return for the investment made in improving facilities by increased utilisation of the facilities to the benefit of the local community
Other users of the beach as a car park are the fishermen who need access to the beach to reach the pontoon jetty, as do other commercial and leisure users of the pontoon.
An attempt was made to provide improved car parking at the time the new facilities were installed but failed due to the difficulty of providing suitable space near the main access
The above picture outlines the main areas that need to be considered. The main access to the beach is via a narrow track shown above to the laeft of the triangular site which is the sailing club. There is a secondary access shown above but it is very steep and not suitable for general access and certainly not for boat launching in its present form. The main beach interest from the users viewpoint is the stretch of beach from the secondary access to the end of the spit.
Although this paper is about car parks, at least half the vehicles parked on the beach have trailers from which a boat has been launched, so in considering parking each user also has potentially a trailer to park as well
Looking at the sort of people who park on the beach there are at least four sorts of people
- Those who park there inorder to take exercise (often with a dog)
- Those who park there simply to enjoy sitting there near the sea (often older people)
- Those who do so to gain access to their boat
- Those who do so to launch (and subsequently recover) a boat
The type of user is important. Only the first sort would accept a remote car park the others need a park where they can enjoy the view
Current estimates of beach parking
The last summer was not a good year, the weather was bad for much of the year so that this section can only be an informed guess.
Three things need to be borne in mind
- Most of the parking occurs over the weekends during the six week holiday period – it is not a year round problem
- The fishermen use the route to the pontoon on a dailiy basis (say 6 vehicles) throughout the year
- Apart from the fishermen for the rest of the year the beach is used very lightly
Virtually everyone who use the beach are aware of the tidal nature and park closely up against the boulder wall so that general beach parking is not a conmmon occurrence. At high tides the whole beach is flooded and no parking occurrs
Parking takes place entirely to the West of the beach access point since the sand on the other side is soft compared to the pebbly gravel to the West. The maximum length of the area to the east is about 125 metres. On a very busy weekend the beach can be quite full – say one car every 10 feet – so the maximum number of cars/trailers is about 35. How often does this happen? Possibly about 4 weekends last year, but at most assume 8 weekends.
During the rest of the year the useage is down to maybe 4 per day on average. So any business case for parking has to bear in mind that in the current situation beach useage for parking over the whole year (ignoring fishermen) is for
- 8 x 2 x 35 say 600
- plus 365 x 4 say 1500
- Say 2000 intotal
The year round but light useage therefore dominates the picture by a factor of about 3. On a poor summer like last summer the factor is more like 6.
Financial implications
This section attempts to put normal business arguments into place to justify any expenditure on the car parks
It is hard to see cars being charges at more than say £3 per day (cf Poppit beach) On the other hand, boat trailers could be charged at a rate to cover launching say £7 per trailer.
Even so the revenue stream would not be very large. Assuming 33% of those on the beach in the summer have trailers also then the maximum income might be of the order of 200 x £7 or about £1500 from the trailers and 400 x £3 or £1200 for the cars say a potential maximum income of £3,000, if it is a poor season this might reduce to something like half this value
Assuming that any investment for commercial reasons would aim to get its money back in 10 years then on the best figures from the above useage it might be worth spending something like £30,000 on a car park and on the worst half that.
On the other hand assuming that all those using the beach are visitors and that they consist of 2 adults at least then the income to the community at large might be
B & B 600 x £40 x 2 or £50,000
Dinner Lunch etc 600 x £20 x 2 or £25,000
Say £75,000 per year compared to only £3,000 income from the car park. On this basis the 10 year rule might justify an expenditure of £750,000. In any consideration of the benefits of the visitors the spend in the local community dwarfs any potentiasl charge by more than 20:1
However these visitors come already – they park on the beach – so to justify more spend more visitors need to be attracted. Without some well balanced market research it is difficult to predict what additional visitors could be enticed to the area
There must be some damage to the beach that might be turned into a financial argument. It is not clear to the writer what the consequential damage to the beach is - CCW are attempting to write a section that spells out the damage to the beach
Finally putting a locked gate on the public slip will cost money – it has to be able to be opened by key by authorised users. More seriously it will likely to be abused, if not outright removed by those who claim a right to park on the beach going back several hundred years
Assessing the different sites
There are a number of factors to be considered when assessing the suitability of the different sites envisaged here.
- The cost of building the parks
- The number of cars that could be parked
- The ability to collect fees
- The cost of collecting the fees
- The likelihood of the park being used
- The difficulty in preventing access to the beach except for legitimate users
With the exception of Park 3 all the parks would involve significant capital expenditure, and even park 3 would require purchase from the current owner. The number of cars that can be parked will be important is assessing the likelihood of the park being economically attractive ie will the cost of collecting the fees exceed the income
The likelihood of the park being used is an important consideration. Park 3 for example is a longway from the boating areas and whilst it might suit the birdwatchers, walkers etc, it will not suit those who currently park on the beach to enjoy the view nor those who wish to launch boats.
Possible sites
Three possible sites can be envisaged.
- One near the current beach access – car park 1
- One along coronation drive - car park 2
- One at the end of coronation drive – car park 3
Assessing each in turn
Car Park 1 is in the area where the earlier Ceredigion plan at providing a Car Park was situated. In the Ceredigion plan the car park was to the North east of thew existing road. It was ruled out by highways on the grounds that the Park was on the wrong side of the bend creating a hazardous entrance and requiring visitors to cross a busy main road.
In this scheme put forward herein, the whole road is diverted to the North east by approximately a carriage way width, thus creating a linear car park approximately 100 metres long where the old road used to be. The land onto which it is diverted belongs to CCW who have in the past agreed in principle to let the land be used for parking.
The land would require some support particularly at the Northern end as there is a drop off of about 1 metre here and in any case the ground is waterlogged for much of the year.
Assuming that about 70 metres of the land is useable as a park then the total number of cars that might park there is probably less than 15. Certainly it would be less than the 35 or so seen at a peak weekend. The economics of this are therefore not very encouraging.
A further difficulty with this solution is the necessary 2 way access to the beach. The access lane is single track and even with the current arrangement of parking on the beach is something of a bottleneck (generally people arrive as the tide comes in and leave as it goes out)
If the car park were off the beach then the necessary 2 way flow would be extremely difficult to organise without widening the lane. The widening of the lane was looked at some years ago and ruled out as neither landowners on either side of the lane were prepared to sell.
Conclusion – the car park’s effectiveness is limited by the narrow access lane and the limited number of spaces it creates (less than the current maximum beach use)
Coronation drive Car park 2
Coronation drive is supported on its Westerly edge by Gabions an a sloping concrete face. The first proposal is to create a linear car park along the length of the drive by filling in the road out to the edge of the gabions.
The length of the drive along the straight section is about 250 metres. Using the same criteria as for car park 1 then something of the order of 35 cars could be parked here. This would be fine for the non boat users, but not good for the boat users as they are a long way from the slipway. To make car park 2 viable for boat users the access would be needed to be updated to maske a new slip as the current access is both steep and a long way from the waters edge.
This could be done but would require considerable expenditure to build out the road, and construct a slip out to the low water mark.
To make the idea viable would need a lot more car parking so that the car park would not only provide car parking for the existing users but could attract new users to the area.
The only way to achieve such a density is to park the cars on a herringbone pattern with an access carriageway and footpath between the parked cars and the road. Such an arrangement might create space for 50 cars but at greater expense in moving out further into the estuary.
Taken as a whole such a solution might be financially viable with suitable landscaping to create an attractive feature of the whole scheme. However, the slipway is on the edge of what might be loosely called the Sand/mud boundary (where the beach turn into mud) there are severe limits to what might be done in this regard and it will never be as attractive as the current beach park
Conclusion – This could be made to work but at considerable expense which can probably only be justified by increasing the parking to cover 50 cars and a new slipway. This would almost certainly invole encroaching onto the muddy foreshore. The loss in habitat here would have to be assessed against the gain in habitat at the beach. On the whole the mud habitat seems of more interest at least to the avian stock on the estuary
Car Park 3 This is at the wrong end for boats and for people wishing to see the view. It does not seem possible to make this work unless as a picnic spot which is not the purpaoe of this paper
Conclusion – not viable
Discussion
None of the proposed car parks seem likely to win much support from either the financial and community viewpoints. The best option looks like car Park 3 alongside the road with the cars parked in a herringbone fashion as this has the potential to increase the visiting estuary users by 50%. It is very expensive and does adversely impact the muddy foreshore environment. The gains in the beach environment have to be weighed against the loss in the muddy foreshore environment.
The case for car park 2 could perhaps be improved by considering the improvement of the facilities at the beach so that there would be a better chance of attracting new visitors to the area whose local spend might justify the outlay
Improvements that might be considered are
- Landscaping the beach to the East of the slipways.
- Introduction of public toilets – there are none at present
- Introduction of permanent concrete barbecue/picnic spots
- Introduction of seating arrangements set into the landscaping
Compared to the boulder wall that has been allowed to be built to the West of the slipways a landscaped beach front to the east would look much more attractive. This could be done by creating artificial sandy bays constrained by something like upright railway sleepers set in the sand. The infill between the bays could be provided by the excess sand in the estuary.
The bays would provide shelter from the Westerly winds and the tops of the bays could be topped with dune grasses to encourage them to remain. With a bit of imagination it could become an attractive play area for children as well as a peaceful place for adults
The bays could be provided with benches to encourage those who wish just to sit and look to take their ease outside rather than sitting in the car as they do at present
An additional improvement that would result from such landscaping would be the burying of the ad hoc wall infront of the sailing club and the caraven park to the east og the club. This is a major eyesore and in no way encourages visitors to stay. Currently this eyesore is covered by the sand dredged up for the pontoon but this is nearly all washed away and will shotly be gone completey exposing the unsightly wall
The regular clearing of sand around the pontoon will provide any materiel needed to maintain the landscaping
Conclusions
Summary in relation to car parks off the beach
The current beach could support about a maximum of 35 cars/trailers,
Car Park 1 is not viable because of the narrow entrance lane and the limited number of cars it could support (circa 15). It would also be expensive requiring the re routeing of the road
Car park 2 is viable but very expensive since it would require a new slip as well as building out over the estuary. It could only be justified on the basis that it created space for 50 cars which would add to the expense (further out into the estuary) and if it was landscaped to make the slip area attractive. The latter is not easy to do due the proximity of the muddy end of the foreshore
Car park 3 is not viable as it is too far away from the area of interest
None of the proposed sites are likely to be financially viable in terms of pay back although no attempt has been made to cost car park 2 and it might be possible to consider other planning gains that might offset the cost of building out over the estuary
The most likely gain is to landscape the area and incorporate a variety of features to attract young and old to the area and to reduce the pressure on the old public slip to the point where people preferred to use the new facilities.
Recommended action is for CCW to comment in principle first before seeking more cost information as well as the views of the fairway committee