Skate kids face £500 prom fine

Rother officers are concerned that in the absence of a decision about provision of a seafront cycling track the public are confused over the matter.

They are worried that Rother could be sued by an accident victim for failing to make its position clear, so lulling walkers into a false sense of security.

Rother cabinet will be told on Monday that complaints about the problem have been brought to a head by an incident in which a 93-year-old woman was knocked down while walking on the promenade last October.

Rother director of resources Joy Cooper wants the cabinet to open public consultation on proposed new bylaws which would increase the current maximum fine from 50 to 500.

Response from the consultation will be the subject of a further report to cabinet.

But because Rother has handed the De La Warr Pavilion to a non-profit trust, the terrace and footpaths around it are no longer public land covered by bylaws. It would be for the trust to make its own regulations if it chooses.

Currently, the parades from Richmond Road to Galley Hill and adjacent public walks and pleasure grounds are subject to antiquated bylaws made by the former Borough of Bexhill in 1912.

The director says: "These include a prohibition on cycling but the impact of the maximum penalty of 50 has been eroded with the passage of time.

"A prosecution for cycling on the promenade, contrary to the 1914 bylaws, was last undertaken by this council in 1992.

"It would be open to the police to prosecute under this council's bylaws, but in the absence of a meaningful penalty that is unlikely.

"Controls in relation to skateboarding are dependent upon bylaws made in 1997 which apply throughout the district to any highway (including the public pavement) and any public place...

"The bylaws prohibit skating or riding on rollers, skateboards, wheels or other mechanical contrivances in such a manner as to cause danger or nuisance or give reasonable grounds for annoyance to other persons lawfully using the public place."

The director says: "The practical effect is that for a prosecution to be undertaken it is not sufficient to prove that skateboarding was taking place; it must also be proved that danger, nuisance or annoyance was caused to someone else on the promenade etc.

"Various complaints about skateboarding on the promenade and in the vicinity have been received and a bylaw that prohibited this without the requirement to prove actual danger to another user of the promenades would be more easily enforceable.

"Complaints have also been received about skateboarding taking place within the actual precincts of the De La Warr Pavilion causing nuisance, danger and actual damage to steps.

"Following the transfer of these areas to the Trust, they are now technically private land and a local authority can only make bylaws in respect of public areas; accordingly it is not possible to resolve these issues by making bylaws and the matter must be addressed by the pavilion management.

"Various initiatives to allow cycling along the promenades are under consideration; no decision has so far been taken, but the debate may have created uncertainty in the minds of cyclists.

"On the basis of complaints received, the incidence of cycling on the promenades seems to have increased recently. In October a report was received that a cyclist knocked down a 93-year-old woman walking along the promenade.

"In a situation of that nature the primary obligation to pay compensation must rest with the cyclist, but many cyclists do not have insurance and may have limited assets with which to satisfy a substantial claim for compensation.

"In such circumstances those acting for an injured pedestrian may consider legal action against the council on the basis that by retaining bylaws with inadequate penalties which render enforcement pointless, pedestrians on the promenade are lulled into a false sense of security.

"The present unsatisfactory state of affairs could be resolved by either revoking the existing bylaw relating to cycling and removing the 'no cycling' notices or replacing the existing bylaws with modern, enforceable bylaws."

Proposed new regulations are based on current "model" bylaws carrying a potential 500 maximum fine.

The director says: "Wind-propelled vehicles are becoming increasingly popular at Camber, where they are causing danger and annoyance to other users of the facilities there.

"The bylaws also anticipate their use on the promenades at Bexhill. Issues such as unauthorised trading, interference with life-saving equipment etc. are covered by more modern bylaws replacing the 1914 wording."

Referring to cycletrack proposals, the director says: "Consideration has previously been given to the introduction of a clearly demarcated 'cycle-lane' along the promenade, but this would be impossible even experimentally while the existing bylaws remained in force.

"The wording of the proposed bylaw envisages possible future provision of a cycle-lane without having to alter the bylaws again, by designating it by signs and markings.

"If it was considered that no cycle-lane would ever be introduced the words: 'except in any part of the promenade where there is a designated route for cycling indicated by notices conspicuously displayed on the promenade' could be deleted.

"The coast protection wall west of Richmond Road was provided by the council under the Coast Protection Act 1949. In some respects it is used as a promenade. It appears to be used by cyclists and may be used by skateboarders as well as pedestrians but having regard to its nature this does not seem to cause problems.

"If difficulties arise with other inappropriate activities prohibited by the draft bylaws, it might be necessary to introduce bylaws specifically for the coast protection wall, but as it is not technically a promenade, it would be necessary to use general powers under the Local Government Act 1972 rather than the power available to make Bylaws in relation to promenades which is referred to in the draft bylaws."

In a risk assessment statement, the director says continuation of a situation where skateboarding, cycling and other activities are prohibited but the penalty has become so insubstantial that there is no effective enforcement does not serve Rother's key aims.

"If it fails to respond to experience of collision between cyclists and pedestrians the council might itself be vulnerable to legal action by a member of the public injured by a cyclist if they could argue that the council has tolerated a confusing situation."