Felixstowe - Options being looked at because of the few who are taking liberties

[Apacheman]

as meanders pointed out..

EAST SUFFOLK COUNCIL
BEACH HUT SITES IN FELIXSTOWE LICENCE AND CONDITIONS OF HIRE

1. 7.4 The Licensee shall not obstruct passageways between the huts, walkways, steps or the area surrounding the Site in any way.

The licence fee for a standard site is

£437.53 (Excl VAT)

premium site
£546.91 (Excl VAT)

I stand corrected.

 

[Kups]

I stand corrected.

Written conditions of rental are all well and good only if the local authority enforces them. In the years we've been walking on Felixstowe prom, I've never seen any enforcement action, only grounds maintenance staff. From my time in local government leisure and tourism services, I know that boots on the ground is by far the best enforcement method but it costs.

 

[meanders]

But the fact still exists, just because someone else does something wrong doesn't mean you should do the same.

 

[scotjimland]

The mayor of a seaside town has pledged to explore ways of tackling a growing number of motorhomes and camper vans clogging up a busy seafront road.

Perhaps enforce existing regulation on beach hut owners first ..?

photo taken 5th Sep 2023 .. prom almost blocked>>>

7.4 The Licensee shall not obstruct passageways between the huts, walkways, steps or the area surrounding the Site in any way.

 

[LittleGreyCat]

Perhaps enforce existing regulation on beach hut owners first ..?

photo taken 5th Sep 2023 .. prom almost blocked>>>




View attachment 806001

That isn't really the Prom any more.
Mostly a raised area for beach huts.
You can even see a grass bank directly behind the umbrella.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[scotjimland]

That isn't really the Prom any more.
Mostly a raised area for beach huts.
You can even see a grass bank directly behind the umbrella.

but it is a walkway.. as per regulation 7.4

7.4 The Licensee shall not obstruct passageways between the huts, walkways, steps or the area surrounding the Site in any way.

and it is a lot more blocked than the prom where the camper vans are parked..

 

[LittleGreyCat]

but it is a walkway.. as per regulation 7.4

7.4 The Licensee shall not obstruct passageways between the huts, walkways, steps or the area surrounding the Site in any way.

and it is a lot more blocked than the prom where the camper vans are parked..

Struggling a bit there.
The pathway towards the Ferry is very narrow, and isn't obstructed in any way by these people.
What (if anything) are you trying to prove?

 

[scotjimland]

deleted.. no more to add

 

[meanders]

Struggling a bit there.
The pathway towards the Ferry is very narrow, and isn't obstructed in any way by these people.
What (if anything) are you trying to prove?

When you go back to the original moans from locals they talk about people having tables and chairs out obstructing the prom. I have never seen the prom obstructed, but a little reduced in available walkway. The above photo shows a much greater reduction both as a proportion of the width taken up and the remaining walking space. So the comparison with beach huts is a) valid in my opinion and b) shows conclusively that the issue is not just one created my motorhomers.

I don't think scotjimland was trying to prove anything apart from showing that around 50% of the available pathway was being taken up by the beach hut users.

I guess it comes down to whose definition of "obstruction" is used, but the licence use of 'in any way' at least implies partial obstructions are not allowed rather than referring to a complete obstruction. Only the local authority is able to rule either way, but even that would be challengeable unless it is specified in the regulation setting out the licence. Whatever the outcome, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. You either apply a loose definition in which case the motorhomers would not be breaking a licence they actually don't hold, or the tight definition meaning those beach huts are in breach.

Unknown here is whether any by-laws are being broken, so it's possible the motorhomes are in breach of that. The licence may be based on the by-laws at the time. However, on my many visits to Felixstowe and four years residency, I cannot recollect seeing any public notice about such a by-law, the absence of which make in unenforceable as I understand ignorance of a by-law that is not publicly posted as a notice, is a valid defence in law.

Hopefully this helps. But suffice to say, the local authority would need to research this well if they decided to take action against the current motorhomes which is I suspect why they haven't. I bet it's been referred to the legal dept who have advised they don't have a leg to stand on until any new regulations are brought in.

Do not read me wrong. I still think some of our motorhome community are taking liberties.

 

[LittleGreyCat]

I don't support the blocking of access either by Motor Home users or by beach hut owners.
However in the area originally discussed there is a very wide Promenade and I have yet to see it obstructed to any major extent.
Apart from anything else the locals would very quickly "have a word" if the Prom was being blocked.

My issue with the example Broken Link Removed posted was that this is not the Promenade under discussion, but a long way away towards Felixstowe Ferry and well out of the main stream.
It is not even accessible from the main Promenade (unfortunately).
The particular picture showed people outside a beach hut who were not obstructing walkers (space left matching the pathway through) and as such seemed deliberately intended to mislead.
Which was why I was asking what point was being proved (if any).

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}