wightdogs.com ISLE of WIGHT DOGS and OWNERS

Following a Freedom Of Information Act request by Twister the councils reply has thrown considerable doubt on the status of the upper sea-wall paths at Appley beach and Puckpool.

The upper and lower sea-wall paths run from the Inshore rescue eastwards to the boundary of Appley Park and Harcourt Sands where the paths converge into a single path until the Dell Cafe.

From the Dell Cafe eastwards the path once again splits into the upper and lower sea-wall paths, ending at the Boat House pub (The former Battery pub)

In their reply the council have stated:

"The upper sea wall has no official designation in terms of highway law

and, therefore, cyclists are not committing an offence"

However according to the Definitive map, which the council have to produce by law, the path is clearly indicated as footpath #90 running uniterupted along the whole stretch between Ryde Inshore Rescue and the Boat house pub.

This brings into question the status of the centre section where the two paths combine to one.

The council further state:

"Cycling is only prohibited on the lower sea wall as it is designated a footpath

and failure to comply is a civil trespass matter"

Yet the Definitive Map shows the path running uninterrupted from the Inshore Rescue to the Boat House pub. Although it does appear to be running along the lower sea-wall at either end, it must, however, also run along this combined middle section. Consequently by the councils definition it appears that cyclists using this combined section, from the boundary between Appley Park and Harcourt Sands until the Dell Cafe, are committing a civil trespass.

Regardless as anyone who regularly uses this area will know cyclists constantly use the lower sea-wall paths, especially the Puckpool end.

The council also state:

"There is positive signage in place directing cyclists through Puckpool Park as this

is a suitable alternative and is used in an effort to avoid conflict. The

area may benefit from some additional signage advising cyclists to

dismount on the upper sea wall although this would not facilitate any

enforcement measures"

 So although the council have a notice displayed at the Dell Cafe which states "Cycling is prohibited along promenade and footpath" they appear to be stating that cycling is not in actual fact prohibited along the upper sea-wall, assuming they define the upper sea-wall as the promenade.

 promenade [ˌprɒməˈnɑːd] n : Chiefly Brit a public walk, esp at a seaside resort

 If the path running along the upper sea-wall is a public path and the council feel that cyclists should not use it, as this could lead to conflict, why have they, as the local authority, never taken action to prohibit cycling here? At least then the sign would not be misleading:

pro·hib·it  (pr-hbt) tr.v. pro·hib·it·ed, pro·hib·it·ing, pro·hib·its : To forbid by authority

"There are no speed limits imposed on cyclists at this

location and, therefore, enforcement is not applicable...

."

"Cycling is only prohibited on the lower sea wall as it is designated a footpath

and failure to comply is a civil trespass matter"