Row over beach cafe toilet block

Cafe Riva overlooks Southbourne Beach in Bournemouth

The manager of a Dorset beach cafe says her customers have to use unsafe public toilets "full of flashers" because she is not allowed to build her own.

Mary Ingram and her partner lease Cafe Riva on the cliff at Southbourne Beach from Bournemouth Borough Council.

They received planning consent to build toilets but the council, as their landlord, has since blocked the move.

The council has said it refused the work to prevent legal challenges due to a 98-year-old covenant on the land.

Ms Ingram said the covenant could be lifted or varied by the council because it was no longer applicable.

This is a violation of people's basic human rights Mary Ingram

She said the public toilets were frequented by drug users, prostitutes and flashers.

She said: "I have young boys coming in saying they have been flashed at.

"I have one young member of staff who won't go to the toilet alone."

She said some residents were using the covenant, put in place by the Portman Estate in 1911, to say their nearby properties must be protected from development.

The council has given Ms Ingram permission to build a smaller development instead.

During the summer months, the public facilities close at 1800 BST but the cafe remains open until 2300 BST.

'Complete farce'

"The council has sided with two locals rather than saying our staff and customers must use safe toilets," she said.

"They live nearly half a kilometre away from the cafe, so the whole thing is a complete farce," she said.

"This is a violation of people's basic human rights."

The council declined to comment but councillors decided at the meeting that the site's expansion "needs to be on a scale ancillary to the open space to minimise the potential for legal challenge because of the covenants applicable to the land".

They said their decision maintained "the current level of provision and enables officers' time to be focused on the priority schemes in the council's Annual Service Plans."

It was decided there would be no further discussions with the tenant on any development proposals during the remaining term of the 16-year lease.