Recipient

Eastbourne Pier

First report 10 Nov 2023•Latest report 10 Nov 2023

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

Private and voluntary organisations · Venue. This page brings together reports naming this recipient and response statements clearly connected to concerns raised in those reports.

Reports: 1
Published responses: 100%
Concerns addressed: 2
Stated actions: 3

Reports over time

Reports naming this recipient by issue year.

Evidence profile

Report topics

Share of this recipient’s reports compared with all other recipients.

100%published responses found

3stated actions described

Topic comparisons are not available in the current evidence snapshot.

Concerns and recipient responses

Statements from Eastbourne Pier linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

10 Nov2023
East Sussex
Concerns raised4
1. Insufficient length of ropes attached to life-saving rings for reaching the water at low tide
2. Failure to keep life-saving rings visible and easily accessible
3. Insufficient number and distribution of life-saving rings along Eastbourne Pier
1. Failure to ensure access keys are available when necessary for access to the lower level of the pier
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response 3
1. Action
  Notify Sussex Police, the Coastguard and East Sussex Fire and Rescue of the gate codes.
  Stated completed
2. Action
  Increase the ropes on all life-saving rings to 50 metres.
  Stated completed
3. Action
  Replace the lower-access and front-entrance pier gates with digital locks.
  Stated completed
AI-generated summary

Graham Ian COOMBE · Prevention of Future Deaths report

This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

Report summary

Graham Ian COOMBE entered the water from the lower level of Eastbourne Pier on 1 May 2022 and was rescued by lifeboat after attempts to reach him were delayed by access and lifesaving-equipment issues. He died at Royal Sussex County Hospital Brighton on 4 May 2022 as a result of drowning. Concerns included a locked access gate, an inaccessible and poorly visible lifesaving ring, a rope that was too short to reach the water at low tide, and the number of lifesaving rings on the pier.

Read the report on judiciary.uk
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Eastbourne Pier; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Insufficient length of ropes attached to life-saving rings for reaching the water at low tide
Wider context from the report
“3. The rope attached to the life saving ring was too short (although its length was within the prescribed regulatory guidelines) so that the buoyancy aid did not reach the water when thrown. I am concerned that the rope was of an insufficient length for the aid to reach the water at low tide. ”
Open source report
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Eastbourne Pier; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to keep life-saving rings visible and easily accessible
Wider context from the report
“2. The life saving ring was neither in an accessible or visible place. It was in a cupboard hidden behind a bench. These safety aids should be stored visibly and be easily accessible. ”
Open source report
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Eastbourne Pier; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Insufficient number and distribution of life-saving rings along Eastbourne Pier
Wider context from the report
“4. I am concerned that there should be more life saving rings on Eastbourne Pier. I heard evidence that there should be one on either side of the pier half way down and one at its end. ”
Open source report
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Eastbourne Pier; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to ensure access keys are available when necessary for access to the lower level of the pier
Wider context from the report
“1. A locked 10 foot gate prevented the police from accessing the lower level of the pier. The security officer on the pier did not have the key. Evidence was heard that only the Manager of the pier and the maintenance worker are key holders, neither of whom were at the pier on 1st May 2022. I heard evidence from the Sussex Police that a key should be kept in a key safe on the pier with the code being notified to them so that access can be obtained when necessary. ”
Open source report
Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Notify Sussex Police, the Coastguard and East Sussex Fire and Rescue of the gate codes.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Sussex Police have been notified of the gate codes – ref 519 of 17th November 2023”

Source location
Response from Eastbourne Pier
Page 1 · response
Published 13 November 2023
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Increase the ropes on all life-saving rings to 50 metres.

Verbatim wording from the response
“There are two life saving rings half way down the pier and three at the end of the pier, of which two are at each side and one is kept at the fishing tackle/fishermen’s shop. All rings are easily visible and accessible. The length of the ropes on the life saving rings has been increased to 50 metres.”

Source location
Response from Eastbourne Pier
Page 1 · response
Published 13 November 2023
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Replace the lower-access and front-entrance pier gates with digital locks.

Verbatim wording from the response
“The lock on the gate that gives access to the lower end of the pier has been replaced with a digital lock. The lock on the gate at the front entrance to the pier is also a digital lock.”

Source location
Response from Eastbourne Pier
Page 1 · response
Published 13 November 2023
Open published response

Information checked against published PFD reports and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations

Data last updated 7 September 2026

Reports, concerns and published responses

Reports over time

Concerns raised4

Insufficient length of ropes attached to life-saving rings for reaching the water at low tide

Failure to keep life-saving rings visible and easily accessible

Insufficient number and distribution of life-saving rings along Eastbourne Pier

Failure to ensure access keys are available when necessary for access to the lower level of the pier

Actions described in response An action is something this recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.3

Actions described in response 3