Disappointed beach hut owners accuse council of “kicking sand in their faces” after 10% rent rise

Bournemouth Echo: RISE: Beach huts on Bournemouth seafront RISE: Beach huts on Bournemouth seafront

DISAPPOINTED beach hut owners have accused the council of “kicking sand in their faces” by choosing to hike rents by 10 per cent.

The Bournemouth Beach Hut Association (BBHA) said it had built up an excellent working relationship with the council and had been led to believe rents would be increased by 3.1 per cent next year, in line with inflation.

They said they had suggested several other ways in which Bournemouth council could generate income and save money, including turning lights off in locked toilet blocks, charging non-Bournemouth residents more for their huts than local owners, employing staff to enforce the dog, cycling and litter regulations and issue fines where appropriate and re-letting vacant hut sites more promptly than at present.

Debbie Dowsett, secretary of the BBHA, said: “We understand that the council is under financial pressure and were resigned to an inflation-linked increase.

“However a 10 per cent increase far outstrips affordability for so many local families, many of whom have a hut instead of taking family holidays.

“We understand that the council has to generate as much income as it can from its assets but feel that charging such a small group of, mainly Bournemouth residents, such a disproportionate amount of money is unfair.”

Bournemouth council said it did not want to add to its previous comments on the issue. Cllr Lawrence Williams, cabinet member for leisure and tourism, left, had previously said: “In these challenging economic times it is important that the council obtains good value for all local taxpayers from their assets and to continue to provide the essential services they expect.

“The council has therefore chosen to protect frontline services and increase the beach hut prices above inflation.”

Comments (22)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:17pm Mon 16 Dec 13

politicaltrainspotter says...

Well, you know what to do in 2015 !
Well, you know what to do in 2015 ! politicaltrainspotter

12:27pm Mon 16 Dec 13

H2o-hara says...

Issue heavier fines for the Summertime litter louts !
Issue heavier fines for the Summertime litter louts ! H2o-hara

12:31pm Mon 16 Dec 13

woby_tide says...

Given how many of them seem to stay empty and unused by their tenants maybe they'll consider freeing more of them up if the rent becomes unpalatable
Given how many of them seem to stay empty and unused by their tenants maybe they'll consider freeing more of them up if the rent becomes unpalatable woby_tide

12:31pm Mon 16 Dec 13

rayc says...

If I had any sympathy for the beach hut owners it has all evaporated after the BBHA said " they had suggested several other ways in which Bournemouth council could generate income and save money, including turning lights off in locked toilet blocks, charging non-Bournemouth residents more for their huts than local owners, employing staff to enforce the dog, cycling and litter regulations and issue fines where appropriate"
The issuing of FPN's for any offences should not be to bolster funds but be a last resort where a nuisance is being caused by the activity.
If I had any sympathy for the beach hut owners it has all evaporated after the BBHA said " they had suggested several other ways in which Bournemouth council could generate income and save money, including turning lights off in locked toilet blocks, charging non-Bournemouth residents more for their huts than local owners, employing staff to enforce the dog, cycling and litter regulations and issue fines where appropriate" The issuing of FPN's for any offences should not be to bolster funds but be a last resort where a nuisance is being caused by the activity. rayc

12:49pm Mon 16 Dec 13

Letcommonsenseprevail says...

WELL IF YOU DON'T WANT TO PAY THEN LEAVE YOUR HUT. IT'S QUITE SIMPLE. AS MOST OF THE TENANTS ARE HARDLY EVER THERE AND THE SYSTEM FOR ALLOCATING THEM IS GROSSLY UNFAIR IN THE FIRST PLACE I HAVE NO SYMPATHY.
WELL IF YOU DON'T WANT TO PAY THEN LEAVE YOUR HUT. IT'S QUITE SIMPLE. AS MOST OF THE TENANTS ARE HARDLY EVER THERE AND THE SYSTEM FOR ALLOCATING THEM IS GROSSLY UNFAIR IN THE FIRST PLACE I HAVE NO SYMPATHY. Letcommonsenseprevail

12:52pm Mon 16 Dec 13

Ashley Miller says...

rayc says "The issuing of FPNs for any offences should not be to bolster funds but be a last resort where a nuisance is being caused by the activity".
The wife & l have had a beach hut at Boscombe for many years & during the summer months witness many accidents with cyclists, skate boarders & roller skaters. The accidents usually happen to young children who do not look to see if there is any of the afore mentioned people breaking the Council rules which are clearly displayed on numerous signs along the sea front.
For each FPN (Fixed Penalty Notice) issued under these circumstances then myself & fellow beach hut owners would not be facing a massive above inflation hike & money generated could be put back into sea front services to further the appearance of our already wonderful beach
rayc says "The issuing of FPNs for any offences should not be to bolster funds but be a last resort where a nuisance is being caused by the activity". The wife & l have had a beach hut at Boscombe for many years & during the summer months witness many accidents with cyclists, skate boarders & roller skaters. The accidents usually happen to young children who do not look to see if there is any of the afore mentioned people breaking the Council rules which are clearly displayed on numerous signs along the sea front. For each FPN (Fixed Penalty Notice) issued under these circumstances then myself & fellow beach hut owners would not be facing a massive above inflation hike & money generated could be put back into sea front services to further the appearance of our already wonderful beach Ashley Miller

1:01pm Mon 16 Dec 13

Ashley Miller says...

Letcommonsenseprevai
l
wrote:
WELL IF YOU DON'T WANT TO PAY THEN LEAVE YOUR HUT. IT'S QUITE SIMPLE. AS MOST OF THE TENANTS ARE HARDLY EVER THERE AND THE SYSTEM FOR ALLOCATING THEM IS GROSSLY UNFAIR IN THE FIRST PLACE I HAVE NO SYMPATHY.
My wife had her name on the waiting list for many years before we were offered a hut (which you have to purchase) & we do use our hut along with three daughters & four grandkids on a regular basis during the summer & even spend many happy hours down there during the winter months.
How can the system be grossly unfair? It is exactly the same for everyone & regarding the no sympathy bit l bet it's only jealousy!!!
[quote][p][bold]Letcommonsenseprevai l[/bold] wrote: WELL IF YOU DON'T WANT TO PAY THEN LEAVE YOUR HUT. IT'S QUITE SIMPLE. AS MOST OF THE TENANTS ARE HARDLY EVER THERE AND THE SYSTEM FOR ALLOCATING THEM IS GROSSLY UNFAIR IN THE FIRST PLACE I HAVE NO SYMPATHY.[/p][/quote]My wife had her name on the waiting list for many years before we were offered a hut (which you have to purchase) & we do use our hut along with three daughters & four grandkids on a regular basis during the summer & even spend many happy hours down there during the winter months. How can the system be grossly unfair? It is exactly the same for everyone & regarding the no sympathy bit l bet it's only jealousy!!! Ashley Miller

1:18pm Mon 16 Dec 13

rayc says...

Ashley Miller wrote:
rayc says "The issuing of FPNs for any offences should not be to bolster funds but be a last resort where a nuisance is being caused by the activity".
The wife & l have had a beach hut at Boscombe for many years & during the summer months witness many accidents with cyclists, skate boarders & roller skaters. The accidents usually happen to young children who do not look to see if there is any of the afore mentioned people breaking the Council rules which are clearly displayed on numerous signs along the sea front.
For each FPN (Fixed Penalty Notice) issued under these circumstances then myself & fellow beach hut owners would not be facing a massive above inflation hike & money generated could be put back into sea front services to further the appearance of our already wonderful beach
So you pay to employ some enforcers. They then wait to issue the FPN's. All cyclists obey the rules and then there is no income and the enforcers still need to be paid. Same with dogs and littering, it is depending upon rule breakers to fund your chosen lifestyle. I understand you feeling hard done by but have you done a business plan for your proposals? How much is the Council going to make by raising your fees by 10% against their profit from enforcement?
[quote][p][bold]Ashley Miller[/bold] wrote: rayc says "The issuing of FPNs for any offences should not be to bolster funds but be a last resort where a nuisance is being caused by the activity". The wife & l have had a beach hut at Boscombe for many years & during the summer months witness many accidents with cyclists, skate boarders & roller skaters. The accidents usually happen to young children who do not look to see if there is any of the afore mentioned people breaking the Council rules which are clearly displayed on numerous signs along the sea front. For each FPN (Fixed Penalty Notice) issued under these circumstances then myself & fellow beach hut owners would not be facing a massive above inflation hike & money generated could be put back into sea front services to further the appearance of our already wonderful beach[/p][/quote]So you pay to employ some enforcers. They then wait to issue the FPN's. All cyclists obey the rules and then there is no income and the enforcers still need to be paid. Same with dogs and littering, it is depending upon rule breakers to fund your chosen lifestyle. I understand you feeling hard done by but have you done a business plan for your proposals? How much is the Council going to make by raising your fees by 10% against their profit from enforcement? rayc

2:12pm Mon 16 Dec 13

simcal says...

Quite simple, let market forces prevail. If people are prepared to pay more for the huts than the current tenants then re let them. bThe other residents of Bournemouth should not be subsidising this lot.
Quite simple, let market forces prevail. If people are prepared to pay more for the huts than the current tenants then re let them. bThe other residents of Bournemouth should not be subsidising this lot. simcal

2:18pm Mon 16 Dec 13

jobsworthwatch says...

Shouldn't the cost of protecting front line services be borne by all in the community and just a 'soft target' minority?
Shouldn't the cost of protecting front line services be borne by all in the community and just a 'soft target' minority? jobsworthwatch

2:21pm Mon 16 Dec 13

jobsworthwatch says...

simcal wrote:
Quite simple, let market forces prevail. If people are prepared to pay more for the huts than the current tenants then re let them. bThe other residents of Bournemouth should not be subsidising this lot.
Surely it's 'the other residents of Bournemouth' that are being subsidised by the beach hut owners.
[quote][p][bold]simcal[/bold] wrote: Quite simple, let market forces prevail. If people are prepared to pay more for the huts than the current tenants then re let them. bThe other residents of Bournemouth should not be subsidising this lot.[/p][/quote]Surely it's 'the other residents of Bournemouth' that are being subsidised by the beach hut owners. jobsworthwatch

2:23pm Mon 16 Dec 13

rayc says...

jobsworthwatch wrote:
Shouldn't the cost of protecting front line services be borne by all in the community and just a 'soft target' minority?
That has been my argument when car parking charges are justified as keeping Council Tax rises down.
[quote][p][bold]jobsworthwatch[/bold] wrote: Shouldn't the cost of protecting front line services be borne by all in the community and just a 'soft target' minority?[/p][/quote]That has been my argument when car parking charges are justified as keeping Council Tax rises down. rayc

2:29pm Mon 16 Dec 13

jobsworthwatch says...

rayc wrote:
jobsworthwatch wrote:
Shouldn't the cost of protecting front line services be borne by all in the community and just a 'soft target' minority?
That has been my argument when car parking charges are justified as keeping Council Tax rises down.
Agree, but car drivers are not a minority. None the less, if car parking was free the town would be doing a lot better. The loss of 1 hour free on road parking has certainly damaged takings in the town centre.
[quote][p][bold]rayc[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jobsworthwatch[/bold] wrote: Shouldn't the cost of protecting front line services be borne by all in the community and just a 'soft target' minority?[/p][/quote]That has been my argument when car parking charges are justified as keeping Council Tax rises down.[/p][/quote]Agree, but car drivers are not a minority. None the less, if car parking was free the town would be doing a lot better. The loss of 1 hour free on road parking has certainly damaged takings in the town centre. jobsworthwatch

2:54pm Mon 16 Dec 13

simcal says...

jobsworthwatch wrote:
simcal wrote:
Quite simple, let market forces prevail. If people are prepared to pay more for the huts than the current tenants then re let them. bThe other residents of Bournemouth should not be subsidising this lot.
Surely it's 'the other residents of Bournemouth' that are being subsidised by the beach hut owners.
If your not paying market rents for the beach huts then we are subsiding you. Simple economics.
[quote][p][bold]jobsworthwatch[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]simcal[/bold] wrote: Quite simple, let market forces prevail. If people are prepared to pay more for the huts than the current tenants then re let them. bThe other residents of Bournemouth should not be subsidising this lot.[/p][/quote]Surely it's 'the other residents of Bournemouth' that are being subsidised by the beach hut owners.[/p][/quote]If your not paying market rents for the beach huts then we are subsiding you. Simple economics. simcal

3:31pm Mon 16 Dec 13

Hessenford says...

rayc wrote:
If I had any sympathy for the beach hut owners it has all evaporated after the BBHA said " they had suggested several other ways in which Bournemouth council could generate income and save money, including turning lights off in locked toilet blocks, charging non-Bournemouth residents more for their huts than local owners, employing staff to enforce the dog, cycling and litter regulations and issue fines where appropriate"
The issuing of FPN's for any offences should not be to bolster funds but be a last resort where a nuisance is being caused by the activity.
Quite right, if issuing fines is a way of deterring people from committing these breaches in the first place where would the council be if nobody offended, these fines should not be to bolster councils funds.
If you lot cant afford a beach hut give it to someone who can or just pay up for the privilege.
[quote][p][bold]rayc[/bold] wrote: If I had any sympathy for the beach hut owners it has all evaporated after the BBHA said " they had suggested several other ways in which Bournemouth council could generate income and save money, including turning lights off in locked toilet blocks, charging non-Bournemouth residents more for their huts than local owners, employing staff to enforce the dog, cycling and litter regulations and issue fines where appropriate" The issuing of FPN's for any offences should not be to bolster funds but be a last resort where a nuisance is being caused by the activity.[/p][/quote]Quite right, if issuing fines is a way of deterring people from committing these breaches in the first place where would the council be if nobody offended, these fines should not be to bolster councils funds. If you lot cant afford a beach hut give it to someone who can or just pay up for the privilege. Hessenford

3:36pm Mon 16 Dec 13

rozmister says...

jobsworthwatch wrote:
simcal wrote: Quite simple, let market forces prevail. If people are prepared to pay more for the huts than the current tenants then re let them. bThe other residents of Bournemouth should not be subsidising this lot.
Surely it's 'the other residents of Bournemouth' that are being subsidised by the beach hut owners.
This argument about who pays for what is redundant. I pay council tax in the borough and yet I have never (and probably won't for a very long time) used any of the local schools, nursing homes, adult social care, social services (adult & childrens), green waste services and so on and so forth. I don't feel hard done by; I want to live in Bournemouth I pay my council tax and accept it goes to all those services I won't use. On the same vein if you want a beach hut, pay the rent and accept that you may be subsidising the other residents of Bournemouth. Given 187,000 people live in Bournemouth I doubt the amount your subsidising each resident by is significant at all.
[quote][p][bold]jobsworthwatch[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]simcal[/bold] wrote: Quite simple, let market forces prevail. If people are prepared to pay more for the huts than the current tenants then re let them. bThe other residents of Bournemouth should not be subsidising this lot.[/p][/quote]Surely it's 'the other residents of Bournemouth' that are being subsidised by the beach hut owners.[/p][/quote]This argument about who pays for what is redundant. I pay council tax in the borough and yet I have never (and probably won't for a very long time) used any of the local schools, nursing homes, adult social care, social services (adult & childrens), green waste services and so on and so forth. I don't feel hard done by; I want to live in Bournemouth I pay my council tax and accept it goes to all those services I won't use. On the same vein if you want a beach hut, pay the rent and accept that you may be subsidising the other residents of Bournemouth. Given 187,000 people live in Bournemouth I doubt the amount your subsidising each resident by is significant at all. rozmister

3:45pm Mon 16 Dec 13

jobsworthwatch says...

simcal wrote:
jobsworthwatch wrote:
simcal wrote:
Quite simple, let market forces prevail. If people are prepared to pay more for the huts than the current tenants then re let them. bThe other residents of Bournemouth should not be subsidising this lot.
Surely it's 'the other residents of Bournemouth' that are being subsidised by the beach hut owners.
If your not paying market rents for the beach huts then we are subsiding you. Simple economics.
If you are not paying enough council tax then hut owners are subsidising you, simple economics.
The hut rent has increased disproportionately in recent years, also the number of beach huts has reduced considerably and hut owners are a soft target.
Huts have been removed so that the undercliff could become a car park in the summer months which is probably due to the loss of car parking at Boscombe for which we can blame the surf reef? Years ago cars on the prom was completely taboo in the summer months.

I wonder what the increase in council tax would be if the 10% increase in hut rental was spread across all council tax payers; minimal I suspect!
[quote][p][bold]simcal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jobsworthwatch[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]simcal[/bold] wrote: Quite simple, let market forces prevail. If people are prepared to pay more for the huts than the current tenants then re let them. bThe other residents of Bournemouth should not be subsidising this lot.[/p][/quote]Surely it's 'the other residents of Bournemouth' that are being subsidised by the beach hut owners.[/p][/quote]If your not paying market rents for the beach huts then we are subsiding you. Simple economics.[/p][/quote]If you are not paying enough council tax then hut owners are subsidising you, simple economics. The hut rent has increased disproportionately in recent years, also the number of beach huts has reduced considerably and hut owners are a soft target. Huts have been removed so that the undercliff could become a car park in the summer months which is probably due to the loss of car parking at Boscombe for which we can blame the surf reef? Years ago cars on the prom was completely taboo in the summer months. I wonder what the increase in council tax would be if the 10% increase in hut rental was spread across all council tax payers; minimal I suspect! jobsworthwatch

4:48pm Mon 16 Dec 13

BmthNewshound says...

politicaltrainspotte
r
wrote:
Well, you know what to do in 2015 !
Absolutely, but the people who bother to go out to vote will continue to put their cross in the same place on the ballot paper as they have done since the days of Emily Pankhurst because that's what they do.
.
Some of the worse schools in the country, £millions squandered on endless vanity projects, draconian use of FRN's to generate income without resolving the underlying issues. The current regime controlling the town hall have done nothing but harm to the town but the people will keep voting them back in.
.
Why ? Because most people in Bournemouth simply don't care and can't even be bothered to vote. There is also no credible alternative and Beesley exploits this knowing that he can do whatever he wants and he won't be challenged not in the council chamber or in the ballot box.
[quote][p][bold]politicaltrainspotte r[/bold] wrote: Well, you know what to do in 2015 ![/p][/quote]Absolutely, but the people who bother to go out to vote will continue to put their cross in the same place on the ballot paper as they have done since the days of Emily Pankhurst because that's what they do. . Some of the worse schools in the country, £millions squandered on endless vanity projects, draconian use of FRN's to generate income without resolving the underlying issues. The current regime controlling the town hall have done nothing but harm to the town but the people will keep voting them back in. . Why ? Because most people in Bournemouth simply don't care and can't even be bothered to vote. There is also no credible alternative and Beesley exploits this knowing that he can do whatever he wants and he won't be challenged not in the council chamber or in the ballot box. BmthNewshound

5:04pm Mon 16 Dec 13

BIGTONE says...

“The council has therefore chosen to protect frontline services and increase the beach hut prices above inflation.”


It's so they don't have to dig into their secret stash....however....
.it's not a secret.
“The council has therefore chosen to protect frontline services and increase the beach hut prices above inflation.” It's so they don't have to dig into their secret stash....however.... .it's not a secret. BIGTONE

5:21pm Mon 16 Dec 13

wonderway says...

well some has to pay the mayors bar bill and all trhe wine the councillors drink in parlour
well some has to pay the mayors bar bill and all trhe wine the councillors drink in parlour wonderway

6:52pm Mon 16 Dec 13

apm1954 says...

whilst the some in this country are being fed from food banks, fuel that the elderly can not afford , all you worry about is beach hut prices, get a grip with yourselves , pay up or ship out .
whilst the some in this country are being fed from food banks, fuel that the elderly can not afford , all you worry about is beach hut prices, get a grip with yourselves , pay up or ship out . apm1954

10:37pm Mon 16 Dec 13

Old Colonial says...

One piece of information missing......an increase of 10% on what? £50, £100, £500?
One piece of information missing......an increase of 10% on what? £50, £100, £500? Old Colonial

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree