22-year wait for beach hut in Sandbanks and 11 years in Branksome as hundreds join waiting list

Bournemouth Echo: 22-year wait for beach hut in Sandbanks and 11 years in Branksome as hundreds join waiting list 22-year wait for beach hut in Sandbanks and 11 years in Branksome as hundreds join waiting list

DEMAND was so high that 147 Poole people successfully applied for a beach hut at Branksome Chine within the first 50 minutes of the list opening.

Borough of Poole had anticipated a high demand as it opened the fifth of its seven waiting lists for beach huts and Tweeted to thank people for their patience.

However, those who paid their £25 to join the Branksome Chine list, now 249 strong, face an average waiting time of 11 years.

But this is far from the longest wait, with those who signed up for Sandbanks, the first of the waiting lists to open, facing an average of 22 years before being able to hire a hut, with 313 on the list.

The council’s website crashed under the strain shortly after the Sandbanks list opened on January 14, receiving 3,448 visits within the first hour.

Cllr Judy Butt, left, cabinet portfolio holder for public engagement and participation said: “We knew demand levels would be high when we reopened the waiting list as beach huts on Poole’s prestigious beaches have always been extremely popular.

“Following the issues we experienced with our website when the first list at Sandbanks opened we have worked very hard to ensure that this does not happen again and have been pleased with the response from the public.”

And despite waiting lists creeping ever higher, there are still hundreds of people willing to sign up for the chance of being able to hire a hut overlooking the golden sands.

Comments (16)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:09am Wed 12 Feb 14

speedy231278 says...

Hang on, you have to pay to join a list for something that you might not even be able to have? Sounds a bit fishy to me.....
Hang on, you have to pay to join a list for something that you might not even be able to have? Sounds a bit fishy to me..... speedy231278
  • Score: 15

10:13am Wed 12 Feb 14

rayc says...

"However, those who paid their £25 to join the Branksome Chine list, now 249 strong, face an average waiting time of 11 years"

Nice little earner for the council especially if the list has to be 'updated' at regular intervals during the 11 years.
I have just booked my car in for an MOT but thankfully I was not charged £25 for them to add it to the list for that day. Obviously private businesses could learn from the public ones, good job they have competition.
"However, those who paid their £25 to join the Branksome Chine list, now 249 strong, face an average waiting time of 11 years" Nice little earner for the council especially if the list has to be 'updated' at regular intervals during the 11 years. I have just booked my car in for an MOT but thankfully I was not charged £25 for them to add it to the list for that day. Obviously private businesses could learn from the public ones, good job they have competition. rayc
  • Score: 6

10:15am Wed 12 Feb 14

Arthur Maureen says...

Mugged by the robbing council again, no thanks.
Mugged by the robbing council again, no thanks. Arthur Maureen
  • Score: 6

10:19am Wed 12 Feb 14

pac31 says...

It,s mad that you have to wait so long for a beach hut. If you go down there at any point in the summer time half or more are not being used.
So why not chance the way it is done and you only can rent them for a year at a time. This give,s more people a chance to have and enjoy the use of them.
For me i am not going to put my name down for a beach hut as my children will be in there late teens.
It,s mad that you have to wait so long for a beach hut. If you go down there at any point in the summer time half or more are not being used. So why not chance the way it is done and you only can rent them for a year at a time. This give,s more people a chance to have and enjoy the use of them. For me i am not going to put my name down for a beach hut as my children will be in there late teens. pac31
  • Score: 11

10:31am Wed 12 Feb 14

beachcomber1 says...

never seen the attraction of a beach hut anyway tbh
never seen the attraction of a beach hut anyway tbh beachcomber1
  • Score: 2

11:51am Wed 12 Feb 14

Tig says...

I think there should be a limit as to how long you can rent one, say, five years. That would make it fairer.
I think there should be a limit as to how long you can rent one, say, five years. That would make it fairer. Tig
  • Score: 8

1:16pm Wed 12 Feb 14

Arthur Maureen says...

There's a few going spare today I'm sure..
There's a few going spare today I'm sure.. Arthur Maureen
  • Score: 3

3:29pm Wed 12 Feb 14

BIGTONE says...

speedy231278 wrote:
Hang on, you have to pay to join a list for something that you might not even be able to have? Sounds a bit fishy to me.....
There's plenty of gullible peeps out there. Just ask the Nigerians.
[quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: Hang on, you have to pay to join a list for something that you might not even be able to have? Sounds a bit fishy to me.....[/p][/quote]There's plenty of gullible peeps out there. Just ask the Nigerians. BIGTONE
  • Score: 2

5:31pm Wed 12 Feb 14

QPUtd says...

I'm puzzled: if there is an 11-year waiting list then that means the prices must be too low? (unless those on the waiting list are stupid and are prepared to pay more than they are worth). When the council are having to make cuts why are they renting out beach-huts for too low a price? If the reply is, "if we charged the market rent then poorer people won't be able to rent beach-huts", my answer is "if there is an 11-year waiting list they can't rent them anyway" Only higher earners can to rent a beach-hut anyway so why should other council tax payers subsidise them?
I'm puzzled: if there is an 11-year waiting list then that means the prices must be too low? (unless those on the waiting list are stupid and are prepared to pay more than they are worth). When the council are having to make cuts why are they renting out beach-huts for too low a price? If the reply is, "if we charged the market rent then poorer people won't be able to rent beach-huts", my answer is "if there is an 11-year waiting list they can't rent them anyway" Only higher earners can to rent a beach-hut anyway so why should other council tax payers subsidise them? QPUtd
  • Score: 0

5:45pm Wed 12 Feb 14

Old Colonial says...

Obscene concept for a local authority to be involved in in the first place.
Obscene concept for a local authority to be involved in in the first place. Old Colonial
  • Score: 2

6:36pm Wed 12 Feb 14

shaft says...

speedy231278 wrote:
Hang on, you have to pay to join a list for something that you might not even be able to have? Sounds a bit fishy to me.....
I think you could say the council throw out a line in hope they get a bite and caught 249. As the saying goes one born every minute or in this case 249.
249 x 25 =£6225 for do nothing. WOW
[quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: Hang on, you have to pay to join a list for something that you might not even be able to have? Sounds a bit fishy to me.....[/p][/quote]I think you could say the council throw out a line in hope they get a bite and caught 249. As the saying goes one born every minute or in this case 249. 249 x 25 =£6225 for do nothing. WOW shaft
  • Score: 1

8:06pm Wed 12 Feb 14

apm1954 says...

beachcomber1 wrote:
never seen the attraction of a beach hut anyway tbh
i have a new shed and its bigger.
[quote][p][bold]beachcomber1[/bold] wrote: never seen the attraction of a beach hut anyway tbh[/p][/quote]i have a new shed and its bigger. apm1954
  • Score: 1

8:32pm Wed 12 Feb 14

hucky999 says...

That's if there will be any left in one piece!!
That's if there will be any left in one piece!! hucky999
  • Score: 0

9:06pm Wed 12 Feb 14

Letcommonsenseprevail says...

An absolute disgrace considering that most of them are empty for all but a few days a year. What about a two year turnover to ensure that more of the tax paying public get a opportunity to use these facilities that we all pay for? Or are there too many noses in the trough for that to happen...........? Local councillors should sort this out.
An absolute disgrace considering that most of them are empty for all but a few days a year. What about a two year turnover to ensure that more of the tax paying public get a opportunity to use these facilities that we all pay for? Or are there too many noses in the trough for that to happen...........? Local councillors should sort this out. Letcommonsenseprevail
  • Score: 4

1:35pm Thu 13 Feb 14

Ebb Tide says...

Arthur Maureen wrote:
There's a few going spare today I'm sure..
There would be if the lease holders were allowed to sublet at a charge that covered the enhancements that the leaseholders have made to the interior furniture and fittings. The Borough stops subletting at a fair level by beach hut tenants in order to protect its own ability to let huts with basic furniture and fittings.

Perhaps it will put more of its huts (normally let on a weekly basis) onto long term leases and ease the restrictions on sub-letting. Seems very likely in view of the number of people prepared to take on the high annual charge (it could get higher !) and the Borough is looking for cash to restore its neglected toilets and other important items within the infrastructure.

A secure annual income from long term beach hut leases would produce the basis for a loan for relevant projects. It might even occur to our decision makers that filling the vacant beach hut sites with more beach huts would create an even bigger basis for raising the loan required because of the scandalous neglect stressed in the recent Seafront report.

It is assumed that no part of the beach hut income has been or will be wasted.
[quote][p][bold]Arthur Maureen[/bold] wrote: There's a few going spare today I'm sure..[/p][/quote]There would be if the lease holders were allowed to sublet at a charge that covered the enhancements that the leaseholders have made to the interior furniture and fittings. The Borough stops subletting at a fair level by beach hut tenants in order to protect its own ability to let huts with basic furniture and fittings. Perhaps it will put more of its huts (normally let on a weekly basis) onto long term leases and ease the restrictions on sub-letting. Seems very likely in view of the number of people prepared to take on the high annual charge (it could get higher !) and the Borough is looking for cash to restore its neglected toilets and other important items within the infrastructure. A secure annual income from long term beach hut leases would produce the basis for a loan for relevant projects. It might even occur to our decision makers that filling the vacant beach hut sites with more beach huts would create an even bigger basis for raising the loan required because of the scandalous neglect stressed in the recent Seafront report. It is assumed that no part of the beach hut income has been or will be wasted. Ebb Tide
  • Score: 0

1:41pm Thu 13 Feb 14

Ebb Tide says...

Old Colonial wrote:
Obscene concept for a local authority to be involved in in the first place.
Nothing obscene about preventing private capital charging too much. At least any bonuses (benefits) coming from beach hut income will be expended to the satisfaction of elected Councillors.
[quote][p][bold]Old Colonial[/bold] wrote: Obscene concept for a local authority to be involved in in the first place.[/p][/quote]Nothing obscene about preventing private capital charging too much. At least any bonuses (benefits) coming from beach hut income will be expended to the satisfaction of elected Councillors. Ebb Tide
  • Score: 0

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