“Ludicrous” – plans to put new beach huts in front of sea wall weeks after storms chaos are slammed

CONCERN: Highcliffe resident Bob Hutchings with members of the Stanpit and Mudeford Residents’ Association

AFTERMATH: Debris from the storm ravaged huts

First published in News
Last updated
by

PLANS to put beach huts in front of a sea wall, just yards from the site of severe storm damage, have been branded “ludicrous”.

A lack of consultation, coupled with fears about the location of the huts in front of the Gundimore promenade in Mudeford, has led to questions from residents, calling on Christchurch council to go back to the drawing board.

In February, at least 50 of the 120 beach huts at Avon Beach in Mudeford were destroyed by the Valentine’s Day storms.

In Bournemouth, more than 400 huts were damaged with 30 completely destroyed, including the wedding hut at Bournemouth seafront.

Highcliffe resident Bob Hutchings, who owns a lodge at Sandhills caravan park, behind where the huts will stand, said he wrote to Christchurch council’s chief executive David McIntosh around three weeks ago to say it was an awful risk.

He had a letter back saying at that time a final decision had not been taken.

When the Daily Echo asked the council to clarify their plans for proposed beach huts at Gundimore and Friars Cliff at the end of February, the council said they were still reviewing future provision of beach huts.

The work on the beach huts, which will stand between Mudeford Quay and Avon Beach, began yesterday.

It will cost the council £25,000 to build the 11 huts.

But by selling them for around £17,500 each over four years, they expect to make around £167,500 to finance future schemes.

Annual licence fees payable to the council will cost around £617 including VAT.

Mr Hutchings added: “Had they built them a month ago, they wouldn’t be there now. It’s a ludicrous idea. Putting beach huts even nearer the sea just beggars belief.”

Mudeford resident Keith Williamson said: “Where have they been living the last two months? You have only got to look at your photo of the destruction and it’s obvious.

“I would have thought they would put a hold on it.”

The Gundimore beach huts were a contingency plan should proposed huts at Friars Cliff not be built in time for this season.

A previous report, which proposed the use of Gundimore beach, said the location of the huts – on the existing hard standing area to the west of the ‘knuckle’ in the sea wall – would be adjusted to minimise their visibility to the public and Sandhills caravan park users. It also said the site was “acceptable” under the council’s new zoning policy.

n Last month, leader of Christ-church council, Cllr Ray Nottage said the cost of the storm damage could reach as much as £2million.

At a meeting of the full council he said the storm did huge damage to the Christchurch coastline.

The Army were called in to help clear debris from beach huts wrecked by the storm.

COUNCIL RESPONSE

Neil Farmer, Strategic Director at Christchurch Council said: “Following the recent storms, an internal review of the original decision to build new beach huts at Gundimore was undertaken.

"Given that the damage to huts at Avon Beach was very localised and was caused by such unprecedented and extreme conditions, the council has decided to go ahead with erecting 11 new huts at Gundimore.

"These huts are being built in advance of the proposed new huts at Friars Cliff.

"The Friars Cliff huts are still being proposed, however the council remains in discussion with the Ministry of Defence regarding these. Gundimore was identified as a reserve site in case of delays.”

Comments (44)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:18am Thu 13 Mar 14

Peggy Babcock says...

Let's get things in perspective. It's a hut. A big shed. Not the end of the world if it gets washed or blown away.
Let's get things in perspective. It's a hut. A big shed. Not the end of the world if it gets washed or blown away. Peggy Babcock
  • Score: 15

7:20am Thu 13 Mar 14

Huey says...

Trouble is most people in control of such things are clueless meddling idiots who fail to take credit for their harebrained schemes when they inevitably fail.
Common sense? Nope, just common ignorance.
Trouble is most people in control of such things are clueless meddling idiots who fail to take credit for their harebrained schemes when they inevitably fail. Common sense? Nope, just common ignorance. Huey
  • Score: 33

7:38am Thu 13 Mar 14

skydriver says...

It must be taken into account its Christchurch council your talking about. When have they ever listened to what the local people wish for?NEVER.Then we must put the blame for this squarely on the shoulders of the leader Cllr Nottage . Yet again another daft decision , when oh when will they learn. When is voting time around again? Let's hope all their days are numbered in office
It must be taken into account its Christchurch council your talking about. When have they ever listened to what the local people wish for?NEVER.Then we must put the blame for this squarely on the shoulders of the leader Cllr Nottage . Yet again another daft decision , when oh when will they learn. When is voting time around again? Let's hope all their days are numbered in office skydriver
  • Score: 40

7:42am Thu 13 Mar 14

Tripod says...

Sounds like a brilliant idea, build them, make a lot of money selling them, then do the same next year...
Sounds like a brilliant idea, build them, make a lot of money selling them, then do the same next year... Tripod
  • Score: 22

7:57am Thu 13 Mar 14

Samesex says...

Once again The conservative run Christchurch council are not listening to the people they are a supposed to represent. Seems that the Chief Exec is saying one thing in his letter to residents and then doing the complete opposite. How long do we have to continue to put up with all this mismanagement ?
Once again The conservative run Christchurch council are not listening to the people they are a supposed to represent. Seems that the Chief Exec is saying one thing in his letter to residents and then doing the complete opposite. How long do we have to continue to put up with all this mismanagement ? Samesex
  • Score: 27

8:09am Thu 13 Mar 14

BIGTONE says...

It's a good move by the Council.
It ensures a quicker "turn over" of hut owners.
It's a good move by the Council. It ensures a quicker "turn over" of hut owners. BIGTONE
  • Score: 15

8:16am Thu 13 Mar 14

Hessenford says...

That's Christchurch Council for you I'm afraid, Nottage and his bunch of senile bunch haven't the brains of an amoeba, their so concerned about the colour of beach hut that they seem to have put aside the safety of beach huts.
That's Christchurch Council for you I'm afraid, Nottage and his bunch of senile bunch haven't the brains of an amoeba, their so concerned about the colour of beach hut that they seem to have put aside the safety of beach huts. Hessenford
  • Score: 26

8:20am Thu 13 Mar 14

twynham says...

Good luck with selling those!
Good luck with selling those! twynham
  • Score: 13

8:21am Thu 13 Mar 14

ragj195 says...

Lodge > Window > Sea View + Lodge > Window > Back of Shed = Ouch
Lodge > Window > Sea View + Lodge > Window > Back of Shed = Ouch ragj195
  • Score: 34

8:36am Thu 13 Mar 14

pete woodley says...

Must be scared of them upsetting their view,thats the real reason i bet.
Must be scared of them upsetting their view,thats the real reason i bet. pete woodley
  • Score: 29

9:03am Thu 13 Mar 14

The-Bleeding-Obvious says...

Peggy Babcock wrote:
Let's get things in perspective. It's a hut. A big shed. Not the end of the world if it gets washed or blown away.
Would you put a wooden box containing £17.5k on a beach that had just been ravaged by the worst succession of destructive storms in living memory?
[quote][p][bold]Peggy Babcock[/bold] wrote: Let's get things in perspective. It's a hut. A big shed. Not the end of the world if it gets washed or blown away.[/p][/quote]Would you put a wooden box containing £17.5k on a beach that had just been ravaged by the worst succession of destructive storms in living memory? The-Bleeding-Obvious
  • Score: 22

9:28am Thu 13 Mar 14

bobsworthforever says...

They shouldn't be selling them they should be rented out to families not just sold off but if you've got 17.5k year probably a good buy as for the people on Sandhills you cant buy the view. Christchurch Councils noses are so far in the trough its covering their eyes
They shouldn't be selling them they should be rented out to families not just sold off but if you've got 17.5k year probably a good buy as for the people on Sandhills you cant buy the view. Christchurch Councils noses are so far in the trough its covering their eyes bobsworthforever
  • Score: 18

10:02am Thu 13 Mar 14

Grapes68 says...

Why have the huts been placed in front of the mobile homes, destroying their view? Have the planners been to the beach or was is just planned using google earth?
Why have the huts been placed in front of the mobile homes, destroying their view? Have the planners been to the beach or was is just planned using google earth? Grapes68
  • Score: 10

10:06am Thu 13 Mar 14

Tictock says...

So five people pose for a photo, is that the extent of the protest? Council see's an opportunity to make money = more to spend on services etc. If people will buy these new beach huts - then good luck to them and the council, Move on!
So five people pose for a photo, is that the extent of the protest? Council see's an opportunity to make money = more to spend on services etc. If people will buy these new beach huts - then good luck to them and the council, Move on! Tictock
  • Score: 1

10:12am Thu 13 Mar 14

pete woodley says...

Grapes68 wrote:
Why have the huts been placed in front of the mobile homes, destroying their view? Have the planners been to the beach or was is just planned using google earth?
Since when did the mobile home owners buy the right to view the sea and have nobody in front.what a pompous lot of snobs.
[quote][p][bold]Grapes68[/bold] wrote: Why have the huts been placed in front of the mobile homes, destroying their view? Have the planners been to the beach or was is just planned using google earth?[/p][/quote]Since when did the mobile home owners buy the right to view the sea and have nobody in front.what a pompous lot of snobs. pete woodley
  • Score: 12

11:05am Thu 13 Mar 14

FrogKiss says...

Remember -This is tax payers money. In my view the £25k is a bad investment if the council get sued following the next storm. That's if they find any mugs to buy them! Would any of them invest their own money????
Remember -This is tax payers money. In my view the £25k is a bad investment if the council get sued following the next storm. That's if they find any mugs to buy them! Would any of them invest their own money???? FrogKiss
  • Score: 6

11:19am Thu 13 Mar 14

speedy231278 says...

So, the council are charging over SIX times the cost of the huts to buy them, then another £617 a year to licence them? Need any more proof that they are as bad as the other crooks in the area?
So, the council are charging over SIX times the cost of the huts to buy them, then another £617 a year to licence them? Need any more proof that they are as bad as the other crooks in the area? speedy231278
  • Score: 11

11:26am Thu 13 Mar 14

Steveo123 says...

Stop moaning the council need to make money for the locals, parks etc.. ,, this looks like a good way to do it, ,,, the only people moaning are the caravan owners,, too bad... well done council, you get my vote next year...
Stop moaning the council need to make money for the locals, parks etc.. ,, this looks like a good way to do it, ,,, the only people moaning are the caravan owners,, too bad... well done council, you get my vote next year... Steveo123
  • Score: -8

11:28am Thu 13 Mar 14

Steveo123 says...

speedy231278 wrote:
So, the council are charging over SIX times the cost of the huts to buy them, then another £617 a year to licence them? Need any more proof that they are as bad as the other crooks in the area?
Basic Economics mate,, supply and demand !! No body is forcing anyone to buy,, they will sell for what they are worth...
[quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: So, the council are charging over SIX times the cost of the huts to buy them, then another £617 a year to licence them? Need any more proof that they are as bad as the other crooks in the area?[/p][/quote]Basic Economics mate,, supply and demand !! No body is forcing anyone to buy,, they will sell for what they are worth... Steveo123
  • Score: 9

11:31am Thu 13 Mar 14

Steveo123 says...

FrogKiss wrote:
Remember -This is tax payers money. In my view the £25k is a bad investment if the council get sued following the next storm. That's if they find any mugs to buy them! Would any of them invest their own money????
Did you even read the article ??

It will cost the council £25,000 to build the 11 huts.
But by selling them for around £17,500 each over four years, they expect to make around £167,500 to finance future schemes......
[quote][p][bold]FrogKiss[/bold] wrote: Remember -This is tax payers money. In my view the £25k is a bad investment if the council get sued following the next storm. That's if they find any mugs to buy them! Would any of them invest their own money????[/p][/quote]Did you even read the article ?? It will cost the council £25,000 to build the 11 huts. But by selling them for around £17,500 each over four years, they expect to make around £167,500 to finance future schemes...... Steveo123
  • Score: 5

11:47am Thu 13 Mar 14

dobrojoe says...

Will the new huts have a special 'one colour only' coating?
Will the new huts have a special 'one colour only' coating? dobrojoe
  • Score: 3

12:01pm Thu 13 Mar 14

wokboy60 says...

Well I think I have heard it all now from those in charge at Christchurch Council ....could they have possibly found a worse spot to install beach huts ?? Hands up those of you can remember as far back as ...oooooh all of 7 years !!? The entrance channel to the Harbour used to run past the Gundimore beach and I have a photo somewhere of me standing high up on the large groyne that is there but is at present covered up by sand , that sand was dumped on it by a couple storms a few years ago , which changed the shape of the sandbar leaving a channel through the middle ..........FOR NOW !! What nature moves around and dumps she also picks up and dumps somewhere else and you would have to be a **** fool think that Gundimore beach would even possibly be there in 5 years time ! Does Mr Farmer have letters after his name ?
Well I think I have heard it all now from those in charge at Christchurch Council ....could they have possibly found a worse spot to install beach huts ?? Hands up those of you can remember as far back as ...oooooh all of 7 years !!? The entrance channel to the Harbour used to run past the Gundimore beach and I have a photo somewhere of me standing high up on the large groyne that is there but is at present covered up by sand , that sand was dumped on it by a couple storms a few years ago , which changed the shape of the sandbar leaving a channel through the middle ..........FOR NOW !! What nature moves around and dumps she also picks up and dumps somewhere else and you would have to be a **** fool think that Gundimore beach would even possibly be there in 5 years time ! Does Mr Farmer have letters after his name ? wokboy60
  • Score: 7

12:09pm Thu 13 Mar 14

speedy231278 says...

Steveo123 wrote:
speedy231278 wrote:
So, the council are charging over SIX times the cost of the huts to buy them, then another £617 a year to licence them? Need any more proof that they are as bad as the other crooks in the area?
Basic Economics mate,, supply and demand !! No body is forcing anyone to buy,, they will sell for what they are worth...
Nothing after the next storm, judging by where they are being located!
[quote][p][bold]Steveo123[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: So, the council are charging over SIX times the cost of the huts to buy them, then another £617 a year to licence them? Need any more proof that they are as bad as the other crooks in the area?[/p][/quote]Basic Economics mate,, supply and demand !! No body is forcing anyone to buy,, they will sell for what they are worth...[/p][/quote]Nothing after the next storm, judging by where they are being located! speedy231278
  • Score: 2

12:09pm Thu 13 Mar 14

spooki says...

Sounds about right. Council wants to do something, people say "don't be stupid/ignorant/reck
less" so council builds it anyway.
The words 'sea wall' would be a clue to why this is a bad idea. Plus, didn't Bournemouth council complain when people put their things out in front if their huts as it blocked the walkway? Doesn't that apply in Christchurch?
Sounds about right. Council wants to do something, people say "don't be stupid/ignorant/reck less" so council builds it anyway. The words 'sea wall' would be a clue to why this is a bad idea. Plus, didn't Bournemouth council complain when people put their things out in front if their huts as it blocked the walkway? Doesn't that apply in Christchurch? spooki
  • Score: 10

12:10pm Thu 13 Mar 14

GeorgeW64 says...

They should ban all beach huts I wish the storms smashed the lot up, they are a Victorian era eye sore and the owners seem to think they own the entire promenade in front of them. Demolish the lot of 'em.
They should ban all beach huts I wish the storms smashed the lot up, they are a Victorian era eye sore and the owners seem to think they own the entire promenade in front of them. Demolish the lot of 'em. GeorgeW64
  • Score: 7

12:36pm Thu 13 Mar 14

Michelle*87 says...

Christchurch Council are notorious for pleasing themselves!! Not interested in the locals or their opinions (never mind we are the ones paying for all their braindead selfish ideas) They proved themselves when they decided to rob us of £30 for FOUR bags of SAND during a vunrable time!!!
''ROB THE POOR TO FEED THE RICH'' that's their motto!! :-(
Disgusting!!!
Christchurch Council are notorious for pleasing themselves!! Not interested in the locals or their opinions (never mind we are the ones paying for all their braindead selfish ideas) They proved themselves when they decided to rob us of £30 for FOUR bags of SAND during a vunrable time!!! ''ROB THE POOR TO FEED THE RICH'' that's their motto!! :-( Disgusting!!! Michelle*87
  • Score: 7

12:44pm Thu 13 Mar 14

Michelle*87 says...

speedy231278 wrote:
So, the council are charging over SIX times the cost of the huts to buy them, then another £617 a year to licence them? Need any more proof that they are as bad as the other crooks in the area?
Couldn't have said it better!
They use OUR money to build these, but anything made on selling them & stinging people with the additional £617 goes straight into their pocket - Not ours!! How will we benefit? Our money puts them there - then we have to pay extortionate amounts to buy them again & 'licence' them LOL!! They really are a bunch of jokers!
[quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: So, the council are charging over SIX times the cost of the huts to buy them, then another £617 a year to licence them? Need any more proof that they are as bad as the other crooks in the area?[/p][/quote]Couldn't have said it better! They use OUR money to build these, but anything made on selling them & stinging people with the additional £617 goes straight into their pocket - Not ours!! How will we benefit? Our money puts them there - then we have to pay extortionate amounts to buy them again & 'licence' them LOL!! They really are a bunch of jokers! Michelle*87
  • Score: 4

1:24pm Thu 13 Mar 14

Rich© says...

ragj195 wrote:
Lodge > Window > Sea View + Lodge > Window > Back of Shed = Ouch
this ^^^^^^^^

and this: pete woodley says...

"Must be scared of them upsetting their view,that's the real reason i bet. Since when did the mobile home owners buy the right to view the sea and have nobody in front.what a pompous lot of snobs."

There is no other reason for them to get upset apart from the fear of losing their view out to sea.................
..........oh well never mind !!!!

Echo please sort out your quote system, its bloody terrible !!!!!
[quote][p][bold]ragj195[/bold] wrote: Lodge > Window > Sea View + Lodge > Window > Back of Shed = Ouch[/p][/quote]this ^^^^^^^^ and this: pete woodley says... "Must be scared of them upsetting their view,that's the real reason i bet. Since when did the mobile home owners buy the right to view the sea and have nobody in front.what a pompous lot of snobs." There is no other reason for them to get upset apart from the fear of losing their view out to sea................. ..........oh well never mind !!!! Echo please sort out your quote system, its bloody terrible !!!!! Rich©
  • Score: -6

3:58pm Thu 13 Mar 14

cromwell9 says...

The climate is changing fast,No one knows what going to happen next ,
Look at the weather weare having at the moment 60-70 DEG in early March,
Its like Summer,
So yes those beach huts have a very good chance of floating out to sea..
We in theUK have to respect our climate Otherwise its good night Vienna,
The climate is changing fast,No one knows what going to happen next , Look at the weather weare having at the moment 60-70 DEG in early March, Its like Summer, So yes those beach huts have a very good chance of floating out to sea.. We in theUK have to respect our climate Otherwise its good night Vienna, cromwell9
  • Score: 6

6:01pm Thu 13 Mar 14

Ophilum says...

Wonder who thought this one up, it,s just another crocked line like the one on the road in Wimborne.
Wonder who thought this one up, it,s just another crocked line like the one on the road in Wimborne. Ophilum
  • Score: -3

6:11pm Thu 13 Mar 14

Phixer says...

Peggy Babcock wrote:
Let's get things in perspective. It's a hut. A big shed. Not the end of the world if it gets washed or blown away.
No, but this is dealing with taxpayers money and nobody wants to see that hard-earned money wasted because our beloved public serpants don't have an ounce of common sense, treating those who pay their salaries with utter contempt.
[quote][p][bold]Peggy Babcock[/bold] wrote: Let's get things in perspective. It's a hut. A big shed. Not the end of the world if it gets washed or blown away.[/p][/quote]No, but this is dealing with taxpayers money and nobody wants to see that hard-earned money wasted because our beloved public serpants don't have an ounce of common sense, treating those who pay their salaries with utter contempt. Phixer
  • Score: -2

6:17pm Thu 13 Mar 14

Phixer says...

Steveo123 wrote:
FrogKiss wrote:
Remember -This is tax payers money. In my view the £25k is a bad investment if the council get sued following the next storm. That's if they find any mugs to buy them! Would any of them invest their own money????
Did you even read the article ??

It will cost the council £25,000 to build the 11 huts.
But by selling them for around £17,500 each over four years, they expect to make around £167,500 to finance future schemes......
That may have been the prediction before the winter storms but what is the profit - loss? - likely to be now?
[quote][p][bold]Steveo123[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FrogKiss[/bold] wrote: Remember -This is tax payers money. In my view the £25k is a bad investment if the council get sued following the next storm. That's if they find any mugs to buy them! Would any of them invest their own money????[/p][/quote]Did you even read the article ?? It will cost the council £25,000 to build the 11 huts. But by selling them for around £17,500 each over four years, they expect to make around £167,500 to finance future schemes......[/p][/quote]That may have been the prediction before the winter storms but what is the profit - loss? - likely to be now? Phixer
  • Score: -1

6:18pm Thu 13 Mar 14

Phixer says...

wokboy60 wrote:
Well I think I have heard it all now from those in charge at Christchurch Council ....could they have possibly found a worse spot to install beach huts ?? Hands up those of you can remember as far back as ...oooooh all of 7 years !!? The entrance channel to the Harbour used to run past the Gundimore beach and I have a photo somewhere of me standing high up on the large groyne that is there but is at present covered up by sand , that sand was dumped on it by a couple storms a few years ago , which changed the shape of the sandbar leaving a channel through the middle ..........FOR NOW !! What nature moves around and dumps she also picks up and dumps somewhere else and you would have to be a **** fool think that Gundimore beach would even possibly be there in 5 years time ! Does Mr Farmer have letters after his name ?
P.R.A.T.
[quote][p][bold]wokboy60[/bold] wrote: Well I think I have heard it all now from those in charge at Christchurch Council ....could they have possibly found a worse spot to install beach huts ?? Hands up those of you can remember as far back as ...oooooh all of 7 years !!? The entrance channel to the Harbour used to run past the Gundimore beach and I have a photo somewhere of me standing high up on the large groyne that is there but is at present covered up by sand , that sand was dumped on it by a couple storms a few years ago , which changed the shape of the sandbar leaving a channel through the middle ..........FOR NOW !! What nature moves around and dumps she also picks up and dumps somewhere else and you would have to be a **** fool think that Gundimore beach would even possibly be there in 5 years time ! Does Mr Farmer have letters after his name ?[/p][/quote]P.R.A.T. Phixer
  • Score: -5

6:21pm Thu 13 Mar 14

Phixer says...

spooki wrote:
Sounds about right. Council wants to do something, people say "don't be stupid/ignorant/reck

less" so council builds it anyway.
The words 'sea wall' would be a clue to why this is a bad idea. Plus, didn't Bournemouth council complain when people put their things out in front if their huts as it blocked the walkway? Doesn't that apply in Christchurch?
Not if they are in front of the sea wall.
[quote][p][bold]spooki[/bold] wrote: Sounds about right. Council wants to do something, people say "don't be stupid/ignorant/reck less" so council builds it anyway. The words 'sea wall' would be a clue to why this is a bad idea. Plus, didn't Bournemouth council complain when people put their things out in front if their huts as it blocked the walkway? Doesn't that apply in Christchurch?[/p][/quote]Not if they are in front of the sea wall. Phixer
  • Score: 4

8:36pm Thu 13 Mar 14

ragj195 says...

The funniest thing is that the owners who' view they will be blocking are claiming to be worried about them being destroyed. They'd be having a party! They need to come up with a better plan that's a little more believable!
The funniest thing is that the owners who' view they will be blocking are claiming to be worried about them being destroyed. They'd be having a party! They need to come up with a better plan that's a little more believable! ragj195
  • Score: 3

9:49pm Thu 13 Mar 14

Ex PHC says...

skydriver wrote:
It must be taken into account its Christchurch council your talking about. When have they ever listened to what the local people wish for?NEVER.Then we must put the blame for this squarely on the shoulders of the leader Cllr Nottage . Yet again another daft decision , when oh when will they learn. When is voting time around again? Let's hope all their days are numbered in office
After the elections you will see the same old fogies returned by their friends as the conservative grey haired brigade think they are the best of the bunch.
[quote][p][bold]skydriver[/bold] wrote: It must be taken into account its Christchurch council your talking about. When have they ever listened to what the local people wish for?NEVER.Then we must put the blame for this squarely on the shoulders of the leader Cllr Nottage . Yet again another daft decision , when oh when will they learn. When is voting time around again? Let's hope all their days are numbered in office[/p][/quote]After the elections you will see the same old fogies returned by their friends as the conservative grey haired brigade think they are the best of the bunch. Ex PHC
  • Score: 4

10:04pm Thu 13 Mar 14

Yankee1 says...

The Mayor needs a chauffeur-driven limousine. These things are not free. They are paid for my schemes such as this.

Priorities, people of Mudeford - priorities. Calm down....and vote Tory!
The Mayor needs a chauffeur-driven limousine. These things are not free. They are paid for my schemes such as this. Priorities, people of Mudeford - priorities. Calm down....and vote Tory! Yankee1
  • Score: 0

11:02pm Thu 13 Mar 14

Peggy Babcock says...

The-Bleeding-Obvious wrote:
Peggy Babcock wrote:
Let's get things in perspective. It's a hut. A big shed. Not the end of the world if it gets washed or blown away.
Would you put a wooden box containing £17.5k on a beach that had just been ravaged by the worst succession of destructive storms in living memory?
No I wouldn't. The point is if someone is daft enough to buy one - go ahead. Just don't moan that your 'home' has been washed away.
[quote][p][bold]The-Bleeding-Obvious[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Peggy Babcock[/bold] wrote: Let's get things in perspective. It's a hut. A big shed. Not the end of the world if it gets washed or blown away.[/p][/quote]Would you put a wooden box containing £17.5k on a beach that had just been ravaged by the worst succession of destructive storms in living memory?[/p][/quote]No I wouldn't. The point is if someone is daft enough to buy one - go ahead. Just don't moan that your 'home' has been washed away. Peggy Babcock
  • Score: 1

11:05pm Thu 13 Mar 14

Peggy Babcock says...

speedy231278 wrote:
So, the council are charging over SIX times the cost of the huts to buy them, then another £617 a year to licence them? Need any more proof that they are as bad as the other crooks in the area?
How can they be crooks? It is the BUYERS choice to buy one. They have the sane mark up as a M+S prawn sandwich.
[quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: So, the council are charging over SIX times the cost of the huts to buy them, then another £617 a year to licence them? Need any more proof that they are as bad as the other crooks in the area?[/p][/quote]How can they be crooks? It is the BUYERS choice to buy one. They have the sane mark up as a M+S prawn sandwich. Peggy Babcock
  • Score: 1

10:58am Fri 14 Mar 14

The-Bleeding-Obvious says...

Peggy Babcock wrote:
The-Bleeding-Obvious wrote:
Peggy Babcock wrote:
Let's get things in perspective. It's a hut. A big shed. Not the end of the world if it gets washed or blown away.
Would you put a wooden box containing £17.5k on a beach that had just been ravaged by the worst succession of destructive storms in living memory?
No I wouldn't. The point is if someone is daft enough to buy one - go ahead. Just don't moan that your 'home' has been washed away.
But it's also like buying a dodgy car from a dodgy garage.
[quote][p][bold]Peggy Babcock[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The-Bleeding-Obvious[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Peggy Babcock[/bold] wrote: Let's get things in perspective. It's a hut. A big shed. Not the end of the world if it gets washed or blown away.[/p][/quote]Would you put a wooden box containing £17.5k on a beach that had just been ravaged by the worst succession of destructive storms in living memory?[/p][/quote]No I wouldn't. The point is if someone is daft enough to buy one - go ahead. Just don't moan that your 'home' has been washed away.[/p][/quote]But it's also like buying a dodgy car from a dodgy garage. The-Bleeding-Obvious
  • Score: 1

11:47am Fri 14 Mar 14

Rally says...

Have the simian simpletons responsible for this idiotic scheme never heard the expression 'tempting providence'?
Have the simian simpletons responsible for this idiotic scheme never heard the expression 'tempting providence'? Rally
  • Score: 4

1:18pm Fri 14 Mar 14

madras says...

If it is going to spoil the view from the elevated caravans, imagine what it is going to do for the view for people walking along the pathway – at least the huts along Avon Beach and beyond back only onto the cliffs. Good money for the council. Bad decision for the immediate area

Though a massive sea frontage has been near-ruined by bringing car park up to the edge of the Quay. Would be far nicer if the front row (or two) was removed and grassed over, with some additional parking further back away from water’s edge (eg along side of the caravan park) – now that would be a positive move!
If it is going to spoil the view from the elevated caravans, imagine what it is going to do for the view for people walking along the pathway – at least the huts along Avon Beach and beyond back only onto the cliffs. Good money for the council. Bad decision for the immediate area Though a massive sea frontage has been near-ruined by bringing car park up to the edge of the Quay. Would be far nicer if the front row (or two) was removed and grassed over, with some additional parking further back away from water’s edge (eg along side of the caravan park) – now that would be a positive move! madras
  • Score: -1

2:33pm Fri 14 Mar 14

bobsworthforever says...

GeorgeW64 wrote:
They should ban all beach huts I wish the storms smashed the lot up, they are a Victorian era eye sore and the owners seem to think they own the entire promenade in front of them. Demolish the lot of 'em.
I wish they did only think they own the promenade some of them even barrier off large chunks of the beach in front as well, the beach and the prom should be for everyone.
[quote][p][bold]GeorgeW64[/bold] wrote: They should ban all beach huts I wish the storms smashed the lot up, they are a Victorian era eye sore and the owners seem to think they own the entire promenade in front of them. Demolish the lot of 'em.[/p][/quote]I wish they did only think they own the promenade some of them even barrier off large chunks of the beach in front as well, the beach and the prom should be for everyone. bobsworthforever
  • Score: 4

8:33pm Sat 22 Mar 14

agp1337 says...

Sorry - am posting this on all recent posts about Nottage, if you get the same on several posts. He's published on his blog that he's staying (chilling, as he says!) at a posh hotel in Oxfordshire. Details are on his blog - cost is minimum £550 per night, up to £3000+ per night. And this man represents us? Maybe we should lick our lips, drool, and wish we were there. How incomprehensibly stupid can any politician be?
Sorry - am posting this on all recent posts about Nottage, if you get the same on several posts. He's published on his blog that he's staying (chilling, as he says!) at a posh hotel in Oxfordshire. Details are on his blog - cost is minimum £550 per night, up to £3000+ per night. And this man represents us? Maybe we should lick our lips, drool, and wish we were there. How incomprehensibly stupid can any politician be? agp1337
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

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