Beach huts could be demolished

Milford on Sea beach hut owners before the meeting at New Forest District Council, Appletree Court

Milford on Sea beach hut owners before the meeting at New Forest District Council, Appletree Court

First published in News by

CAMPAIGNERS are fighting plans to demolish their privately-owned beach huts and make them foot the bill for the replacements.

Civic chiefs have sparked fury by drawing up proposals to bulldoze scores of huts that bore the full force of the storms that devastated parts of the New Forest district on St Valentine’s Day.

The 118 terraced huts at Milford on Sea were hit by 80mph winds.

About 30 were demolished in the aftermath of the storm, and New Forest District Council claims the rest will have to be bulldozed in the interests of public safety.

All the huts are due to be replaced – but the council says the owners must meet the cost.

The plan has angered families, who face the prospect of either losing their seafront plots or paying out thousands of pounds for new buildings.

Owners say many of the huts suffered only slight damage and should be repaired rather than demolished.

They have already launched a petition and are also threatening to take legal action against the council in a bid to save their properties.

Some of the campaigners lobbied a meeting of the council’s ruling Cabinet on Wednesday.

Yvette Frost, who paid £20,000 for her beach hut, told members: “Imagine if the roof blew off your home and the council argued that you shouldn’t be allowed to repair it.”

Councillors defended the scheme, saying the authority had a duty to ensure the safety of everyone who visited the seafront.

But the Cabinet agreed to commission a new structural survey that would examine the condition of each individual hut.

Comments (8)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:59am Mon 9 Jun 14

Baysider says...

Groundhog Day down at the Echo then...
Groundhog Day down at the Echo then... Baysider
  • Score: 0

8:23am Mon 9 Jun 14

Carolyn43 says...

Baysider wrote:
Groundhog Day down at the Echo then...
Just what I was thinking.
[quote][p][bold]Baysider[/bold] wrote: Groundhog Day down at the Echo then...[/p][/quote]Just what I was thinking. Carolyn43
  • Score: 0

9:35am Mon 9 Jun 14

motsie says...

So, they are planning to make the Council pay for replacement. Do they realize they supply the money to the Council? Perhaps they want their Council Tax increased to pay for it. Not very well thought out, unless they want all council tax payers in Milford to pay for them!
So, they are planning to make the Council pay for replacement. Do they realize they supply the money to the Council? Perhaps they want their Council Tax increased to pay for it. Not very well thought out, unless they want all council tax payers in Milford to pay for them! motsie
  • Score: 2

10:54am Mon 9 Jun 14

George Bowling says...

Not sure of the full facts here, but if the huts are privately owned, didn't they have insurance? It seems a little odd that the owners are expecting the council to cover the cost of repairs. If my house was damaged in a storm, I would expect to have to cover the costs myself.
Not sure of the full facts here, but if the huts are privately owned, didn't they have insurance? It seems a little odd that the owners are expecting the council to cover the cost of repairs. If my house was damaged in a storm, I would expect to have to cover the costs myself. George Bowling
  • Score: 7

11:26am Mon 9 Jun 14

speedy231278 says...

If the huts are privately owned, how exactly can the council demolish them and charge for their replacement? Surely the owner is responsible for the upkeep, and if they need repairing or replacing that is down to them? Smacks of yet another example of the local councils trying to fleece everyone for anything they can get their underhanded mitts on. If they are dangerously damaged, which it sounds like they are not, request that the owner makes them safe or removes them, not threaten to do it regardless at their cost!
If the huts are privately owned, how exactly can the council demolish them and charge for their replacement? Surely the owner is responsible for the upkeep, and if they need repairing or replacing that is down to them? Smacks of yet another example of the local councils trying to fleece everyone for anything they can get their underhanded mitts on. If they are dangerously damaged, which it sounds like they are not, request that the owner makes them safe or removes them, not threaten to do it regardless at their cost! speedy231278
  • Score: -3

1:10pm Mon 9 Jun 14

apm1954 says...

get rid , open the space up for all not a few shed dwellers.
get rid , open the space up for all not a few shed dwellers. apm1954
  • Score: 0

5:45pm Mon 9 Jun 14

60plus says...

You cannot insure beach huts,and if like Poole you pay rates on it.
You cannot insure beach huts,and if like Poole you pay rates on it. 60plus
  • Score: 0

7:35pm Mon 9 Jun 14

poolepoole says...

60plus wrote:
You cannot insure beach huts,and if like Poole you pay rates on it.
You can insure them.. Just Google it.
[quote][p][bold]60plus[/bold] wrote: You cannot insure beach huts,and if like Poole you pay rates on it.[/p][/quote]You can insure them.. Just Google it. poolepoole
  • Score: 1

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