11-05-2025
Beach hut owners at war with 'greedy' council after rent rockets by £200 despite being flooded HALF the year, the sea being too dirty to swim in... and a seawall blocking their view
With its sandy beach and fantastic views of sunsets across the Wash, it's long been a popular place for people to relax and forget about the cares of the world.
But the seaside village of Heacham in west Norfolk is now the scene of rising tensions between its beach hut owners and the local council.
The owners claim their huts are furious at 'outrageous' annual ground rents that have soared 37 per cent in three years to £730.
This is despite them being advised not to swim in the sea because of the appalling water quality, according to the Environment Agency, while flooding means the huts also can't be used for six months of the year.
The increases have left many deciding to sell up with 11 of the village's 100 huts on the market, priced from £8,950 to £25,000, according to Rightmove.
But West Norfolk Council's policy of charging a £2,000 transfer fee on each beach hut sale to fund the drawing up of a new lease - in addition to the soaring costs and limitations on use - is also putting off buyers.
This, the owners say, left them stuck in a 'vicious circle' of having to pay the high rents or give up their plot and hut entirely, with little chance of selling.
Some plots, including those that have been passed down by families for generations, are even said to have been returned to the council due to people being unable to afford them and also failing to find a new owner.
The huts are a popular spot to sit and watch the view across the Wash - but they can only be used for six months of the year due to flooding and people are advised against swimming because of pollution in the sea
Wine bar owner Steve Scott, 57, from Leicestershire who bought his hut for £6,500 in 2019 described the ground rent as 'extortionate'.
He said: 'I have just paid the rent this year and it is outrageous. The only thing we get for our money is a couple of water taps either end of the beach.
'You never see anyone from the council turn up with a strimmer to cut back the vegetation.
'All the beach huts are beneath the sea wall so we do not even get to look at the beach unless we set up some chairs at the top.
'As far as I am concerned it is money for old rope for the council because they do absolutely bugger all.
'There are about 100 huts so that is more than £70,000 that they are raking in for doing sweet FA.
'We are not even allowed to use out huts between October and March and we certainly are not allowed to spend the night in them.
'It is nothing short of scandalous that they are also fleecing new owners for £2,000 just to draw up new bog-standard leases for what are basically glorified garden sheds.
'I did try and suggest that they could spread out the cost of ground rent over a whole year and pay once a month but before they responded they deducted the whole amount by direct debit as usual.'
Mr Scott admitted that he and his wife had bought their hut at the right time for 'a decent amount' before prices rocketed over Covid due to the increased demand for staycation holidays.
He added: 'It is certainly the case that there are loads of them on the market. It could be that prices will come down which will leave some owners disappointed.'
Mr Scott's anger at the council has been further exacerbated by their new policy of doubling council tax on holiday homes - including his two-bedroom bolthole in the nearby village of Snettisham, meaning he now pays £4,000 in council tax instead of £2,000.
'It is a lovely area here – but they are taking advantage,' he said. 'They just see second home owners as cash cows and beach hut owners are treated the same way.'
Jan Wildman, 64, who has owned a hut for six years, complained: 'We are the only beach in Norfolk with a brown flag award.
'The other thing about being in Heacham is we are further into the estuary area, so for half the day we have no water at all because it's over at Skegness.
'We are considered at risk of flooding for six months each year but in Old Hunstanton they pay £288 [annual ground rent] and can use them for 12 months.'
The retired teacher added the council treated hut owners as 'cash cows', saying: 'If you walk from the village to the beach you can access the public loos, just like we can, and you can get cold water from the stand pipe, just like we can.
'We are not getting anything for that huge sum of money that people can just get for nothing. So it's just greed and intransigence [by the council]. They've realised they can get the money, so why should they back down?'
Miss Wildman also pointed out transfer fees have increase from £1,500 when she bought hers in 2019 to £2,000 now – an increase of 33 per cent.
Gary Hall, who has visited his family's hut in Heacham since the 1980s, said: 'They [the council] have destroyed something special through their greed.'
Turning to sluggish sales, he added: People I have spoken to have said they would not touch them with a barge pole due to the high costs.'
Pam Slote, a retiree from Wisbech, Cambridgeshire, with a hut in the town, added: 'We feel incandescent and very cross.'
David French, 78, revealed he was considering giving up his hut. He said: 'They are killing the goose that laid the golden egg.'
Heacham's huts could still be viewed as a bargain compared to others in Norfolk, particularly at Wells-next-the-Sea a short distance away around the coast where they are priced at around £100,000 each.
And North Norfolk District Council charges more than £900 a year for a five-year lease for its huts in Sheringham, Cromer, Overstrand and Mundesley, while in Great Yarmouth and nearby Gorleston-on-Sea, the annual rent demanded is between £2,260 and £2,690.
But Heacham's hut owners argue that they are still not getting value for money as they can only use them for half the year due to the flooding risks.
The water pollution problems mean it is one of about 40 beaches in England where annual tests by the Environment Agency have rated the water quality as 'poor'.
Warning signs dotted around what has been dubbed 'Norfolk's most noxious beach' warn people to avoid the temptation to swim because of the high levels of bacteria and other pollutants that can make people ill if sea water is ingested.
Last week its beach was given a Brown Flag Award by UK travel website Holiday Park Guru, in a parody of the coveted Blue Flag Awards Signs awarded to the most coveted beaches.
The problem has been blamed on sea birds feeding on the mudflats of the Wash - although many local people suspect overflowing human sewage is at least partly to blame.
Hut owner Mr Hall added: 'The council has said the prices are competitive with North Norfolk District Council.
'But they have blue flag beaches, you can use them year-round and they have much better facilities, whereas we have to travel to Hunstanton to even go swimming.
'When I raised this with the council, they said "At least we have nice sunsets".'
Retired care worker Barbara Jackson of Peterborough, Cambridgeshire, who has a holiday mobile home in the village, said: 'I have got lots of sympathy with the beach hut owners.
'The huts add to the attraction of the place and are a lovely backdrop to the beach. If you buy a hut, you should be able to use the beach, yet people cannot go in the water.'
A 65-year-old dog walker, who gave her name as Claire, said: 'The state of the sea is beyond a joke. I can understand why the hut owners get upset when they pay so much.
'The other day, the water was like a millpond and my friend was out kayaking and she saw sewage just bobbing up and down.
'When I see kids in the water, I think "Oh my God". At low tide, past the breakwaters, it is all dark sand. If you see people after they have been in the water, they are minging. It is such a shame.
'The huts are quite well used in the summer months and some of them are really smart. But others have got vandalised and are in a poor state of repair.'
The frustrated hut owners have complained frequently to West Norfolk Council and have met up with officers and councillors.
A council spokeswoman said there fees for huts might be reviewed in the future but nothing has been confirmed.
She added: 'While it is important to note that these are the conditions that all parties signed up to, we acknowledge that, during the ten-year period of the leases, changing market circumstances mean that some of these conditions may not be as suitable as they were when agreed in 2016.
'We are sympathetic to the position of the owners and intend to address these issues during renewal discussions, in time for the leases to be renewed early next year.'
In January, the council announced it had turned around a £4m forecast budget gap and now had a balanced financial position for 2025/26 – without using financial reserves.
