Latest news with #beachhutowners
Daily Mail
22-06-2025
- Business
- Daily Mail
EXCLUSIVE Developer at war with posh owners of £500k beach huts over floating 'party bar' directly in front of their properties
The developer behind a controversial floating restaurant, which has enraged the owners of Britain's most expensive beach huts, has labelled the council's decision to reject his application as 'hypocritical' and 'ridiculous'. Paul Trickett, 66, and his wife Virginia, 50, had sought to bring a fully licensed premises called Christchurch Harbour Kitchen to the waters of the idyllic Mudeford Spit in Bournemouth. He has even begun building the float, which he says will seat around 50 people and had hoped to play 'ambient' music from 8am until 7pm while selling alcohol until 10.30pm with meals such as fresh fish, steak and lobster. But a council meeting saw his licensing application thrown out, and the 66-year-old says he is now gearing up to take Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole (BCP) Council to the courtroom. Mr Trickett found himself locked in a weeks-long feud with hut owners on the Spit, who said they would be 'traumatised' by the disruption of their sea views and the prospect of drunken revellers urinating off the vessel. He has since hit back at those claims, insisting that it would not be a 'party boat' and that he wanted to give people the chance 'enjoy themselves' by having a meal while watching the sunset on the water. Speaking this week to MailOnline, Mr Trickett vowed that he will still sell food on the Spit this summer - even to those who vehemently objected to his proposals. 'We'll be there selling food shortly so the restaurant will carry on,' he said. 'With a premise licence we would've had to be in a fixed place and on that same spot all the time. 'But without it we can go anywhere we like. We could go round to the beach tonight if we wanted. 'And we have temporary licenses we can use. There's no problem with them, you just apply. We have up to 50 of those to use during the summer. So we could do that.' Mr Trickett and his wife are from Christchurch and he said the idea for the food float came to him after he waited more than an hour to be served fish and chips at a local establishment. The 30ft by 30ft motorised venue will have a kitchen in the middle with seating and tables around the outside. He also said he wanted to give 'healthy competition' to the Beach House, which is the only currently licensed restaurant and cafe on the Spit. The Beach House building burnt down in November 2018 and has currently been replaced by a temporary cafe, operating from three shipping containers while the council make plans for a replacement. 'It's a monopoly,' he said. 'But there's no reason I can't go down there. 'I'm not going to be down there every day. It's not going to be in the winter. It's not going to be in early spring. Just the summer months. And I'm looking forward to it.' In total Mr Trickett said his application received 37 objections, with two subsequently withdrawn. As the Spit has just under 350 beach huts, the 66-year-old believes that a silent majority actually support his plans. 'I know that there are lots of them who can't wait for another option down there,' he added. MailOnline visited the Spit prior to the BCP Council decision being finalised to speak with hut owners, renters and regular visitors about how they felt about the plans. And while only a smattering supported the idea - citing high prices at the Beach House as a reason - many who were happy to speak about the proposals were in dismay at what Mr Trickett had put forward. With huts on the Spit fetching almost £500,000, and are permitted to be slept in from March until October, some owners believed that the premium price should be rewarded with serenity. Julia Greenham, 72, from Bristol, purchased her 'Bournemouth bolthole' in 2009 for around £100,000 and said she was 'so angry' after hearing of the plans. The actress and singer continued: 'We all are. Those huts are worth almost half a million, and nobody told us formally. We just saw a planning notice on a bit of blue paper in front of my hut. 'I'm traumatised because my hut is worth more to me than most other things in my life. I adore it, it's where I come for solace. 'I don't want a b****y restaurant floating along in front of me with a licence for drink and music when I've got that already. It's ridiculous.' 'They mean a lot to everyone. It's the tranquility and view that you go there for.' Mrs Greenham says the venue getting a licence would also encourage far-flung visitors to spend the day who would end up drinking to the point of being 'trollied'. 'We have a silent code of conduct on the Spit,' she continued. 'Everybody knows how to have a great time and behave themselves, but I can't imagine if people are coming from town that they won't understand that and abuse it. 'It's very sad. I'm not a prude at all. I'm the person that's there first in line for a party. 'But to have a restaurant in front of the view that people pay almost half a million for is barking, that's what it is.' 'Everybody's incensed about it. I think I can pretty much say all of the owners are not happy at all. The only ones I've spoken to are all outraged as much as I am.' The proposals by Mr Trickett would have saw the restaurant moored on the water in front of Mrs Greenham's beach hut. And this would have affected Yvonne Manning, 63, from Surrey, who rents the hut every year from Mrs Greenham. A regular on the Spit for years, the 63-year-old said she would have no longer been interested in visiting if the plans went through. She said: 'The beauty is just the naturalness of the place. There's no Wi-Fi, kids can skim stones, paddle and all of that stuff. My daughter loves it and comes with her friends. 'But I'd be reluctant to stay here if it was to come. I certainly wouldn't pay [Mrs Greenham] to come here if so she'd be losing income if it was there. 'It just wouldn't fit.' Steve Barratt, 74, who is the former chairman and current committee member of Mudeford Sandbank Beach Huts Association (MSBHA), doubted that BCP's decision would halt Mr Trickett's plans. He said: 'I think he's just an opportunist and he's got an idea and wants to go for it. I think even if he doesn't get permission, he might even put it down here, just to see what the reaction is. But Mr Barratt says he doesn't think the 'stupid idea' will last very long, casting doubts over the restaurant's appeal. 'They'll probably have a chemical toilet on board,' he added. 'They'd have to take that away with them. I doubt they'd empty it over the side unless they were being a bit cavalier. 'It's not going to be a particularly savoury environment and I can't see people being attracted to it. 'If there's a cavalier personality running it, then who knows where the oil they use to cook is going to end up. The 74-year-old's wife, Jennie, added that the full ordeal was 'cloud cuckoo land.' A point of concern for the council was 'how hazardous toilet/sanitary waste would be disposed of' particularly on busier days. Mr Trickett insisted that he had built a 'posh thing' that would limit smells on board and allow for easy disposal thanks to its cassette function - which are the toilet builds typically found in caravans and motorhomes. But the idea that there would only one loo on board struck fear in locals who said drunken tourists may urinate off the vessel if it were to be occupied. Jim Longman, 69, who owns a hut with his wife Sallie, said he was concerned that if the only toilet on board was occupied that 'people might p**s over the edge'. He added: 'I don't know how they're going to connect their toilet to the mains, so how and where are they going to pump it out? 'You've also got the problem where if it's open that late and people are getting drunk they then may think 'Oh we've got to walk back but we can steal a boat and go across to the run and make that distance shorter'. The 30ft by 30ft motorised venue will have a kitchen in the middle with seating and tables around the outside 'I believe the developer's argument is that he wanted his wife to have something to do as a business interest, and so he's building this thing with little foresight. Just buy her a bloody dog.' Mrs Longman, 61, told how urination had been a problem on the beach when alcohol has been previously involved - potentially sparking these fears. She said: 'When the cafe had an event called 'Sax on the Beach' it got out of control and people were p*****g outside. 'There are a lot of kids around, it's quite Enid Blyton-esque down here. It's just not that kind of vibe at this beach, they should go to Sobo or Sandbanks for that.' She also believes that Mr Trickett has been 'arrogant' throughout the process. 'He's telling people that everyone's for it and most of them are really not,' she continued. 'He wants to play music which will affect almost all of this area. 'It might be a quiet breakfast vibe but nevertheless, sometimes it's nice to have no noise. If you want to play music you can, but you can't ask a restaurant to turn their music down. 'The waves and sound of the birds is lovely, not their choice of music inflicted on you. I can't think of anything good about it to be honest. 'A floating pontoon with oil hot enough to do fish and chips for up to 70 people, does that sound like a safe idea?' Mr Trickett labelled accusations of his prospective customers urinating off the float as 'ridiculous'. He added: 'No one's going to be peeing off the side. Do they pee off the ferry when they come across? No, they don't. 'Let's be fair. There's not going to be any drunks on board because it's not a bar. You can't come on and sit there and have a drink. You have to have a full meal. 'We discussed that in the meeting. They wanted to know whether by buying a packet of crisps would entitle them to buy a drink? No, they'd have to sit down and have a meal.' Despite Mr Trickett's arguments, the committee said that approving his application would 'undermine the licensing objectives of the prevention of crime and disorder, prevention of public nuisance, public safety and the protection of children from harm.' A spokesperson for the council told MailOnline: 'Members of the licensing sub-committee have refused this application after careful consideration of the proposals, the views of residents, and the four licensing objectives.' He has been given 21 days to appeal, and Mr Trickett says he is ready to take it to a Magistrates' Court. He believes that having the backing of environmental staff, the fire brigade and police may work in his favour. In their rejection, the committee highlighted concerns over storage of waste on the vessel which they said 'could cause a public nuisance, especially in hot weather'. However, Mr Trickett debated that the Beach House store their food in general waste bins which 'bake under the sun for days' and that this was an example of 'double standards' in the decision-making. 'All their rubbish is stored in council bins,' he added. 'It's a bit hypocritical.' The committee also had concerns regarding the restaurant's ability to raise up and down with the tide, which they say posed a risk to children and families playing in the water nearby. But Mr Trickett said it was clear in his application that 'the vessel would attach itself to the seabed by way of arrowhead pole structure that would raise up and down with the tide.' He added that because the restaurant would be in the inner harbour, that this negated any risk. 'Not many people play in the inner harbor because of the sewage,' he continued. 'The seaside is where they all go. So they contradicted themselves there. I've told them that it goes up and down with the tide. 'They're saying they're worried that it doesn't, which they're thinking could cause an accident if if it's stuck up in the air and a child goes underneath it. 'But that's not the case. There are other boats all around that area doing exactly the same as what I'm doing.' The committee said that these concerns, as well as the vessel having no barriers, 'was a significant risk to public safety' as it could see customers fall into the water. 'There's going to be a fully secure barrier completely around the craft,' Mr Trickett said. 'It even has kickboards on the bottom so that when you pull your chair back, it doesn't go over the side and fall in. 'They obviously didn't look at the pictures very well and they were told that it's got barriers. 'So that once again, that is not true. The others aren't true. It should have passed.' The 66-year-old also criticised members of the MSBHA, who he says act like they 'own the place'. 'I have family and friends who've got huts down there,' he continued. 'And they all talk about the hut association acting as if they own the place. 'They don't own the place. They own the hut. They've paid silly money for the huts and they seem to think they own it. 'I am floating on the water much the same as any other craft. And it's something different. It's an option, it's competition. 'You can have lobster, steak, pizza or fish and chips, a cup of coffee now or your soft drinks and have a bit of an experience. 'They do it all around the world. Dartmouth have got a floating one. Plymouth have got a floating one. All around Asia they've got floating ones everywhere. The Thames have even got them. So it's nothing new, but it's new for Christchurch.' Mr Trickett said he won't give up on the project which he has spent 'a lot of money' on, and says he is looking ahead to secure a license for next summer. There are 346 beach huts at Mudeford with prices rising dramatically in the last 30 years The remote location makes them very desirable as an exclusive bolthole, and with cars banned and the only way to reach it is by a 20-minute walk, a short ferry trip (above) or a novelty land train ride They can be slept in from March to October, but have no running water or mains electricity, and toilets and washing facilities are in a communal block There are 346 beach huts at Mudeford with prices rising dramatically in the last 30 years. Many of the owners MailOnline spoke with had inherited the huts which were propped up on the beach following the end of the Second World War. The remote location makes them very desirable as an exclusive bolthole, and with cars banned and the only way to reach it is by a 20-minute walk, a short ferry trip or a novelty land train ride. They can be slept in from March to October, but have no running water or mains electricity, and toilets and washing facilities are in a communal block.
Daily Mail
11-05-2025
- Daily Mail
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.
