Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
The council consulted with beach hut owners, local community groups, the e- panel
and the general community via the website. The consultation took place between the 12
November 2013 and 11 December 2013.
Below is a copy of all despondence – redacted to remove names and address.
I have received your letter of 12th November.
I am not surprised at the Council's desire to have a tenancy agreement but bearing in mind
extant law on this class of property, it seems that the increase in rental will largely go towards
covering the increase in admin costs they will cause, which is hardly helpful in net terms.
As an experienced residential and commercial property surveyor and businessman of some
30 years, I have to admit that I laughed out loud (sorry) with the irony of you suggesting that a
rent decided unilaterally by DVS (or any other surveyor) for a Landlord (which is what
Canterbury is) could in any way be independent or fair. Having been to Court as a Landlord's
expert surveyor in excess of 30 times, there was not one occasion when the presiding Judge
took my opinion alone in order to decide the rent. The Tenant's side was always heard and
taken into account, whether or not they were represented by a surveyor. In appointing a
Government valuer, who can hardly be impartial, you seem to have failed to fulfil the
principles of long tried and tested legal practice.
The rent you have suggested is more than one might expect to pay for a single car garage in
the area, yet a beach hut is a fraction of that size. Please send me DVS's comparable
evidence and a copy of their valuation.
Lastly, I ask whether you have considered the impact on the local economy of raising the
rents, both as of late and as proposed? For example, as a family of four, we have, over the
last couple of years, become more inclined to bring food from home to our hut rather than
spend money in Whitstable's restaurants. People who rent the huts contribute to local life and
I dare say that by raising the rents as mentioned you may lessen that contribution. It certainly
cannot be right to make them ever increasingly less affordable.
Lastly, I'd like to meet the person who concluded that a sublet hut is magically worth 20%
more rent. We do not sublet our hut, but we understand that there are some who do, often
because their children have grown up and moved away or they are too busy or too old to
make the journey to their hut. Please send me a copy of the reasoning as to why a sublet
property is immediately worth 20% more. It's sounds like a fantastic principle!
All that said, I completely appreciate that Canterbury is just another Landlord who thinks it can
act with impunity and that it is desperately short of funds possibly due to some bad
investments made in Icelandic banks. I hardly think that penalising beach hut owners is going
to plug that gap but it will certainly upset the natives.
I await hearing from you with the information requested.
Having just read your letter, dated 12th November, I am astounded at the councils arrogance
in this matter. A beach hut measures approx 8ft X 6ft, so that means you are going to charge
over £10 per sq FOOT, this is the most ridiculous amount of money for such a minuscule
amount of space.
These charges will result in many owners trying to sell their huts or even removing them. The
price of a hut will probably be slashed by about 50%, if this was to happen would the rentable
value be reduced in line with the huts value?
Why should a local resident, who pays council taxes, have to pay the same as a non-resident,
1
Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
that is not fair as we already contribute towards our local community and they DON'T. Does
the additional money raised go towards keeping the beaches in good condition, even if you
doubled your effort, twice nothing is still nothing.
In my opinion this is not about a fair rent for a beach hut, but more to squeeze more money
out of local residents. If the Councils policy is to make our beaches into a wasteland then they
are certainly going about it in the right way.
I and my family have lived in Herne Bay since 1960 and always enjoyed the beach, having a
beach hut was an advantage, but I am sure that along with many others we will now be
considering very carefully whether we shall continue to own a hut.
I would say that I would look forward to a reply, but you probably won't have time to answer all
the emails.
A very disgusted owner!
I was amazed to recive your letter and enclosures. Why is it that everytime the Council needs
to raise money, they automatically decide to use the beach huts as an extra source of
revenue? I have had my beach hut for many years and the proposed rent rises, which after
paying the insurance, will mean an expense of about £10 per week, is just too onerous to
comtemplate.
We have to pay Council tax for maintenance of the banks (although the bank near our hut is
never cut and looks a total mess) and rubbish collection, etc., so why should we subsidise
non- residents.
I can visualise a lot of huts coming on the market, simply because people cannot afford this
extortionate amount of money, and it would seem a shame that many elderly residents relying
on pensions would have to give up on the family tradition of owning a beach hut.
Thank you for your letter dated 12th November enclosing Draft Tenancy Agreement and
Options for Fee Increases.
We looked at these in absolute disbelief and disappointment that once again CCC was
targeting the Beach Hut Owners for more revenue. These are just very small wooden huts
not houses and these increases are not justified at all. We get nothing for our money at all
just grass cutting (grass cutters also scrape the sides of some of the huts leading to more
expense), a standpipe and rubbish bins which all members of the public can use without
paying a penny. Nothing much has been done about the vandalism, anti-social behaviour,
dog fouling amongst the huts and some cyclists practically mowing down everybody in sight
(cycling has been encouraged by CCC).
It will soon be impossible to own a beach hut with these increases plus insurance plus
maintenance and impossible to sell when a prospective buyer understands what they will
have to pay out. A few years ago CCC had meetings to the effect that huts should be
affordable to local residents but now it seems they are trying to cater for the trendy wealthy
Londoners with these increases and not the locals.
Wages in this area are low and some of us are on fixed pensions and having to work in our
70’s to make ends meet and with all the other proposed increases in utilities it just will no
longer be feasible to own a beach hut which for some of us is our main pleasure in the
summer.
With regard to sub-letting we should not have to pay an additional charge if we do not sub-let,
I do not know of any beach hut owner who sub-lets. Perhaps it would be better not to allow
sub-letting at all but, of course, this is just another money making scheme thought up by CCC.
2
Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
If these proposals go ahead many locals will be forced to sell their huts (if they can) and
bought up by wealthier outsiders which will in the end lead to a lot of resentment by local
residents and more vandalism.
We would, therefore, ask CCC to reconsider these proposals and take into consideration the
local hut owners especially those on low incomes and small fixed pensions who love their
beach huts and will be devastated if they are forced to sell because of the increases proposed
by CCC.
With reference to the proposed draft agreement and very high rent increases for beach hut
owners.
As beach hut owners with 25 years standing, we feel the agreement we had with the council
was perfectly adequate and see no reason to change this.
With regard to your proposed rent increases that work out at nearly double the present rate,
how can that be justified in times of AUSTERITY a percentage of beach hut owners are
retired and on a fixed income.
We feel as long term hut owners and looking forward to a reduction in our rent in 2015 have
now had this taken away from us. We have already suffered an increase in adaptions and
charges for boats in the future.
We wonder what benefits we will incur if these rents go ahead as we have waited nearly two
years for a replacement tap and after complaining our water supply was a hosepipe on the
ground for months.
The grass behind our hut hardly ever gets cut, causing hayfever sufferers discomfort, I being
one.
We hope you will consider long term owners with a substantial discount, and feel local council
tax payers should benefit too.
You asked for comments on the new proposed beach hut charges. The first comment
that springs to mind is appalled. I can see no justification in the proposed increases.
You would be pricing the beach huts out of ordinary people's reach. It will be only the rich that
can afford them. We have always worked hard, we don't spend on foreign holidays but we
will be forced to sell as we can't afford the new charges. You want half our council tax charge
for my house for a tiny strip of land that at most can only be used for three to four months of
the year.
Shame on you Canterbury City Council
from two very disappointed soon to be ex beach hut owners
I have had to reply by email as the comments box on your website would not take all of my
comments even though I had not filled the box as shown on screen.
I am providing my comments as part of the E-panel membership and I have no interest in any
beach hut now or in the past. So I assume that my comments are not affected by those who
own and use the huts.
It is strange that anyone would provide advice that lowering fees presents a better commercial
basis as your barrister has. I do not think that the Supplemental Rental fee should be reduced
for this particular reason. However it is morally unjust to charge five years rent to someone
3
Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
who is selling their hut. This would mean you get twice the rent for the five year period. Even if
the administration fee were to be taken into account it is still more than four years rent.
If you have to operate, according to your legal advice, these sites in the best interest of
general tax payers living in the district then you should not give any discounts for any services
or people’s circumstances as that raises the cost to the “general tax payer” which is absurd.
In all commercial organisations there are discounts given of various sorts whether it is “two for
one”, “sale now on” or “pay within 10 days for a 5% discount”. It should be part of the election
commitments of the various parties and thus part of the democratic process as to which
discounts to give to whom. Personally I think it is right and proper that local residents receive
a discount (or if you wish to look at the other way around that non-residents get charged a
premium) as they are not spending their time and thus money in other geographic locations
and thus not helping the local economy. Taking this attitude the discounts currently given can
be looked at as being very commercial in keeping people in the local economy.
On the valuation report it is not clear as to which sites were being valued and so over what
sites the changes are proposed. The Property Information in section 4 only relates to
additional sites for huts and not the rest of them. So technically you cannot rely on this report
for fee changes to other sites. However, you seem to want to rely on this report for all sites. It
is obviously a different proposition to change the rent from just new sites to all sites. So which
is it?
On the draft tenancy agreement it seems that you have decided to allow subletting as clause
10.2 allows anyone to use the site covered by the agreement and there is no restriction to
"Close Relative” in the definitions section. I also note that some clauses are not numbered
correctly (e.g. 9 and 10.3). It also seems to me that clause 13 (Public Liability Insurance is
unenforceable as it requires the Tenant to provide evidence of this insurance but if he/she
ignores the request from the Council then the Council would have to ask again and then the
Tenant, according to this clause, does not have to provide the evidence for that year. Also to
ask for insurance of £5 million is totally unreasonable given the location of the sites away from
any major areas of population and the spaces between them, especially at Tankerton.
Turning to the proposed increases, whatever they apply to, I think they should be phased in
over at least two years as the percentage increases are extremely high and people are still
suffering from the recession and other tax rises. The increases should also allow the present
tenants to decide whether they want to continue or to sell their huts. As this could precipitate a
glut of people selling in the next few months the value of the huts and sites would decline, due
to market forces, and mean that your valuation report should be reconsidered. A phasing in of
the charges would allow a more orderly exit for those wishing to sell because of these fee
rises.
I also note that in the tables giving the options for the fee increases there is no indication of
what the fees would be in 2015/16 if the rises were brought in in the 2014/15 year. I suspect
that you would be increasing them again for 2015/16.
Overall I think that you should review again what is proposed and make sure it actually works
and is needed.
I have had my beach hut for 17 years and have never sub-let my hut.
I would be really put out if i had to pay a premium for something that i never intended to do.
Over the years, the beach hut lease seems to have become such a major issue and money
grabbing venture and i wish for the early days when it was so simple and easy.
Frankly, i have little opinion over how the supposed necessary rent rise is initiated but i am
4
Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
really against paying for sub-letting when i never intend to sub-let my hut. I am strongly of the
opinion that sub-letting should just not be allowed and then it would free up the huts for other
people to buy and use regularly.
Thank you for the recent communication.
As a Whitstable resident I am concerned that there will no longer be any discount for local
people but recognise that you have been advised on specific points of legality about this?
However, I would question the risk of there ever being a legal challenge to having differential
rates in this way. Most non-residents accept that it is entirely right that local people should not
be required to pay the same rental fee as non-residents. It would be helpful to understand the
legal basis of this significant and unwelcome change. Is there any additional document that is
available which makes this clear? The implication fro your letter is that you would be breaking
the law if you do not seek to redress the differential rates, – is that actually the case or is this
a grey area yet to be tested?
The great joy of leasing the space and being able to site a hut there is to have the opportunity
for regular enjoyment of the beautiful surroundings, and seascape, as a family and local
community. it also adds significantly to the attractiveness of Whitstable as a visitor
destination. We should be encouraging local people to lease these spaces as they are more
likely to have the opportunity to use their hut regularly and keep it in good repair and to feel a
sense of communal ownership in looking after the area and in casting a friendly eye over
activities to ensure appropriate behaviour and use of the space. I do not wish to denigrate the
many responsible non-resident hut owners but it is very noticeable how little used many of the
huts are and how some have fallen into disrepair. Could you perhaps reduce the rental fee
but bring in penalty charges for not keeping the hut in good repair?
I would expect that the option for subletting would be more attractive to non-residents who are
less able to make regular use of their huts and therefore think there should be a significant
differential between the non-sublet and the sublet option. This could to some extent mitigate
the loss of difference in fee rates between residents and non residents. I suggest that the
sublet option could be at least 33% higher than the non sublet option, – similar to the current
differential between resident and non-resident, providing this leads to lower standard rental
rate than is currently being proposed.
How have the market rates been determined by DVS? These seem extraordinarily high.
Have they been compared with sites where people are renting the actual huts, not just the
space on which the hut is located? Do the huts have running water? Do they have different
permissions (e.g. overnight stays) etc.? Can you please publish the basis on how you have
arrived at market rate which is almost double the existing rate? Have you taken into account
the recent benchmarking exercise which the local beach hut associations were supporting and
where care was taken to ensure like-with-like comparisons?
I would definitely prefer the increase, which is breathtakingly large, to be phased in over two
years (or longer!) as this is a significant additional sum to find each year. I am concerned that
it will put it out of the range of many local families who have been enjoying hut ownership for
years and that the balance of huts will end up being owned by non-residents. This would
completely change the character of the area. We are already witnessing this with the many
holiday rental properties that proliferate in the area as local people are unable to afford them.
This creates challenges in a residential area of terraced housing when late nights parties
become part of the ‘holiday vibe’, while residents try to grab some sleep before they get up to
go to work the next day. I am concerned that it could ultimately affect the character of the
Tankerton Slopes area if this change is brought in with few huts being used on a regular basis
and/or subletting to people who may not show the same respect to their neighbours and the
environment because “we don’t live here, it’s not our problem” (- as I was told this summer
when I politely asked if music could be turned down slightly).
5
Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
My preference would therefore be for Option 2b, though I am still unclear why the differential
fee has to be phased out and why the increase is so huge. It does seem very unfortunate that
residents, especially those who previously qualified for a long term discount (I should say that
I am not one of them!), should be penalised in this way.
I am writing in a state of shock and disbelief after receiving recent correspondence from
Canterbury City Council regarding new beach hut agreements and crippling increases in the
fees.
How can the local authority possibly justify an 80 per cent increase (even more if you go for
the option to sub-let to help pay for the increase)? I know that the Council has tried to justify
the increase in the accompanying letter and are trying to offload responsibility to an external
valuation office but from a moral and logistical point of view it is completely inexplicable.
I will be looking to get an explanation of how the DVS came to the valuation it has. For
comparison’s sake, the Council Tax Band A rate for this current year is £959.52. This would
include residential accommodation like a 1-bedroom flat. How can a beach hut possibly be
valued at £650?
I also note that the new Tenancy Agreement requires owners to take out Public Liability
Insurance which in many cases will mean taking out expensive beach hut insurance, costing
in excess of £200 per year.
Let us look at the hard facts. The beach huts at Tankerton stand on a 10ft x 10ft plot of
sloping grass which would be impossible to develop due to its proximity to the sea and flood
risk. There are no services attached to them and the only external facility is an occasional tap
and rubbish bin which is available to everybody. The huts are built and maintained at the
owner’s expense and provide an extremely popular leisure amenity, enjoyed by residents and
visitors alike. They have little or no impact on the City Council’s outgoings.
The authorities have responsibility for cutting the grass around the huts and on the adjoining
slopes but in recent years this has been done so irregularly and badly that the former grass at
the back has become basically scrub land and when it is done around the huts, because it is
allowed to get far too long and not cleared up, it just leaves piles of dead grass lying around.
The draft Tenancy Agreement contains a huge number of rules and regulations that the
Tenant has to comply with but I can see no mention of any responsibility for the Council.
Has the City Council taken into consideration at all that many of these huts have, like
ourselves, been owned by local people for many years, and many are owned by older people
who already struggle to pay the existing high fees. These ridiculous proposed increases will
result in many people having to give up their huts. Owners will be forced to sell, but with these
charges hanging over them how easy will that be? Those that are sold will nearly all go to
outsiders rather than local people. We are in severe danger of returning to the days when the
Slopes were littered with derelict huts and empty spaces.
It does not seem long ago that hut owners were attending City Council meetings when
Councillors were trying to promote the idea that huts should be more affordable to local
residents. Where do these latest plans fit in with that ethos?
We are being punished for the fact that Whitstable has become ‘trendy’ and popular with
visitors from London and elsewhere, which has led to their value increasing to exorbitant
levels. We did not ask for this and we should not be asked to pay the price for it.
It has long been thought that the beach huts, and Whitstable in general, have become a ‘cash
6
Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
cow’ for the City Council, but this latest development is taking the idea to a new level. It would
appear that this is the latest attempt by the City Council, along with its plans for the harbour,
to destroy what is great about Whitstable.
I envisage a very large degree of anger and resentment amongst hut owners over the
treatment we are receiving from the City Council and I am sure many will be voicing their
opinions forcibly over the next few weeks. My hope is that those voices will be listened to and
these plans will be taken back to the drawing board in order to achieve a sensible outcome.
I was absolutely horrified to read your recent suggestions for beach hut charges. I am retired
and own a beach hut at tankerton which I use for the enjoyment of myself and the grand
children. The proposed charges are so high that I will seriously have to consider giving it up
which breaks my heart as I have several little grand children who love it there. The charges
are now half the council rate charges for a small house in whitstable which might contain a
family with children who use schools etc and all local facilities. It is so out of proportion. The
supplementary rental fee on selling was brought in unilaterally and should not be added in to
the rental charges just because you have been advised that it was not legal in the first place!
You really do need to think what is fair to locals and not just put up the charges because you
think you might get away with it even if it bears no relationship to the costs and values of the
huts. We already bear quite a cost due to regular vandalism.
Please, please , for once think of the reasonable charge the huts should carry, and think of
the many ordinary people who enjoy them.
To members of the Overview Committee
In response to the invitation to comment on the proposed beach hut fees for 2014/15, there
are many points to be made, but I will limit myself to the following:1) The amount I am being asked to pay – over £600, for what is a 10ft sq wooden structure, is
nearly half the annual council tax on our house, a substantial 4-storey Victorian property in
one of the most popular roads in Faversham. Whatever means of valuation has been used for
the beach huts, doesn’t this strike your committee as completely absurd?
2) I question the alternatives presented in para 1 between ceasing to ‘charge the
supplementary rental fee’ and ’instead’ increasing the annual fee. There is no reason for it to
be one or the other, unless the advice sought from a barrister on your ‘approach to beach hut
fees’ was couched in such a way as to elicit that answer – that is the one that the Council
wanted. We are not told.
3) The most controversial price rises in public utilities haven’t been as much as the 20%, you
are proposing, and such an amount seems completely unjustified. The annual rate of inflation
would be reasonable, or 3% at the most, as a recognition that Councils are hard pressed for
money. That should be enough.
I would like the points I have made to be drawn to the Committee’s attention, but do not need
a reply.
I write in response to your communication dated 12th November2013 concerning beach hut
tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15.
I responded, by e-mail, to your letter dated 2nd December 2012 concerning issues including
sub – letting, adaptations and fees and trust that my comments at that time are still being
noted at this stage.
Initially I repeat that as a beach hut owner for the last 7 years I am disappointed in the way
7
Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
that Canterbury City Council are apparently intent on extracting more money from beach hut
owners in every way possible but appear to be offering nothing extra by way of services in
return.
In my previous communication with you I stated that I am a member of The Beach Hut
Association and support them unreservedly in their dealings with Canterbury City Council.
That situation remains unaltered.
Beach Hut Fees.
I note that there has been an independent valuation but I am not aware of the factors on
which the valuations have been based. Some hut owners in other parts of the country have
significantly better council supplied services; local amenities etc. and yet, as mentioned
above, there appears to be nothing additional being offered by Canterbury City Council.
Currently we have the grass surrounding our hut cut and the use of public conveniences and
water. Indeed following a conversation with The Foreshore office I am aware that even the
supply of water is NOT a requirement upon the council as it does not form part of the licence
agreement and as the toilets are for General Public use anyway, the service the Council
provides is that of grass cutting!
As a private home owner I pay Council Tax at a rate of £1800 per annum for a floor area in
excess of ten times the floor area of the beach hut. For that I get full council services and the
right to live in the property 24/7 and every day of the year. I could rent it out or take lodgers
with no additional payment to the Council.
The Beach hut on a pro rata basis, if subject to full Council services, should equate to
something in the region of £180 per annum. Given the restrictions on use of the hut,
necessitating travel to and from it on a daily basis, I consider the proposed fees are
unacceptably high.
I accept that I chose to purchase the hut under certain conditions and fees relevant at the time
but it now appears that the Council are seeking to financially penalise hut owners as an easy
target for increasing revenue.
Sub Letting.
In respect of this matter I can only reiterate exactly what I have reported to you previously. I
never have and never will seek to sub-let my Hut. I know a huge number of hut owners and
only know, anecdotally, of one hut that has been sub-let.
Therefore if you wish to make this practice an available option I ask that only those availing
themselves of the opportunity cover all your costs in full. I consider it would be unjust and
wholly unacceptable for you to expect the large majority of hut owners to subsidise the small
minority by an across the board licence fee increase.
Again I must stress that if ‘allowing’ this practice to a minority in any way suggests or implies
that my hut can be construed as a business then I VEHEMENTLY oppose the introduction of
any authority to sub-let whatsoever.
In closing I reiterate that in the main it is not the wealthy that have purchased beach huts.
Many have saved hard and borrowed much to have this basic facility and any significant
licence fee increases will result in family legacies being financially unviable and lost forever. It
is the people that have turned unwanted sheds into loved and well presented huts, that make
the area what it is, that will be lost.
I am the owner of beach hut and am receipt of you letter of 12th November regarding the
8
Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
coming years beach hut tenancy agreement.
Whilst I appreciate that CCC are in a very difficult situation regarding income and are looking
at all areas to make savings and increase income, I feel that as beach hut owners we are
being penalised once again.
Firstly you say that you have taken legal advice on this matter, I am sure that if the legal
advice had been against increasing the rents that the council may well have gone against this
advice. Why do the council have to comply with this legal advice, are there residents out
there who will object to the current (already high) rents, plus inflation?
As you are aware most of these huts are not occupied 7 days a week throughout the season,
some appear not to be occupied at all. At the best in a British Summer season (say April until
the end of September) the weather will not be good enough to sit at the beach every day.
Then factor in that many of the owners are in full time employment (myself included) and
therefore it will only be weekends and the occasional evening that we can use the hut. Let us
say that in a really good season we can sit down there on 30 occasions (and that will be a
good season!!), this means we currently are paying nearly £10 a time to use our own beach
hut. Take out the days when we are on holiday or unable to go to the beach due to other
events and this soon becomes £15 a time. With your proposed scenarios this will increase to
£20 to £30 a time to use our own beach hut. This is prohibitive. To some this figure of £20 to
£30 a time may not seem too high, compared to a day out at the Zoo or a National Trust
property. But what do we get for this fee....toilets which depending on where your hut is
situated can be 200/300m away, a tap/shower, which in the case of our own hut was not
installed for the 2012 season and not until well in to the 2013 season, despite many calls to
the council and foreshore department. That is it no other facilities (unless you include the
beach and sea!!).
Add in to the cost we are now being told that insurance is compulsory...another £120 per year.
Regarding sub-letting, am not aware of any owners that I know who are considering subletting. The majority of beach hut owners own and use their beach huts for family and close
friends use only and certainly are not looking to let the hut out for extra income.
Like many "hutters" I have owned and enjoyed my hut for in excess of 20 years and my family
have had many happy days on the beach. But I am also having to look at my annual
expenses and maybe it is time to sell the hut. I think many owners will think the same as
me? Beach Huts are an integral part of the Herne Bay (and Tankerton) seafront, please think
again about these proposals and don't force us all to sell up and stop enjoying the beach.
I hope that councillors and officers of the council will see sense and review these charges
again. We all expect an annual inflation increase, but not the sort of charges that are being
proposed. I know that you are meeting with the beach hut association representatives and I
am sure that they will also put these points (and many others) to you. Please listen to the
beach hut owners of Herne Bay and may sense prevail.
I am the owner of beach hut I jointly own this hut with my daughter, We have owned this hut
for several years now, and I previously owned a hut on West Beach during the 1980’s which I
shared with my father-in-law. After his death we decided to sell that hut. With the arrival of
grandchildren we decided to buy our current hut.
Referring to your letter dated 12th November 2013 and enclosed proposed Tenancy
Agreement and Options for fees document, I would like to make the following observations.
SUB-LETTING – Much is being made of this issue in correspondence and in the proposed
options for fees, however I believe that the vast majority of huts are family owned for family
use. There may be the odd person who does let out their hut for a week or two in summer,
9
Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
but the proposed additional charges will probably put paid to that! However, under the options
1a and 1b, ALL owners would be paying an enhanced fee with rights to sub-let. I question
what evidence you have to support a demand for this blanket consent?
Obviously if you introduce a blanket Sub-letting clause with the enhanced fee, you will greatly
increase your income - providing a product that virtually nobody wants! A blanket fee would
not require CCC to ‘police’ huts to identify lettings, albeit the evidence I have is that there are
literally half a dozen huts in Whitstable/Tankerton that are currently sub-letting. I believe you
introduced a Sub-letting option in 2013 – how many hut owners took up this offer?
I suggest the evidence you have before you will indicate that very few owners are interested in
sub-letting their huts, and any additional fee charged will probably put an end to this activity.
With so few owners sub-letting I believe you cannot justify introducing a blanket increase in
fees on this basis.
For the above reasons, I strongly oppose Option 1a and 1b.
If CCC considers that sub-letting creates more administration than income generated, either
introduce Option 2a and prohibit sub-letting completely, or allow sub-letting without charge as
part of the Tenancy Agreement. I am ambivalent on this point as I have no wish to sub-let.
Option 3 – Opt in or out of sub-letting. I have no doubt this will be favoured by owners who
can then decide for themselves. As mentioned above, CCC would then have the matter of
enforcement of ‘opt-out’ owners clandestinely sub-letting huts. In truth, I think this issue has
been blown out of all proportion so I will leave the matter there.
REMOVAL OF CONCESSION FEES – As stated, I live outside CCC area so have always
paid full rate. I see no particular reason why CCC residents should receive a reduced rate,
but this was a decision taken years ago and I have no objection to it continuing. I recall a
while ago much was said about increasing the number of beach huts for local residents,
removal of this concession is unlikely to encourage local residents to take up new huts or
indeed keep their huts – is this what you are really trying to achieve?
In similar vein, you propose removing the Long Term Discount (local residents only?). I think
that, given this concession is not transferable and has been discontinued for ‘new owners’, it
is rather uncharitable to impose the greatest increase on that section of society least able to
afford it. Again, how many owners are actually paying this reduced rate? You are giving a
clear impression that generating income at any cost is the sole objective of this exercise.
Although I am over 65, I am not eligible for the Long Term Discount so have no personal
interest in this point.
It appears that, on an income from hut fees basis, when all the Residents and Long Term
Discount huts are raised to the level playing field (which itself is being substantially
increased) there will be a significant boost in revenue for the Council. I do not have the
numbers, but doubtless CCC does, and you will know how much additional income the
various strands of this proposal will raise. I know CCC will argue that the proposed rent has
been calculated independently as fair, and this is not a revenue raising exercise, but
nevertheless the income WILL increase dramatically, especially if the majority of huts are
owned by CCC residents who will suffer the greatest increases. I wonder how many will have
to give up their hut?
One appreciates that local authority budgets are under pressure, but people who enjoy the
simple pleasure of a day on the beach at their hut, are also feeling ‘the pinch’. We are not
wealthy people, but choose to spend our limited funds on our huts with our families. Please
consider this aspect when you are deliberating on your proposals.
10
Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
VALUATION ISSUES - I believe the Beach Hut Associations are questioning the veracity of
the valuations so I will leave this issue to them.
STAGED INCREASES - Personally, I am not concerned about staged increases, but it will
mitigate the increase cost for some owners.
My preference is for OPTION 3 (and opt out of letting rights) and am I happy with either full
increase or staged increase, but I do not wish to pay for something I do not want (letting
rights).
With regard to the above I would like to make the following points.
My family have had a beach hut in Whitstable since about 1930 which has been used and
immensely enjoyed through the generations. Currently, I have rented a beach hut for 21
years.
Myself and my partner are now retired and dependent on pension income. We continue to
enjoy the use of the beach hut particularly as we are keen swimmers.
Whilst we appreciate that there are many pressures on the council to manage its resources
efficiently, particularly so in the current and ongoing economic climate, we feel that we are
being penalised financially with these changes and our own reduced economic
circumstances. We were grateful when the concessions were introduced and are obviously
most concerned over their withdrawal and cost implications.
We do not have the benefit of seeing the basis of the legal and other advice that you are using
to reduce the compulsory administration fee for the sale of beach huts, to calculate
appropriate market rent or to rescind the current concessions.
I am also an allotment holder of some years - again which we utilise and greatly enjoy. I am
reminded, in a similar vein to the beach huts, that the council attempted to effect huge
increases in plot rentals (in excess of 100%) in recent times. We believe that this initiative
had to be withdrawn on the basis of a legal challenge that there should be
equality/consistency of increased charges across designated leisure activities under the
council remit. Instead a more modest percentage increase was introduced but, none the less,
allotment plot rents are the second highest in Kent and amongst the highest in the country.
In this context I would argue that beach hut ownership and use fall into the leisure activity
category, with all its attendant health benefits, and should therefore be treated in the same
way as other leisure activities.
I have always supported the principle of the no sub-letting clause but have observed that this
has been flagrantly ignored over the past few years. I am concerned that there may be a
cynical calculation in your proposals that there will be a significant exodus of current
established beach hut owners on the basis that incoming tenants will accept the new rates.
This would be, shockingly, at great detriment to established owners particularly those with
limited means - and is directly contrary to the principle historically supported by the council of
local residents utilising local amenities.
Our hut is an old cedar wood one which we maintain well including repairing damage by
vandalism - and to which we walk or cycle. The escalating cost of this important resource to
us means that we will have no choice - in the context of our budget and its competing
priorities - other than to consider having to give up our beach hut.
I am emailing you in response to the Draft Tenancy Agreement for Herne Bay beach huts - I
am very disappointed by the council’s draft, and wish to voice my concern.
11
Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
While I understand that times are tight, the proposed changes are unreasonable. I appreciate
that having different rates for residents and non-residents is an anomaly, but the £475
valuation is extremely high, and I would urge you to get a fair valuation through a second
opinion.
In particular, I object to the removing of the LTD – we bought our hut last year as something to
bring together three generations of my family, and it has proved to be of huge benefit to our
lives in Herne Bay – to be penalised for this seems very unfair.
Moreover, this was never a business investment, and to pay for the ability to sublet misses the
point of why we have a beach hut entirely. We certainly don’t want a structure which would
encourage people to invest in beach huts purely as a commercial enterprise – rather, the
Beach Huts should remain a hugely positive thing for the town.
In short, I am very disappointed by your proposals. We bought our hut in the hope that it
would be something which my family could enjoy for years to come: I am very happy that
there is a system whereby we can have a beach hut (for which I am grateful to the council and
the Herne Bay Beach Hut Owner’s Association), but am sad that there are proposals which
could jeopardise this for my family, and for others, and have a negative effect on Herne Bay.
I hope you will reconsider the draft proposals before they go to the Executive Committee.
Thanks, and best,
Having studied the draft of the New Leasing arrangements for Herne Bay Beach Huts, as an
occupier I would like to make the following points:
1.The annual fee seems excessive and it should be checked by an independent valuer.
2.In general there is a move to help Senior Citizens financially and it would seem fair to make
some reduction of fees for those who are over 65 and having rented their beach huts for more
than 15 years. I am one of these and it is almost a way of life.
3. I am strongly against sub-letting since it means that little is known about the people to
whom the huts are sub-let and that the huts should be for the recreation of the owners and not
a commercial proposition.
I am in receipt of the proposed new lease agreement.
I am pleased to note that you have dispensed with the 30 year and you are off the beach
clause and replaced it back to a rolling year. I am also pleased to note that the 5 year lease
fee payable on the sale of a beach hut has also been dispensed with.
However, I am not happy with an admin charge of £463.00 on the sale of a beach hut (it
doesn’t cost that much money to change the name and address on a computer database). A
more realistic fee would be £25.00. I also object very strongly to the increase in the rent
(approx 80%) whether it be over 1 or 2 years, it is exorbitant.
My wife and I bought our beach hut for our own enjoyment and for that of our two daughters
and sons in law, we do not sub let or ever will sub let (and as far as we are concerned beach
huts should not be sub let).
We are two pensioners living on a fixed budget. Our pension is all we have coming in and we
would therefore find it hard to meet the increase next year. Therefore if you could reconsider
the admin fee and rent increase we would be grateful.
I am writing in response to your recent letter concerning Beach Hut Charging Arrangements
12
Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
consultation.
Rental Increase:
I have done some research of my own on comparable sites at a number locations around the
coast. All these sites are owned and administered by the local authorities, indeed I have
recently visited some of the sites on the south coast.
Norfolk District Council rent out Beach Hut sites at Sherringham, Overstrand and Maudesly.
These huts are located on the promenade in each case. The cost of an annual rent is £200£205, and public liability insurance is not a requirement.
The following sites are on the south coast.
Brighton & Hove; £307.07.
Lancing Parish Council; Green and West Beach £220 + vat.
Adur & Worthing Council; £330 at the following sites: Brighton Road, West Beach, Lancing,
and Shoreham Beach.
Thanet District Council; £330. + Vat.
Dover District Council; Kingsdown £330.
These Authorities issue a licence and insurance is not required.
All of the above sites are either directly on the beach or on a promenade and are of a
comparable size to Herne Bay huts if not a little larger.
Taking these collectively the average annual rent is £250 which is just under half of the
proposed CCC rent of £495.
I think that the proposed rent is exorbitant given the above information and I believe that your
commissioned report in this respect is extremely flawed. I would also remind you that the
authorities mentioned above run their beach huts on a commercial basis.
A beach hut is not a business although it appears that your barrister is lumping the huts
together with other commercial premises as a whole.
Market Rent:
I do not accept that the proposed ‘market rent’ for a scrap of beach is acceptable. According
to the CCC budget proposals, services that attract a fee will not increase charges by more
than 3% for the year 2014. This proposed increase represents an increase of over 72%.
Sub-letting:
As a long standing beach hut owner in Herne Bay I am not aware of any sub-letting of Herne
Bay beach huts, but I am aware that a minority of Tankerton huts are sub-let. I think that
owners should be given the choice.
Administration Fee:
I note that the proposed administration fee for a sale is £463. Considering that the CCCs
charge for one hour of work is around £50, this represents over nine hours work which is
totally over the top.
(the administration fee at Brighton & Hove is £75.)
In conclusion I do not believe that public liability insurance should be compulsory given the
status of other authorities. I also think that the proposals are grossly unfair and your report is
substantially flawed. Any increase should be fair and proportional and also spread over
several years.
As a hut owner since 1985, on a disability pension since 1998, and now a retirement pension
and pension credit; it will be obvious that I have been on a very limited income for a long
13
Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
time. It has always been a struggle to meet the costs of owning a beach hut but,
nevertheless, worth it as a break away from my home would be impossible without it's
existance.
If the proposed increases are implemented I shall have no option but to sell - is this the
intention? To remove the elderly/local/low income hut owners with people who have more
money at their disposal?
I should have liked the opportunity in the future to transfer my ownership to my family - they
have grown up on the beach using the 'family' hut. This also will not now be possible, not only
because of the proposed increases but the non-continuance of free transfers.
I am appalled at the lack of concern for hut owners, especially those who find themselves in a
position similar to my own and wonder if the new proposals could be applied to new buyers
only.
I am in receipt of your letter and proposals for the new Beach Hut Tenancy Agreement and I
am writing to you in response to those proposals as I own a Beach hut at West Beach Herne
Bay.
I do believe that, in reviewing the new tenancy agreement you have not taken into account the
whole concept of the beach hut community and the dramatic effects it could have on the
current and also prospective new beach hut owners. While there may be a need to renegotiate the terms of the tenancies of these properties I think that the Canterbury City
Council should be more realistic as to the type of property these beach huts actually are and
the facilities that are provided for them. The provision of facilities for the beach hut users is
negligible as we are constantly told that such utilities as water are for general public use and
not for owners. In general terms these beach huts are owned by families and elderly, retired
mainly Herne Bay residents and to increase the rents by this very substantial amount would
really have an adverse affect on many of these owners who, I am sure, would have to
consider whether they would be able to continue to afford the rents on such properties. The
council should also bear in mind that many of the beach hut owners are unable to afford other
holidays and recreation and consider their beach hut as a great and affordable alternative. If
this is so then surely with the raised rental level it would be much more difficult to sell on such
properties thus leaving beach huts empty for long periods of time and open to vandalism. I
do not believe that this situation would be in anyone’s interest and especially not for the
financial benefit of Canterbury City Council and it is clear that without beach huts being owned
and occupied there would be little or no revenue generated. I would also like to point out that
there is a great community spirit among the current beach hut owners who not only share
events together during the summer months, enjoy the company of their fellow hut owners and
in maintaining and personalising their own hut are a great asset and promotion for the town of
Herne Bay.
In your letter you state that you have been negotiating closely with the Beach Hut Owners
Association over a number of years and while this might have been true in the past it certainly
would appear that you have had little or no negotiations with them regarding this current
proposal. Although you state that you have appointed DVS to advise on the current market
value of the beach huts, there has been no negotiation or communication with the Beach Hut
Owners Association regarding this choice, which would have been a fairer approach and
shown that the council are seeking to work with Herne Bay beach hut owners to provide the
best and fairest service that is possible. I do not understand why it has been possible to
negotiate issues in the past but now in this current situation it has not been seen as a
necessity to work with and negotiate the Beach Hut Owners Association. I am extremely
unhappy about the increase of the valuation, which is in my opinion far too high and believe
that the Beach Hut Owners Association should have been given access to any negotiations
and decision making and also given time to seek an independent valuation.
14
Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
I would also like to raise the issue of the removal of the long term discount for Herne Bay
residents, which I believe is totally unacceptable and unfair. Not only is the council taking
away what has been a benefit for many years for long standing owners but it is showing no
consideration for the long term hut owners who have kept their family beach huts for many
years and who have handed them down in generations to be kept for enjoyment by ongoing
family members.
In conclusion I would like to suggest that the proposal for the new tenancy should be reviewed
and that the other points that I have mentioned be taken into account when doing so. The
council appear to have drawn up this proposed tenancy agreement without transparency and
consultation with those who seek to support and promote our beach huts and their owners
and one must wonder why and how this has been allowed to happen. Is secrecy the usual
way of working in the Council offices and lack of communication the order of the day I
wonder? I so also wonder if the Council view the beach huts as a way of generating a larger
source of income. Although I do understand that the rents may have to be increased at
some time in the future I believe that the proposed increase and some other elements of the
proposal are unfair, extremely greedy and unbalanced and do not take into consideration the
needs and financial limitations of the existing beach hut owners and certainly not the future
promotion of Herne Bay as a flourishing seaside town. I would prefer and feel far more
reassured of the council’s interests if they were to work more closely with the Beach Hut
Owners Association and there was a clearly fairer approach to the valuation of the beach huts
in Herne Bay. I am a resident of Herne Bay as well as a beach hut owner and therefore I
shall look forward to receiving your reply in due course and your response to the comments I
have made.
I am in receipt of your letter of 12th November in which you invite comments from Beach Hut
owners. I think the proposed increases in rent are quite excessive. I note the Council has
taken advice from experts. Notwithstanding the source, sometimes advice can be bad and I
believe this to be the case in this instance. To be advised to increase rents by 110% is bad
advice particularly against the background of the recent utility companies announcing
increases of up to 11%!
No doubt the Council is determined to make these increases so perhaps the increase could
be spread over 5 years, thereby increasing by 20% per year over the previous year, which
might be slightly more palatable.
I look forward to hearing the results of the Executive Committee's decision at the 12th
December meeting.
I am writing to you concerning the likely rise in rents for my and other beach huts on the
foreshore at Herne Bay.
When I first purchased my hut some ten years ago, the Council were concerned with people
profiteering with prices apparently being inflated over the years (similar to house prices).
Well, in the last ten years my hut has not gone up at all so all that fuss then has proved a
nonsense. Now it seems the Council is concerned with charging us 'market rent prices'. The
average beach owner in Herne Bay is a local resident who is either a grandparent or parent
who own the hut for the benefit of their children and who pay their rates to the Council.
Should you make the effort to visit the beach during the summer you will witness this. Why
then are Canterbury Council trying to extort money from their own people? Apparently the
'market prices' per square meter for a beach hut is more that that of Fenwicks in Canterbury!
There are at least 50% less beach huts in Herne Bay now than there were in the 1960's,
should the Council allow more huts to be erected on the previous sites the Council could
scoop up more money but at a less rate all round. I appreciate the Council is in the red due to
financial miss management (investments in foreign banks and that theatre) but why try and
blackmail your own people? Already your own legal advice has shown you tried illegal
15
Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
methods to extort money from us for the surcharge to have been paid to over sales, so
perhaps you can see you are wrong in now trying to wring more money from local residents
trying to enjoy Herme Bay.
Including insurance, with your estimated rises, 6' x 6' sheds on the pebbles on the foreshore
of Herne Bay is likely to cost owners about £11.00 per week! As the majority of us already
pay rates to the Council, I think this is ridiculous. And what do we get for this £11.00 per
week? NOTHING| Is the beach patrolled? NO. Is the beach cleaned? NO. Do we gets
threats concerning maintenance? YES. Do we get any sympathy or assistance? NO.
I appreciate you may read this and then ignore it, but at least you will understand the
concerns of beach hut owners. I would also like to point out that as a Council employee you
are there to represent our concerns and not impose your own ideas.
The cost to rent a 10’ sq piece of land on which we keep our beach huts has always been
extortionately high and now you want to increase it by a figure that beggars belief.
Why is it right to charge more to rent a 10’sq piece of land than a two bedroom house. The
calculation is simple. Proposed annual rent £7.96 per sq ft. An average two bedroom house is
about 800sq ft and an average rent, say £700.00 per month. Annual rent £10.50 per sq ft.
However, you cannot sleep in a beach hut or use it when it is dark, so let us say we could use
it for 50% of the time (which clearly nobody does), the beach hut is 50% more expensive than
the house. On top of this the beach hut does not have a toilet, electricity, gas, water, or
drainage.
I would appreciate your comments and for you to pass my thoughts to DVS and the relevant
committees.
I am in receipt of your letter dated 12th November 2013, and draft tenancy agreement
regarding the beach hut rents and would like to express my concern about the contents of this
draft.
I have been the owner of a beach hut at Herne Bay for a good many years and in fact qualify
for the discount applied to long term owners of a certain age. I see from the draft that not only
do Canterbury City Council propose to to do away with this concession, which we were told in
previous correspondence we would continue to receive, but that they (CCC) intend to raise
the rents to an amount that is totally unacceptable and grossly unfair. I am shocked and
horrified by this decision taken by the Council, how can they justify such an exorbitant rise in
the rent.
As for sub-letting this is not something I have ever done or intend to do, after all there are no
facilities in a beach hut, gas, electricity and hot and cold running water are non – existent
which hardly bodes well with someone looking for a holiday let. The idea that hut owners want
to sub-let is ludicrous we do not want this as part of the tenancy agreement and this is the
general consensus. In my opinion there should be a complete ban on sub-letting.
The Council obviously think that everyone who owns a beach hut must be a millionaire,well!
They are sadly mistaken. The majority of hut owners are pensioners who take great pleasure
in owning their hut and who in the twilight of their years when taking a holiday is no longer a
possibility look on their beach hut as their little piece of heaven to be shared with family and
friends. How dare the Council even contemplate such an overpriced figure for the rent , this is
nothing short of extortion.
Thank you for your letter dated 12th November 2013, and the enclosures, I note that
Canterbury City Council intends to determine the licence for my beach hut at the end of March
2014.and offer new terms for an agreement to commence in just over 4 months time.
16
Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
I have been aware of,but not party to,the discussions which have been held between the
beach hut owners' associations which have been ongoing for some time.
I have seen some of the relating documentation which has been available on the Council's
website,including the valuer's report.
As a long term hut owner and being aged over 65, I have been grateful for the concession
allowed to ratepayers, and I understand that this will no longer be offered.
The proposal is for a four fold increase in my current rent by 2016.I understand that the
Council has asked for comments with regard to the proposed increases:
Beach Hut Rents
The DVS report attempts to value the huts on a commercial basis,assuming that the hut is to
be let out, presumably in high season on short term lets; the surveyor admits to only looking at
the outside of the huts on one day in October, had he seen an interior, it would have been
realised at once that the Herne Bay and Tankerton huts are for day use only, with no facilities
connected.
Inevitably, problems occur when comparing costs with huts fitted out for stayig overnight and
longer; looking at the Comparable Evidence the huts quoted on the South Coast (Hastings
£917, Worthing £999 and high end rents at Bournemouth and Poole) are largely huts with
facilities and not the same as the local huts being reviewed. Similarly a local sale price of
£49,000 was quoted for a chalet at Seasalter; again completely different to the huts being
considered within the survey,as this hut is in a different location and is not the same type of
hut but a hut with residential facilities.
The Herne Bay huts have a superior location, being sited on the beach, whereas the
Tankerton huts are above a very busy promenade which is a cycle-way ,and the space to sit
in front of the hut becomes very crowded ; and with the promenade to cross to reach the
beach, the amenity is much less than supposed in the report.
Subletting
I have never sublet my hut, and I have no wish to do so; the hut is loaned to family members
and friends, with no charge at all. I do not want to pay a charge within the new proposed rent
so that the hut can be sublet because this will not occur at any time,therefore this facility is
not needed.
Beach Hut Prices
The report mentions the expressions of interest shown by enquiries regarding the new Council
venture into the hut market, however, it does not necessarily follow that sales will result from
all these enquiries, there are just a few sold at Long Rock it seems. The huge increases in
hut prices during the property boom now appear to be easing somewhat. The large sums
quoted for buying a hut in the years of property inflation were market prices at the time, as
with local house prices, and not the fault of beach hut owners,who attracted opprobrium from
the local press during this period: this may have left an impression that hut owners are
wealthy individuals who should pay more for the hut rents.
Not so long ago, in the mid 1970s, the beach huts were not at all wanted, I can recall owners
who could not give away their huts, which were in fair condition, and eventually having to pay
the Council £30 to have the hut removed. Many huts were left to go derelict following the oil
price increase, when owners from London and the Medway towns found the higher travelling
costs made their beach hut too expensive to retain.
Community Development and Outdoor Leisure
Looking at Canterbury City Council's website, it can be seen that this Directorate has
17
Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
responsibility for a large number of teams, beach huts appearing at the end of a list of about
twenty, the income from the beach huts must be a useful contribution to the budget. The
majority of Council spending on the seafronts in terms of maintenance,public facilities,
lifeguarding, signage, litter removal etc, would take place whether the beach huts were there
or not. The income from the Huts looks likely to exceed expenditure by a considerable
margin,
Against a background of increase in utilities,rail fares etc, this demand , coupled with a large
premium for a £5 million public liability insurance cover, will certainly cause hut owners to
consider their position with regard to keeping their hut, with such swingeing increases in
costs, and many residents may well be forced to relinquish their huts.
Thank you for your letter dated 12th November and its enclosures.
My wife and I are non resident owners of the above Beach Hut.
Options on fees
You have asked for our opinion on the different options on fees.
In summary, our view is that (1) the proposed increase in fees is too large; and (2) if pressed
to accept one of your options we would, reluctantly, choose option 3. In opting for option 3 we
note that your description of Option 3 is not absolutely clear. We assume that the final
sentence “Those who do not would be charged the lower rate” means that those who opt not
to sublet would be charged fees at the rates set out in Options 2a and 2b. We would not
sublet and would thus choose option 2b.
Our more detailed thoughts are set out below.
General
I understand from our Beach Hut Owners’ Association that the Council undertook a
“benchmarking Exercise” in the summer. It is not clear how, if at all, that exercise was taken
into consideration when setting the proposed rents. I shall be grateful if you will let us all know
how the results of that exercise were used.
In full or over two years
It is always of importance, particularly now we are retired, to keep our expenditure from rising
faster than our income. Thus, we would prefer any increase in fees to be over at least two
years, not in one jump. You have not offered the option to increase the rent over more years
but, since the current arrangements have been in place for some years, it seems to me
unreasonable to make an adjustment in no more than two years.
Allowing or not allowing subletting
We have no interest in subletting our beach hut so object strongly to the idea that we should
be charged a higher rent so that we can have a right we do not want. If you charge all beach
hut tenants the higher rate I suggest you will be penalising those of us who do not wish to
sublet our huts compared with those who wish to do so. It seems to me that penalising some
tenants to the benefit of others should be seen in the same light as the current distinction
between resident and non-resident tenants.
Further, clause 10.1 defines the permitted use of the Beach Hut as “for the purpose of private
beach related recreational and leisure activities only.” Subletting a Beach Hut suggests a
more commercial purpose than you intend.
Other matters
I note that the definition of ‘Close Relative’ excludes grandchildren. We often use our Beach
Hut to enable our grandchildren to spend the day by the sea. They love it. To us, at least,
18
Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
grandchildren are certainly ‘Close Relatives’ and should be included as such.
In Schedule 1 paragraph 2.4 the draft tenancy agreement provides, in certain circumstances,
for the Council to “fix and retain.....a board advertising the Site for sale or letting.” That
provision is much more permissive for the Council than is allowed for the tenant under clause
10.4.2 of the draft tenancy agreement. The presence of a board would impinge on the
surrounding Beach Huts and consequently I believe that the Council’s rights in this instance
should be no more than those of the tenants.
Drafting point
I suggest that clause 10.4.3 should refer to clause 10.4.1 and 10.40.2 as distinct from 10.3.1
and 10.3.2 as drafted.
We are in receipt of your letter the 12th November 2013. Your ref 13008.This letter
demonstrate the councils continuing onslaught on the Beach Hut Owners in both Herne Bay
and Whitstable.
Are the council able to provide a properly prepared and budgeted profit and loss account for
Herne Bay Beach Huts, showing details of income and detailed costs. If you could kindly
supply me with the same by return e mail I would be most grateful.
Is it the councils intention to provide beach hut sites as a facility/resource for the area and its
community, or as the recent movements suggest just an asset seen as a highly profitable way
of increasing council revenues.
I would be most grateful if you could answer this question as at least we then know what really
makes the council tick.
As we are non residents[although we have lived in Kent for 40 years] the proposed increase in
rental charges, albeit excessive and out of line with inflation and RPI are not a seismic
problem for us, I do think for many of the elderly local residents/owners they will be both
unwelcome and problematic for many people.
The points that I raised in earlier correspondence as illustrated below really do frustrate,
annoy and provoke my distaste of the council that you represent and the actions you are
suggesting, our main points being:
1.I think not allowing free family transfers [other than a small admin fee ,see no 2] are spiteful,
disloyal and A misjudgement.
2.Charging an administrative fee on a sale of £463 on a sale is blatant profiteering. Why are
your fees akin or in fact in advance of those of a top London lawyer for such a simple
process/procedure.
In my opinion I would have thought a fee circa £100 or less would adequately cover a sale,
unless you are wontedly profiteering to further line the public sectors unfunded, inflated
benefits, who many in the private sector are unable to enjoy.
Probably, this will be to your liking, but my wife and I are currently evaluating as to whether it
is worth keeping our hut, as the toxic combination of the proposed increase in rent, business
rate bill and rising insurance costs, alongside red tape and admin is suggesting to us that our
hard earned money may be better deployed ,enjoying a foreign holiday in the sun.
We are just sorry that we purchased our hut to use with our grandchild without being aware of
your councils proposed, sustained attack on local beach hut owners.
19
Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
Could I request that this letter is passed to the overview committee and hopefully on to the
executive.
We are writing to you with regard to the changes and HUGE increase of fees for our Beach
Hut – at West Beach, Herne Bay.
We VERY STRONLY OBJECT to the massive increase on the tenancy agreement.
Our fee will have gone up from £276 per year to £581 – this is an increase of £305.00!!! nearly
211%
And for those with a long term discount from £136 to £581% = over 425% increase.
The use of having a Beach Hut is a cheap ‘holiday at home’ for many families and pensioners,
and for many children the only ‘holiday at the sea side’ they will enjoy.
Especially with the current economic climate.
It is a very sad state of affairs, when a demand for money is put on to those who are less
likely to be able to pay. And we are honestly aghast at the morality of such an increase.
The long term discount: - those who have been receiving this, in particularly the elderly
pensioners, who are struggling enough as it is just to pay their bills, should be left alone, and it
only to apply for new agreements.
The discount for residents – why on earth, should this change? I have lived in Herne Bay all
my life, and my taxes and that of my family for three generations have paid for the upkeep of
our town – it is very unfair and prejudice, if those who pay for the upkeep of the town through
our council tax etc should then give up this part of the agreement and be treated the same as
those who do not pay anything to the upkeep of Herne Bay.
We truly hope you and those who make these decisions, will review this situation.
Family life is very precious, spending time at the sea side is a way for families and the elderly
to have a ‘nice day away from all the worries this world puts on us all’, to have some ‘clean
fun’ without having to cost the earth.
Where has the old traditional values and sense of community gone?
As you are well aware I am a member of the Committee negotiating with CC regarding the
Beach Hut Rents and new Tenancy Agreement. However this letter relates to my personal
thoughts on the matter.
1) SublettingThis is an issue that no one at Herne Bay wants. Our family hut was purchased
with a view to giving our grandchildren the Beach life that my wife enjoyed during her
childhood. We were able to provide that to our daughters until our old Hut was lost in a
storm. My family have no intention of sub-letting.
2) Long Term Owners Discount The scheme rules make it clear that only Pensioners may
claim the discount. Pensioners are the least able to stand the significant rise in costs that
is proposed by the new valuation. If the existing claimants are forced to find the increase
then the age group that makes the most use of their huts will be excluded and likely to be
forced to sell their Huts.
There are about 75 claimants of the Discount across both locations. It is inevitable that
this group will decline in numbers over a few years. Please therefore allow this group to
naturally decrease.
Whilst I totally understand the need for the Council to maximise Revenue it will be an act
20
Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
of appalling lack of charity to the least advantaged group of Hut owners.
We have been told that the Council must eliminate the variances in its policy to avoid the
officers’ being in dereliction of their duty. I cannot believe that there is so little discretion in
the timing of such changes. You are asking the most disadvantaged of the Hut owners to
face the highest increases but giving them only a relatively short period of change.
3) Lead time for the increases. Whichever option is decided by the Councillors it needs to
be introduced over the maximum time available.
Family Transfers
This is another example of the Council’s broken promises. Is it really
intended that such transfers will be charged at what is clearly a very high fee. Surely the
charge out rate is amazingly high to justify such a large cost even allowing for the inclusion of
VAT of about £77 in the charge. Most systems are now automated reducing the costs of such
simple transfers. Surely it is not too difficult to link the relevant electronic files. This will
significantly reduce the need to manually input the data and therefore the charge.
Response from a West Beach, Herne Bay, Beach Hut Owner for over 35 years, hut situated
off Spa Esplanade, Westcliffe, Herne Bay.
Re. the Budget Consultation - which I accessed online, mentions;
`Consultation on new beach hut tenancy and fees'
`... proposed increases in charges the council makes for some of its services, continuing with
the approach, approved in consultation with residents, towards more of a user pays system.
This involves charging more for services that are only used by a small proportion of residents
so that the cost doesn’t fall mainly on the general taxpayer...'
Firstly, I'd like to ask as a beach hut owner, on the same site at the West Beach, Herne Bay,
since 1978, what services do Canterbury City Council Officers and Councillors perceive that
we receive from the Community Development and Outdoor Leisure Department ?
During the past 35 years, I and neighbouring beach huts, backing onto the Spa Esplanade
have experienced;
Storms, Inundation from the sea, Fire, break-ins, vandalism, graffiti, dog fouling, speeding
cars & bicycles directly behind the huts along Spa Esplanade.
At no time can I remember anyone from the Foreshore Team contacting/alerting us to say that
there was a problem, let alone offering assistance.
It is the Beach Hut Community that alerts other hutters to the disasters/problems, keeps a
watch when a high Spring Tide is forecast etc. telephone the Police when we see dangers or
crime in progress, keep the area tidy and assist other visitors to this beach area.
West Beach is a `Rural' beach, sited below Western Esplanade, there are no shops, cafes
etc.
We do not have a Life Guard, the beach hut section of West Beach isn't patrolled.
The Water Quality testing was cancelled a few years ago from Hampton, it's only now carried
out from the town beach, so we keep an eye on the water quality, in case there's a discharge
from Swalecliffe Treatment Works (noticeable by things floating), which could affect the health
of children swimming & playing in the sea.
If necessary hutters can use, with other visitors to the area, the Public Conveniences at the
21
Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
rear of the Red Shelter, Spa Esplanade (open usually Easter to October) or/ the Public Toilets
at Hampton Car Park, open all year for general public use & both of which my CCC Council
Tax contribution pays towards their upkeep.
To gain a beach Flag a few years ago the council erected several showers with a water tap
attached & cut off the original tap by the Red Shelter that actually had a drain under it, which
was filled in with concrete.
These newer type water dispensers are for all beach users, passing walkers etc. The nearest
one to my hut is sited in amongst a patch of weeds, often very muddy, because there isn't a
drain to take away the water overflow and, with dog walkers also using it to wash off their
animals after they've been in the sea or/rolled in the sandy mud, it isn't a service I'd personally
use.
Probably up to 28 years ago in the summer months we did have a `seasonal' man from the
council walk along West Beach most days to check that we & everything was ok.
However, these past years as beach hut owners we've not set eyes on anyone from
Foreshore Dept. patrolling on West Beach, Herne Bay. Occasionally they are glimpsed
driving in the Foreshore Landrover along Western Esplanade between their base at Hampton
Bay slipway and the town or/ occasionally they've been spotted in the distance, out to sea,
zooming along on their boat/craft to or from the town, probably assisting at Neptune Car
Park boat slipway - apparently it takes up to 50 boat trailers, but unfortunately the boat trailer
parking fee doesn't go to Foreshore !
None of the duties they actually perform is a service to the beach hut owners of West Bay
beach, so where/how do we incur an additional cost to Canterbury City Council general
taxpayers.
What we have received from the council & Foreshore Dept., latterly named Community
Development and Outdoor Leisure, is an unrelenting additional `Revenue Raising Excercise'
on West Beach beach hut owners since approximately 2008.
There have been Meetings held by the council - proposals overuled by residents and beach
hut owners, all goes quiet, then after end of the next summer season, back the council come
again, more ideas and reams of paper.
I attended a Consultation Meeting at the Kings Hall, Chaired by Richard Griffiths approx. 4
years ago & one of the Consultation points/questions at that Consultation Meeting was
regarding `Subletting of beach huts', that point was unanimously voted Against by all who
attended. There must be a record of that NO vote.
I hasten to add, for those not aquainted with beach huts & rent paying for the site - at West
Beach I have year on year since 1978 paid a percentage increase on the site fee.
Letter dated 12 November 2013 & received on 14 November 2013 from Richard Griffiths,
Acting Head of Community Development and Outdoor Leisure.
Headed - Beach hut Tenancy agreement an fees for 2014/15
This letter requests Comments - doesn't mention Public Consultation.
There was attached a Licence Agreement (Draft Tenancy of a Beach Hut site) has
amazingly increased from the former 1½ A4 sheets to an unbelievable 7½ A4 sheets !
Regarding some points mentioned in that document, they happened more than 25 years ago,
nothing was said by the council department or/ a written letter of agreement offered all that
22
Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
time ago. Needless to say if the beach hut annual inspection had been carried out correctly,
these irregularities could have been sorted immediately & not just left to drag on year after
year and not charged.
This 7½ page document is not in Plain Speak English, with clear communication to a mere
beach hut owner & I wouldn't be able to sign without seeking Legal Advice.
Also attached was the `Options for fee increases' - headed Beach Hut options, fees and
charges 2013/14
The`Long Term Discount' now omits the precursor words to that entitlement - of State Pension
Age ?
I hasten to add that The Marlowe Theatre still gives discount on a ticket to the over 60's ?
Illegal or not.
So, on receipt of this `BOLT OUT OF THE BLUE';
As a beach hut owner, on the same site for 35+ years, words cannot explain how upset,
distressed, furious I am with Canterbury City Council.
As a State Pensioner I cannot afford this 70% increase at all.
In this time of national austerity, I've budgeted, been thrifty & careful, not got into debt on my
limited pension. I've switched my fuel provider, negotiated with my phone provider & planned then out of the shadows for me as a West Beach hut owner, comes the Grim Reaper !
I have NEVER considered selling my hut, it is my Leisure Activity.
Now my dilema is not only the increase of £445 in rent per annum, but most probably not
being able to sell the hut before 1st April 2014. All this new information/decisions have been
thrust upon us, out of season, no warning.
If I can't sell, I still have to find the rent - if I walk away because I can't pay the rent then
Foreshore will add to my debt by charging me interest of 3%. Then it could lead onto them
removing my hut from it's site, because I can't manage that at my age and then they'd also
charge me to do that !
My quiet retirement life is now an absolute nightmare because I haven't got a hidden Piggy
Bank to raid and conjure up an extra £445 rent per annum for Foreshore/Canterbury City
Council without getting into debt. Added to that cost is also the Insurance of £100+ per annum
to cover for the Public Liability Insurance now required under item 13. of the License
Agreement + the hut upkeep & repair.
I'm aware that our Council Tax will increase next year & that I've planned for, at least we do
receive a Service for our Council Tax - the days are long gone or never existed, when hutters
get a Service from the council on West Beach, Herne Bay.
My - Response to Canterbury City Council & Outdoor Leisure proposals are;
1. Where did these DVS people get their valuation figures from, who did they compare us with
?
We aren't Commercial - we are a Leisure Community, mainly residents of Canterbury City
Council & the West Bay Ward.
23
Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
I want this matter looked into further by the council !
I've looked online at comparative hut sites, pebble beach, no shops & this DVS valuation level
is too high, unless they were comparing to those run by a private company with water,
electric. So makes one wonder if CCC are planning another sell off in Herne Bay.
2. NO to SUBLETTING - Foreshore Team are never around to supervise - Police not available
in case of disorder - it could be a disaster for an unsuspecting beach hut owner, to have an
unruly group set up in the next beach hut without any knowledge of who or where these
people come from, for a week or so.
This matter was discussed at a previous Public Consultation in Herne Bay & the vote of
residents & beach hut owners was;
NO to Subletting at West Beach, Herne Bay on that occasion too.
3. `The council’s barrister provided very clear legal advice that it is obliged to run its beach
huts on a commercial basis and charge a market rent at the earliest opportunity.'
Beach hutters on West Beach, Herne Bay are Non-commercial & in no sense can be classed
as Commercial whilst in pursuit of their personal leisure time, by sitting, swimming etc. only
using the beach hut as a base and storage of seating, swimwear etc.
4. Options 1a): 1b): 2a): 2b): - then Option 3
How can I choose - I'm what you class as a `Long Term Discount' and all the NEW Option
prices are beyond my means as a State Pensioner, will get me into debt.
I will however say NO to Option 1a): 1b): and 3 - NO SUBLETTING at West Beach, Herne
Bay.
One additional reason for this is that we know who our neighbours at the huts are, we trust
them, can rely on them - access by just `anyone' into a hut, in such close proximity to a family
with young children could cause problems.
I doubt with your Commercial hat on that you'd understand the implications of this point, but
as a parent & grandparent I do.
5. Adaption fee per m2. - No comment
6. Administration fee for a sale - Previously, I had absolutely no intention of selling my beach
hut, I celebrated it's 35th birthday with my grandchildren this summer when they came to visit
Herne Bay - therefore I wasn't concerned about the selling fee. Now you plan to reduce that
fee - just doesn't make sense to me, was the higher fee illegal ? - I give up!
We have received your letter regarding the above subject matter dated 12 November 2013
and would like to ask you to consider the following points:
1 Why do you, the Council, assume we all run our beach huts as a business, subletting and
taking an income from them, when we do not.
- At the last Beach Hut Association meeting the question was asked of the 60+ people
attending whether they sublet for income and not one person raised their hand.
- How would the Council prove whether huts were being sublet or not, in order to make the
relevant extra charge?
2 These increases are huge and many of us will have difficulty finding the extra monies you
now intend charging.
- Even if we pay the increases now, what steps would you take to assure beach hut tenants
regarding further increases. Please give us some reassurances of your future intentions and
percentile charging.
24
Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
- Many of us have our beach huts simply for enjoyment but with these and any future
increases many of us will not be unable to afford to continue with them.
- The lowered administration fee would make selling up financially easier.
3 The adaptation fees per square metre are horrendous.
- What of the old beach huts which were bought many years ago with adaptations and it is
only now that they are being made aware that they have to pay these extra amounts. Surely
the Council should be giving tenants more help and encouragement to change their huts back
to what you want, rather than this imposing of very high additional charges.
- If all beach huts are eventually structured in a uniform way will that not take away the beauty
and interest of our area, our seafront and heritage.
With regards to the Beach Hut Tenancy Agreement letter from Richard Griffiths, dated 12th
November 2013.
There are a number of points that I would like to comment upon, both within the draft
agreement and the accompanying letter.
1) Market Rent
In the spirit of openness and understanding (from the perspective of a beach hut owner), it
would be good if the council made available, either online or in writing, the full assessment
report from DVS. I would like to know that suitable allowance has been given to the level and
state of amenities in Herne Bay compared to those in other areas.
I am sure anyone that has visited the public toilets on the West Beach in Herne Bay would
agree that they are described as poor at best. The stand pipe that supplies water to all beach
users is not much better, especially given that for a long period over the past year the pipe
was out of use. While these facilities are for all beach users, not just hut owners, we see little
else that could be described as amenities for beach hut owners in Herne Bay.
Despite being part of HMCR I would like to be able to check the report and to be able to see
how property valuations and property rents compare between the locations considered in the
DVS report. Government agencies have got things wrong in the past – the methodology of
property valuations before the poll tax being questioned (and wrong) for many households,
the necessary recalculation of income tax for thousands of UK residents due to mistakes by
HMCR.
It would also be good to know that the council will also put other costs of using the beach at
market rate, eg launch fees for motor craft. I suspect that this will not be the case (yet again).
Hence it would be particularly good to see the full report from DVS to convince us beach hut
owners that the council don’t have some vendetta against us.
2) Subletting
We have no wish to sublet the beach hut and would not wish to in the future. I believe that
most beach hut owners would feel the same. We are disappointed to hear that despite having
knowledge about exactly who is subletting (against the terms of the current agreement) that
there has been no enforcement of penalties.
We would wish that the council either elect to not allow subletting at all or that it is an option
incurring extra charges for those that do. We think that the council should investigate whether
25
Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
it could own some huts itself that it rented out over the summer to encourage tourism in the
town.
3) Tenancy Agreement – (13) Public Liability Insurance
Since this is included in standard beach hut insurance we have no objection to this clause.
While we understand that some beach hut owners do not wish to have insurance, sadly we
accept that in today’s world that the liability insurance is required.
4) Tenancy Agreement – (1.1.3) Close Relative Definition
There appears to be no reference to “close relative” in the tenancy agreement anywhere and
this section seems redundant.
5) Tenancy Agreement – (11) Giving Back Possession at the End of the Term
This section appears to need some clarification. While the Site should obviously be given
back at the end of the tenancy agreement, this section can not apply to the hut itself as this is
the legal property of the beach hut owner. Therefore no obligation can exist to ensure that the
hut itself is ‘returned’ at the end of the agreement.
6) Tenancy Agreement – (8.3) Access to the Beach
The draft agreement mentions access to the beach by vehicle – the old agreement only
mentioned the promenade and grass verge – and we welcome the addition. Presumably this
would also include access by motor boat or by jet ski. We welcome restraint on the use of
motor craft accessing the beach front by the beach huts as we have reported incidents in the
past to Foreshore Services of motor boats coming to shore and the near misses with children
in the water. These have largely been dismissed or ignored. We sincerely hope that the
council do enforce such conditions.
7) Tenancy Agreement – The Reservations
The old agreement mentioned that if the council had to remove the hut for various reasons
that it would put it back afterwards and make right any damage done. The new agreement
refers to physical damage only to the site and not the beach hut itself. It would seem
reasonable that the council be liable for rectifying damage done to the hut.
8) Removal of discount for long term beach hut owners
We have no objection to this.
Thank you for your letter of 12 November 2013.
I write to comment on the proposals outlined in your letter:
In relation to the terms of the proposed new beach hut Tenancy Agreement: I cannot
comment on the draft version of the Tenancy Agreement because I gather that Beach
Hut Associations have not discussed this with you yet.
Whether subletting should be allowed: I would not wish to sub-let our hut in accordance
with The Committee and Members of Herne Bay Beach Hut Association which are totally
against subletting.
Market Rent and proposed beach hut fees and charges: I would opt for Option 2b. not
allow subletting and implement the increase in fee over two years 2014-1016.
26
Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
However, I believe that the valuation of £475 ( without sub-letting) rental for Herne Bay is too
high. This is a huge increase and I do not understand how this has suddenly been arrived at
by the DVS ( given that it is my understanding that few Tenants wish to sub- let anyway. So,
again, I do not understand how this was ever part of the remit of the DVS in the first place.)
My other main objection is the apparent cancellation of the long term discount for existing
claimants. I find this totally unacceptable. This seems very unjust and very probably financially
punitive to some people-e.g. elderly people (pensioners), who may have had their hut for a
very long time. I understand that this matter is due for review and I would be grateful if my
view on this matter could be put clearly before the Overview Committee on December 4 ,
2013.
I would also like to question why the right to free family transfers has been changed?
I refer to your circular letter to all Beach Hut Owners dated 12th November 2013. I am
replying as owner of a beach hut at Tankerton East and shall be grateful if these comments
can be passed on in full to all appropriate committees, cabinets, councillors and officers.
I would like you specifically to acknowledge receipt of this letter and confirm that you are
dealing with it as I have requested above. I and my husband would be quite happy to come
and meet with you to discuss the comments that we make below:
1
I am pleased to note that your Barrister’s advice has confirmed the advice that our
Beach Hut Association obtained from a leading Barrister, via my husband who is a
qualified Solicitor, that the Council must stop charging any supplementary fee when a
hut is sold. The Barrister we consulted said that was unfair and unreasonable,
particularly bearing in mind that you are letting only the land, and that the beach huts
are owned by the individual proprietors. I am sure the Barrister did not say that you
should therefore increase the annual fee for all beach hut owners. That is a
suggestion that cannot automatically follow from his or her first advice.
2
Indeed, this brings me onto my next point that the rents that you are seeking to charge
for the land, after I have looked at my files and previous information, are not
appropriate bearing in mind open market rental values. The evidence for this is that
the rateable value for my beach hut was assessed, at the Council’s instigation, at
£600.00 which is, of course, supposed to reflect the open market letting value of the
land (including the hut itself). As the hut is owned by me, as has been acknowledged
on many occasions, the value of the land on its own must be considerably lower. You
are now seeking to obtain a rent which is nearly £600.00 for the land alone. That
cannot be right or fair. The rateable value was set by the Surveyors Department for
the Rating Valuation Service, then called The District Valuers Office (the predecessor I
believe of DVS). I therefore question what instructions were given to them to obtain a
value and whether they have erroneously been asked to value the rental value of the
hut itself, as well as the land.
3
In view of the fundamental flaws in the first part of your letter, upon which everything
else is predicated, I really do not feel that I, or any other beach hut owner, can
comment on the Tenancy Agreement. The fundamental flaw has not been properly
addressed.
I am the owner of the beach but make this submission on behalf of my extended family who
all use and love the hut.
We have responded in detail to the proposed changes but want to draw attention to the effect
for our family (and many others) and which we do not think local councillors can be aware of,
to be contemplating such changes.
27
Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
In 2012/13 our annual fee was £368, with the charges for adaptations and these new
proposals in place the annual fee for 2014/15 will be £1716.66.
We feel that this increase is utterly unreasonable and has obviously caused a lot of distress to
ourselves and I am sure other local beach hut owners. This level of charge makes owning a
beach hut unaffordable to local residents on local salaries, surely not what Canterbury City
Councillors are intending to do.
Whilst understanding that new income needs to be generated urgently by the council we
believe this action to be unfair and ask that the proposals are reviewed and another course of
action found.
The following pages are a detailed response to the proposal being made:
Following receipt of your letter of 12th November and its enclosures, we too have taken legal
advice. The comments we make on the terms of the Agreement arise out of this advice.
Covering letter - second paragraph
No reason is given for the removal of the differentiation between residents and non-residents.
Proposed “Tenancy” Agreement
This needs a preamble explaining that the Council owns the site and the tenant owns the
beach hut.
1.1.5 The only clue to the calculation of this is in the definition of adaptation … “rate per
square metre”.
2.
This notice seems rather long – six months is more usual.
4.
There needs to be provision to take account of any dispute between the Council and
the tenant whereby the due date is set aside until the dispute is settled.
6.1
There is a need to make it clear that the hut is owned by the tenant.
6.4
hut?
What is “tenantable repair” in the context of the tenant being the owner of the beach
6.5
There is a need for the words “shall be by written notice” to be inserted after the word
“Council” in line 2.
8.4
Is the year a calendar year or is it related to the anniversary of the tenancy?
10.4.3 The clauses referred to should be 10.4.1 and 10.4.2.
11.
What does this mean? The site will usually have a beach hut on it!
This clause seems to confuse tenancy of the site with ownership of the beach hut – see also
14.2.
13.
The requirement for public liability insurance is not unusual, but the amount of five
million pounds seems over the top! Domestic cover is usually no more than two million
pounds.
28
Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
Schedule 1
With respect to clauses 2.1 and 2.2, there is nothing about reinstatement at the Council’s
expense of the beach hut afterwards. There should be!
Fees
As with everything the “devil is in the detail”. Reading the preamble to this section, one could
believe that any increase in fees has been kept to a minimum, but a calculator and simple
mathematics reveals increases of well over one hundred per cent between 2013/4 and
2014/5. We simply cannot see how this can be justified.
Then there is the question of rental fees relating to adaptations. It is inconceivable that a
rental per square metre is the same for a piece of decking as for a beach hut which is lockable
and available for use by the tenant only. Decking can be used by any passer-by whether or
not the tenant is present. It is more than just interesting that nearly all the beach huts along
this stretch of promenade have had decking laid, and the new huts similarly. We have decking
in front of our beach hut and had it laid only because the Council failed adequately to maintain
the area in question. We realise that Canterbury, like all Councils, is short of money, but this
is ridiculous. We have already raised this matter in connection with an invoice for this year but
have had no reaction/explanation.
Here are comparative figures for fees from 2012/13 and 2014/15
2012/13
2013/14
2014/15
Beach hut resident
Beach hut resident
Adaptation
Beach hut resident
Adaptation
£368.00
£368.00
£425.66
£796.00
£920.66
£793.66
£1716.66
I really cannot see how an increase of £1348.66 can be justified and the result of the changes
will make it impossible for Whitstable residents to own beach huts.
I would like to make a few points from a purely personal perspective; not the corporate view
as expressed as part of the Joint Beach Hut Owner’s negotiating team.
When I bought my hut I had no idea that just a couple of years later that the terms of my lease
would be so radically altered, if I had known, I certainly wouldn’t have gone through with the
purchase, this much I’m sure the Council can appreciate.
There is a pervading feeling amongst BH owners that they have been unfairly treated, but that
isn’t my particular complaint. What I cannot work out is how the DVS calculated rental figures
for the two locations, Tankerton and Herne Bay. If we accept that the figure for Tankerton is
correct, though I’m not suggesting for one moment that it is, how can DVS arrive at figures of
an annual rental of £475 for Herne Bay, and £650 for Tankerton?
Surely the proposed rent should reflect the relationship of value to what is being offered. If we
argue that on a average value of the typical hut in Tankerton is, say, £20,000+ and the new
proposed rent is £650pa, that works out at £32.50 per £1,000 value. Surely it follows that the
same multiplier should apply to Herne Bay, so with their average value at just under £9,000,
the new rent should be 9 X £32.50 which is £295. At the current proposed new rent, of £450
pa at Herne Bay, the rent being proposed works out to be £51.40 per £1,000 value of the Hut
– how can that be fair?
It should also be taken into consideration that with HB Beach Huts are very much smaller than
those at TB.
29
Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
The right of transfer is protected in the new draft lease, and the Long Term Discount is never
likely to be a consideration, I will be around 80 if still around, so that isn’t a particular worry.
I see that the right of transfer is retained in the clause 9 Assignment in the draft Tenancy
Agreement – “The tenant shall not assign this tenancy agreement without the consent of the
council such consent not to be unreasonably withheld provided that:” then it goes on to list a
number of cases where this might be applicable.
Draft tenancy:
- owners are accustomed to a short document - latest draft is an eight page lawyered
document - owners have a legitimate expectation that generic legal advice be sent to them so
that may understand what it is they are being required to sign and how that differs from the
terms of their current occupational agreement. Without that generic advice they have a gun to
the head with no notice of the nature of the injury about to befall them (if any) and the council
is exercising undue influence if not economic duress to achieve its will. You might question
whether the new tenancy if signed is enforceable on this basis
Bespoke legal advice for an individual owner's own circumstances is a different matter for
which owners should be separately and individually responsible
Clause 10.3.2 is obscure/unclear in its reach. Can one sleep in ones hut overnight ? Is the
occasional overnighter a residential purpose in the council's eyes ?
The obligations on the council are woefully thin - you will know that vandalism is a persistent
and distressing risk all too often manifested as an actuality. One would expect at least a
reasonable endeavours obligation to maintain foreshore services and patrols. An obligation to
maintain stand pipe water facilities and rubbish collection would also be reasonable.
Proposed fees:
The proposed uplift in annual fees deserves justification. What are the benchmarks ? Absent
transparency on the benchmarking one can only assume greed as the motivation. Similarly for
adaptations fees and administration fees for sale.
I am writing in reply to your letter of 12 November 2013 which enclosed a draft tenancy
agreement and options for fee increases.
With regards to the “tenancy” agreement, we are disappointed the agreement to let (para 2) is
only for 12 months and would point out that it is not a tenancy but a land lease agreement for
a tiny part of the beach traditionally used for beach huts for many years and is part of the
seaside character and charm of Herne Bay. Our beach hut has never been sublet and does
not have any services provided by the Council and is a simple small shed on the beach which
we can only really use when it is summertime.
Any valuation should reflect the size and seasonal nature of its use. As the beach hut is in
our own ownership and not the property of the Council we would have thought this should be
called a lease agreement rather than a tenancy agreement. We have no problems with a
reasonable annual land rent being increased by inflation but feel that the conditions of the
lease should remain as they were when we bought the hut since there have been no changes
to the facilities we have been provided with and it should be a lease agreement and could and
should be for a much longer period than one year at a time. Many of the conditions that are
suggested in the draft agreement would seem to be irrelevant.
There is also no appeal or dispute resolution process. The agreement appears to be very one
sided in favour of the Council in that rigid draconian action can be taken if the tenant fails to
meet all of his obligations within specified time scales. I believe the agreement should have a
30
Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
section on appeals/dispute resolution.
With regards to the annual fee I have the following comments.
1. We have no desire to sub-let and I am not aware of any beach hut owners who want or
are doing this. We would also prefer that beach hut owners do not sub-let. We therefore
reject option 1 as this is would be unfair to require us to pay a higher rent for something
we do not want and would prefer others not do.
2. Our preferred option is 2b.
3. Option 3 is a better option than option 1 but is not one we would want as we are against
sub-letting.
4. The increase in the annual rent is extremely high. Many beach hut owners are pensioners
and retired and have owned their huts for many years. In some cases their future rent will
be nearly four times their existing rent. The suggested rent would force those on low
income to have to sell their hut which we believe to be a retrograde step. We are very
suspicious that the Council have failed to provide details on how this high figure was
obtained. Please could you provide more details on how DVS have arrived at these
figures?
5. In view of the substantial increase, we believe the rental increase should be phased in
over a much longer period. Our suggestion is five years.
6. We feel the adaptation fee to be ridiculously high and you have not provided any
information to support this level of fees.
7. In 2009 when we bought our beach hut, the administration fee was £81. We cannot see
any justification for this fee to increase by more than five times in a period of less than 5
years. Could you provide a breakdown of how this figure has been reached?
It is our view that the Council are simply making excessive fees in order to support their
spending. We do not believe the fees are reasonable. If the Council need to increase their
income they should do so through rate increases rather than overcharging a minority of
members of their community. We appreciate you have a monopoly on the provision of beach
hut sites but this position should not lead to exploitation. Such a policy will inevitably lead to a
decline in beach hut ownership with the subsequent reduction in Council fee income.
We are the owners of beach hut 124 TW and we also live in Herne Bay. We therefore
consider we have a strong commitment to the local community which is being penalised by
the Council's proposals to increase the annual fee for all beach hut owners to a market rent,
as well as remove the long term discount rate reduction for residents.
We wish to object to your proposals for the following reasons:1: It is not clearly laid out as to how you have arrived at the current market rate. How has
this been calculated?
2: By increasing the rate by such a great percentage in such difficult financial times without
providing any extra amenities you are jeopardising the renovation and upkeep of the very
huts themselves.
3: The discount should remain in place because this would cause a disparity between
residents and non residents which we consider to be inequitable and therefore consider that
this discount should remain in place. As a resident we are already contributing towards the
local economy.
We await your comments.
Having read the proposed new beach hut tenancy agreement, fees and DVS report I am
shocked and saddened at the proposed increase.
31
Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
Not too long ago I attended a Council meeting at Whitstable Castle about building new huts
where councillors stated that they were concerned that beach huts are becoming unaffordable
for local people. I would suggest that if these new fees are imposed many of the local people
who have enjoyed the use of their huts over many years and in some cases generations will
no longer be able to afford to keep them. I am afraid that I will fall into this category.
Our hut was purchased in 2000 as an affordable local leisure facility for our family and we
happily paid £155 annual fee. We are now retired and on limited income, but continue to use
the hut on a regular basis. The hut has exactly the same footprint that it had in 2000 when we
bought it. None of the facilities provided by the council have changed or improved. We
maintain our hut to a good standard at our own cost. The proposed new charge of £663 plus
an adaptation fee, plus the required insurance will bring our cost to £1045.62 in 2015. Which I
fear will price us out of the market. I am aware that CCC’s Council Tax for a Band A property
is currently £959.52 per year and I will have to pay £1045.62 to keep the same beach hut that
cost me £155 in 2000!!!!!
The report provided by the DVS 17th October 2013 states in paragraph 5.3 “with a more
normal range between £300 to £650 per annum” I note that CCC has gone right to the top
end of the range. This totally disadvantages local people on limited income who pay local
Council Tax and support looking after the beach and surrounding area throughout the year.
In conclusion I consider the proposed increase totally disproportionate and hope the council
rethinks its charging strategy.
I wish to place on record my objections re the above, as follows:It appears that all your negotiations have been held solely with two beach hut associations
and I would like to stress not all hut owners are members of these associations. Your
letter dated the 19th November to outside groups gives until the 5th December to make
comment which is hardly a suitable length of time for a consultation. And it appears you
have not arranged a public consultation/exhibition to discuss with all owners including
non-beach hut association members!
It would appear you have consulted with other districts and the results have not been
presented. I would be grateful if you could forward a copy of these to me rather than
having to make a Freedom of Information request.
I am aware your department has sent out consultation letters to various residents groups
in the Canterbury area to make their own comments! Surely, all that you are proposing
should be solely with hut owners and not from outside bodies.
After all, who will be paying the colossal proposed licence fees?
Owning a beach hut is indeed a privilege and I can speak for many other owners who feel
the same. Contrary to popular belief, not all hut owners are rolling rich and I would like to
say the present leader of the council made comment to my wife a couple of years ago that
owning a beach hut is ‘elitist’! This is far from the truth as many huts are family and
pensioner owned and finding the present licence fee is already difficult for many and could
so easily become impossible. How this proposal can be made at a time when Council Tax,
fuel charges etc are going up is beyond belief and I really wonder how you expect so
many people to be able to raise the proposed increase!
A 100% increase gives the impression this is legalised theft from the hard pressed public
beach hut owners Or is this a crafty ploy to make people sell their huts to the Council?
Either, the excuse of a commercial basis to me is utterly immoral!
Would the Council raise Council Tax by 100%?
32
Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
What do hut owners get for their money? A few freshwater stand pipes and not nearly
enough grass cuts during the summer. And many left with damage from contractor’s
strimmers around their bases! And most litter comes from other members of the general
public!
What is this all about? Owners being allowed, with conditions still not properly agreed, to
place their wooden shed on a small piece of council owned land! And use it for just a few
weeks during the summer months.
My family were very lucky to be able to purchase our hut a few years ago from an elderly
gentleman who together with his wife had a wonderful leisure time there over the years
with his family, children and grandchildren until his wife died and he was unable to
manage the yearly maintenance required to keep the hut to a good standard. Our hut is
for family use and the prime reason for buying it was a safe location for my special needs
daughter who has serious behavioural problems from time to time and we go to the hut
‘chill out’.
It’s strange how the Council Tourism Department takes much delight advertising how
much the brightly coloured beach huts add to the ambience of the coastal areas!
I congratulate the Beach Hut Associations for all their efforts ‘consulting’ with you and I am
sure the public in general would be amazed to know how much time and money has
already been wasted with so many on-going proposals in relation to tenancy agreements.
It seems the word of one barrister (Very expensive!) and DVS have made their final
decision already following comparisons with 50 other beach hut sites. How strange that
Thanet Council are sole owners of all beach huts in their district. Hardly a fair comparison
and this is just one area!
On behalf of my family and many other people, please reconsider this immoral proposal.
Thank you for your recent letter. My comments are as follows:As we have absolutely no intention to sub-let, I would prefer option 3 to be introduced - thus
giving owners the option to sub-let and pay increased fees or not as the case may be. I also
prefer you to implement the increase over 2 years, as I am very concerned about the huge
increases suggested. Owners, particularly pensioners and those on low incomes may
struggle to pay the increased fees and on top of the new requirement to have mandatory
insurance may force people to sell against their wishes.
Further to my previous e mail on the fee options for Whitstable huts (preferring option 3 to
give people the choice of only having to pay the higher rate if they wish to sub let and to
introduce the fees over 2 years), I wanted to specifically comment on the adaptation fees.
The increases for the adaptations are in my view astronomical. We had our hut rebuilt exactly
as it was last year and was led to believe the design was standard which unfortunately was
not the case. If the current proposal is passed, we will have no option but to remove the
pulpit.
I propose that a fixed fee is considered for those huts with adaptations which will give owners
the comfort of knowing what the additional fee will be year on year and will provide more
revenue for the Council as I am sure more people will find this option affordable and will not
have to remove these additions.
Having received your recent communication regarding the proposed new beach hut annual
fees I can only state that it met with shock & horror as pensioners and owners of 20 years our
increase will be enormous how on earth can you justify this????
33
Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
Then to add that if these fees are not paid you can dismantle our hut at our expense - this is
nothing short of extortion.
The only option open is to sell our little hut that has brought pleasure to us and gives us a
wonderful place that our grandchildren have enjoyed over the years being an in expensive
place to take them. Is the beach not free for all users or are you going to charge for putting a
chair or tent up???
On reflection how on earth will that happen - who would buy in these difficult times with fees
this high they would have to be mad....
All these huts are owned by responsible people who take pride in the appearance of these
huts and maintain them to a high degree.
The council advertise the huts as a wonderful addition to the seafront to encourage visitors to
Herne Bay their colourful individuality.
Now they are punishing us for doing so.
I understand that our beach hut association is taking this matter up for us and I hope you will
listen to their points of view as I find this is so distressing.
Please rethink this strategy.
My 2001 lease was two pages long nice and easy,the council having spent a lot of tax payers
money and made the proposed new draft lease three times as big. I list my thoughts as
follows.
Subletting this must be a total No No.
The rent increase is far too high.
Long term discount must be reinstated.
The admin fee is still far too high
I have removed my adaption to my hut because the charge was to be about £140.00 over
priced again.
C.C.C. should now look at this and other comments and come up with something more
acceptable to all concerned.
I have received your letter dated 12 November and read its contents with some dismay. I own
Beach Hut on Tankerton Slopes and so would be subject to the higher fees.
In order to understand why Canterbury City Council is seeking to apply such a substantial
increase in beach hut fees, I would be grateful for answers to the following questions:
What is the Statutory Authority by which CCC raises revenue from the beach huts? Please
provide a copy of this authority or indicate where I might be able to view it online.
Why is CCC seeking such a substantial increase in fees?
What is the average annual income to CCC from the beach huts? In what part of CCC budget
is this to be found?
What is the average spending by CCC on administering the beach huts? In what part of the
CCC Budget is this to be found?
Why is CCC seeking to impose a Public Liability Insurance clause now, when this has not
been done before? What change has there been in the law to necessitate this? Or what was
the Legal Advice, if any?
Tankerton Slopes is an area of common land; what statutory duties does the Council have in
administering this land: what and how are the rights of the general public on this land? Do
34
Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
they need a Public Liability Insurance? How is their use of the Slopes paid for?
I request a copy of the Legal Advice you refer to which was given to the Council: under the
Freedom of Information Act I believe this is in the public interest.
I look forward to hearing from you.
With reference to your letter dated 12th Nov' 2013, it came as a great shock to us to hear of
the proposed increased annual fee would be going up by more than 300%, we are now in our
80's and have owned a beach hut along Tankerton East slopes for over forty years and as a
long serving tennant we think we should be given a certain dispensation as all long serving
beach hut owners should, and as for the proposed annual fee's we think it is despicable what
you are propsing in fact we think it is down right immoral.
Over the last two or three years the grass at the back of the back row of our beach huts (the
slopes) has been left to grow very long so that the chidren cannot play there which is a great
shame they are always loosing balls, and when my wife phoned about this she was told it was
cut, and when she asked when, she was told not until the end of the autumn which seemed to
be taking the mickey, in fact this year it hasn't been cut at all, and as our beach hut is located
on the back row we have been unable to sit at the back of our hut.
You state in your letter of 12th november that you have been advised that you can no longer
charge different fees between residents. non-residents and long term users. Who advised
you? It cant be your barrister because thanet council still allows discounts,and in any event
this proceedure would seem to fall under the discetionary power of you , the council.
I am a long term user and to increase my rent from £136 to over treble over two years seems
cynical and greedy.I also cannot understand why you have shown subletting options since
everybody i know on the beach uses their huts for family use only.
I would also question the district valuers calculations.What information did you provide for him
to arrive at valuations per square metre ? How is it possible that whitstable huts who occupy a
more up-market situation and are almost twice the size of those in herne bay ,and therefor
enjoy more benefit,attract rentals of 20% less than .those of herne bay. This just does not
make sense
I am writing to express my deep concern and objections to the massive rent increase and
changes to the licence agreement proposed by Canterbury City Council.
In my opinion our beach huts are an asset to the town. Clearly some rent increase would be
necessary but to increase them to the amount you propose using the excuse that the charges
are based on the DVS valuations seems to be totally over the top.
I am wondering if the prices are also based on size of huts and facilities provided. The fact is
that the average size of Herne Bay beach huts is a minimal size + it is only the ground rent
we pay for .
We do not receive assistance with repairs or services. I keep the beach in good repair, the
frontage clear of rubbish and remove the dog excrement found on numerous occasions on
the beach area nearby. What does the CCC provide apart from the space to put the hut.
Charging such a large amount seems totally out of proportion to what is provided.
Insisting on us all individually paying for a public liability insurance also seems to be
excessive. Could not the Council look into paying for one that covers all the beach huts,
since they are the “landlords” of the beaches.
I was also very disappointed to hear that that the situation may have changed and now I may
35
Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
not be able to pass on my beach hut to my NOK when I pass away, as was the case in the
past. As a pensioner I was delighted to be able scrim and save to buy one of the huts in the
last few years and was looking forward to letting my daughter (a resident of Herne Bay) have
it when the time comes. I wonder if you would please clarify the case for me.
I would ask that the Council reconsiders the excessive charges proposed and introduces any
increase, preferably as small as possible, over the maximum period available.
I really feel that the Council is not considering it’s residents but is looking forward to out
pricing them in favour of letting richer “out of towners” take over our beloved beach huts.
Having received notice that the rent for our beach hut was to increase significantly (yet again)
my husband and I had a long discussion and have come to the conclusion that we, like many
others, will have little choice but to sell our hut.
I do think that the effect of these rises will be wholly detrimental to the character of the slopes
at Tankerton and the whole area because local people like us, who love our huts and are the
ones who keep them in the best order and use our beaches responsibly, will find the rises too
much to manage. The number of huts that will be on the market will mean a huge opportunity
for those out of town owners wishing to buy them cheaply and use them purely to rent out.
We have discussed the option of renting the hut out ourselves as I understand the council are
proposing to allow this option without imposing additional costs but the implications of that are
not favourable to our situation. The main obstacle being that despite paying an exorbitant
amount in order to own a hut it is most likely to be unavailable to us when we would like to use
it. Our usage over the years has varied enormously depending on our family/work
commitments and the ever changing British weather but with the spontaneous days and
evenings that we have been able to enjoy, despite our busy and variable schedule, it has
always felt like it was money well spent.
Renting means taking someone's money so requires administration, cleaning and upkeep that
we simply do not have time for. We would not be able to keep personal items at the hut which
is the main reason we can use it so spontaneously when able. The decision not to charge
additionally to allow people to rent out the huts seems add odds with the councils plans to
raise funds from them and the implication will be that more and more will be owned by out of
town 'rental entrepreneurs' not by local people enjoying their local beaches.
The recently applied extra fees for adaptations has already increased our rent in an
unreasonable manner. In our case the addition refers to the 'pulpit' area from which the steps
descend. When we replaced our hut about 6 years ago we went to a recognised local beach
hut supplier and we chose a design that we were told conformed to the size acceptable to the
council at the time; a design which had already been used by many other owners, we also
paid extra money to ensure the hut looked similar to the original hut style keeping the
windows, the veranda and a proper balustrade. Last year the council imposed a percentage
tariff on huts based on surface area which meant these previously approved designs incurred
further additional costs. Of course they did give us the option of removing the 'addition' (which
by design is structural) before imposing the charge! The injustice of this is increased as the
ugly square boxes with no original charm or attempt to preserve heritage (favoured by out of
town owners as they can be locked up like fort Knox and are harder to vandalise) do not incur
these charges, we chose the design in good faith and are extremely angry to have had this
charge imposed on huts retrospectively and not just on ones being replaced in the future.
The beach hut association have been arguing these points for quite some time and it is
exasperating that the council can still choose to increase the rents further and by such a
staggering amount! We cannot justify owning the hut if fees increase to the suggested levels,
we had envisaged generations of our family enjoying Tankerton slopes for years to come but I
36
Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
don't think we can sustain the costs. The long term implications are that the huts will start to
lose their unique qualities and become square, easy care rental boxes and more and more
will be owned by non-local people for profit.......shame.
Please accept this communication as officially registering my opposition to the proposed rent
increases for beach huts and I would ask that you take into consideration the opinions of the
local hut owners when you debate the matter in January in order to preserve the heritage of
Tankerton slopes and the quality of our local beaches.
Further to your letter dated 12 November 2013 and enclosures we would like to comment as
follows and shall be obliged if you would ensure these are noted and considered as
appropriate, at the forthcoming meetings.
1.
Draft Tenancy Agreement
i)
Referring to the draft Tenancy Agreement paragraph numbered 10.4.3 the clauses
numbers 10.3.1 and 10.3.2 referred to do not appear to relate to the context of 10.4.3 and
may need amendment.
ii)
We acknowledge notice of termination of our current beach hut agreement on 31
March 2014 and hope that the new tenancy agreement can be agreed in time before 1st April
2014. Meanwhile please note our formal appeal against the new draft Tenancy Agreement
enclosed with your letter of 12 November for reasons stated below.
iii)
Nowhere in the Draft Tenancy Agreement are the obligations of the Council recited.
The draft is very specific about what The Tenant 'must do' or 'shall do’ but there is no mention
of what the Council should do or what the Tenants can expect the Council to do in return for
their rent and their compliance with the terms of the lease. Should the Council not be obliged
to supply adequate water taps and toilets and rubbish bins, or keep the paths clear of rubbish
and weeds and in good repair, or cut the grass and make sure that it is free from flies and
insects etc. or to maintain the beach, or ensure space around each hut is maintained without
hinderance from third parties or is the Council, as landlord, not required to supply anything but
the area on which the huts stand? We request these and similar matters are considered for
inclusion in the new Tenancy Agreements. Perhaps the Tenants could reasonably withhold
rents if the Council does not fulfil it’s obligations? If so, this should be stated.
The draft Tenancy Agreement appears to be very one-sided. Please give this your
consideration.
2.
Annual Adaption Fee
i)
We consider the imposition of Adaption Fees for small platforms laid outside beach
huts is inconsiderate. These are not unsightly, nor do they cause any obstruction. They are
most often required, as in our case, as a matter of safety, because of the movement of the
beach when we step down on to the unstable pebble beach from our hut, as we are both
pensioners and one of us has had a hip replacement. However the Health & Safety aspect
also applies to everyone stepping down from the hut, especially if carrying for example a tray
of drinks. It seems unreasonable that steps or a small platform of limited size should not
be permitted without charge. If so the details should be written in to the Agreement so that all
huts would have to comply to the requirements and the steps or platforms would be the same
size and similar construction.
ii)
The proposed charge for these small platforms is excessive and should be reconsidered, rather than imposed as a standard charge per square metre resulting in a further
charge where the bigger platform the more fees are payable to the Council.
37
Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
iii)
We have been advised verbally that Council representatives have said that steps may
be attached to a hut without charge, to assist with the problems mentioned in 2 i) above. If
this is true or can now be considered and agreed, we request permission to erect steps, and
suggest that the details of permissible steps and/or platforms are written in to the new
Tenancy Agreements. Some huts do have steps already and we ask again how permission
for these is obtained, as previous requests for permission has not been forthcoming.
iv)
We are unclear why the Adaption Fees proposed are greater for Herne Bay for each
option in your table than for Whitstable. In respect of all other charges Herne Bay’s are less
than Whitstable’s and there seems to be no logic or explanation why these particular
proposed charges should be greater for Herne Bay than Whitstable. Could you please
explain this or register our objection so that the matter can be reconsidered.
iv)
We are not opposing the charge for other extensions and adaptions, especially when
these are, unsightly, cause obstruction or change the overall appearance of the huts that are
built to conform to a specification. However we request a small concession for steps or a
platform of limited size.
3.
Rental Fees - Residents - Long Term Residents
Your letter refers to legal advice obtained that led the Council to change the basis on which
rents are charged.
i)
We object to the increase of the annual fee to “a market rent”. We believe that the
assessments by the DVS are grossly over stated and we support the Herne Bay Beach Hut
Owners Association (HBBHOA) on this point which we understand they will be opposing and
pursuing with you.
ii)
We agree that the rents for similar sites at comparable locations, i.e. all huts at
Whitstable in one group and all at Herne Bay in the other, should be imposed evenly to all
tenants in each group, so no discounted rents, or other preferential terms of tenancy, should
be available for either:
a)
residents as opposed to non-residents
or
b)
long term residents (as defined) as opposed to all tenants - especially if privileges for
long term residents are retained for a group but then closed for new claimants, who would
otherwise have become eligible by age or length of tenancy.
We see no justification why non-priviedged tenants should subsidise eligible tenants, nor why
the privileges of this eligible group should be closed to new claimants. This would be divisive
in that it would create an elite group, presumably subsidised by the remainder, to which they
would never become eligible. Also as far as we are aware, (because we requested this
information in previous correspondence to the Council but received
neither acknowledgement nor reply) there are no additional facilities available to tenants who
must pay the full rent, compared to those whose rents are discounted and the discounts would
be unfair and inequitable.
We feel very strongly that our views on this point should be noted as we anticipate that the
HBBHOA will be making alternative representations and we do not think they will represent
our interests on this matter as our views do not coincide with theirs.
iii)
We object to our proposed huge 75% Rent increase which is unreasonable and
excessive. If such large increases are proved necessary to cover the Council’s increased
costs in relation to providing the spaces for the huts they should be phased in over a period
38
Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
of several, say at least 7, years. Even then it would be over 10% pa in addition to potential
annual inflationary increases. How does the Council expect people on limited income to just
double in some cases the rent payable? It is unlikely the increases relate to higher underlying
costs and therefore the Council are requiring beach hut owners to subsidise the Council’s
other financial obligations, which seems grossly unfair and should be reconsidered.
4.
Sub-letting Fee
i)
We are opposed to beach huts being sub-let for profit and therefore object to the
proposals to allow sub-letting and to charge tenants would sub-let their huts set out in Options
1a and 1b of the proposed fees and charges. We believe it would be detrimental to the
beach hut community if a number of huts were let as the hut owners and their friends and
families are mutually dependent on their neighbouring hut owners and guests for their mutual
enjoyment. There is a certain code of conduct that prevails in order to maintain this, which
would inevitably be absent if there is a constant turnover of hut occupants. This would
greatly devalue the benefits of owning a hut, for which the tenant owners already pay a
substantial fee.
ii)
If sub-letting is to be permitted then we support Option 3.
5.
Administration Fee for Sale
i)
We were wholly against the introduction of the supplementary rental fee when a hut is
sold and we therefore agree with this charge being abandoned.
ii)
We object to the amount of the proposed Administration Fee on sale of £463 as this
seems too large simply for the administration costs involved in a change, especially if there is
a fee also payable by the new tenant/owner. It appears that there is a considerable profit
element incorporated in the Administration Fee, unless it can be justified for the related
administration costs.
iii)
We object to the concept that an Administration Fee on Sale should be charged when
a hut is transferred to a close family member, say a spouse/partner or adult child. If the
Administration Fee is justified to cover the true costs of any administrative work involved then
we would accept it as a reasonable charge, but to charge a Fee which has a huge element of
profit built in is very unfair, especially as there would probably be no other money changing
hands except for a profit related Fee to the Council.
Recent paperwork is silent on this matter, so would you please either confirm that this
proposal has been dropped, or include the details of the proposed charge in your draft
Tenancy Agreement for consideration and to give Tenants opportunity to comment or object.
We look forward to hearing from you.
I have just received a letter from Mr Haddock outlining the new adaptation fees for beach
huts. We are stunned. We have been charged an annual fee of £350 for a platform that was
installed by an owner several generations ago and which is not used by us. (It is actually
mostly used by tourists visiting the beach).
I can't understand how this can be imposed without warning or consultation.
I would question its legality.
I am not going to pay until the legal position is demonstrated unequivocably. If You feel that
strongly about the platform you can come and take it down.
you may recall that i wrote to you previously re the consultation on beach hut leases / rates,
39
Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
expressing my dismay at the proposal for additional charges levied on huts with steps rising
across the front of the hut from what the council has deemed an "extension" to the classical
design. prior to replacing our hut some 5 years ago we consulted the hut manufacturers and
were led to believe that this style of hut was a variant acceptable to the council and compliant
with regulations. my submission to the consultation at that point proved fruitless, and having
replaced our hut in good faith with a standard unmodified unit from the main supplier we have
faced a significant increase in fees this year as a result.
i now learn that we potentially face a further, this time massive increase in annual fees potentially to a fee in the region of £1000 - a rise in the order of 500% since we purchased our
hut some 10 years ago. if these changes are introduced, the council must accept
responsibility for destroying the tankerton beach hut community, which is it so keen to show
off as a major tourist attraction and lure of outsiders to the area.
normal local families simply cannot afford this level of fees, which in association with
insurance and annual maintenance will push the annual cost of keeping a hut to a figure in
excess of £1500. like us, many (i suspect most) of the beach hut owners would be faced with
two options - either sell, or convert the hut into a rental business. if we sell, the only buyers
will be wealthy londoners (who may visit for a week in summer and maybe once or twice more
during the year, creating a deserted area of unused and decaying huts). if we all move
towards leasing the huts, the environment on the slopes will also change completely. we will
lose the sense of community - short term sub-letters will lack the sense of beach hut etiquette,
we will see an increase in antisocial behaviour and vandalism, and the personality hut owners
give their huts will be replaced by the commercialism of rows of bland soulless huts like the
council-owned ones near the whitstable swimming pool. your proposed actions will threaten a
very special unique community that we have enjoyed immensely for 10 years, and it will be
very sad.
i implore you to reconsider your proposal to escalate the annual charges to such an extreme
level. i also implore you to implement a very large differential between the charges for those
who retain their huts for personal use, and those that are sublet on a commercial basis.
indeed i believe that the difference should reflect the differences for conventional buildings
between residential and business rates for council tax - it is absurd that we should be taxed
on business rates for a beach hut if retained for personal use and never generates any
income - indeed a hut which already costs us a considerable sum to maintain in excellent
condition as a credit to its community.
whilst we could not afford your proposed outrageous annual charges, we could make a tidy
profit selling our hut. but we would be so very sad to be forced into this action. i am
absolutely sure that all of the other genuine beach hutters feel exactly the same. i beg the
council to please refrain from destroying this wonderful local community
We are indebted to the Tankerton Bay Beach Hut Owners'Association for drawing our
attention to your proposals.
We are most unhappy about the proposed massive increase in rent/annual fees.
We support the beach hut associations in their efforts to ensure a fair outcome for all beach
hut owners.
Thank you in advance for reading our letter and we trust you will consider our comments
favourably.
When we decided to buy a beach hut to enjoy in our retirement, we never expected this much
hassle!
When we received your (Canterbury City Council’s) letter dated 12 Nov 2013 and enclosures I
40
Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
only read part of it. I have to thank the Tankerton Bay Beach Hut Association for drawing our
attention to the full contents of your letter and enclosures. The beach hut association have
provided us with a clear summary of your proposals.
Re: Rent/ Annual fee
We are unhappy about the proposed increase in rent, the annual fee. In our case as nonresidents this appears to mean an increase from £546 to at least £663, an increase of over
20% or as much as £812, an increase of almost 50% to permit subletting.
However we do not intend to sub-let our hut and do not know anyone who does intend to do
so.
We do not entirely understand your figures and reasoning. Your letter says “DVS…
apportioned an increase in value of 20% of the base market rent if subletting were to be
permitted.” However in our case you seem to have applied a 20% increase without allowing
subletting?
We are pensioners on a limited income. An annual increase in line with inflation say 2% would
be acceptable to us.
As an aside: You do not state what “comparable information” has been used by DVS. If one
compares the 10x10ft space with a one room studio flat, which is available for use 24hours
and has all services laid on, then the market rent for a beach hut which cannot be slept in
overnight and has no mains services and is only used occasionally seems over-valued. It
seems a lot to pay for grass cutting by the council and the use of a water tap some distance
away. We considered we were paying for the view and location when we bought our hut from
the previous owner and we seem to be paying the council again for the same thing.
Re: Tenancy agreement and Public Liability Insurance
The proposed tenancy agreement is more complicated than our existing agreement. We rely
on the advice of the Beach Hut Association’s more knowledgable legal members to help us to
understand the implications of such documents. Generally we prefer the existing agreement.
We support the Beach Hut Association in all their efforts.
We have insured our beach hut with TL Risk Solutions and Public Liability Insurance of £5m is
included. We pay a considerable additional sum of approximately £200pa for the peace of
mind of having insurance, in addition to the council rent. Over 15 years this would be sufficient
to pay for a new hut to be built so perhaps we would be wiser not to insure?! Therefore we are
not convinced that it is fair to insist on compulsory insurance in the tenancy agreement.
In conclusion, we are most unhappy about the proposed re-valuation and massive rent/annual
fee increases. We support the Beach Hut Association in all that they say on these matters.
We trust you will take our comments into account when deciding on these matters.
With regards to the proposed new charges for Beach Huts in Herne Bay and Whitstable.We
would like to bring the following points to your attention.
The Beach Hut Association were told in their discussions with the Council that the Long Term
Discount would be closed to new claiments but existing claiments would continue to receive
the benefit.
We now see that this arrangement has been disregarded in the new charges as set out in
your recent letter.
41
Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
As most Council facilities including the Marlow Theatre {making a massive loss}still offer
concessions to Pensioners .It would seem unfair that the Council now deny this concession to
Beach Hut owners.
To many Hut owners especially parents with young families their Beach Hut is the only break
they enjoy that is affordable during the summer time.
With the new charges and the compulsory insurance this pleasure may not now be affordable
for them.
Have the Council considered that most Beach Huts are only used for a few weeks in the
Summer months.
With the proposed charges this would make each visit most expensive
We would like to have seen the calculations used to arrive at the proposed rents that justify
these huge increases.
As Council Tax payers we appreciate that the Council must do their best to raise revenue for
all their residents but please look again at the charges that we feel are exorbitant.
From very unhappy Beach Hut 340 owners.
I was bitterly disappointed to receive your letter of 12/11/2013.
The percentage increase is astonishing, given how little we receive in return for privilege of
renting little more than a couple of square metres of otherwise unproductive dirt. It should not
be forgotten that our beach huts lend a unique attractiveness to the beach together with a not
insignificant level of security.
In our district, the Council do not own, sell or maintain the Beach Huts that we purchase
privately and erect under Licence. All the public facilities used by us as hut owners, such as
toilets, waste bins, and water, are available to the general public, and are not dependent on
the proximity of our Beach Huts
The Council, gets free beach clean-ups, good natured policing and security, plus a variety of
advertising and photo' opportunities - which they have not been slow to exploit.
It is interesting to note your letter states that you have been advised that there cannot be
different charges for residents and non-residents, however, it should be remembered that
residents pay for the services mentioned above in their Council Taxes - whereas nonresidents do not contribute in this way. Reneging on the deal of a long-term discount for
owners of retirement age and in possession of a hut for at least fifteen years, is just plain
mean.
New Tenancy Agreement
Canterbury Council is very keen on maintaining the few traditions of the area. Our beach huts
are one very visible, some would say beautiful, aspect of our locale. There is no need to
change the traditions of our current agreement which has worked well for decades.
Subletting
If the question of subletting has created the need for the current agreement to be changed, it
is an unnecessary move, as the majority of Beach Hut Owners would not wish to engage in
the speculative practice of subletting.
Proposed Beach Hut Fees and Charges / Market Rent
The proposed increases in fees are excessive and do not account for historic factors.
42
Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
No one hut is the same as another - all are unique.
All the sites on each beach differ (some have easier access to facilities, have less likelihood of
being hit by cyclists or suffering danger from discarded fishing hooks and dog mess).
Historically people have accepted the same zoned annual fee increases when reasonably
charged. The Council should recognise how the privately owned huts have created an
attraction to the coastline and reward stewardship with reasonable fees, rather than pricing
people out of ownership.
Given the historic factors and the Council's certain knowledge that the huts are in no way
homogeneous - it is impossible to understand the way a "Market Rate" has been set. We can
only hope that the Council has not adventured into large and unnecessary costs. Setting fees
by this kind of market cannot be equitable in the circumstances and the matter should be
abandoned.
Thank you for your letter dated 12th November 2013 detailing Canterbury City Council’s
proposal for Beach Hut Tenancy Agreement and Fees for 2014/15. As a beach hut tenant, I
would like the following comments to be considered by the Overview Committee and
Executive Committee.
Rent Levels
I am pleased to see the distinction between Resident and Non Resident charges have been
dropped.
Sub Letting Fee
I never intend to sub-let my hut and so do not feel the proposal to charge for subletting are
relevant to me.
Annual Adaption Fee (Para.1.1.1 of Tenancy Agreement)
On the basis there was no fore-warning of this proposal by the Council, I feel that this fee
should only be chargeable for adaptions made after the inspection audit carried out last year.
Therefore, the inspection audit should act as the baseline.
Administration Fee on A Sale
I feel that the proposed £463 fee on the sale of a hut should not be levying where the hut is
transferred to “closes relatives” as defined in para. 1.1.3 of the Tenancy Agreement.
Beach Hut Fees
My preferred option would be Option 2b) in the schedule provided. However, I have
reservations about the Herne Bay hut valuation of £475 which does appear too high and
makes the increase in charges well above inflation. I would be grateful if the Council could
confirm how the huts were originally valuated and why the need to change it ? I am also
disappointed to hear the local Beach Hut Association do not appear to have been consulted
prior
As I have stated before in correspondence to you. With the current economic climate, the
Council risks slowly pricing the Hutters out of their Huts – the colourful huts are a symbol of
Herne Bay and you risk the likelihood of people no longer wishing to maintain them and in the
long-term derelict, abandoned huts or large gaps between them where hut have had to be
taken away and not replace.
Please be sensible in your deliberations
I am concerned by the lack of information in your letter about the legal advice received by the
council. It is attributed to an un-named barrister without indicating if they are a QC with
specialist knowledge of this area of the law, nor does it refer to any legislation. Given the
controversial nature of the proposals on concessions to residents and long term owners, there
43
Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
should at least be a summary published which references the relevant clauses of legislation
and any relevant test cases. The impression is given of something to hide. I am further
concerned that there is no mention of this advice or the consultation in the published agenda
for the overview committee in two days time.
The draft lease agreement seems to be reasonable as it stands; I have only a few
observations:
1.1.4 Natwest do not define “base lending rate”, only “base rate”.
Section 8 - It would be reasonable for the council to undertake that foreshore patrols will use
their best endeavours to inform owners as soon as possible of any damage to huts that they
see.
10.4.2 The restrictions on “for sale” signs seem unnecessarily onerous. I propose a maximum
of two signs each not exceeding A3 on different faces of the hut.
10.4.3 The reference to 10.3.1 and 10.3.2 should read 10.4.1 and 10.4.2. (Was this
document not checked properly?)
Turning to proposed fees,
I am strongly of the view that if permitted, subletting should ONLY be offered as an option in
exchange for additional site rent.
I am also strongly of the view that increases should be introduced over as long a period as
possible, which would at least give those local owners who cannot afford the increases time to
sell their huts.
Therefore I favour options 2b and 3 as the only viable option.
As regards the proposed fees, the valuation by DVS appears to be heavily biased upwards on
examining the evidence contained in the valuation report. This perhaps not surprising as the
valuer was acting for the council, but the report is manifestly not independent, as it is claimed
to be.
Evidence in the report suggests that the current full Tankerton site rent of £546 is quite high
(cf. Worthing £460; “normal south-east range £300 to £650). This is then inflated by the
valuer by comparison with the notoriously expensive locations of Bournemouth and Poole,
and rents at Whitstable Harbour where there have been difficulties in letting all the huts.
Furthermore, sale prices at Tankerton are compared fictitiously with a “hut” at Seasalter,
which was not a hut at all, but a chalet providing a degree of accommodation.
In addition, the valuer ascribes a higher value on the basis that Tankerton is an easy day trip
from London (as are Worthing and Hastings), but ignores the fact that parking anywhere near
the sea front in the summer months is extraordinarily difficult.
A single valuation is in any case, hardly objective. Time should have been allowed for the hut
associations to also obtain a professional valuation.
We would strongly agree with OPTION 3 We would not wish to pay the additional cost for
those who wish to profit from their huts. Saddened that the local reduction for residents has
gone as locals are able to actively maintain our hut on a regular basis and to contribute to the
community, rather than the infrequent hut visitors. Large increase in fees we feel a bit high,
but we don't have any other choice unless we sell which we do not wish to do.
With reference to the proposed draft agreement and very high rent increases for beach hut
owners. As beach hut owners with 25 years standing we feel the agreement we had with the
council is adequate and see no reason to change this. With regard to your proposed rent
44
Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
increases that work out at nearly double the present rate, how can that be justified in times of
AUSTERITY a percentage of beach hut owners are retired and on a fixed income. We feel as
long term hut owners, and looking forward to a reduction in our rent in 2015, have now had
this taken away from us. We have already suffered an increase for adaptions and boats on
the beach and wonder what benefits we will in incur
Thank you for your letter of 12 Nov 13 about the Beach Hut Tenancy agreement and fees.
We are strongly in favour of allowing tenants to be able to sub-let for short periods. Whilst the
increase in fees for residents is substantial, it does seem more equitable than the extortionate
current fee for a sale. On the other hand, we recognise that not all tenant holders will want
the option to sublet, and therefore would vote for Option 3 with Option 1b Giving all tenants
the flexibility, whilst phasing the increases over 2 years. Many thanks and with kind regards.
There is a typo in the Draft Beach Hut Tenancy Agreement. Clause 10.4.3 should refer to
clauses 10.4.1 and 10.4.2.
Hut fees should rise, to the proposed c.£1500 pa but the initial rise should be phased over
three years, >> say 800. 1200, 1500, >> the cost of transfer should be at a level that covers
costs of admin only, as locals already pay for general council services and making profits on
admin should not be a Council objective, and then the hut lease owners should not be allowed
to sub-let.
I personally don't feel people living at non CT postcodes should be allowed to own a
Whitstable/Tankerton/Herne Bay hut. I think these should be made available to local
residents only, as it is people from outside of the county that have increased demand, pushed
prices up, and are preventing local families to be able to acquire one. The Council must be
aware that front row Tankerton huts are changing hands well in excess of £30k with local
estate agents. I wish that the council owned and managed all the huts still, I think it is a
shame Londoners are capitalising on such a resource
1. I agree with the increase in Beach hut rents as the Local Authority should not subsidise
them. 2. I believe that the market rent should be charged immediately as even with the
increase it is not much per annum. The beach huts are not easy to obtain as many people
hang onto them for years and may rarely use them. 3. I do not think that owners should be
allowed to sub-let although no doubt many already do without the consent of the Local
Authority.
1 The proposed rents, though significantly higher than in previous years, sound about right 2
(a) I think the new rates should be phased in over 2 years (b) you do not indicate when DVS
will undertake its next review. I think this should be done each year particularly since the
change in market rate this year could well reduce market rates in future years I will write
separately about subletting. 3 On subletting, I think it must be very difficult to control this. I
suspect that in many cases the huts are regarded as family assets that are used by different
members of a family over the hut using season. For that reason I think that the Council should
assume that everyone sublets and should therefore inflate all rents. This will then encourage
greater use of the beach huts and coincidentally help to maintain a high market demand for
them, that would reflect on rents in future years!
The proposals look fair and reasonable to me. The general ratepayer should not have to
subsidise the hut owners. The Council look to have taken all reasonable steps to provide a
balanced view in my opinion.
I agree that huts shout be charged at a market rent. I think it should be phased in over two
years. I do not think they should be available to sublet.
I think it is acceptable to charge a reasonable market valuation for use of the huts. I am
however inclined to the opinion that Canterbury residents, should receive a slightly reduced
preferential rate, much like one does with the resident card. The rates proposed are just about
acceptable, given the current financial hardship that many in the County have experienced
over the past three years. To impose a higher tariff may prevent the less well-off, from
enjoying the benefits that a hut by the sea-side can offer. Equally, given the current financial
45
Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
situation, I believe it would be seen to be prudent to implement the proposed charges over
successive years.
Could you please clarify the nature of the benefits that beach hut owners will receive from the
proposed change? I am unclear whether the exercise is designed to raise funds for the
Council or provide a service to beach hut owners? Could this aspect please be introduced into
the discus Also, what is the current profile of the beach hut owners in terms of residency and
age? 1. What do you think of the proposed Beach hut rents for 2014/15? - too high 2. Do you
think he market rent should be introduced fully in 2014/15 or phased over two years? - 2 years
3. What are your views on allowing beach hut owners to sub-let their beach hut? - No
1 What do you think of the proposed Beach hut rents for 2014/15? The proposals look
reasonable 2. Do you think he market rent should be introduced fully in 2014/15 or phased
over two years?
Should be phased over two years 3. What are your views on allowing
beach hut owners to sub-let their beach hut?
Subletting should be allowed -the majority
of the population of Whitstable cannot afford to own a hut
They are a much underused
asset and subletting would increase usage.
1. What do you think of the proposed Beach hut rents for 2014/15? Frankly I think if you are
seriously thinking of such a huge increase, you have no understanding whatsoever of the
wishes and feelings of the ordinary voters who own the huts. Unbelievable. 2. Do you think
the market rent should be introduced fully in 2014/15 or phased over two years? Neither phase it in over a very much longer period, perhaps 10 years, if you must. 3. What are your
views on allowing beach hut owners to sub-let their beach hut? They should not be allowed to
sub-let. Subletting will encourage people to buy the huts and make money out of them, which
will push up purchase prices.
I think the rise in beach hut ground rent is too sudden and far too steep, I think that subletting
should not be allowed or paid for separately. I think the current local reduction is right
because people are already paying high council tax to Canterbury and much of the beach hut
charge duplicates what they have already paid for. I think any rise should be slowly
introduced over ten years because many people who have inherited beach huts or have them
with their family cannot afford such a sudden rise in costs, the rises would double the price of
the beach hut for me and each visit to my beach hut would cost about £20 which makes it
uneconomic and unattractive to others
I agree with the charges as indicated, and feel the LA should at least break even. Increasing
charges might increase usage which would be good.
Resident I think the new beach hut rents are reasonable, but the rise is steep. I think the new
charges should be phased in over two years. I do not think tenants should be allowed to sublet their huts. If they do not want to use or pay the higher rent for their hut they may sell it,
particularly as the charges for selling are to be reduced.
Increase a bit over the top should not be so high, increase over two years, owners should not
be able to sublet huts.
I neither own or know someone who owns a beach hut but they are an essential feature of our
coastline, giving it character and bringing it to life. These little huts face a constant threat of rot
from the salty air and damage. The owners face these challenges with little real support from
the Council or broader community. Yet the appearance of these huts affects the quality of the
beach front environment; important both for local people and for the attraction of visitors and
their economic benefit into the area. When wage increases are lower than the RPI I find it
immoral and short-sighted legal advice or not that the council is considering above RPI
increases in these rents
The new suggested rents are fair. To ease the increased charges they should be phased in
over 2years. Subletting should not be allowed
1. What do you think of the proposed Beach hut rents for 2014/15? Seems like a lot of
money, but then I do not own a hut so not affecting me. 2. Do you think he market rent should
46
Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
be introduced fully in 2014/15 or phased over two years? Yes 3. What are your views on
allowing beach hut owners to sub-let their beach hut? I think they should be allowed to sublet, but there needs to be formal agreements and the owner is liable for payment.
I have never owned a beach hut, nor is it likely that I will, so my comments must be viewed in
that context. 1. The proposed rents probably still represent good value for money, taking into
consideration the locations. 2. I think that the increase is so large that it should be phased in
over the maximum time allowed. 3. Allowing sub-letting sounds like opening a Pandora's Box
of new problems and is probably best not done. I have no specific reason for writing this, but
anything involving the potential for financial gain will attract speculation and sharp practice.
I think it's fair to charge the market rate to all hut owners, but spread over two years.
Subletting should also be allowed.
I think that the increase should be applied over 2 years and the sub-letting cost should not be
applied across the board, only to those who do sub-let.
I don't see any problem with allowing sub-letting, as most huts are very underused. It's
probably fairer to spread the increase over two years.
As a resident of Tankerton I support each of the measures proposed. Often in the summer
one sees perhaps only one in six of the Beach Huts being used; allowing sub-letting (albeit at
a premium) should encourage higher usage.
I think the increase in rent should be made as easy as possible. It obviously can no longer be
subsidized so the rent will have to rise in line with the market value. It should be phased in
over 2 years and subletting should be allowed to help out if necessary.
Charging £581 rent for a few square metres on a beach which neither picturesque or pristine
is robbery, the majority of hut owners appear to be OAPs and will struggle to pay this, which
will mean less huts and therefore less income. We're the people who recently purchased huts
from CCC warned of this massive increase? How many hours does it take to administer a
sale? Because it appears to be 50/60 if one looks at the cost
1. Any significant increases should be phased in, perhaps over 2 years. 2. Leases should
prohibit sub-letting. The huts are intended for family use, not as the basis for a business. The
council could consider retaining a few huts for short-term lets to holiday makers. 3. Although
favourable rents may be prohibited, I think that it would be reasonable to give local residents
higher priority if demand exceeds supply.
1/ I agree to the Beach Hut rental rates being increased, but by over 70% seems over the
top! 2/ Phasing any increase over two years would soften the blow for owners. 3/ I have no
objection to beach hut owners subletting. I have noted, over the 14 years that I have lived
locally, that the occupation rate for the beach huts at Tankerton, over a summer weekend, is
no more than 2%. Therefore I was staggered to see that recently the City Council has erected
at least three more beach huts at the eastern end of Tankerton Bay! I can’t help wondering,
since the occupation rate is so low, why you don't get some of the unused beach huts taken
down rather than add to them? Vandalism is a constant problem so why add further targets?
A response to these points would be appreciated. MM
1. What do you think of the proposed Beach hut rents for 2014/15? No comment 2. Do you
think the market rent should be introduced fully in 2014/15 or phased over two years?
Phased in over two years 3. What are your views on allowing beach hut owners to sub-let
their beach hut? Paying higher rent they should be allowed to sub-let if they wish without
paying any more./
I think the fee and rent increases are fair, there is no reason why the vast majority of local
taxpayers who do not own beach huts should subsidise those that do. A fair market price
should be charged.
1) A 76% increase in rent sounds illegal to me. How much are the council increasing rents on
homes, allotments, garages? 2) I think any large increase in rent should be phased in over
47
Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
two years. This is a big increase for people to find. 3) I do not think beach hut owners should
sub-let their huts to strangers as this could lead to problems with people sub-letting but not
caring about the hut or the surrounding area as it is nothing to do with them. People tend to
treat their own property and friends and relatives property with care. And are also mindful of
the neighbours. This is not always so with strangers. The councillors used to work for the
good of the community for FREE. Nowadays the councillors expect far too much in the way of
monetary compensation for the work they do.
I agree with the Beach Hut rent increases. I suggest you agree to take rental by direct debit
monthly to spread the cost and, perhaps, promise not to have a further increase for, say, five
years.
1. As these are based on DVS advice the proposed figures should be accepted without further
debate 2. Unless increasing the fees in one hit will result in vacant beach huts I see no reason
for a phased introduction which could increase admin. costs 3.Subletting should be allowed
provided the council requires the landlord to provide details of premium and rentals charged to
tenants - this information will enable the council to assess if the 20% extra rent is reasonable
or whether this needs to be increased in future. If the council is being commercial I find it hard
to believe that a "slice of the action" clause to take a profit share on any beach hut sales
cannot be included in leases. I'm sure the VOA would confirm that the value lies with the site
being rented rather than the hut.
Dear Sir I think that the new fees for the beach hut licences are far too much. You will price
local people out of the market. The huts only add to the atmosphere of the seaside that the
visitors enjoy if they are used. Non-locals tend to use theirs rarely as you can see any
weekend on the prom. We do not accept your reasoning that you are obliged to make this
excessive increase. Your explanation is insufficient. Of the undesirable options I prefer
Option 1b.
I would like to support Option 3 phased in over two years
I understand that the council has a duty to raise money wherever possible, but these
proposals seem unreasonable. It would be nice to know what the legal advice actually said;
for example, were you advised that is it illegal to charge different amounts to residents and
non-residents, and what was the substance of that advice? Why can you charge a smaller fee
in future when beach huts are sold, but not the amount hereto? The proposed increases are
clearly dramatic and unwelcome, and many less well-off locals will lose a wholesome amenity.
I cannot see why any increases could not be gradual over a much longer period to alleviate
the upheaval this will cause to many.
AS I understand it these people who own beach huts have already paid for the use of them by
paying an annual rent and no doubt other taxes associated with the huts. As we all know for
most people now they have all got extra things to pay i.e. gas .electric etc and all they want
is to have somewhere they can relax for an hour or so, is it right to enforce extra payments on
these huts when there will no doubt be many who say they can’t afford the extra and therefore
will sell which could possibly leave the council with empty huts on their hands and no payment
coming from them
I don’t believe subletting should be allowed and that beach huts should be for the enjoyment
of local residents, this combined with the huge increases proposed would go for option 2b
given in the draft proposal.
1) I feel those charges are too high 2) market Rent is wrong, don't introduce. 3) It’s their hut to
use as desired, as long as it’s only a short period. (A few weeks)
I believe beach hut owners should pay a decent amount in rent after all they have a beach
side advantage over other beach users, the area around their huts is maintained by the
council. Householders pay rates according to the size of their property so beach hut owners
should pay as well. If they sublet then they are running a business so should be taxed
accordingly then it is their choice sublet and pay or keep it for personal use only. The new
48
Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
costs should start immediately.
Huge increase in rents for present tenants is totally unacceptable. This is a quiet beach, out of
the way, suitable for families young & old. The people that have the huts are friendly and
helpful, many of them of older age, it'd be a shame to lose them if they cannot afford the rent
increases.
Beach hut rents should be at a reasonable market rent (what’s reasonable?) and rent phased
in over 2 or 3 years for existing tenants. New tenants will know what signing up to. The
selling of the huts should be stopped altogether, as people are making a lot on the reselling.
Canterbury district resident should always have first option on beach huts and no sub-letting.
1. In times of austerity, when core services are under threat and spending is being cut, I do
not see how CCC can possibly justify subsidising the leisure choice of a small number of
private (and lucky) individuals. The Council is right to recognise that it has a responsibility to
achieve best value for its assets. I know this will be unpalatable for hut owners who have
enjoyed below-market rents for years, but when grants to people like Age Concern - who do
essential work - are being cut, there is no justification for giving subsidies to the few so that
they can enjoy a discretionary leisure purchase. I think CCC is right to take the legal advice;
put the use of its beach asset on a commercial footing; and raise the rent as the District
Valuer advises. 2. The rent should be introduced for 2014/15, otherwise all Council Tax
payers are subsidising the beach hut owners. Frankly, I would rather my money went on
essential services or on investing in the district's future rather than finding that I am being
obliged to contribute to the private leisure enjoyment of the hut owners. If people really want
private use of a public asset (the beach) that would otherwise be available for us all to use,
then they need to pay the market rate so that they are not being funded from the public purse.
I'm not sure how the Council could justify doing otherwise given the principle that CCC often
expresses of making the user pay. We keep being told that car users need to pay for parking
and that other service users need to pay for the service that they use. The same rule should
apply to hut owners - they need to pay for the asset and service that they are using. The fact
is that, according to the District Valuer, they have been underpaying - this is not a good
reason to allow them to continue underpaying. 3. There is no justification for subletting. This
would allow private individuals to run a public asset as a business for their private gain. The
Council has no business in allowing private individuals to make a profit out of a public asset.
1. In these times of austerity I think that the council must endeavour to maximize its income
flow from all sources. In view of the counsels opinion regarding market rents I cannot see any
justification for not raising the rents to the recommended level on the due date particularly as
the County Council has already signalled its intention to raise the general rate next year. 2. I
note the comments regarding "Sub-Letting" of huts. I believe that it would be a benefit to the
tenants for all the tenancy agreements to be changed to allow sub-letting providing some
control could be exercised to prevent nuisance. 3. As rents will now be on a commercial basis,
any and all costs incurred by the council as a result of a tenancy change should be passed on
directly to the parties involved.
1. What do you think of the proposed Beach hut rents for 2014/15? Answer. The rises are
substantial but if this is the true market rent then it is difficult to argue against. The law states
that discount cannot be given to local residents but is there any way that surcharges could be
made for non-local people? Local people already pay rates for street cleaning, refuse
disposal, toilet facilities, etc. This could be reflected in surcharges. 2. Do you think he market
rent should be introduced fully in 2014/15 or phased over two years? Answer. Because of the
large increases, I think that a gradual increase would be justified. 3. What are your views on
allowing beach hut owners to sub-let their beach hut? Answer. Local people usually require a
beach hut for their own family use but may have occasions when they cannot use the
facilities. I believe that with the increase in rent (plus the 20% surcharge) SHORT TERM
subletting would be reasonable and if only for limited occasions I think the 20% increase might
be waived. If non local people are making their huts a FULLY COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISE
then I think that the 20% increase is probably insufficient. 20% of £650 is £130 and compared
49
Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
to the average weekly hut rental that could and would be charged is very small. I am against
commercial sub-letting without some return to the local community. We must guard against
local people being priced out of the possibility of renting a hut. There ought to be some
advantage for local people who are already paying highly for living in the area.
Subletting: We strongly disagree with the Councils suggestion to charge such a substantial
fee for subletting. One wonders exactly what the Council would need to do to earn anything
where subletting occurs!?. We do not and would not wish to sublet although doing so would to
a great extent rectify the commonly raised issue where beach huts are not available to locals
but even so the suggested charge is unqualified and far too high. Where the Council imposes
such a charge we object to this being compulsory and as such would at least wish for the
Option 3 to be implemented. Different fees to residents and non-residents: Some years ago
the Council agreed that this practise was not correct and they stated that they would adjust
charges to bring both in line. At that time the Council in fact increased both resident and nonresidents charges and to date they have never been brought in line. It seems that yet again
the Council are using 'change' to make even more money from us beach hut owners which is
infuriating! Why doesn't the Council appreciate that keeping a beach hut in acceptable
condition is both costly and time consuming. The beach huts are an attraction when they are
maintained appropriately and as such enhance the local area. There seems to be little
recognition from the Council of this, rather they seem to feel that it is fitting to penalising
beach hut owners at every opportunity!
I agree 100% with all your proposals
I do not have a beach hut myself but my cousin does and I normally enjoy an afternoon with
him and his family at his beach hut once a year. I have to say that £650 seems particularly
expensive, pro-rata, for the amount of time that hut owners can make of use of their huts. It is
also unfair to charge more for Whitstable than Herne Bay, given it is the same council area so
clearly appears to have nothing to do with cost but more what the Council believes it can eke
out of a particular asset. From what I know of how much my cousin and his family use their
beach hut it would seem the season is quite short, 4 months in total if they are lucky weather
wise, ie mid- May to mid-September. If owners are working, as many are, they are limited to
weekends. Add to this the tides and the vagaries of the weather and not many visits are
possible each year and so each visit becomes as said above, pro-rata, very expensive.
Surely there is a danger that if the council raises the rents too high that tenants, and more
likely local people, will give them up and they will fall into disrepair and the beach will become
much like it was in the 70s and 80s ie run down and unappealing. To answer the points you
mention: 1. I think the proposed rents for 2014/2015 are punitive and, 2. So any move to
increase the rents and phase them in is not justified. I do feel though that hut owners should
be given some future security/assurance by fixing rents for say a five year period. 3. If rents
are increased and the Council uses "market forces" as it guiding principle on how it raises
revenue then it should afford hut owners the same ethos of allowing them the freedom on how
they raise the money for their rents eg the opportunity to sub-let. Many thanks
I am neither a beach hut owner nor do I reside at the seaside, I am however a frequent visitor.
My first reaction was to decline to comment because of the aforegoing in terms of residence
and ownership. However as the decision sought has implications if not directly for all Council
Tax owners, I have decided to respond. I believe that the Council should act to implement full
commercial rates from 2014, however given that I suspect that many beach hut owners are
retired and on a fixed income I do not consider it unreasonable to phase the increase over a
two year period. I have no objections to owners being able to sub-let however they must
accept all legal responsibilities of their actions and to who they sub-let by doing so. They
should be required to pay a fee for being all owed to sub-let.
I'm of the firm view that subletting charges should not be imposed across the board. I have no
intention or desire to sublet my beach hut and would consider it grossly unfair to pay an
annual surcharge to support other beach hut owners who do wish to sublet. That surcharge
would not result in any benefit to me whatsoever, and would come on top of existing very high
50
Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
annual fees.
I think it would be unfair to charge every beach hut owner for the right to sublet, when not
every beach owner wishes to sublet. I have no intention of subletting my beach hut, so see
reason why I should subsidise those who do wish to sublet.
I am submitting this on behalf of my Mother. The Beach hut has been in the family for over 60
years. As a Pensioner, the fees that you are proposing to charge are extortionate and will be
unaffordable on her pension. Do you propose to have discounts for pensioners or will she be
forced to sell? Why is there such marked difference in the prices between Herne Bay and
Tankerton? Will there be an ability to pay by direct debit to spread the costs? Why are the
charges so high? And how can you justify such a huge increase in rates?
Proposals are grossly unfair. What market rate is being used to double our rent when inflation
is at 2%? Locals are being forced out, money grabbing council milks cash cow of hut owners
again. We will never sublet, you are attacking council tax payers of modest means to fund
Canterbury based projects like the Beaney. We encourage tourism by maintaining huts. We
get no more services than other beach users, yet you want to charge even more. Where are
our local councillors? Only want to talk to us at election time, shame on you. We want
accountability, explain your figures. Consultation is meaningless. We have never received a
reply to our request for site meeting over retrospective charge for adaptation which was part
of 1999 construction, no guidelines from CCC ever given. You change the rules without any
justification. Shame on Canterbury city council. You don't represent local people.
I am not a hut owner, neither do I have any vested interest in beach huts, but I do have strong
views about the presence of, and value to the local community of, beach huts. They are
perceived by many as one of the most endearing features of our sea-side towns, and have
historically been a symbol of the coastal scene. The current proposals are a threat to the
essential "localism" of the beach-hut. Many owners have had their hut in family ownership for
generations and through good and bad years have helped keep our seafronts alive. Many of
them are now elderly or retired, and although they share the pleasures with their family,
regard the huts as 'theirs'. The proposed escalation of charges tends to show that the
lawyers/accountants advising the council know the cost of everything and the value of
nothing! What will happen is, that in no time at all, locals will be priced out of the market,
better-off outsiders will acquire ownership, and in the blink of an eye the community strengths
of the 'beach-hut owners' will be lost for ever. The money we are talking about raising is,
collectively, not substantial. The damage it may cause is irreparable. I cannot support the
proposed rises. I do not feel the prerogative has been taken from the Council. It is within their
'brief' to decide what is best for its community and I strongly recommend that any rises be
modest, necessary, and in keeping with other 'cost of living' changes'. It is a bad move. Avoid
it!
There should be some huts available to rent short term to local people who are not rich DFLs
& despite working in the area all their lives cannot afford to buy a hut. Increase is excessive
and should be spread over 2 years. It should be no problem to temporary sublet & get
maximum use from huts, whenever I walk the prom always less than half the huts in use even
in the best of weather.
1 The proposed beach hut rents for 2014/2015 does not seem to be fair or reasonable. I have
noted what DVS have advised but they have not been very clear and what must be
considered from the outset and this is what is the cost for operating the beach huts. If the
Council are to charge hut owners a commercial rate that is not reduced for local residents,
then we should be informed of the operational costs, overheads and profit the council would
be applying. 2 The market rents should be phased over a 2 year period subject to the council
providing the information requested in question 1. I am not convinced DVS have given
consideration of the basic operational costs of the council when they are proposing in excess
of 85% increase for rents. 3 Beach Hut owners should be allowed to sub-let and do not see
why the council should profit a further 20% of the market rent when they are considering
charging the DVS proposed rates. This proposal is not acceptable and the council should re-
51
Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
consider how they proceed. It looks like the council want to apply another tax on the people
who enjoy Whitstable/Herne Bay & Tankerton and fill the council coffers with excessive price
rises.
We have a "private sector" hut at West Beach, Whitstable.Thinking primarily of Tankerton
sites (I am unfamiliar with the position in Herne Bay), hut owners have for many years had a
remarkably beneficial deal from every point of view. Annual CCC site rents have been a small
fraction of the nearest comparable private sector huts on the beach east of the Harbour.
Previous proposals to move towards some kind of parity have been shelved. It is unclear
why. Sub-letting (obviously a good guide as to "market value rent") has meant that 3 weeks
letting can recover the entire 52 week annual fee paid to CCC by the licensee. The current
system means that only those who can spare £25,000 get a hut site. As a new huts cost less
than £4,000, this suggests the site value is £21,000. However this value has accrued entirely
to the hut owner, not CCC/local taxpayers, whose annual return is a very modest £368 or
1.73% of value. A very significant increase in annual rents will go some way towards
addressing this imbalance. It has the merit of being a simple proposal and avoids much of the
legal debate which seems to have bedevilled discussions in the past. As to your 3 specific
questions: 1. The proposed £650 rent at Tankerton is at the low (lowest?) end of "market
value" and still far less than the nearest comparable private sector huts. 2. The new charges
should be brought in straightaway, not spread over 2 years. Services are being cut now - why
should hut owners get beneficial treatment, having already done so well for so long? 3.
Whilst sub-letting is difficult to monitor without adequate staffing, the returns (see above) are
such that it will happen even if prohibited in the licence. It is therefore sensible to increase the
standard charge for those who wish to sub-let. However, a 20% increase (£130 at Tankerton)
would not cover 1 week's sub-letting and a higher increase is appropriate. Naturally, those in
breach of their licence terms should have their agreement terminated promptly.
Although I appreciate that changes need to be made to the tenancy agreement and annual
fees in order to come into line with the law and market rent, I am concerned about the issue of
subletting and also the huge jump in annual fees. I would strongly support making subletting a
choice to be made by each individual beach hut owner and for this choice to be reflected in
the different fees charged. I for one have no intention of subletting my hut and I'm sure that
many others feel the same way, so it seems unethical to remove or impose that choice
(especially when previously it wasn't even an option) and penalise us financially for the
choices of others. I would therefore support Option 3. As for the fee increases, for practical
reasons I would definitely support Option 2b, to implement the increase over two years. I am
not a member of the Beach Hut Owners Association so I felt it important to make my
comments directly. Thank you for your time and consideration I n this matter.
I fully support the Council charging full market rates for beach hut use. If any beach hut owner
is paying full market rates then, in all fairness, every owner should be paying the full market
rates. This means no discounts of any kind, whether based on long use, residency or other
criteria. The move to full market rates should be made, in full, at the first opportunity - which
appears to be 1st April 2014. In the current austere economic climate, neither the Council nor
the residents can afford the luxury of continuing to subsidise the beach hut owners by
delaying the introduction of full market rates. I am completely against the sub-letting of beach
huts being permitted. Beach huts are about private pleasure on a public beach, NOT about
creating business opportunities.
Dear Sir We are writing to protest against the proposed outrageous increases in ground
rents. In the 4 options offered relating to our beach hut Tankerton East, and excluding the
retrospective adaptation fee, the increases range between 41% and 116% for 2014/15 and
87% to 120% for 2015/16. Plainly, you are offering no increase in service to justify these
extraordinary rises in ground rent. The explanation that you offer is completely obscure.
Apparently, advice from HMRC is that differential fees can no longer be allowed for nonresidents and pensioners, like ourselves. Why ever not? No doubt you will 'blame' the
European Union, but it should be argued that this is a decision that is reasonable to devolve to
the local level. There are sound social reasons for the differentiation so we urge the Council to
52
Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
have the courage to make this a local decision. The proposed increases for pensioners on
fixed incomes are completely unacceptable. The increases range from 256% to 363%.
Regarding the proposed retrospective adaptation fee, we added a ramp to our beach hut in
1998 to accommodate a disabled member of the family, which has long been agreed by the
Council. Sadly he has since died. It is completely unfair at this point to impose a 47%
increase in rent for this ramp. We are copying these views to our Beach Hut Association.
Please send us a link to the legal advice you received.
Beach hut owners provide a valuable service to the community. During summer they provide
a benign influence, keeping youngsters occupied, supervised, and deter antisocial behaviour
and vandalism. In fact doing the work the police choose not to do, a financial saving of police
costs.
Beach hut owners are not property speculators; they have them for pleasure not profit and
keep them many years. The sale value of the few beach huts which do change hands and
which has attracted the attention of the council, is paper wealth only until a hut is sold. It is not
wealth to be plundered by the council. Most owners are parents and grandparents struggling
to meet everyday living costs.
At a court case I attended, the judge made the point that a charge should be fair and
reasonable and commensurate with the work involved. How much work does the council do to
justify its charge?
Alan Radford asked this question and just got a laugh and was told the internal legal
department is expensive. This response is sickening. If that is true then sack them and find
cheaper lawyers. We are frequently told that many barristers have great difficulty in scraping a
living. Employ them instead. It is not a sustainable argument to say a survey of other councils
show the proposed charges are comparable. They too are using this to hide behind.
The demand for insurance of £5 million is ridiculous. What risk does a tiny static hut pose to
anyone? What evidence of injury or damage does the council have to support this
requirement?
I am in receipt of several letters sent by you regarding my Beach Hut and the new contracts,
received April/May, October and November this year.
I replied on 7 May to say that our decking was essential for my husband as he is severely
handicapped with Parkinson’s disease. Also we had the matter a few years ago of water
seeping out of the hill for which – after more than a year of me phoning about it – you
eventually admitted liability. Work was put in hand but we had been unable to use our Beach
Hut for the past year. I presume you have copies of my many letters pertaining to this incident
– copies of which were sent variably to Steve Haddock, Jeff Austin and yourself. You will note
in one, dated 12 July 2010, I mention that you yourselves extended the decking to cover the
line of your drain. We then added the steps to cover the remaining earth which was very
mucky so that Peter (and ourselves for that matter) were able to access the Beach Hut safely.
We then had a letter dated 11 August 2011 saying the Beach Huts had been inspected and
our decking had been noted. I phoned you yourself on 31 August 2011 saying we had never
applied for permission – didn’t realise we had to and apologising. You said, in view of all the
circumstances ignore the letter and forget about it – as no action would be taken.
I trust you word will be honoured. For all the inconvenience, stress and inability to use our hut
for over a year we did receive a £50 reduction on our fees – a rather miserable amount.
I am enclosing the Hut Adapt form duly completed together with a copy of my husbands Blue
Badge and look forward to hearing from you in due course.
53
Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
We have already email our thoughts on the proposed beach hut charges but felt we should
put it in writing as well.
Appalled is the word that describes our feelings on this matter. There can be no justification
for such an increase, £475 for an 8’ x 6’ plot of beach.
We have worked hard all our lives and the one luxury we have is our beach hut. We don’t
take holidays, our holiday is our beach hut. Now the council is going to price them out of
reach of ordinary people like ourselves. We won’t be able to afford the proposed new rents.
We don’t want to sublet. It is for our family use only. We also feel that local residents should
get a discount.
We say a big NO!!! to this increase.
I feel outrage, and despair, in equal measure, at the scale of the heavy handedness, and Bare
Faced Robbery, that this council is prepared to impose on the Beach Hut Owners of Herne
Bay. I can understand why the council has been advised to remove the huge charge that it
has been demanding when a Hut is sold. What I cannot understand is. Who would advise that
the discount that long term old age pensioners enjoy now, should be withdrawn, or is deemed
to be illegal? Such a huge percentage in costs cannot be anything short of Daylight Robbery.
That you the Council, would hide behind the coat tails of a Barrister. Just to justify, these
inflation busting demands. Shame on you, for spending Rate payer's money, for your own
greedy agenda.
Regarding, the market rent for a Herne Bay beach hut. Which must be based, surely, on the
market Value of the hut, and, it's footprint on the beach. If this is so, the Herne Bay Beach Hut
Rates should equate, to half the rate of a Whitstable Hut. [Or is Herne Bay subsidising
Whitstable?]
I am a 76 year old pensioner and my wife is 74yrs old .We have owned and enjoyed our hut
these last 22 years. In that time we have invested in a new hut, which we anticipated enjoying
for t he rest of our lives. But it seems to me that the Council see us as their cash machine. In
the se hard financial times the cost of a holiday away is something that we cannot now afford.
So the last thing we need, is to be forced to give up our Beach Hut.
Please do not do this to us!!!
Despite the above address I must be the most distant tenant of a Herne Bay beach hut, ours
is number 65 West Beach. I wish my letter to be read out at the meeting of the Overview
Committee as I will be unable to attend personally re the increase in rents for the beach huts.
I have been visiting Herne Bay for well over 50 years. Our beach hut if our pride and joy and
a traditional feature of the town. I work really hard to be able to stay in Herne Bay, keep my
hut and enjoy the coast. The huts are of immeasurable value to the fabric of the town, so
surely the people who have ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? and I really do feel the council is becoming
greedy. The people who have beach huts cherish them and DON’T HAVE THEM FOR
PROFIT.
Please keep any proposed increase to the minimum and be fair to us.
I refer to your letter dated 12 November 2013 regarding the above. I am writing back to you
with my views - but I must observe and complain that this ‘consultation’ you are offering us
requires beach hut owners' comments by early December, giving us barely three weeks, four
at most, to respond on an extremely important matter which Canterbury City Council have
themselves been considering for several years! Preparing a response is also made more
difficult because, as I understand it, little information has apparently been shared with the
54
Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
Beach Hut Owners Association up to now and they are therefore limited in the advice they can
provide to us.
I have to say that I find the City Council's proposals - based, it appears, on a single opinion
provided by an external nameless barrister without quoting any definitive source or applicable
legislation – quite scandalous and unacceptable. Custom and practice regarding beach hut
ownership and charges in Herne Bay - built up over many, many years - now seems to count
for absolutely nothing in the eyes of both Councillors and Council officials. During recent years
they have given the very firm impression that they consider beach hut owners to be privileged
well-off people who are a captive audience and therefore a soft touch who must just accept
imposed changes to tenancy agreements and who can afford increase after increase in
charges well above the levels of inflation - but who should not complain about the Council's
own failures to keep t he beach and foreshore clean, safe and tidy or to provide decent toilets,
running water and other facilities.
Similarly, the schedule of fees and charges enclosed with your letter, apparently based on
advice given to the Council by DVS (again no actual details are quoted) is horrifying,
deplorable, confusing where the new valuation by DVS is mentioned and therefore somewhat
difficult to follow. I am sure that the majority of beach hut owners, many of whom are elderly
and receive a long term discount, will find it very difficult – if not impossible in some instances
- to pay the proposed new charges which, in most cases, seem to be two or three times what
they pay at present - or even more. The long term discount should remain and still be
available to new qualifying claimant s for the foreseeable future. I suspect t hat some beach
hut owners will even be forced to consider selling their huts because they cannot afford t he
proposed new charges – but who will then buy them?
I am therefore opposed to the extent of the increased charges that the Council is suggesting
but, should they ever regrettably be approved, t hen I would personally choose Option 2b (not
to allow subletting) in order to try to reduce the massive scale of the additional rental fee you
are now wanting to impose .
After all, our own beach hut rent al sum has increased by 74%in t he almost 12 years we have
had it - and I would hate for the present figure to rise to anything like the £581 quoted in just
the next year! This would amount to a more than 200% increase over 12 years. My pension
has only increased by a miniscule amount during this time - very, very much less than the
percentage increases in beach hut rental charges.
I would like to know how much in total the Council expects to receive from these exorbitant
additional charges and exactly what they intend to spend all this extra income on - bearing in
mind that they currently do very little for us in return for the huge sums they get at present
from beach hut owners.
It is also interesting to note that the proposed Tenancy Agreement has vastly grown in size
from just a page or two, twelve years or more ago, to eight pages now - with most of its new
content reading as rather dictatorial and skewed very much in favour of and for the benefit of
the Council. Considering how little the Council actually does for beach hut owners it is difficult
to see how some of these revised and enhanced conditions can really be justified or
defended.
When the Council put up the beach hut charges ten years ago in 2003, I found it extremely
difficult to understand why the increase recommended by the Council's Executive - more than
16.5%- was so massively in excess of the rate of inflation. So, in February 2003 I asked for a
written explanation and an assurance that the additional revenue that this would bring the
Council would be used towards the provision of an improved level of foreshore amenities and
ensure that the many shortcomings that beach hut owners were experiencing at that time at
Hampton, where our beach hut is located, would be properly addressed.
55
Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
After some chasing of Council officers, I eventually received a reply from Nick Karslake in
April 2003 stating that t he Council's budgets were becoming increasingly tight and that they
had little choice but to increase fees, identify new income streams or cut services. This
explanation did not actually justify the huge increases t hat were imposed on beach hut
owners but I was told that it was not possible to ring-fence beach hut budgets - effectively
meaning, therefore, that the substantial amount of additional income from beach hut owners
would probably not be used to improve foreshore amenities at all!
I was informed, however, that a new contract for environmental services had just commenced
and that we should all see a noticeable improvement, particularly in terms of cleanliness, new
litter bins, dog fouling enforcement and increased prohibitive signage. Unfortunately, some ten
years later, these so-called improvements have had little impact - but in the meantime the
Council has many times more increased the fees that beach hut owners have to pay!
When we first acquired our beach hut at Hampton some 12 years ago, I was told by Council
officers that the charges that the Council levies, as well as covering ground rent for the site,
are also for the provision of foreshore amenities. Examples that were given to me included the
provision of fresh running water, toilets, showers, rubbish collection, regular beach inspection
and cleaning, and the maintenance and upkeep of car parking - all items that I felt I was
already being charged for as a local council taxpayer!
In the general vicinity of our own beach hut, I have seen little evidence of these services being
provided during the past few years - let alone any significant improvement to them. Rubbish
bins continue to overflow at times and in the summer the beach can often be seen littered with
cans, bottles, dog mess and plastic bags. The only people that seem to do periodic beach
cleans are individual beach hut owners and organised groups of members of the Beach Hut
Owners' Association.
Just today, for example, the area of beach near and behind our hut is strewn with pieces of
concrete, a couple of old breeze blocks, some broken glass, bits of polystyrene board, plastic
bags, dead bits of plants, cans, a plastic bottle, crisp wrappers and a length of blue rope - and
much of it has been there for a very long time. It took several complaints, a few years ago, to
get five old car tyres removed from this area. The overflow from the Rowing Club, immediately
behind our hut, continues to drip - as it has done for years despite several requests to fix it
made to the Club itself and to the Council. I still consider this to be a health hazard because, if
t he water pools on a discarded plastic bag, it can attract dogs or vermin such as rats.
Numerous dogs continue to run free daily on the beach, off the lead, while their owners either
sit in their vehicles in Hampton car park or, if they are on the beach with their dog, they ignore
the excrement they leave behind. The car park itself, although relatively clean today, has
sometimes been covered with pebbles from the beach and the amount of car park now taken
over by the Sea cadet centre activities has grown considerably with five boats now kept there.
There has occasionally been no running water at this end of the beach and, worst of all,
although vastly improved for the Duke of York's visit, the toilets adjacent to the car park are
locked up far too early in the evening - both summer and winter!
There is still not much evidence of the Council or its agents providing comprehensive and
regular services along the beach for beach hut owners and other beach users - eg regular
inspections, security patrols, removal of rubbish, enforcement of dog fouling and no cycling
regulations along Spa Esplanade or the provision of adequate legible prohibitive notices
regarding dogs and no cycling. Our beach hut has been badly vandalised and broken into with no sign of any action by the police or foreshore staff. I am disabled by multiple sclerosis
and have been knocked over by a large dog running free on the beach and received abuse
from it s owner when I dared to complain t o her. I have also narrowly missed being knocked
over several times by groups of cyclists travelling silently and really quickly along Spa
56
Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
Esplanade behind me where bicycles are supposed to be prohibited.
So, despite doing little during t his time to significantly and noticeably improve foreshore
services, the Council's rental charge, including VAT, has gone up over the past eleven years
from £158.63 in 2002 to £276 in 2013 - an overall increase of 73 .99%. If the proposed new
charge increases to £485 next year, or £495 over two years (assuming no subletting is
permitted) then these figures will represent an overall increase, in just twelve or thirteen years,
of either 205 .74% or 212 .05%! The sing le year increase from 2013 to 2014 will be either
75.72% or 79 .35%. I know that local authorities are currently facing great financial pressures
but how can the Canterbury City Council possibly justify imposing such massive and
scandalous out of the blue increases on beach hut owners in Herne Bay?
It is with great sadness and disbelief that I read the council documents relating to proposed
rental and tenancy agreements for beach hut owners.
I have been brought up on Tankerton Beach and always owned a hut. My ninety one year old
mother still enjoys it and my children who are now adult see it as their second home. They
were never bored teenagers as there was always this family outing to the hut with the sea to
swim in and water sports. Our fellow hut owners provided a community where we could enjoy
ourselves knowing the off spring were happy and safe as we all looked after one another.
This treasured provision will become a thing of the past as hut prices have become
astronomically high and the proposed rent increases will ensure that ownership will be too
difficult for many of us. They will be an elite provision for high earners, empty most of the time
and owned by non residents. It is questionable that prices of Tankerton Bay should be the
same as that of Whitstable which has become popularised by the media. The Council should
be seeking to bring life back to the beach and further good community spirit to Tankerton
rather than make it more inaccessible to locals.
As a widow forced to take early retirement it is doubtful that I can continue to afford such
drastic increases in fees. Compulsory insurance and maintenance and it is hard to budget for
such increases. I urge the Council to think again as the beach is a great leisure resource and
is central to the heart of our community not to be destroyed.
I am 64 years old and my family have had a beach hut since before my birth .We have always
paid promptly and I was very surprised by the dictatorial and threatening nature of the letter
you sent me - eg threatening to remove the hut and contents if I do not pay what you ask,
when you stipulate, even though I might not agree with the terms and conditions. I believe that
after all these years I should have some negotiating right s, especially when I am dealing with
a body going under the name of ‘democratic services’.
On the issue of public liability, please would you let me know how many claims have been
lodged to you relating to beach huts over the last 50 years? The only accidents I have heard
about are the occasional unplanned pregnancy, but I believe that blame lies more with the sea
air than the beach hut.
When you, the council, create a hazard you just put up a warning notice ‘DANGER SLIPPERY
ROCKS’ comes to mind. I did a risk assessment while sitting on the cold, damp front of a hut
and decided a clear notice – ‘DANGER: RISK OF HAEMORRHOIDS’ should just about cover
it.
If public liability insurance is necessary, the council could effectively make arrangements and
pass the cost on to us at a fraction of the cost of us each taking out separate policies, and the
matter of contents and hut could be left to the individual.
With regards to commercial rates: how on earth did you arrive at this price! A square metre of
barren stones, sometimes surrounded with used condoms, syringes and dog faeces can't be
valued higher than a square metre of fertile soil such as that found on allotments. The
57
Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
allotment holders must be concerned that you will turn on them next.
I feel, however, that negotiating with you on price will not be fruitful as we are too far apart.
We pay too much already and I would be talking in the one hundreds and you in the five
hundreds. There is no common ground. The settlement that you reach with the association
will probably be in the three or for hundreds but as our total household annual income is less
than £9000 even this might not be possible for me.
The commercial value of a hut is around £9000, around twenty years' rent at new prices. If I
hand that value to you in exchange for fifteen years of free use you can then sell at the end of
that period and everybody is happy. I will have the use of the hut to my dotage and you will
achieve your aim of a good deal for the council tax taxpayer and the eventual socio-economic
cleansing of that part of the beach.
Yours in anticipation of a positive reply.
We were shocked to receive your letter with reference to the alterations regarding our Beach
Hut on the West Cliff, Herne Bay.
For your information we have been owners of a Beach Hut for over 45 years. The suggested
proposals are not favourable, they are in fact exorbitant especially for the many senior citizens
who own huts.
We object to the following issues:
1.
Long term discount - this should definitely be kept as at present
2.
Sub-letting. We do not agree with the sub-letting of Beach Huts
3.
We think local Beach Hut owners should pay a lower rent than non-residents.
We await further information from you.
My comments on your recent proposals are as follows.
First off, I take it the powers to be, do actually realise that huts are seasonal? Enjoyment &
use of huts are for a very limited time only; this makes the proposed costs even more
ludicrous.
1.
Subletting, I have been a beach hut owner for over 30 years now, and personally I
have never met anyone who sublets their beach hut, all other owners I have met over the
years have all been of the same vein... family and friends enjoying the peace and tranquillity
of the beach, so to be honest I don't really see the point of all your so called options at all, as
your proposed fees would put pay to any subletting anyway.
2.
Long Term Discounts, I absolutely 100% object to the horrendous percentage increase
you are trying to incur on long term hutters, we have had huts for over 30 years now and the
costs have just kept going up and up, one of the main reasons we are still able to afford our
hut now is purely because of the discount we now enjoy. How can it be even legal to enforce
an increase of over 250%, if it is true as you are insisting that you are legally no longer able to
offer this discount, surely the fairest and most decent thing to do, would be to stop further
concessions, and allow people who already hold this concession to carry on with the
discount??
To the best of my knowledge this is exactly what the government does when introducing big
changes, and to me 250% is certainly a big change.
58
Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
3.
Assignment. I do not agree do we now have to have council agreement before
changing ownership; does this mean that we now have to wait for the council to check out a
prospective buyer before re assignment? Talk about making just everything so complicated,
beach huts changing hands was once a very easy simply process before the council
intervened.
4.
In all I absolutely disagree with the proposed increases and changes, in my view the
council is all to well aware that this will be just to much for most hutters pockets, In my opinion
it looks as though the council are just trying to take full control of the huts for themselves
As a foot note I would be quite interested to know just how much money the council in their
wisdom have spent to date with all their discussions and barristers, legal fees, valuations etc,
Canterbury Council appear to be hell bent on getting their own way with the beach huts at all
costs, and in doing so are being completely unscrupulous in continually not listening to the
views of the local owners.
Your letter of 12 November refers. We do appreciate that we have been consulted on the
Council's proposals. Set out below are our views on the specific issues raised by the Council
but firstly we would like to make two general comments.
Timing of the Consultation
It is unfair and unreasonable that the Council has given us such a short period to submit our
comments on the new and complex proposals (December again). This does not allow
sufficient time to consult with other beach hut users either in the locality or in other areas.
Terms of Proposed new Tenancy Agreement for Beach Hut Owners
We are very distressed by the Council's new proposals as it will cause us great financial
difficulty and hardship if we are to pay the proposed rents and maintain our beach hut on our
pension.
We have owned our hut for over 25 years - we bought it, not as investment, but so we could
enjoy being at the beach and delight in all the various activities around us, in our retirement.
Having a beach hut is not a luxury - it enables us to continue swimming, enjoy walks, socialise
and keep fit. We can keep warm after swimming and change in private - it is difficult and
awkward for the elderly to change on the beach especially a pebbly one.
Our family and friends enjoy spending time with us at Tankerton and our grandchildren will
miss the fun of the seaside. If the Council proceeds to introduce market rents then beach huts
will only be affordable to the rich or those in work thus prejudicing local retired residents on
limited income.
Should Sub-letting be allowed?
We are against any proposal to allow the sub-letting of beach huts. It would not help us offset
the higher rents since we would be taxed on income generated from sub-letting. Should subletting be allowed an enterprising company may purchase huts for commercial lettings and
take over the area.
Council's Proposal to move to a Market Rent Charge
We note the Council has sought legal advice from a barrister. It is inevitable that any advice
gained will be to the benefit of the Council and not to beach hut owners. The Council could
retain the long term discount in line with other discounts pertaining to Council tax offered to
59
Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
qualifying residents.
Proposed Fees and Charges
The proposed level of Fees and Charges are so high that it is unlikely that many of the current
owners, including ourselves, will be able to keep our beach huts.
The proposed increase to £600 - £800 will result in us having to reduce our heating and limit
our food budget. What will this be in 5 years time?
The proposed charge is so high that inevitably less money will be spent on the upkeep of the
beach huts which is continuous due to the effect of weather conditions on wooden structures.
There are no services available during the winter months and therefore hut owners have
restricted use of their huts. Allowing for our English weather etc, it means that our visits to our
beach huts are around £27 - £65 per visit.
The Council, if it decides to adopt their new proposals, proves it is working against the local
community by making such seaside facilities unaffordable for local and retired people. There
are no costs borne by the Council which justify these rates. It must be viewed, therefore, as a
‘money making’ scheme to generate income for the excesses of the Council.
At the moment we do spend money and time in Tankerton and Whitstable using local
businesses, taking visitors and purchasing various goods on a regular basis, this will stop. I
hope you have consulted with both these specific areas outside of beach hut ownership as
they will also suffer. We also believe, in keeping with a number of changes Government
brings about, that the long term negatives are not understood and the Council will find it will
have worse problems in the future.
We do not in any way support what you are doing, and if we lose our beach hut after all the
effort and money we have put into keeping it nice and the summers lost by the seaside, we
will never forgive Canterbury Council.
We are writing to you about the proposed increases in beach hut rents we strongly disagree
with the way and what the Council are proposing and we would like to put our views.
Firstly you intend increasing the rent by 72% over the next two years meaning that at the
present time we are charged for 7.1 square meters £38.46 per sq m = £276 - rent you
propose to increase this to £66.00 per sq m = £475 per ann. This is for a hut/shed that costs
£1500/£2000 new.
Secondly we would like to compare this rent with other rents that the council charge for
renting out their own land. If you want to rent a half plot allotment which is 125 sq m and erect
a shed to house your tools and have secured locked gates to the allotments it will cost a
princely sum of £33 rent per year 26 pence per sq m or have 250 sq m for £67 per year
Another comparison would be that a hut that might be sold for £8000 is being asked to pay
£475 rent when we do not have any of the services that a House in D band have they pay
£1439 Council Tax. Could be worth £200,000 but the council would like to charge us a third of
what it costs a D band house. We have used this comparison because of the services we
have been told that the Foreshore provide us with?
Finally your charges are for beach huts that are on a public beach have no security the public
have access and the charges are not comparable with other rents and charges the Council
impose on other tenancy agreements.
As a Beach Hut owner, I would like to protest at the doubling of the rent for the site on which
we put our own huts!
60
Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
A 100% rise is to my mind immoral, we are being compared to huts much larger than our own
and situated on a South facing coast which has extended period of use.
The weather is a big factor as to whether £500 is cost effective, have you ever sat on a beach
with a North wind blowing?
Young families and retired people rely on their huts as a holiday option. Most of us are on
fixed incomes, we are not ‘Fat Cats’ that can conjure an extra £250 out of thin air.
The Beach hut Owners look after their huts, make them look attractive and are an asset to the
Town.
I note that Service Media was included in the evaluation, as I see it we receive no extras other
than those available to all visitors to the beach, see Note 1.1.6 in the proposed Tenancy
agreement.
You are pricing existing hut owners out of having a hut on the beach, and I think many will be
forced to leave.
I do agree that charging everyone the same rent is fairer, but I feel that the council want to get
as much money from hut owners as they can while giving nothing in return other than to be
able to rent a small patch of beach.
I refer to your letter dated 12 November 2013 regarding the proposed beach hut tenancy
agreement and fees for 2014/15 and, as a beach hut owner for the past eleven years, wish to
comment as follows:
Fees for 2014/15
• Most of the beach huts in West Beach are family owned and have been in the same
ownership for a number of years
• Herne Bay is not as affluent as neighbouring Whitstable who have a significant influx of
visitors from London. And
• Likewise Canterbury, which as well as being an important city, now have the new Marlowe
Theatre and improved Beaney Institute to attract visitors
• The beach is one of the best parts of living in Herne Bay. As beach hut owners we maintain
a presence on the beach offering advice to visitors passing by who no longer have a tourist
information centre in the town to use to access useful information or a museum from
September to April. So why should we pay the extortionate fees you are proposing from the
appointed DVS, by doubling our current fees over the next two years. This, in our opinion is
totally unjustified. Will you be charging visitors who sit on the beach for using your land?
We appreciate that charges do need to be reviewed, but we suggest a more realistic
increase be considered
• Did the barrister you approach regarding these fees visit Herne Bay at all and see the huts
for their selves? This is only one person's advice and it would be good business practise to
seek a second opinion
If you wish to increase your income from Herne Bay, we have a couple of suggestions.
• Firstly, why not charge the jet skis and motor boats that launch off the jetty as Thanet
District Council and others do? This is one of the reasons we get so many in Herne Bay
because it is free. You could easily have a barrier installed that could only be opened by
61
Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
people issued with pass who have paid their annual launch fees. This summer they were
particularly noisy from the beach and while we hear arguments that they bring in much
needed revenue, there is little evidence to support this assertion.
• Secondly, this summer you erected six beach huts which you sold. Perhaps you could
erect further huts to rent out for six months to visitors. Minnis Bay is an example having a
thriving beach hut rental business as most are booked by up to two years in advance. The
cost involved wouldn't be that great for the income you'd receive over the years.
Tenancy Agreement
I look forward to seeing the final version of this document including the outcome of the
Executive Committee's decisions. With regard to clause 2 - Agreement to Let we have no
wish to sub-let our hut but fully understand that some other hut owners may wish too, so
surely a two tier charging structure would be appropriate?
With regard to Clause 11, I assume the Council will be issuing the Tenant with a tenancy
agreement annually.
I look forward to my comments being noted and presented to the Overview Committee on
5 December 2013 and to the Executive on 12 December 2013. Also that the views of the
Beach Hut Association representatives will be greatly considered at the planned meetings on
20 November 2013 and 4 December 2013, and that a satisfactory outcome will be reached.
I have studied the above with great interest, and have three comments I would like to voice.
Firstly: As far as I am concerned there is only one option 2(a).
Secondly: I personally bought my Beach Hut for personal and family use, and not as a
business or to gain financially.
Thirdly: As 88% of my Council Tax Bill is for Kent County Council, I have been anti paying in
excess of £15 0 extra to your "residents" for 5 years, now it seems, illegally! (Please see copy
of my email dated 8/1/2009 and reply from Peter Vickery-Jones enclosed).
Lastly: In reading the document 'Tenancy of a Beach Hut site ' I am most interested in paras
6.4/5 and 8.4 - I am appalled when I walk to Whitstable along the sea front to see the state of
several Beach Huts that shame the area. They are in such a dreadful condition, that owners
cannot possibly visit, which makes me wonder if they even pay their annual fees.
Yet another letter arrives from Canterbury City Council regarding our beach hut, which we
open nervously. Each one previously has outlined proposals to increase fees in one way or
another, but this one goes beyond our worst fears. Last time, it was regarding the introduction
of 'adaptation' fees, changing the rules retrospectively, when there were no guidelines from
Canterbury City Council when our hut was built in 1999. And, of course, this is all on your
terms; all the power lies with you. We asked for a site meeting to put our case and examine
our circumstances but, no surprise, there was no response from you.
Now to your latest proposals. You really don't want local people of modest means, such as
ourselves, to have beach huts, do you? We can only assume you want the wealthy to have
them, probably wealthy Londoners. We never wanted to make any money from our hut (unlike
Canterbury City Council) and have no intention of subletting. Our plan was just to continue
enjoying our hut and the beach, along with our family. Our children were fortunate enough to
have enjoyed the hut, but it seems most unlikely that any grandchildren we may have will be
so lucky.
As hut owners, we undertake a vast amount of unpaid work in maintaining the huts to the
benefit of the community and in providing free publicity to Canterbury City Council, which you
freely use in all your advertising, yet at every turn you seek to take yet more money from us,
62
Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
with absolutely nothing in return, apart from a water standpipe and a spasmodic grass trim. As
for your intention to charge a 'market rent', which market are you referring to? Poole in
Dorset?
The fees you are proposing to charge are extortionate, for what is no more than a shed. As a
couple approaching retirement, there is no way we could afford these fees from a modest
pension. So Canterbury City Council will have won another battle in the war of attrition against
hut owners. We will be forced to sell our hut to moneyed incomers, and Canterbury City
Council will grab the increased rent, probably to spend on yet another ill-advised project for
the benefit of Canterbury. As we said before, we never wanted to make any money from our
hut, and we are appalled that Canterbury City Council seems more interested in making
money from the beach huts, rather than providing a facility to local residents and council tax
payers. Canterbury City Council should be ashamed.
Thank you for your correspondence of 12 November setting out the different options for 2014
and 2015. I note the soft touch in your opening paragraph but cannot understand where you
get your market values from. It would be nice to know. Is it possible to talk to the people
responsible? DVS who work on behalf of HM Customs and Revenue sounds very grand and I
will be in contact with them soon.
Have you had any alternative market assessments done on behalf of the tenants using the
huts? Your market values do seem to be rather high, no, very high.
When I purchased my hut some eight years ago I was happy with the agreement with
Canterbury Council and was pleased with the cutting and general care of the area around the
huts. This has gradually got worse and worse with very little and poor cutting over the last few
years. Certainly not worth the £368 received by the council from each hut.
Your section tit led IMPORTANT sends horrors through my veins. I have to either sell my hut
and pay you for the privilege or agree to an agreement on an annual term at a greatly inflated
rate. This in my opinion is council power gone mad.
Terms of agreement:
1.1.5 The council could charge any rent they like!!
1.16
Have any huts got electricity or gas?
4.1.1 I am on a small pension being over 65 years. A 10 month agreement would be better
for those on low income. Not at the rates you wish to implement.
6.4
All the beach huts at Whitstable are in excellent condition and owners are proud of
their purchases.
7
I agree with this if the adaption is permanent and not just in place when t he tenant is
using the hut. A table and chair outside the hut could take up just as much room. Is
this an adaptation?
The tenants have made their huts as secure as possible but what is the council going
to do about the security of their site on the slopes. There are no council patrols.
I would like the beach hut owners to be able to ensure that the ground works around
the huts is inspected each month.
8
8.4
10.7
A copy of this would be of benefit to tenants. (obligations and byelaws).
13
I have spoken to freeholders in the town and it is the Freeholder and not the tenant
who has the responsibility of paying the insurances but not contents. Why is the
63
Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
council passing this onto the tenant?
14
Forfeiture. This is rather harsh in times of hardship.
Just how much has this document cost the council? Just a load of lawyers jargon. What was
wrong with the last agreement?
This is just another way of stinging the innocent tenant who only wishes to get pleasure from
his/her beach hut.
OPTIONS:
What real options are there? All options are as bad as each other over the years stated.
How can you even think of increasing rents by 110%?
This means that with insurance, repairs and rents the hut is costing over £1000 a year.
Pensioners who live in Whitstable should not have to put up with this high level of charges.
You are driving us out and using your fees as a 'cash cow' for the council.
Please do not ignore my comments.
In these times of hardship for most people, particularly pensioners, I cannot believe that it is
your intention to increase our rent by 327% and whatever your advice or reasoning is, this
cannot in any way be called fair and reasonable.
We have paid for and maintained our beach hut for many years and never have we been
treated in such a high handed and disgraceful manner.
The situation is unacceptable and I would ask that the matter is addressed in a more
reasonable and understanding manner.
1.
In response to your letter of the 12 November I set out below my comments on its
proposals for new beach hut tenancy agreements, whether sub-letting should be
allowed and what future beach hut fees and charges might be. I should be grateful if
the following representations could be placed before both the Overview Committee
and the Executive Committee at their respective meetings on the 5 December and the
12 December.
Tenancy Agreement and sub-letting
2.
The tenancy agreement should prohibit sub-letting. The purpose of huts is for the
owner's enjoyment. They should not be used as a profit-making commercial business.
Annual fees
3.
As a resident entitled to the Long Term Discount I would face a considerable and
disproportionate increase in the annual fee whichever of the proposed options is
adopted.
4.
I should be grateful if you would let me have a copy of the Barrister's legal advice.
Why was no second opinion sought? Has the Council been acting illegally in the past?
If the advice is accepted in regard to the residential discount would this not have a
bearing on the Canterbury Resident's Card which gives discounts on charges for
certain facilities/services provided by the council ie free entry to museums for holders
64
Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
of resident's cards?
5.
I propose that if the long term discount is withdrawn it should be replaced by a
discount for elderly licence holder - eg those aged 65 plus.
6.
I understand that the fees now proposed stemmed from a ‘bench marking’ exercise.
Surely the Council cannot be bound by its outcome. Each beach hut locality is unique.
Comparisons are of little value but what would help in assessing a ‘reasonable’ basic
rent would be to know how much it costs the Council to allow huts to be placed on the
beach. All that hut owners gets is authority to place a hut on a very small area of
pebbles. No security is provided by the Council specifically for beach huts. There are
showers and toilets in the vicinity - but these would have to be provided even if there
were no beach huts. Of course, there is the administrative costs of running the scheme
but that must be covered by existing fees. So what extra will hut owners be getting for
their increased payments or is it just a case of income from the huts being used to
boost other Council funds?
We own beach Hut 25 on Marine Crescent in Tankerton. We are writing to express our
disappointment and objection to the proposed changes that Canterbury Council wish.
to make to our rental agreement.
The beach Huts are an integral part of the tourism industry in Whitstable, Beach hut owners
bring significant income to the town and have played an important role in the regeneration of
Whitstable. Beach hut owners have improved the appearance and the attractiveness of the
huts which I think we agree has contributed significantly to the popularity of the town.
Whitstable is famous now for these huts.
As hut owners we feel that we should be in partnership with the local council to maintain and
preserve the character of these huts and to indirectly help to attract continued investment in
the town.
We are more than happy to pay local taxes to support services and the upkeep and
protection of the area but feel these must be for and realistic base on the relative size Of the
structures and the services provided.
Recent proposals from the council are totally unacceptable.
Rents are now approaching the cost of local council tax for property- the cheapest band for
housing is £956.52 -yet we have do not have access to the same services. In Marine
Parade we have one public rubbish bin, one cold water tap between April - September
between all the beach huts. We do not even have a shower as the beach huts on Tankerton
slopes have. Effectively we only have basic services for half of the year yet are paying the
equivalent of Council Tax for a small house. These are not homes, 10 ft square sheds that
we are not allowed to stay over night in. Yet we have had a 300% increase in our rent since
we bought the hut.
We have received a bill for adaptations (A deck) that is consistent with every other beach hut
on marine parade. These were established long before we bought the hut. When we
bought the hut we understood the deck was part of the main structure of the hut. At no point
during the buying process 9 years ago were we informed that this deck was not part of the
beach hut.
We are unclear what all this money is for. If the beach huts weren't there the council would
still have to cut the grass on the slopes, still have to have rubbish bins, still have to have a
foreshore vice. These services are not provided for the benefit of the beach huts.
65
Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
These costs are becoming untenable and seem to have no basis in reality. It seems that the
council needs to raise money and is using the beach huts a source of revenue.
This seems very short sighted. The beach huts are so important to the local economy and
bring a lot of wealth into the area. The local authority has a great local resource in the beach
hut owners and needs to work with them, not exploit them.
We hope there will be a simple and sensible resolution to this issue.
Reasonable rentals reflecting the size of the structures and the services provided,
Sensible agreement of what constitutes the structure of a beach hut - if all the huts have
historically had decks then these cannot be called 'adaptations'
Legal agreement regarding the right to transfer lease agreement - this is how we
originally bought our huts.
Allow the beach huts owners autonomy regarding insurance. I do not know of any other
privately owned property that is compulsory required to have public liability insurance.
We think it is very important to work with the local council but feel that the resolution of these
issues has already taken up too much time.
We do hope that common sense prevails.
We refer to your letter of 12 November 2013 and to the items enclosed therewith. We have a
number of comments:
The Tenancy Agreement
We acquired our beach hut (40 Marine Crescent) about 18 months ago and were under the
impression that we would hold it in perpetuity. We are aware that the Beach Hut Owners'
Association are discussing the new, draft, agreement with their legal advisors and look
forward to hearing the outcome of that discussion. In the meantime there does not seem to
be any harm in expressing a concern felt by ourselves - and possibly by a number of other
hut owners; the new agreement appears to provide little security of tenure - stating that the
agreement can be terminated on 9 months notice by the council. The prospect of a hut owner
using the reciprocal right seems slim, as anybody acquiring a hut on the open market will
have made a substantial investment and is unlikely to throw it away - unlikely, that is, unless
the council decides to increase charges (how topical!) or the number of beach huts in the
area to the point where hut owners' investments have already been rendered largely
worthless.
Proposed Fees
The valuer's report is, we believe, flawed for several reasons.
The methodology behind the valuation arrived at in the report is stated to be by reference to
comparable sites but is then stated to be subject to the caveat that other authorities may not
be maximising their revenues. Or to put it another way - "these are the rents charged
elsewhere but they all look a bit a low." Three examples are provided of "site and hut" rates
(Long Beach, Worthing and Hastings) and the figures arrived at after adjusting to a site-only
basis (excluding Long Beach which has a superior location) fall between £450 and £500 pa.
Worthing is, in some ways a very close comparator. It is roughly the same distance from
London as Whitstable, and it too is plagued by a sea which all but disappears at low water.
66
Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
Worthing, however, does not suffer from the fact that at low water acres of soft mud are
exposed; in Worthing it is possible to stroll along - even sit on - the exposed shore.(We note
that the valuer's inspection took place on 3 October 2013 - a day on which high tide fell
around noon. It is thus quite possible that he did not experience the vista of mud.) It is also
not inconceivable that Worthing beach is a good deal cleaner than that at Whitstable.
The valuation states that the greatest factor in determining a fair rent is location and that the
cache of Whitstable is significant. Clearly being near Whitstable is going to justify some sort
of premium when compared with remoter locations. This has little relevance for residents,
however, and non-residents must decide between as much as a two mile walk into the centre
of the town or the relinquishment of a precious parking space near the sea front in order to
drive that same two miles plus the other three miles spent trying to find somewhere to park
that's closer to the town centre than the parking slot they have just left. The advantage of
proximity to Whitstable would appear to be slim!
The report states (paragraph 4.8) that the valuer has not investigated the possibility of
contamination (or the potential for contamination) but that "should it be established that
contamination, seepage or pollution exists on the subject, or adjacent land, this might reduce
the value now reported." As the council are doubtless aware Southern Water operate what is
euphemistically called a "treatment works" next to Swalecliffe Brook, a treatment plant that
made the News earlier this year when it polluted the brook (and not for the first time, we
believe). (And the brook, of course, flows into the sea to the west of Long Rock (when its
mouth hasn't been blocked by shingle drifting across it).) The treatment works can also smell
rather unpleasant at times and, depending on wind direction, this can affect a surprisingly
large stretch of the coast. Neither of these factors is comparable to finding that the site is, for
example, radioactive, but at that end of the spectrum any suggestion that "this might reduce
the value now reported" would be laughable; the real-world value would be zero - which
leads, perhaps, to the conclusion that both matters should have an impact on the valuation.
Mention has already been made above of the fact that low water in Tankerton Bay exposes
nothing but mud. This has become even worse in recent years for there have been prolonged
periods when the mud has been covered in a layer of something which is closer to a liquid
than a solid and which we can only assume is silt flowing from Swalecliffe Brook.
When the above points are taken into account we find it very difficult to agree with the
conclusion reached in the report.
Fee Proposals
We have no current intention of subletting our hut and can see no reason why we should be
required to pay a 20% premium to the basic rental for the honour of being granted a right we
do not intend to use. It should not be impossible, however, to construct the agreements in
such way as to provide for conversion to a subletting agreement at some time in the future
(and vice versa). It is interesting to note that should the proposed fee scale be implemented
the combined costs of rent, insurance and maintenance would probably be more than the
rental income that could be generated.
Final Comments
In the final analysis, rental will be determined by market forces. If the rate is set too high huts
will become harder to sell (or rather will sell at lower prices - to the detriment of Whitstable's
standing) and more likely to receive only enough care and maintenance to scrape through the
council reviews. There are two further dangers; the danger that because existing hut owners
have little option but to pay whatever the council demands, the council's reputation will be
tarnished by imposing rates which are seen to be way above other regions, and the danger
67
Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
that other councils will seek to benchmark their fees against Tankerton's thus initiating a
vicious circle of rent increases - a circle that will only be broken when the market has been
completely ruined at enormous cost to hut owners and councils everywhere.
I would like to state a few facts around your proposal to radically alter the conditions of
ownership of Beach huts in Whitstable.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
I am a local resident and have been for the last twenty years.
I regularly use my hut and as a local can pop up at all times.
This gives me enjoyment.
I bring my friends to the hut for barbecues, drinks and to take part in local events.
This all regularly adds to the local economy as I buy consumables in Whitstable, use the
local pubs and eateries and make a point of using the local shops to buy items ordinarily
bought elsewhere.
My regular presence adds security to the area for other hut owners and also lone dog
walkers and joggers. I believe the regular presence of local people combats in a minor
way the absence of any lighting, that has long been an issue for the Police and the
owners to increase security.
I believe a community has been created that cares for each other, Tankerton and the
wider Whitstable area.
I am not wealthy.
I had long held a desire to own a beach hut, but sadly the price was out of my reach.
Three years ago I came into a relatively small sum money and felt able to stretch that
money to buy a hut. To me, my hut is a luxury.
I had sympathy for the, again, local vendor who, due to your changes at that time, then
had to pay an increased sum to sell the hut. However, as I planned to keep my hut for
many years I was not too concerned.
My hut on purchase had a pulpit to the front as part of its construction and a drop down
deck to the side.
The last two years have seen change after change in the conditions of ownership that you
have caused.
Principally, this is an incredible growth in costs that struggle to be justified.
Poor reasons are generally offered for increases and I am left with the firm impression
that you see the Beach Hut owners and owning a hut, as the preserve of the wealthy who
can afford to pay the new cost. A cash cow perhaps?
It seems as if you are seeking one legal opinion to justify an unfair practice. I cant
imagine there has been a legal challenge to your existing policies and I just cant see why,
other than to try and squeeze more money from hut owners, that you would offer this as a
rationale for change. Using it as a shield for greed perhaps?
I also note recent legal challenges around councils profiting from parking as opposed to
covering costs and wonder if the parallel can be drawn here? Please can you provide me
with the costs to the council of services provided to hut owners and the income from the
huts.
We have all heard of the DFL syndrome in Whitstable. Personally, I think its good that
people want to come into town but add the caveat that this should be managed and that
the local sense in Whitstable is not lost.
By making Tankerton into 'Kensington-on-Sea' and removing local hut owners through
your own policies, you are not representing your local community and those that elect
you.
Sadly, should your changes be brought into effect I will be forced to sell my hut, as I
cannot afford the new costs that you propose.
I also do not trust that you would not increase further your costs to the owners of huts.
68
Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
•
I also cannot understand why you would want to remove owners, many of whom have
been there for many years and many who appear to be local.
So, by way of summary;
•
•
•
•
•
•
Your changes have no real justification other than to make money for purposes other than
to do with beach huts.
You are not meeting the British expectations of what is decent.
You are failing to recognise the local community and electorate that you are alienating
and hurting.
You wrongly seem to believe that all Beach Hut owners are rich and able to swallow
whatever rise you present.
Your decisions will fundamentally alter the nature and infrastructure in Tankerton.
Your profit making activity should be accountable
I truly pray that you will see sense and realise your zest for profit is not what you are there
for.
I look forward to meeting you at all the future public meetings and would ask that you
personally let me know when all the meetings occur in order that I can attend.
I write to you concerning recent correspondence from the council regarding changes to beach
hut fees for 2013-14. Additionally, we have received notification regarding adaptation fees.
As residents of Tankerton we enjoy our beach hut immensely. Our children and parents use it
and we are proud of our little hut and look after it so that we may enjoy it in the years to
come. However, our ownership of the beach hut is now under threat due to the fee changes.
We budget for our beach hut each year in the same way as we do all our bills so you can
imagine our disappointment when we say the proposed increase from £368 to £650 This
means our fees will increase by 77%. This massive increase is a huge shock to us and now
we have to reconsider whether we can keep the beach hut.
From the options you have laid out, it also appears that local residents will pay the same as
non local residents. I think that this decision is very short sighted. Whilst, I appreciate that we
should be encouraging out of town people to come to Whitstable, this will penalise local
owners. Having a balance of local ownership and non resident ownership ensures some
beach hut security. I walk past my beach hut every day and keep an eye on them. I can
inform my neighbours who live in London if their hut needs attention, or if there has been
vandalism. By discouraging local ownership you will erode the community of local owners
who provide some level of security for the huts. I would also argue that we can use our
beach hut much more regularly than non residents. Would it not be awful if more huts were
to be left unused for long periods of time?
Clearly, there are implications to your new fee policy but it does feel that they are penalising
local residents who will see a higher % increase on fees and I would like to challenge this
decision.
Secondly, I am still perturbed as to the decision to introduce adaptation fees. This random
policy makes no sense to me, nor to the neighbouring hut owners we spoke to. You offer the
option of taking down adaptations should owners not wish to pay but can you imagine the
detritus if many owners took this option? It would seriously affect the look along the
promenade. Furthermore, I have asked the council for copies of all those who "complained"
about the unfairness of huts having different size space but heard nothing. I would have
thought with the Freedom of Information act that you have to release copies of these, or at
the very least I would like to know how many owners complained.
69
Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
In summary, I started this email outlining the enjoyment that our family gets from our beach
hut but these new changes are forcing us to reconsider whether we can now afford to enjoy
owning a hut. You may feel that this is a person decision but it is one that will affect the
community. By discouraging local owners, you will find that more non resident owners take
on the huts and that brings other challenges such as lack of maintenance, infrequency of use
and a reduction in the number of owners who can keep a regular eye on the security of the
huts. Is this what you are trying to achieve?
I do hope that my concerns are listened to and that you see the value of encouraging local
residents to continue to own beach huts at an affordable rent.
The opening paragraph of your notice to beach hut owners, claims that legal advice has been
taken and that you cannot charge a supplementary fee for when a hut is sold. I can
understand that legal view as it breaches a number of similar legal challenges over many
years but to bracket that with that granting a concession is also "illegal" is clearly a nonsense.
What would happen to pensioners concessionary fare on public transport,entrance to
cinemas or even the "Whit card".The failure to provide the full legal opinion to the Beach Hut
Association seems to indicate you are aware of this situation. Although a freedom of
information request should rectify non disclosure
A Council spokesman has stated to the local media that the Council "needs to sweat users" a
statement which reflects the views of the Council Leader.
Whilst people like me, have had our hut in our possession for many years, we have carefully
maintained it and even replaced it when it became somewhat run down. We are pensioners
and our families have a long residency in the town.
I would also recognize that currently we have a Council which has got itself in a financial
messl but this should not be used as an excuse to penalise us and then offer nothing in
return. These proposed fees would raise over a million pounds over the four year cycle of the
Council.
The District Valuers Advice and the basis on which it was provided is an issue which needs
further clarification and raises a number of questions which those representing hut owners
are entitled to be answered.
The speed at which the Council is seeking to close the debate on this issue underlines the
lack of openness and democratic accountability.
Please reconsider this ill thought out proposal and negotiate a deal which is beneficial to
both the Council and Hut Owners
Further to your letter dated the 3 December 2013 I would like to make the following
comments.
Annual Increase
Whilst we all appreciate that we have to accept an annual increase in my view your proposals
are significantly high, in addition I have always felt that having to pay a premium over those
that reside in Whitstable is totally unfair and discriminate against those that live outside the
area. We bring into the area extra business for your restaurants, shops and contribute and
support charities. You are not charged any more than me when visiting Rochester or any
other place so why are you any different.
If you are now bringing in line the increase you may want to consider reducing the out of area
rate to come in line with the local rate then we can all be an even keel.
In addition I purchased my hut for the sole purpose of my own use and also that of my family
70
Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
and have no thoughts of sub- letting.
Security
Having read all your proposals I see no mention on what you are going to do about the
vandalism. Since owning our hut we have had our gate ripped of twice, roof damaged, and
doors damaged, balcony ripped to bits and general wood work torn off.
Perhaps you can convince me that my plans to replace my hut next year is the right decision,
not only for my benefit but for the benefit of the local area.
I read with much concern, your recent proposed Beach Hut policy. It reinforced my feeling
that the council see beach hut 'tenants' as nothing more than another source of income.
Whilst using my hut (since 2005), I have never felt that there has existed a meaningful twoway relationship between the City council and hut owners association/s - remember, you are
after all, Public Servants. We get almost no support regarding 'services' from the City toward
our members needs, and while on the subject - what is meant (in English) by the content of
para 1.1.6 "Service Media" with reference to hut tenancy?? If that refers to services provided
by the City, I know of none.
Was the (reactionary) letter you directed to us (12th November) passed/discussed by the
council/committees first? It seems to have a tone of barely-concealed malice beneath the
surface, as though part of a vendetta; especially with regard to the increase in local hut
tenant's rents. Is it that you simply cannot acknowledge the fact that we may legally express
our views regarding our needs, concerns and tenancy.
The introduction of Council Tax upon the hut tenants was concerning and surprising. I can't
help but think this will be amended/fixed in some way to bring in more income at some time.
It's status as a "business" rate, I have always found tenuous and confusing since its
inception.
Our huts are seen by the visiting public as something of an attraction, a tradition, like the
harbour and the town centre area; they (like us) spend money in Whitstable, therefore we too
must be valued. I feel we should be treated with a modicum of respect and not simply
dictated to.
I don't see why these matters cannot be settled in a more 'democratic' way (especially when
dealing with continuous hiking of rents) - isn't that why governments - even local ones, exist?
I live modestly and I am about to start my retirement on a very small pension. Though I have
loved my tenancy at Tankerton Slopes, my future there is threatened by these constant
inflationary reviews.
I wish to comment on the proposals set out in the letter dated 12 November 2013 from CCC
to beach hut owners .
I declare at the outset that since December 2012 I have been Chairman of the Beach Hut
Owners’ Associations’ Joint Negotiating Sub-Committee and have attended many meetings
with CCC officers and the CCC beach hut portfolio holder during 2013.
This letter expresses my personal opinions only and is not a submission by the BHOAs, but I
hope that my detailed knowledge of the negotiations, my personal experience of owning a
beach hut, and my professional background and experience will be useful to the CCC
Overview Committee members and the CCC Executive Committee when considering the
matter. Please will you ensure this letter is included, with all other letters from hut owners, in
the background material provided to them.
Background
71
Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
My wife and I owned a beach hut at Tankerton from 2000 to mid 2013. We decided to sell
because we considered that the non-residential rent levels, for only a few months practical
use each year, together with the costs of maintaining, repairing, insuring and travelling to our
hut no longer represented fair value for money – and that was before the steep increases
now proposed. We were particularly upset that, having been advised and authorised by a
CCC official (when we built our hut in 2000) to incorporate a pulpit, due to the steep slope, we
were then told in 2012 that the pulpit was an ‘unauthorised adaptation’ for which we would
have to start paying extra rent each year.
As a resident outside the CCC area and now an ex-owner of a beach hut, I am able to take a
more independent view of the latest CCC proposals, although I fully understand the dismay
and distrust of CCC felt by many continuing owners.
On sale of our hut we paid a ‘Supplementary Rental Fee’ of £1,840 to CCC . This SRF
arrangement, which was negotiated a few years ago means that hut owners pay reasonable
annual rents, but if and when they sell they then pay (at a time when they have funds from
the sale price) an additional sum of 5 x the local annual rent. This not only means that CCC
has obtained substantial extra rental income (over £100,000 in SRFs), but enables annual
rents for those, predominantly local owners, who do not sell, to be maintained at reasonable
and affordable levels. A series of rental increases had been consulted on and agreed with
CCC for the period April 2011 through to March 2016 to provide hut owners with some
measure of forward rents. These arrangements, (i.e. fair, affordable annual rents + SRF on
sale) should, in my view, be allowed to continue and I have yet to see any legal impediment
to its continuance. It is worth noting that several other local authorities continue to operate
these arrangements without problems. If sufficiently robust evidence is put in the public
domain that the SRF cannot continue then just fair, affordable annual rents must be set, not
just the maximum that CCC believes it can extract from owners, regardless of financial
circumstances.
Neither the BHOAs nor individual hut owners have argued against market rents, but they
must be fair and affordable with no sudden massive increases of 360% or more with less
than 6 months notice. A few members with long standing so-called ‘unauthorised
adaptations’ face increases of over 400%.
The proposed additional charge of £463 for administration on sale appears to be out of all
proportion to the work involved (recording the new hut owners name and address and issuing
a new standard tenancy agreement, which could easily be done online in under one hour).
CCC’s proposal based on an external legal opinion
On 12 November 2013, without any warning either to individual hut owners or to the BHOAs,
CCC announced new proposals based on an external legal opinion (of a barrister) and a
valuation report on ‘market rents’.
CCC’s officers’ behaviour (including the Head of Legal) beggars belief. They have been
asked 3 times since 12 November to provide the instructions given to the external barrister
and the Opinion received. They continue to deny anyone outside of CCC sight of these, nor
even to provide the reasoning for the barrister’s conclusions that the SRF and other current
arrangements must cease , and CCC legal officers still deny that hut owners have a legal
‘right to transfer their rights in the site’. They refuse to answer the question (put several
times) whether the barrister was asked about the right of transfer. Their sole reason for
refusing to release these vital documents is that ‘past correspondence from other beach hut
owners has suggested that legal action may be contemplated’. A reasoned request to the
CCC beach hut portfolio holder has gone unanswered.
The BHOAs have no wish to contemplate legal action. It would have been far better if CCC
could have worked with the BHOAs in seeking a joint legal opinion based on agreed
72
Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
instructions, but CCC decided to act unilaterally. Will CCC spend thousands of pounds of
Council taxpayers’ money defending any action taken by ‘other beach hut owners’ (the
BHOAs do not know who these are).
I am a Chartered Tax Adviser by profession (recently retired). My work over the last 40 years
involved me regularly appealing against irrational or faulty decisions by HMRC. I was
involved in numerous cases at Tax Tribunals, the High Court, Court of Appeal, House of
Lords and European Court of Justice. I have instructed and attended conferences with many
Queen’s Counsel and junior barristers.
Those with similar professional backgrounds know full well that an Opinion from a barrister or
QC will invariably reflect the questions asked and the answer the questioner would like to
hear. It is frequently the case that barristers disagree with each other on points of law, which
is why we have courts and judges to weigh up the opposing views and decide what the law
means. So CCC’s external opinion does not, as they claim, give them ‘no choice’. It is one
view only, reflecting the facts presented and the questions asked. The BHOAs subcommittee contains a Chartered Accountant and a Barrister with similar extensive
professional knowledge of legal processes. The BHOAs have tried reasoned and rational
arguments, but CCC officials either do not listen or appear to accept BHOAs comments then
do a complete U turn afterwards or make new irrational proposals without discussion . An
example of this was when CCC proposed that buyers of the huts should pay a ‘buyer’s
premium’ to CCC, instead of SRFs payable by vendors. The BHOAs pointed out that this
would be unlawful, but it was only when their own barrister confirmed this to them that they
accepted the BHOAs’ view.
Given that CCC hides behind its external opinion, it is no wonder that many suspect a hidden
agenda by CCC (possibly to maximise income from all sources and to protect CCC jobs) with
no regard as to whether the income comes from wealthy non-residents at the expense of
local residents. (In response to a question I put to the beach hut portfolio holder some
months ago as to whether CCC welcomed non-resident hut owners, the answer was ‘Of
course we do because you pay us more money’. It does now appear to be all about
maximising the money regardless of other factors, such as affordability, fairness and
reasonableness.
For CCC to hide behind a secret legal opinion of the law appears to me and others to be a
draconian misuse of official powers. To say, in effect, that ‘we have no choice, because we
now know the law, but we won’t allow you to understand what we know’ is straight out of a
Franz Kafka novel. The majority of hut owners and many of the public now, quite rightly, see
this as a David versus Goliath struggle, with CCC demonising both the hut owners and the
BHOAs. The BHOA’s representatives are unpaid volunteers who have devoted hundreds of
hours to protecting the rights of their members and seeking an agreed way forward which is
not only legally acceptable but also fair and reasonable.
It is also very disappointing to hear the CCC beach hut portfolio holder demonising the
BHOAs by saying that the negotiations with the BHOAs have become increasingly legalistic
which forced CCC to seek the recent legal opinion. In point of fact the BHOAs sought legal
advice over 4 years ago, as I now understand, in view of the very real threat that CCC might
take the beach huts away from owners. The portfolio holder also omits to mention that,
without telling the BHOAs at the time or until very recently, it had sought initial legal advice as
long ago as January 2013.
Practical consequences
CCC appears only now to be waking up to the fact that ending the pensioners long term
discount means local pensioners who have owned huts for over 15 years, in some cases, 30
years or more, will be facing rent rises of over 360%, which is clearly unaffordable by those
73
Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
on fixed pensions. Those and many other local resident owners who also face substantial
increases in ground rents will be forced to give up their huts and accept what they can get for
them. With so many potential fire sales of huts the chances are that wealthy speculators
(possibly from outside Kent) will snap up many of these and operate them as ‘buy to sub-let’
investment portfolios. This is clearly not what most CCC tax payers want from a Council
which is supposed to serve them, not antagonise and penalise them just because they have
limited local incomes and retirement funds.
CCC external valuation
As well as a secret legal opinion CCC officers rely on an opinion (by DVS) of what market
rents for Herne Bay and Tankerton Bay beach hut site rents should be. This report, available
on the CCC website, appears to be long on opinion, but scarce on evidence. It has been
criticised by a professional surveyor as ‘very weak’. CCC and the BHOAs had co-operated
on a benchmarking exercise during the summer of 2013, which involved a time consuming
exercise comparing Tankerton Bay and Herne Bay beach hut site rents and costs with 50
other sites around the South and East coasts. That exercise revealed that even before the
proposed increases the costs of owning a beach hut at Herne Bay and Whitstable were
already among the most expensive of the 52 sites considered. That did not take into account
that from 2014 CCC will require every hut owner to pay for Public Liability Insurance cover of
£5 million.
As one owner has pointed out the rateable value for his hut was assessed, at the Council’s
instigation, at £600, which is supposed to reflect the open market letting value of the land
including the hut. As the huts are privately owned, the value of the land must be considerably
lower. But CCC is seeking to obtain a rent of over £600 for the site alone. Did the DVS
valuer understand that the huts are privately owned?
How can it be fair for the ground rent of a beach hut site to be more than the council tax on a
small house, when the beach hut site has no energy, sewage, water or drainage. The only
service provided appears to be the occasional (now less frequent) grass cutting around the
huts. The toilets and water standpipes at both sites are public facilities for all. CCC provides
no assistance against regular vandalism of the huts.
The CCC beach hut portfolio holder has said that everything hinges on the BHOAs obtaining
an alternative market rent
With respect, although that is one aspect, the real issues hinge on a proper, open and
transparent analysis, by ALL interested parties, of the instructions to the CCC external
barrister and the barrister’s opinion. The BHOAs’ extensive legal research of the relevant
legislation suggests that either the barrister was supplied with incorrect facts or background,
or was asked ‘loaded questions’ or has not reached the correct conclusions. No wonder that
many are concluding that CCC must have something to hide which undermines its proposals.
Conclusion
In the light of the comments above it appears that CCC officers and committees face the
following choices:
1.
2.
3.
Postpone the proposals to enable a full, proper and open analysis by all interested
parties of the CCC external legal opinion and sufficient time, if required, for the
BHOAs to obtain their own barrister’s opinion; followed by continuation of negotiations
to reach an agreed way forward;
Reject the CCC proposals as being based on a suspect and unreasonable procedure
in instructing the external barrister leading to a possible suspect and incorrect opinion.
Allow existing rent and SRFarrangements to continue.
Approve the CCC proposals, but run the risk of dealing with complaints or a legal
74
Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
challenge that the Council has acted unreasonably, by not taking into account matters
that it should have. At worst this could result in CCC having to compensate owners
for ‘unfairly confiscating owners existing legal property rights’, thus wasting even more
taxpayers money.
I recommend option 2 followed by 1. Option 3 is in no-one’s interests, will be timeconsuming and costly for all parties and waste much effort with uncertain outcomes. I trust
my comments are useful and informative.
I am in receipt of your letter dated 12 November 2013, proposing an increased rental for
beach huts at Tankerton.
I object to the Council's increase in rent for the following reasons:
1. The council has based its increase in rent on the District Valuers valuation, which appears
to have a calculation error. The District Valuers valuation states the normal rent is £300-650
across the south east. It does not say where the upper range of £650 is, but one might
assume it refers to Poole, which the report uses as a reference elsewhere. It also states that
Hastings rent is £458 and Worthing is £460. Even if Tankerton is more popular than most
resorts, which is debatable, the rent should be well within the stated range, say around £500,
not the £650 claimed.
2. The valuation compares Tankerton with Bournemouth and Poole (rental £400-£700). This
is not a valid comparison because the figure includes Sandbanks and Branksome, which is
the most expensive area in the country, and listed among the most expensive in the world.
Tankerton is not comparable in any way.
(b) Bournemouth and Poole is not in the south east. A truer comparison would be with other
south east resorts that are on the North Sea.
3. I am surprised the Council is not providing a fair, balanced and impartial valuation, when
dealing with a large number of non-commercial residents, with limited resources. This
valuation appears to be partial and, unless challenged, will result in an overcharge which will
need to be referred to the local authority ombudsman.
Concerning the vast increase in costs of owning a beach hut in Herne Bay.
We part own hut with my Aunt who lives in Bridge. She counts as a local resident, we do not.
You may wonder why we want to own a hut that is quite far away, well the answer is in
history, our family have had huts since the 1950s when much of my family lived and worked
there and when the chance came for us to have one after we retired, there was no hesitation
and we love it and we enjoy it, as do many visitors,but Canterbury City Council are doing
everything in their power to spoil that enjoyment that every hut owner has. We maintain our
huts in good condition as we have to and I want to know why you are trying to drive us out. Is
it the lust for power or greed, or both? You cannot compare the huts at Herne Bay with other
places because ours' have no facilities like others do, they are just a shed on a beach so
increasing costs in this way is not justified,neither is what you call benchmarking.
As Chairman of Tankerton Bay Beach Hut Assoc. and owner of, I have followed the many
discussions with your committee and our sub committee with keen interest, indeed I was lead
to believe that you had kept to your word and were providing a new agreement and keeping
the owners of beach huts very much in mind. You are all well aware of the benefits to
Canterbury City Council of having well maintained beach huts in Herne Bay and Tankerton. I
am always amazed, listening to the many visitors to the area, commenting on their
picturesque location and their upkeep, some even suggesting that they enhanced the area.
It was therefore very surprising to note that NONE of these points seem to have been taken
75
Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
into account when you set out the enormous increases to beach hut owners, namely:1/ Extra fees for adaptations even if it existed and had been agreed with your Council on
purchase.
2/ To impose compulsory Public Liability Insurance.
3/ To cease charging lower rents to local owners.
4/ To cease the long term discount discount for local pensioners.
5/ to impose NDR business rate (possibly).
Are you and the members interested in having beach huts in Tankerton and Herne Bay? It
would seem that you are purely interested in using them as another way of increasing the
revenue to Canterbury City Council and NOT considering the benefits to the community.
Not only are owners expected to take these changes and additional expenses on board, a
new tenancy agreement is being prepared with various points which do not assist the owners
in enjoying the benefits of beach hut ownership.
May I respectfully suggest that you may wish to consider whether you are cutting off the hand
that feeds you.
It is with the above points in mind that I would seriously ask you to reconsider your proposals
for both Tankerton and Herne Bay Beach Huts.
I refer to the letter of 12 November 2013 outlining your proposals for substantial increases to
the Beach Hut Tenancy Fees and changes to the Tenancy Agreement. The above Beach Hut
is owned by my mother-in-[aw, Mrs D Storey who [s 92 years old and is extremely concerned
about these changes, which she cannot fully understand. She has asked me to deal with this
on her behalf.
These proposals come after many years of attempted negotiation by the Tankerton Bay
Beach Hut Owners' Association to reach a reasonable agreement. Looking back at the
history, I am appalled at the position taken by the Council and its inability to treat its tenants
fairly.
Your letter comes after you had to write to apologise to Mrs Storey for the Council sending
out an incorrect request to sign an agreement in April which stated that she was not licensed
to use her beach hut.
ln that apology you stated: "We are proceeding with positive negotiations with the Beach Hut
Associations and in the near future hope to be in a mutually agreed position to forward
consultation on a new agreement for April 2014." However, your recent correspondence and
the reports from the Tankerton Bay Beach Hut Association indicate that you were and still are
far from a mutually agreed position.
My main concerns about the proposals are that:
1. You have put forward increases and changes to the rental structure without any evidence
that these changes can be substantiated. Your track record on getting things wrong is such
that I would not trust your evidence without professional scrutiny - something you appear to
be denying to the Beach Hut Associations.
2. These changes are so significant that implementation by April 20L4, does not give owners
the chance to sell or modify their huts to mitigate the increased rents, especially as this is
over the winter period.
3. Your draft agreement has virtually nothing about the Council's responsibilities, for example,
76
Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
in respect of maintaining the slopes (something that has made access for my mother-in-law
very difficult in recent years as the grass above the huts is no longer cut), providing
standpipes for drinking water, keeping the steps and handrails maintained and servicing and
operating the public toilets at times when Beach Hut users might require them.
4. There is no rationale provided for the imposition of compulsory public liability insurance.
Could you provide details of incidents that have occurred during the last 20 years when this
would have been called for?
5. The rent increase is quite unacceptable. Rents in the past have been increased in line with
inflation which is a reasonable basis for a Council to act. Your revaluation means that you
have got all of the rents considerably wrong in the past: even the non-residents' rent is being
increased above inflation. A revaluation would normally be phased in over a long period, not
implemented immediately. The 2 year-scheme, simply reduces the increase in 20L4/15 and
moves it to 2015/16. lt is difficult to see how this is anything other than an opportunist attempt
to make money for the Council out of what is at the moment a popular asset.
6. The huts themselves are owned by the tenants and the rent is for the site alone. Whilst it is
reasonable for the Council to expect certain standards of the huts, I can see no justification
for the increased rent for adaptations. The plot size should surely be the determining factor
for the rent not what is erected on it.
7. I understand that the subletting option is that either all huts will be able to sublet or none
will be able to. This is contrary to the principle of market values which you seem to hold.
8. Your increased rent proposal, together with the reduced administration charge will
inevitably lead to more Beach Huts changing hands and less local residents enjoying the
amenities of the area. ln my mother-in-law's case, she is now only able to get to her hut on a
few occasions each year but she loves it and the pleasure it gives her great grand-children.
The extra cost, if implemented, might make it uneconomic for her.
All in all, this is a very disappointing proposal and attitude from the Council.
Whilst we are not residents of Whitstable, we come frequently to stay for short breaks &
spend some time (& a good deal money!) in the local shops & restaurants. We have owned
our beach hut for nearly 10 years but now find that the charges being imposed on owners are
going to severally restrict our visits.
The beach hut gives us a base & a purpose to explore Whitstable rather than anywhere else.
We feel that this is a very short sighted decision by the Council to raise the yearly fees to this
extent which, with the costs of insurance, will make it impossible for us to maintain the hut
correctly or continue to visit Whitstable.
I feel compelled to write to you to complain about the proposed rise in beach hut rents
outlined in your letter dated 12th November.
We are a local family; I grew up in Whitstable and have lived here most of my life. My family
had a beach hut when I was a child and I had always wanted to share the same experiences
with my children. We purchased our hut in 2011, as you can imagine it wasn’t cheap and we
are paying a significant amount every month to pay for it. On top of that we have to pay
insurance and of course the council rent. It is therefore already a sizeable sum out of our
monthly budget, especially as my wife doesn’t work.
I understand that there are challenges for the council but to propose a rise of more than
100%, over £35 a month is simply unrealistic, unfair and shocking. One of your proposals
works out at £67.67 a month for us! That is one third of our house’s council tax! For a beach
77
Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
hut. How can that be right? There isn’t the yearly need for refuge collection, no extra need for
roads, schooling etc etc.
If these rises are implemented, families like mine will be forced to sell our huts, probably at a
loss, to out of town people that can afford the rent. So you will end up pricing out many local
families and put more huts into the hands of non local families that make occasional visits to
Whitstable. There are many huts near ours owned by out of town tenants who make sporadic
visits. How can it be good for Whitstable for the majority of huts to be closed up on sunny
days? Surely it is better for the image of the town and for the local businesses to have local
families enjoying the huts?
I must also comment on the options in your proposal that suggest we should be charged for
people wanting to sublet their huts. Our hut is ours, we have no desire to sublet it at all. To
propose to charge me so that others can make a business out of theirs is completely wrong.
How can that be justifiable? If you wish to charge for subletting, implement it for those that
wish to sub let.
I hope my words convey some of the outrage I am feeling following your letter. I am sure that
the council has its challenges but to impose these huge rises on local families is simply
unacceptable.
I refer to your letters of 12 November and 3 December regarding the consultation on beach
hut fee’s and charges, and as the owners of a hut in Tankerton, write to share our views. I
have copied this response to Marilyn Richards, our beach hut owners association
representative.
Our views on the consultation and the enclosures provided are:
1.
We do not agree or support the increase in beach hut fees you have proposed. An
increase of this level in one go in the current climate is in our view completely
inappropriate and insensitive, poorly justified by the valuation report you have
commissioned and will inevitably just serve to price more local families out of the cost
of owning a hut in favour of wealthy individuals from outside Whitstable and
Canterbury local authority. It, and your other proposals seem to fly completely in the
face of the numerous representations you have received from individuals and the
Beach Hut associations. At best they are poorly conceived, at worst they are a blatant
case of profiteering with little or no added benefit for owners (existing or new), and in
our view will only do damage to the long term sustainability of the beach front area.
The slapdash way that you have reached your conclusions, with little thought of the
consequences of your actions does, in our view, reflect very poorly on your concept of
local democracy and accountability. We expand on these points below.
2.
You quote legal opinion you have received which is ‘very clear’ on the need to abolish
the resident discount and discount for pensioners. It is extremely disappointing that
you have not made any attempt to share this advice publicly. Legal opinion is just that
– opinion – and we and our owners associations at least deserve the ability to see the
advice and if appropriate commission our own legal advice. This is a really
fundamental lack of transparency with no attempt to explain why you have withheld
this advice.
3.
Similarly, your decision to redact important details within the valuation report on which
these exorbitant increases are based is equally baffling. This is consultation in only
the loosest sense of the word, with owners expected to comment without possession
of all the available evidence. The fact that the details which have been redacted relate
to the comparables used for determining the ‘market’ rent is, based on your general
approach to consultation, depressingly predictable, and makes the valuation report
78
Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
virtually worthless for the purposes of consultation. We are faced with rent rises (in
our individual case of over 80%) on the basis of comparables we aren’t permitted to
see. We have no knowledge of whether the huts are similar in size, the amenities
provided, location, lease terms etc. The use of comparables is a RICS recognised
standard and is the whole basis on which a market rent can be justified – how you can
not share and present the valuation report as a relevant document is very difficult to
understand.
4.
Adaptations – I have no problem with the principle of charging extra for adaptations.
But how you can effectively back-date these so that residents who have bought huts
in good faith, suddenly face increased charges is again, difficult to rationalise. Our hut
doesn’t have any adaptations so we are not directly affected, but even so wish to
raise it as a point of principle which demonstrates your overall lack of thought
throughout this process.
5.
Local discount – notwithstanding the legal opinion which you refuse to share – this is
a short-sighted and damaging decision that will only serve to price out local hard
working families in favour of wealthy itinerant visitors to Whitstable. We along with
many others, are Whitstable locals with a young child who have saved hard to
purchase our hut. We use it regularly, invest in maintaining its condition and the
surrounding slopes. We can ill-afford such significant rent hike’s especially with the
meagre flexibility in payment terms you ‘offer’ (One lump sum or 5 payments). The
result, as alluded to within the valuation report itself as a justification for increasing the
rents, is that the proximity of Whitstable to London means access to many who can
and would be willing to pay more. I would seriously question if this is what Canterbury
Councillors truly want. Thanks to our hut we use the beach and Whitstable amenities
all year round – pricing out local families is not the way to contribute to a thriving year
round economy – it is just a case of blatantly profiteering from the London ‘effect’.
6.
Canterbury CC as sales agent – given that this proposal has regularly cropped up in
your submissions it is no surprise to see it repeated here. It wont affect us as we
would have no intention of using your services but it does beg the question why? Why
at a time of pressure on local services are you seemingly intent on setting up a
service for which there is no demand and you have no expertise? The current system
of agents works very effectively already, as do a whole range of other methods such
as Gumtree and other internet services. Furthermore, all are more affordable than
your ‘very competitive 5%’ fee. We are dubious as to the data quality of the 133
people on your expression of interest list. Given that numerous huts have been
available for sale and traded this year and some are available as we speak, there is
clearly an active market of interest for huts for those wishing to purchase and an easy
way to access it. There is no need for a separate list. Close it, direct people to agents
or other avenues and save on the administration costs. You would be better served
concentrating on the needs of existing owners than generating further work to justify
your admin resource.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I hope that you will take these comments on board
in reaching your final decision.
I cannot express my anger and disappointment with the council strongly enough in regard to
the proposed plans for the beach huts.
It is appalling that in these days of cut backs, which have affected each home in the country,
the council has taken upon itself to propose to penalise the little we have for enjoyment. Our
beach huts mean the world to us ,each year the rents have been increased and we all find it
harder to pay, but pay we do as we love to spend time by the sea. Why does the Council
seem to think that the beach huts are owned by people with bottomless pockets? Most of us
79
Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
struggle to pay the rent and then the insurance for the hut. Many, like myself are pensioners
and this proposal of yours would be a crippling blow to all of us.
Is it the intention of the council to remove the majority of us from the huts (as the fees will
become to high) so that it may rent them or even sell them onto other people who can pay
extortionate prices?
I strongly object to all the proposals of the Council in regard to the beach huts but especially
the following:
1. Ceasing the long-term discount to local pensioners (I am not local).
2.Ceasing lower rents to local owners
3.The imposition of Public Liability Insurance.
4.The significant increase of rents.
The fact that as beach hut owners we have to put up with no lighting to the area of the huts,
no potable water in winter, public toilets that are filthy and close at 8pm in summer (many that
are closed permanently in winter), even if there is an event on, is all bad enough BUT the
increase of rent is UNACCEPTABLE.
Please re-think your proposals.
I am writing to you not as the Secretary of the Tankerton Bay Beach Hut Owners'
Association, but as a private beach hut owner. You already know from our many meetings
how desperately disappointed I am in our failure to bring this matter to any sort of fair and
reasonable conclusion, after these eight long years of trying.
Worse, the Associations have been completely blindsided by this raft of new fees, and after
we had wasted months helping to compile a Benchmarking Report that has presumably been
thrown in the bin.
I have also read (so far) 56 copy letters from our members, each one a testament of sadness,
anger, and disbelief that any Council (with any hope of re-election) could impose such
charges in the teeth of a recession.
I must therefore reject every one of your bewildering array of "options", as not one iota of
thought has been given to the hardship that this will cause many people, families and
pensioners alike. For make no mistake - every hut owner has already had a family
discussion about the likelihood of having to sell their hut. And for what? What is the hidden
agenda here? Do you really want to see a fire sale of beach huts? For what purpose?
•
•
•
•
•
Please re-consider the idea of sub-letting. This is not something that anyone seems in
favour of. The fees are astronomical in any case; another fee on top is unreasonable in
the extreme. Consider the impact too of the so-called Compulsory Public Liability
Insurance, and the NDR fee (which will come in soon, if not in 2014).
The Long-Term Discount must be retained for those already in the scheme. You cannot
target those who are most vulnerable.
Any increase (which must be reasonable) must be phased in over a longer period. Even
two years is unfair. Please consider bringing in rent increases in line with inflation - this is
still money in the Council's pocket, but it would not be impossible to pay.
If the locals' rent is to be the same as a non-local, this too must be phased in over a
longer period.
Justify the £463 administration fee, or reduce it by a substantial amount. You gave your
80
Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
•
•
word that families would be exempt from this charge - what has happened to change the
Council's view in the few months since this pledge was last made?
Recalculate the "adaptations" fee, and make a starting point for the fee of Spring 2013,
when the first letters were sent out by the Council. You cannot make an extra
retrospective charge on a property that may have had the "adaptation" for many years,
and especially if verbal consent by the Council had been given, as has been the case for
many hut owners. Most owners accept the premise that a larger hut means a larger rent but not when the larger hut was built ten years ago, on the nod from the Council. This is
a dreadful way to behave.
But you know this. The Associations have spent eight years on a variation of these
themes, and the beach hut owner has been mocked and vilified. For some reason, a
beach hut owner is a class apart, not a taxpayer or a contributor to local businesses, but
a pariah, and a greedy one at that. Who in the Council is leading this view?
I think it is time that the Council looked at itself, how it operates, and how it treats its citizens.
Look to the £4 million you still have in reserves, and the £900,000 Budget underspend, and
think again about imposing such draconian increases. We do not ask for subsidy, but for
fairness.
This is a note to ask you to re think your proposed changes and charges to your beach hut
regulations and fees.
Renting a beach hut is not a happy cheap or bargain experience, I am, registered disabled
and find it very difficult to access my hut. When I went yesterday 9th December the path had
disappeared to I had to trip back to London without reaching it. Secondly when I do get there
the area round it is so uneven that that is another problem. I am likely to fall over just getting
to the door. In no way is it a user friendly experience and after driving a couple of hours to
reach it I cannot even spend the night there so it’s either an expensive hotel or another drive
back to London. I would also like to able to access the sea side where my hut is by motor
vehicle which could be removed once I arrive.
For all this you are proposing to make us pay even higher fees and to add insult to injury you
do not even allow us to let or rent out our hut to friends or clients in an effort to offset our
expenses.
I thought that the idea of a council providing beach huts was to encourage all people locals
as well as townies like myself to enjoy the outdoor world, fresh air, great views and to have a
healthier life style to offset all the ills that befall us and our National Health Service when
don’t get the chance to enjoy nature.
So please reconsider your plans and work towards the greatr good, not just the council
finances,
Thank you for your letter of 12 November 2013 regarding the beach hut tenancy agreement
and fees for 2014/15. I was very upset to receive this latest letter about the fees for the
beach hut, as the proposals, even without subletting (which we don't want), will soon see us
facing a bill for nearly £800 per year. We will find it hard to afford this and we feel that the
changes may well price us out of the beach hut, forcing us to sell. The bill is not that much
less than the Council Tax we pay on our home and it seems unfair to pay nearly the same
amount for a beach hut, which enjoys far less in terms of services.
Several years ago, whilst taking a walk at Tankerton we saw the beach huts for the first time
and fell in love with them. We looked at our savings and decided to remortgage our house to
enable us to buy a beach hut. We were very fortunate to be able to achieve this two years
ago. This was ideal for us, because my partner suffers from depression and agoraphobia,
which often makes it impossible for us to travel outside a small radius of our home in
Sittingbourne. The beach hut allows us an escape and to get some peace - which is
81
Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
important, as it has not been possible for us to have a holiday for about five years. It is
literally a lifeline for us as a couple.
When we bought our beach hut, we had no idea about the fees that would be charged or
about the plans to increase them. To be fair to other tax payers, it seems fair to us that the
reasonable costs of maintaining the site should be shared by the beach hut owners. A site
with no exclusive facilities, which only gets occasional grass cutting does not seem to justify
such high fees and they seem to be an attempt to make money from beach hut owners. It
doesn't seem very fair for the Council to regard this as a revenue stream.
The increase seems to be predicated on an independent valuation of a fair market rent. To
help us understand this, I would like to know the basis on which this has been calculated and
I believe that the Council has not yet shared this information with hut owners. Any valuation
should take into account the features of the huts that distinguish them from residential
property. The huts are not really useable all year round, we are not permitted to stay in them
overnight and there are no dedicated facilities provided, apart from occasional grass-cutting.
Any fair market rent would need to take into account all these factors and the financial basis
for the calculations should be open and transparent. The only basis for withholding
information about the calculation would be on commercial grounds and that, in itself, would
be unfair if the aim is to recoup the reasonable costs of the huts, rather than use them as a
revenue stream.
Our beach hut has a pulpit feature on the front, which has clearly been there since the hut
was constructed. The increase in fees would see us having to pay nearly £100 for a small
area of unusable space that forms the top of the staircase used to access the hut. Removing
the pulpit to conform to the approved designs is not practicable, as it would effectively need
the hut to be rebuilt which we could not afford.
We have had a great deal of pleasure and enjoyment from our beach hut. As I mentioned
above, it has provided us with a lifeline when we could not otherwise have any holiday. We
have been privileged to be able to share it with family and friends over the 2 years that we
have owned it. We are now seriously talking about having to sell if these fee increases go
ahead. We have no interest in subletting and don't want to make any money from our hut. If
we do sell, the supplementary rental fee would see us losing money on the hut, but we may
have to take that difficult decision if faced with such as increase.
To us, it really feels as though the Council wants to make money from a small number of
service users, who it perceives can afford it, and of whom quite a few have little political
impact or influence on the Council because they live outside Canterbury. This seems unfair
when the principle of charging only those that use facilities is not extended to other civic
amenities.
On the specific details of the draft tenancy agreement, paragraph 7 states: "The tenant must
not make structural or other adaptations to the beach hut without the Council's written
consent." I would suggest this wording needs tighter definition, as simple adaptations such as
shelving or other similar internal adaptations should not need consent and providing a
process to administrate permission for these would be both time consuming and costly for the
Council.
I would be very grateful if you could make this email available to the Council members before
they debate this issue. I hope to attend the meeting and speak if possible. If I can provide
further information, please do not hesitate to contact me.
I would be grateful if you could acknowledge receipt of this email.
I have been an owner since 2003. I am 79 years of age and my wife is 75. We have enjoyed
82
Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
these ten years and were looking forward to the next ten years. We have maintained our hut
in pristine condition. During the last four years we have felt an increasing disregard for the
ability of pensioners to cope with the range and amount of the total charges imposed on us.
Your proposals for MAJOR price increases is way above the ability of many to absorb, and
will result in many tenants including us having to consider selling. I am sure many local
tenants who are on frozen or below inflation wages will face the same problem.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Rent
The proposed new rents are outrageous and unaffordable to many of the
existing tenants.
To impose compulsory public liability insurance not acceptable another step too
far.
Cease low rents for local owners.
It would appear that you now wish to change ownership to rich people mainly
corning from London etc and cut out local people and pensioners.
Cease long term discounts for local pensioners unacceptable.
I am not in favour of subletting. If aggressive subletting grows it would change
the present community spirit of the beach huts.
We are surprised to see a growing number of the huts in poor condition perhaps some of
these are no longer occupied. Is this an avenue for you to obtain some of the extra revenue
you are trying to raise?
We will be in attendance at the meeting on the 23 January 2014
Thank you for your letter of 12 November enclosing details of your proposed new beach hut
tenancy agreement and new beach hut fees that are about to be considered by the Overview
Committee and subsequently the Executive Committee.
I note that you appointed DVS to calculate the annual market rental values for both Tankerton
and Herne Bay sites. The Herne Bay site values are 36.8% lower than the Tankerton sites.
The disparity appears to be related entirely to the difference in size of the standard hut in
each area.
This alone does not take into account the spacing between each Beach Hut as those on the
Herne Bay site are very close to one another and much closer to the high tides, particularly
during the winter months when our huts are in a recognised flood risk area. There is no
indication that the DVS calculations have taken into account the differing congestion, flood
risk and comparative density of occupation experienced at each site.
The spaces between my adjoining beach hut neighbours at the Herne Bay site is less than 18
inches each side, very different from the space enjoyed by those on the Tankerton site. DVS
do not appear to have assessed any other factor than the square metre measurement for the
two standard hut sizes on each site, irrespective of the crowded and cru shed allocation
already determinated for beach hut owners in Herne Bay. I suggest the Overview Committee
should request details of all the factors considered by DVS in reaching their assessment
before proceeding further.
Further to your letter dated the 3 December 2013 I would like to make the following
comments.
Annual Increase
Whilst we all appreciate that we have to accept an annual increase in my view your proposals
are significantly high, in addition I have always felt that having to pay a premium over those
that reside in Whitstable is totally unfair and discriminate against those that live outside the
83
Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
area. We bring into the area extra business for your restaurants, shops and contribute and
support charities. You are not charged any more than me when visiting Rochester or any
other place so why are you any different.
If you are now bringing in line the increase you may want to consider reducing the out of area
rate to come in line with the local rate then we can all be an even keel. In addition I
purchased my hut for the sole purpose of my own use and also that of my family and have no
thoughts of sub- letting.
Security
Having read all your proposals I see no mention on what you are going to do about the
vandalism. Since owning our hut we have had our gate ripped of twice, roof damaged, and
doors damaged, balcony ripped to bits and general wood work torn off.
Perhaps you can convince me that my plans to replace my hut next year is the right decision,
not only for my benefit but for the benefit of the local area.
I would like to register my protest at the unexpected and punitive proposed rent raises for
owners of beach huts. I do not see the justification for these changes we already pay our fees
regularly, every year.
Some of the changes to the regulations seem to me designed only to raise revenue and take
no account of the rights of the owners themselves.
It is not right for these changes to be simply imposed without amply – and persuasively –
demonstrating the evidence.
I am writing to express my extreme discomfort at the new measures regarding the beach huts
that seem to be in the process of being imposed upon owners. These increases seem wholly
over the top and I do not see upon what rationale they have been based - I understand that
the Legal Opinion that you have sought has not been made publicly available which I find
very peculiar.
These beach huts should not be seen simply as a source of revenue for the council which is
what I fear is happening. We already pay fees each year. I also disagree with the changes to
the Resident Discount [I am a resident] and also the Long Term Discount for pensioners [I am
not one] but it is the blatant hike in rents that I find simply unacceptable.
I appreciate that money is tight at present [for all of us] but the solution is not just to try and
bleed a 'soft target’.`
I am in receipt of your recent letter advising of proposed changes to the tenancy agreement
and fee increases.
To say I am reeling at t he proposed huge increases in rent is an understatement. What is
going on? What is the Council thinking about? I do not want to sub-let. A beach hut is not a
commercial venture, so why seemingly base the market rent increases as if it was. Most
owners I imagine are like me, wanting quiet and peaceful enjoyment of our huts. I have
worked and resided in Canterbury for over 40 years and now a pensioner. To lose our
resident discount is just plain sad the discount adds to the feeling of being part of a caring
community. I've always felt it was recognition by the Council for what people have put into the
local economy. Obviously I've been wrong.
I do not want to sub-let my beach hut and I appreciate that Option 3 covers this. However, I
do not want people to buy the huts purely to make money sub-letting. I do not want to see the
huts rented to people who have no feeling of responsibility for their surroundings and who,
84
Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
having paid for use of a beach hut, will naturally want to maximise the experience with large
numbers of people, BBQ’s and partying.
I have public liability insurance but why should it be compulsory?
Greed is the only word which sums up what I think about all this.
Here we are again, the annual farce, moving the financial goal posts and the ‘do’s and don'ts’
of Beach hut ownership.
When Graham Cox, then chairman of the Whitstable Society, wrote to the Tankerton
Councillor regarding the beach huts, it was to encourage ownership and enjoyment by local
residents. Not to price them out of the market. So what do you do? You up the licence fee to
almost £700 pa, plus future increases with compulsory insurance, making it almost £1,000.00
pa leading up to April 2015. That is your proposal in the letter of 12 November 2013. So what
will you do in subsequent years? Rewrite the ‘do’s and don'ts’ and move the financial goal
posts?
You chose a National Government body to value the ‘market rents’. How much did that cost?
And why not a totally independent body? You are refusing the TBBHO Ass, to view the
report. What are you hiding? What are we going to receive for this proposed, eye watering
‘hike up’? We get nothing at present except agro/bullying from the Canterbury City Council.
Please do not tell me, ‘if I do not like the terms and conditions of beach hut ownership I could
sell up or move the hut’. They would not be easy to sell if many people have to sell for
financial reasons - flooding the market. (I am not proposing to make a killing if I do have to
sell either). Also the beach hut cannot be hitched onto the back of a car and just towed away.
You should treasure the beach huts and their owners for enhancing the area along the coast.
I feel the differentials should be ‘phased out’, allowing the local resident to continue until they
no longer own and new owners take over the site/hut. The same would be for the long term
local resident discount.
As a Whitstable person born and bred and a third generation owner of a beach hut, I just
despair at the attitude of the City Council and the Councillors. In the days of the WUDC the
Local Councillors and their staff looked after Whitstable and their residents and worked very
hard for the Town and were proud so to do.
From an appalled local resident and beach hut owner.
Thank you for your letter of 12 November with the enclosures regarding the above. Along
with the Tankerton Bay Beach Hut Owners' Association, we strongly oppose the Council's
proposals to impose huge increases in rent next year, with extra annual fees for adaptations.
We have written twice to Matthew Young this year, and sent an email, putting our views on
adaptations to him. As yet, we have had no response. Please find copies of the letters
enclosed.
We feel it is extremely unfair of the Council to make unreasonable demands on hut owners at
any time but especially when many people are struggling financially anyway. We urge the
Council to reconsider plans to put up fees in 2014 and to drop additional fees for adaptations.
I am writing in regard to the proposed changes for the Tankerton Beach Huts
85
Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
I am an owner and have been for a decade. When we purchased our beach hut it was one of
very few in the area that was in good condition. Since then we have watched as the beach
huts have improved dramatically as owners have maintained and repaired them. Those
owners who regularly use them have decreased the vandalism and other associated
problems. The beach huts have improved dramatically making Whitstable and Tankerton still
a traditional picture postcard English seaside.
We are owners who live just outside the County, but use our beach hut regularly. It has been
the only source of holiday or break we have had and has given us much pleasure. Your
proposal to increase the rates by such a significant amount will cause the beach huts to again
deteriorate in condition, which will have a knock on affect on vandalism, tourism, and local
trade. Your rates increase will mean that we will be able to spend less money and time in and
on our beach hut and eventually will have to sell.
Your proposal to impose extra fees for adaptations, even those which have been in place for
many years, is outrageous. Our beach hut has passed the various council inspections thus
far, so why has this changed? Also why does the Council not pursue those who do not pay
their rates or maintain their beach huts as this would surely provide them with the extra
income they need?
All this will cause us much distress and we would therefore like you to provide us with the
legal Opinion on which your proposals are based, now, before your decision on the 23rd
January.
I was in turn stunned, dismayed and bewildered by your letter and its enclosures. Is this from
the local authority I help elect to serve the best interests of its residents or from some
unscrupulous landlord intent on dissuading tenants from retaining their property?
My parents brought me to live in Whitstable in 1950. I grew up with summers on the beach
sharing the use of friends’ beach huts. In turn my children were brought on holiday here,
again enjoying the use of a hut. In October 2006 I realised my long held ambition to own a
hut financed by my retirement lump sum for four family generations to enjoy. I accepted the
straightforward two page Licence Agreement, a £77 transfer fee and a rent of £339, including
non domestic rates, which I expected to rise with inflation.
Since then I have most certainly been aware of ‘negotiations with Beach Hut Owners
Association representatives for a number of years’. I have observed with increasing
puzzlement a multiplicity of conflicting document issued by your office. Amongst those I
remember are:
1.
Short Topic Scrutiny Review of forty plus pages in December 2008.
2.
Licence amendments in 2009 introducing the Supplementary Rental Fee.
3.
A revised licence in April 2011.
4.
A letter in June 2011 stating our huts were not licenced for use if we had not signed.
5.
The first batch of adaption correspondence in August 2011.
6.
A consultation letter in December 2012.
7.
Proposals for administration fees and acting as agents for sales withdrawn whilst
adaptions and sub letting fees were introduced in April this year.
8.
Followed six months later by being told the figures for adaptions were wrong.
9.
Now a completely new direction saying all you had indicated previously is incorrect.
What on earth are we to believe?
For forty years I worked for the John Lewis Partnership. Over half of that time I was
Managing Director of Department Stores in Edinburgh, Newcastle and Welwyn Garden City.
86
Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
In those three cities I dealt extensively with councils including their Chief Executives,
Principle Officers and elected leaders. Certainly we had differences of opinion but we were
always working together for the benefit of the city and its electorate. Never did I find a refusal
to answer legitimate questions or a hiding of the truth. On the contrary, vigorous debate on
the agreed facts was seen as the only way to reach a fair decision.
I understand you have had a legal opinion which is surely and only just that. A view based
on the information provided, of which we know nothing. I also see you have had a
valuation, though why from a firm working for HMRC – are they specialists in seaside huts?
And what happened to the benchmarking exercise we were told about? Did not that provide
guidance on comparable rents for north facing huts not on the beach?
Hut owners, existing and new, were content with the SRF noting it was a method for the
council to take a slice of the lift in hut values created by the market in turn for keeping rents at
a reasonable level. That seemed eminently sensible to all hut owners. A capital on
sale/transfer – proportionate rents as an annual revenue cost for owners.
Now what am I faced with? By 2015/16 a rent of at least £690 (option 2b) plus compulsory
insurance of say £175 plus small business rates of approximately £110, totaling £975. That
is an increase of £607 per year on my costs now, an astonishing plus 165% and that
excludes any maintenance costs.
And what do I get for that? A maximum seven months occasional daytime only use of a sixty
square foot hut interior with use of a water stand pipe and occasional grass cutting (rubbish
collection and a toilet block have to be provided for promenaders anyway). For that I will pay
£140 a month which equates to council tax for a Band D house in Whitstable with several
rooms, twenty four hour use across 365 days and all normal council services. Against that
my hut cost doesn’t seem a very good deal.
Looking around my immediate 14 hut neighbours in Tankerton East I am aware that 7 are
retired, 4 are local young families and 3 are modest users. If these proposed rents go ahead
I can see at least half of these, including myself, intending to sell quickly while there is still
some buoyancy in the market, to avoid such swinging annual costs for so relatively little in
return. This year, in what was a good summer, I and my family used the hut around thirty
times which at the proposed cost equals over £30 per visit.
Finally there is the to and fro issue of sub letting. Your licence banned it, and then you
introduced a fee. How many took it up? How many sub let without paying the fee? If as I
suspect only one to two percent of owners across Herne Bay and Tankerton want to sub let
then surely you cannot expect the remaining 98% to subsidise their gain. So do not permit
sub letting and revoke the licence of those that ignore the rule.
On page 31 of the 2008 scrutiny review it was stated ‘it is clear that beach huts have long
been regarded as a valued feature of our coastal towns’. On page 32 it was stated ‘the
council has a role to play in ensuring that the huts remain a successful element of the
landscape’. With your current proposals I can see either vacant huts, especially in the less
attractive middle and rear rows, or huts owned by wealthy outsiders being used very
occasionally. How is any of that helping your residents and electors or improving the amenity
and economy of your seaside towns?
I strongly oppose the proposal to greatly increase the beach hut fees as outlined in your letter
of 12th November 2013.
We are local residents with a young family who use our beach hut continuously throughout
the summer and whenever weather permits at other times during the year. We have
87
Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
absolutely no wish to sublet our beach hut as we make full use of it ourselves. We also don't
envisage selling the hut - our aim is to hand it down to our children or potential grandchildren.
The cheapest option that you are proposing would require us to find a further £295 a year almost doubling the current fees. In the current economic climate I feel this is totally
unreasonable. We purchased the beach hut when we moved to the area 10 years ago.
Although an expensive outlay we were keen to buy a hut to enable us and our family to make
full use of the beach. We run a small business and while we make enough money to fund
our modest lifestyle, we actually earn relatively little. Purchasing the hut was a stretch for us
but we were confident that we would be able to budget sufficiently to afford the licence fee of
roughly £320 per year. We expected small annual increases to cover the cost of inflation but
your new proposed fees will potentially mean we can no longer afford to fund our licence.
Wages for many have been frozen for the last few years and I believe that fees like these will
price local owners like ourselves out. Many will be forced to sell their huts, probably to
wealthier non-residents. Whilst I have no problem with non-residents owning huts, how much
nicer to have at least some of the huts open and being used throughout the week rather than
just at the weekend.
I urge you to reconsider this extraordinarily large increase. If this goes ahead I am sure huts
will become abandoned, unused and will fall into disrepair. I understand from long-term
Whitstable residents that not so long ago many huts were in a terrible state as nobody
wanted to own them. As the popularity of Whitstable grew, the huts were purchased and the
owners have spent time and money renovating them. They are now an attractive addition to
Whitstable beach life and it would be a huge shame if exorbitant rates reversed the situation.
I am writing further to previous correspondence on this matter - which I note I have never
received a direct formal response on.
Since our correspondence below I have received a letter from Mr Griffiths dated 12 nov 2013
with details of a new tenancy agreement and a very sketchy explanation of why and how this
tenancy agreement has been arrived at.
I have been travelling out of the country for most of November and have only just had time to
read the information in the letter quickly and realised that I need to send you comments
before 5 pm today. Hence these comments are rather hurried and do not go into as much
detail and analysis as I would like to have provided.
In summary I do not believe that the Council should be taking the course of action proposed
in its letter of 12 November for the following reasons:
1.
None of the BHOAs or the owners have had sight of the instructions to counsel or
counsel’s opinion and so are unable to say whether the right questions were asked of
counsel and whether counsel’s analysis is correct. These should be joint instructions between
the Council and BHOA/owners.
2.
Imposing unilateral changes to the terms of the tenancy agreement is potentially
arbitrary, unreasonable, unlawful and an abuse of power.
3.
It is not clear how the benchmarking exercise could be said to fairly support the
increased rents when I believe that the exercise showed that the even before the proposed
hike in rents, the rents for Whitstable and Tankerton beach huts were the most expensive of
the benchmarked sites.
4.
CCC is seeking to obtain a rent in excess of £600 for a hut. How can this be
reasonable when this is more than council tax on a small house? Especially when the hut
88
Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
does not have the benefit of running water, electricity, sewage or drainage?
5.
What is the consequence of not signing the draft tenancy agreement that was
issued? Surely nothing happens and our existing tenancy agreement will just continue. CCC
needs to agree terms with owners and the BHOAs and imposing them in this manner is
unreasonable. It should be made clear that owners do not have to sign the agreements if
they object to it
6.
The way that CCC has gone about this whole exercise relating to the lease, rent
and adaptations of beach huts seems unfair and unreasonable.
7.
I have not bothered to read the lease because of the lack of time and also because
I don't believe that I can be bounced into accepting terms that I do not believe are reasonable
and which the BHOAs have agreed to.
I suggest that this whole issue be put on ice and reconsidered with the BHOAs to avoid
further pain and stress to all concerned. I believe that if CCC moves forward as currently
proposed, owners and the BHOAs will have no option but to consider what other remedies
are available to them - including legal remedies. This would be a further waste of energy,
resources, money and time for all parties.
Please note that whilst this email is written in my personal capacity and does not express the
opinion of Dentons. I look forward to hearing from you and hope that 2014 will see us moving
towards arrangements that are more equitable and fair than what is currently being proposed
by CCC.
In response to your letter dated 12th November 2013 regarding the above I would like to offer
the following comments:
My wife and I have recently (September 2012) moved to Whitstable from Wilmington,
Dartford and earlier this year purchased a beach hut on Tankerton Slopes so are relative
newcomers to the area and the beach hut owning fraternity.
Having reviewed your letter and the documents enclosed therewith I must say I am
somewhat confused by the terminology e.g. tenancy agreement; this implies that the Council
owns both the land and the beach hut constructed thereon which is simply not the case. The
Council own the land but the beach hut is owned by the beach hut owner and not the
Council. I should have thought that the Council ought to be looking at ground rents i.e. a rent
charged in respect of the land only and not in respect of buildings placed thereon, rather than
‘market rent’ which is more applicable to tenanted properties.
My understanding is that leases for land only are usually for a minimum of 21 years and not
the annual period indicated in your proposed new agreement. Accordingly the ground rent
would be lower than might be achieved for a property on the open market.
On the above basis the existing charges would seem more than adequate. Certainly there
can be no case for the increases called for which would effectively be the same charges as
local authority owned and maintained huts elsewhere in Kent where services such as gas
bottles and beach staff are provided.
Regarding the question of discounts to residents, pensioners etc., it would seem to me that
given residents already pay council tax for the services the Council provide and that the
services provided at beach hut sites are available for public use and not exclusively for beach
hut owners there ought to be a differential for residents and non-residents. Maybe a
‘MyTownMyCity’ discount would be a way forward?
89
Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
I do not understand the controversy surrounding sub-letting. As the beach huts are privately
owned what difference does it make to the Council who is using them providing the fees are
paid and there is no breach of the lease?
On the subject of adaptations it would seem to me that existing alterations have been
accommodated in the existing charges and therefore no further increases are warranted.
Regarding compulsory public liability insurance, have there been any claims against the
Council arising from beach hut ownership that have resulted in the Council being asked to
reimburse. If not where is the justification for insurance against little or no risk?
Perhaps you would be kind enough to review the above and let me have your thoughts in due
course.
My husband responded through the council website to register his extreme dissatisfaction
with the proposed changes to the beach hut charges. I would like to agree with his views and
to reiterate both of our feelings on the issue.
1. The proposed fee increases are at such an escalated rate as to be iniquitous. To explain
them, and the other changes to the charging structure, with reference to legal opinions which
we are not privy to cannot be justified.
2. To enjoy the simple, quiet pleasure of using a beach hut should be available to a cross
section of society and not just the wealthy.
3.I cannot see why having a different charging structure for locals and others is no longer
acceptable.
4.To refer to "market rents" and to use the Valuation Office is a not uncommon ploy when
organisations attempt to justify steep price increases.
I understand the necessity for local government to reduce costs and to maximise revenues
at a time of austerity, but this proposal is a deeply unfair and punitive measure.
I refer to your letter of 12 November requiring a response by 11 December. I understand no
extension of that is to be afforded to tenants. We bought our hut, becoming tenants of the
site in 2006; in 2012 encouraged by the community we encountered in Whitstable, we
moved to Whitstable. CCC’s conduct seen at close hand has instilled objective concern
about its culture of secrecy, its decision- making processes, its internal communications, its
use of expertise and its fitness for purpose. The contrast between these objective concerns
and Mr. Carmichael’s goal of a corporate model is palpable.
1. Knowledge of the facts: I have facts from 6 meetings with CCC Officers and from
reading extensive documents including prior drafts of the tenancy agreement.
My knowledge informs the dismay and astonishment at CCCs proposals (and the timing).
However, I write solely as a well- informed tenant with legal training experience and
knowledge. . I am a barrister called to the bar of England and Wales in l988. Regardless of
my interest, my goal in advising the Associations has been to encourage forensic factual
accuracy, and then accurately interpreted statutory and case law applied appropriately to
the facts. Little of that is evident in the results presented to tenants.
The Associations’ representatives have now made formal representations to the CCC
Officers in relation to
a) the rate of rents: having seen the DVS report there is need for an independent market
valuation for the rents. It appears that the DVS report may well be flawed, and based on
insufficient evidence.
90
Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
b) the need for disclosure of the basis of the reasoning of outside counsel on both the
SRF and advice to abolish various differentials in rents. It is not lawful for CCC to hide
behind (waivable) professional privilege to avoid disclosure of reasoning. This applies in all
cases but with greater force when the proposed discontinuance of the SRF reduces
CCC’s income (the reason it now gives for having concealed the legal advice for more than
10 months) and thereby increases the need to make up the income by charging more in
annual rent.
c) the misconstruction of the views of the Associations in relation to the rights of
transfer under the tenancy agreement and the rent. These misrepresentations are serious in
that they impact both on the drafting of the tenancy agreement and the setting of rent.
Therefore I do not dwell on those points.
In short, and summary, my comments qua tenant are:
1. the Rate of rent needs setting independently on a forensic basis by an independent
expert: the Associations’ representatives, in participating meticulously, never indicated
anything different from that. The issues discussed were a) the criteria for comparison;
and b) the comparison sites (of which there were 52).
2. the timing: the CCC conflates 2 separate issues:
a) its wish to increase its income regardless with
b) the statutory budget timetable
so it has disregarded its prior commitments to consultation . It has, in doing this, betrayed
implied and express promises and its duty as a public authority to make its reasoning plain. .
3. Conclusions of law from –apparently—an outside barrister: Serious issues of
judgment arise from the concealment of CCC having taken and received advice as long
ago as January 2013. Further, the outside barrister’s conclusions (if correct—and that is far
from certain) may have a far reaching impact on many issues relating to the setting of
rents, the abolition of concessions, if any, and potentially the discontinuance of the SRF.
Consequently, reliance on his advice needs to be supported by full and frank disclosure
of the reasoning and case law, in particular in relation to differential charges and the
construction of all relevant statutory law re the SRF.
To ask the Executive, Councillors and tenants to rely solely on the conclusions—without the
reasoning-- risks the Council altering its policies in error purely for the purpose of income.
From what I have seen of the conclusions, and the list of cases, error is probable.
4. the form of tenancy agreement: once again, having met with CCC on 7th June 2013 ,
and having waited for 5 months, without any prior consultation, the tenants are confronted
with a re-draft which the Associations’ representatives had not seen before it was sent out.
What is the point in asking professionally qualified , highly experienced and skilled business
people who have volunteered to work on this if this is the result? It is evident that CCC
does not know how to use relevant resources.
5. The proposed £463 admin and legal fee: on 2 December 2012, when CCC first
proposed this fee for “admin and legal” (not recollecting that the SRF has been expressly
constructed, specifically to include the prior charge for administration and legal), CCC ‘s
officer was questioned at a Council meeting in January 2013 as to its formulation. The
Officer advised that it represented an assessment of officers’ time for –he said, principally
dealing “with estate agents” and other administration. That the cost to the taxpayer of the
91
Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
tasks necessary in a) registering the name of the new tenant; b) issuing the tenancy
agreement and c) receiving the SRF, takes £463 as a time charge means that something
has gone awry: If this is the cost of these tasks, then Mr. Carmichael’s goal of corporate
efficiency is a long way off.
6 Additional issues: :
a) the termination of the LTD: first, in relation to the Birmingham bus fare concession
case, not yet having had an opportunity to read it, I cannot form a view as to whether
concessionary “bus fares” form an appropriate model of comparison for the negotiation
of the terms of a tenancy agreement to private tenants on public land by a public
authority acting as a landlord.
However, I am sceptical that the case or other law disallows discretion by a public authority
when it negotiates an agreement with tenants to permit tenants who meet certain criteria
specific concessions.
Regardless of that, to rush this through, never having raised it previously for those few
tenants who currently meet the criteria of tenancies of more than 15 years and receipt of
state pensions , resulting in an increase of 360% looks pointlessly callous.
b) Application of the Birmingham case to the mobility concessions for access: : in
its revised notice of rent charges for adaptations sent out on 15 October, the CCC stated
that those with mobility restrictions (and proof of same ) will not be charged additional rent if
the access they have installed to their huts exceeds in dimension what would otherwise be
specified for access for a person without mobility issues.
This is a concession in rent made to those with an identifiable need. Does the Birmingham
bus fare case, apply to this concession? If so, is the notice to those with adaptations of 15
October to be rescinded in part?
Just so we know, because the error, confusion and chaos which marked CCC’s conduct
on “adaptations” perhaps needs to be taken one step further.
c) the proposed ending of the differential between residents in the Canterbury
Administrative District and those whose residence does not fall within it: as above,
so crucial to the setting of tents is this issue, that it is incomprehensible that CCC delayed
securing advice on this before entering into the benchmarking exercise on 7th June and 8th
August. First, a lower rent to local rate payers is not a concession. Instead, it recognises
an additional financial contribution made by local tenants and not made by non local
tenants: the comparison with bus fares to the elderly doesn’t work. Are you not comparing
apples with oranges? At the meetings on 7th June and 8th August, the officers gave no
inkling that any such differential was an issue nor did they ask us to research the issue. Yet
it is crucial to the setting of rents. The only discussion which ensued was that differentials in
relation to those within the UK and EU residents could not be sustained. To impose this on
such short notice is unfair and unreasonable. My advice is that CCC needs to be very sure
that the Birmingham bus fare case is apt.
d) the differential in the rates of rent at HB and TB: there was previously a 4 year
formula whereby the discrepancy in rental rates, (under which the tenants at HB pay over
£10 per sq. metre more than tenants at TB) was to be adjusted: Instead in the latest
proposals I see no formula for that and no amelioration of the subsisting position . What is
the proposal now in this regard? The Council Officer told us that this would be sorted during
the benchmarking and rent setting exercise, but it is not. This differential is unfair to the
tenants at HB and I cannot see the basis of a higher rate of rent per sq. m at HB. Please
92
Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
advise and please advise the impact on the rates at TB.
Please in reply confirm that
a) the points are received and
b) a revised time table for consideration of the law, having an impact on the SRF will be
adopted
c) a revised time table for setting of market rent and implementation will be adopted.
Whatever else, CCC knows how to waste time, resources and make unnecessary work.
Ten months and 6 meetings before 12 November: hundreds of hours of work and research.
In 43 years of business and legal work it is rare to see so little accomplished from so much
time, compounded by the lack of openness or frankness or any sense of a goal. CCC has,
it is apparent, no respect for the skills, expertise or professional knowledge of the
volunteers representing the tenants—nor indeed any concept that the volunteers are
capable of assessing business and legal issues, setting aside, in their deliberations, out
of respect for the taxpayer (who is not a tenant), personal interest.
My conclusion is that CCC’s conduct is abusive, deplorable and probably unlawful. My
husband a former borough councillor is appalled. I do not here comment on the
consequences of CCC’s abuse of time and skills other than that it . encourages a deplorable
alienation from public authority.
In response to your letter of 3 December 2012 ref beach hut fees and charges 2013/14, I
object most strongly to my rental agreement becoming a lease agreement, what happens to
my beach hut when this lease runs out.
As regards sub letting. I have no intention of sub letting.
Re adaptations, there is a decked area in front of my hut, when I purchased the hut there was
a small concrete wall around this area with a ladder access up to the veranda, this was
extremely dangerous and there were several near misses involving the children, for this
reason the decking was put in place, eventually the steps were installed as the ladder was
unsuitable.
The proposed agency fees are totally unacceptable.
I refer to the letter of 12 November 2013 outlining your proposals for substantial increases to
the Beach Hut Tenancy Fees and changes to the Tenancy Agreement. The above Beach Hut
is owned by my mother-In-law, Mrs D Storey who is 92 years old and is extremely concerned
about these changes, which she cannot fully understand. She has asked me to deal with this
on her behalf.
These proposals come after many years of attempted negotiation by the Tankerton Bay
Beach Hut Owner s' Association to reach a reasonable agreement. Looking back at the
history, I am appalled at the position taken by the Council and its inability to treat its tenants
fairly.
Your letter comes after you had to write to apologise to Mrs Storey for the Council sending
out an incorrect request to sign an agreement in April which stated that she was not licensed
to use her beach hut.
In that apology you stated: ‘We are proceeding with positive negotiations with the Beach Hut
Associations and in the near future hope to be in a mutually agreed position to forward
consultation on a new agreement for April 2014.’ However, your recent correspondence and
the reports from the Tankerton Bay Beach Hut Association indicate that you were and still are
far from a mutually agreed position.
93
Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
My main concerns about the proposals are that:
1.
You have put forward increases and changes to the rental structure with out any
evidence that these changes can be substantiated. Your track record on getting things
wrong is such that I would not trust your evidence without professional scrutiny something you appear to be denying to the Beach Hut Associations.
2.
These changes are so significant that implementation by April 2014, does not give
owners the chance to sell or modify their huts to mitigate the increase d rents,
especially as this is over the winter period.
3.
Your draft agreement has virtually nothing about the Council's responsibilities; for
example, in respect of maintaining the slopes (something that has made access for
my mother-in-law very difficult in recent years as the grass above the huts is no longer
cut). Providing standpipes for drinking water, keeping the steps and handrails
maintained and servicing and operating the public toilets at times when Beach Hut
users might require them.
4.
There is no rationale provided for the imposition of compulsory public liability
insurance. Could you provide details of incidents that have occurred during the last 20
years when this would have been called for?
5.
The rent increase is quite unacceptable. Rents in the past have been increased in line
with inflation which is a reasonable basis for a Council to act. Your revaluation means
that you have got all of the rents considerably wrong in the past: even the nonresidents' rent is being increased above inflation. A revaluation would normally be
phased in over a long period, not implemented immediately. The 2 year-scheme,
simply reduces the increase in 2014/15 and moves it to 2015/16. It is difficult to see
how this is anything other than an opportunist attempt to make money for the Council
out of what is at the moment a popular asset.
6.
The huts themselves are owned by the tenants and the rent is for the site alone.
Whilst it is reasonable for the Council to expect certain standards of the huts, I can
see no justification for the increased rent for adaptations. The plot size should surely
be the determining factor for the rent not what is erected on it.
7.
I understand that the subletting option is that either all huts will be able to sublet or
none will be able to. This is contrary to the principle of market values which you seem
to hold.
8.
Your increased rent proposal, together with the reduced administration charge will
inevitably lead to more Beach Huts changing hands and less local residents enjoying
the amenities of the area. In my mother-In-law's case, she is now only able to get to
her hut on a few occasions each year but she loves it and the pleasure it gives her
great grand-children. The extra cost, if implemented, might make it uneconomic for
her.
All in all, this is a very disappointing proposal and attitude from the Council.
Of course I appreciate that it is not you personally responsible for the appalling situation we
are suffering with the council ripping off the children, residents and elderly who have, so far,
derived great pleasure from inherited or purchased beach huts.
My first gripe is that, when I retired from running a cafe in Whitstable (and hard work it was
too, to make money), I put my hard earned savings into buying a very dilapidated beach hut.
94
Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
on the Tankerton slopes, partly to spend time down there in my retirement and mostly to give
pleasure to my grandchildren who live in Whitstable.
Upon the advice of Matthew Young's office, I went to Quinneys who were efficient helpful and
full of advice as to the size of beach hut that is permissible. Imagine my surprise, some eight
to nine years later, to receive an invoice for 'beach hut adaption'. Quinneys, I was told, were
your recommended builders, and if you had made them aware of this fact, I would not now
have to pay over £50 a week over and above the exorbitant rates that I believe are to be
charged.
And now, talking about fees. You MUST realise that a majority of the beach hut owners are,
like me, retired and on a fixed pension. Are you actively trying to DESTROY THE
HAPPINESS OF RELAXATION in our old age? And I also gather that you may be taking
away the 'local residents' rate. So once again, the FAT CAT DFLS will be able to come down
to Tankerton, clog up the car parks AND have enough money to buy the beach huts that we
locals can no longer afford.
To say that I am DISGUSTED by the council's plans for the beach huts is to put it mildly. I
feel that it is a greedy move to get more tax to get them out of the financial scrapes they have
put us in, and all at the expense of local children, families and old people. GREAT - I don't
think.
I am loathe to put a stamp on this as every penny from my pension will now be needed to pay
the ludicrous beach hut rates you intend to charge. But by not putting a stamp on the
envelope would mean that you had, like us, to pay double - at least you would know how it
feels.
A very angry
When we decided to buy a beach hut to enjoy in our retirement, we never expected this much
hassle!
When we received your (Canterbury City Council's) letter dated 12 Nov 2013 and enclosures
I only read part of it. I have to thank the Tankerton Bay Beach Hut Association for drawing
our attention to the full contents of your letter and enclosures. The beach hut association
have provided us with a clear summary of your proposals.
Re Rent/Annual fee
We are unhappy about the proposed increase in rent, the annual fee. In our case as nonresidents this appears to mean an increase from £546 to at least £663, an increase of over
20% or as much as £812, an increase of almost 50% to permit subletting.
However we do not intend to sub-let our hut and do not know anyone who does intend to do
so.
We do not entirely understand your figures and reasoning. Your letter says ‘DVS...
apportioned an increase in value of 20% of the base market rent if subletting were to be
permitted’. However in our case you seem to have applied a 20% increase without allowing
subletting?
We are pensioners on a limited income. An annual increase in line with inflation say 2%
would be acceptable to us.
As an aside: You do not state what ‘comparable information’ has been used by DVS. If one
compares the 10x10ft space with a one room studio flat, which is available for use 24 hours
95
Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
and has all services laid on, then the market rent for a beach hut which cannot be slept in
overnight and has no mains services and is only used occasionally seems over-valued. It
seems a lot to pay for grass cutting by the council and the use of a water tap some distance
away.
We considered we were paying for the view and location when we bought our hut from the
previous owner and we seem to be paying the council again for the same thing.
Re Tenancy agreement and Public Liability Insurance
The proposed tenancy agreement is more complicated than our existing agreement. We rely
on the advice of the Beach Hut Association's more knowledgeable legal members to help us
to understand the implications of such documents. Generally we prefer the existing
agreement. We support the Beach Hut Association in all their efforts.
We have insured our beach hut with TL Risk Solutions and Public Liability Insurance of £5m
is included. We pay a considerable additional sum of approximately £200pa for the peace of
mind of having insurance, in addition to the council rent. Over 15 years this would be
sufficient to pay for a new hut to be built so perhaps we would be wiser not to insure?!
Therefore we are not convinced that it is fair to insist on compulsory insurance in the tenancy
agreement.
In conclusion, we are most unhappy about the proposed re-valuation and massive
rent/annual fee increases. We support the Beach Hut Association in all that they say on these
matters. We trust you will take our comments into account when deciding on these matters.
Correct me if I'm wrong but was it not the Council's intention to fix the hut tenancy agreement
and fees to allow more local residents an opportunity to own a beach hut. Raising the fees by
360%, removing the tier for residents and abandoning the offer of long term discount hardly
helps in this matter.
I am not suggesting the fees should remain static but as a pensioner, local resident and long
term owner you seem to be targeting me personally. To increase my fee from £172 to £796
hardly indicates that 'we are all in this together’ as your political masters would say.
Allowing subletting opens the door for the wealthy entrepreneurs to buy up the huts and
make a profit subletting to local residents. My cynical mind thinks that maybe the council
would be interested in buying huts from the pensioners no longer able to afford their huts. I
certainly object to paying an extra fee to allow some owners the right to sub let. Why should I
subsidise their money-making activities?
Looking back over the years (the hut has been in our family for 90 years) I wonder what extra
facilities we will be gaining for our 360% increase in fees. The council service in recent years
appears to be reducing ie failure to cut the grass on the slopes at Tankerton. Would this
service be re-introduced?
I note that the DVS report states in paragraph 5.3 that a more normal range would be
between £350 and £650 per annum. It is interesting that you have chosen to go to the t op
end of this. Can you justify your choice in light of my opening comment?
I n conclusion, I believe your proposed increase is totally unacceptable to residents, non
residents and long-term owners and would hope that you will reconsider your decision at your
next meeting.
I am writing to you in connection with your proposed increase in the Beach Hut Fees
2014/2015 and presumably thereafter.
Before setting down my opinion, I wish to point out to you that your employers – the Council-
96
Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
represent the senior coalition partners in our current government from which RESTRAINT
AND PRUDENCE is the message. I do not believe that any part of this government message
can possibly sanction an up to 360 percent increase in annual fees. The level is too high.
The Council have said that they are unable, ‘due to ED law to operate more than one tier of
charging, which means that resident rate payers would pay the same as non residents.
No justification has been given for the increase in charge. You make much of the fact that
you have taken legal opinion. You refuse to let the public have access to this opinion and
there is no transparency in your conduct. You give no reason for the increase. You do say
that the legal opinion authorises you to take this action. You choose to implement a sort of
smash and grab policy which needs to be publicised and changed.
I have lived in Whitstable all my life. My parents together with a subsequent generation of
children and now grandchildren all enjoy Whitstable town life and the joy of a beach hut has
added to this enjoyment in our town.
Whether or not we need health and safety, public liability insurance and your other dictates
are not matters on which I can comment until such time as you start being more transparent
and remember that you owe a duty of care to the residents.
I am not part of the wealthy people who are paying high prices for beach huts. I bought mine
in 2000 for £750.
I am copying this letter to my local MP, Julian Brazier, Mr Colin Carmichael, the Chief
Executive of the Canterbury City Council and our local Beach Hut Representative Marilyn
Richards
Thank you for your assistance in dealing with this matter.
As owner of a beach hut at Tankerton Bay, a long term resident of Whitstable and a member
of the Owners Association I am writing to protest against the proposed action by Canterbury
City Council.
I feel your raft of proposals are out of all proportion, particularly those increases aimed at
local pensioners ie to cease charging lower rents to local owners and ceasing the long term
discount for local pensioners.
I saved long and hard to buy my hut and I would hate not to be able to afford to keep it.
I hope you take serious notice of local opinion.
As a hut owner of nearly 20 years standing I would like to express my concern at the highhanded approach taken by the Council with regard to the Beach Hut annual rents.
Yearly increases in line with inflation would be acceptable but an increase in some cases of
360% along with the added burden of imposing compulsory third party insurance seems
excessive if not vindictive.
On what basis can the Council justify such an approach which can only alienate all parties,
and particularly locals?
•
Rents must be set at market rents but a low rent could legally and should be set for
anyone, on planned change in licensee holder, who agrees to sell the wooden hut at
replacement value via the Council to the next licensee ( eg locals found by ballot)
who agrees the same terms and so on. Such a contract would not be subject to the
97
Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
•
•
•
•
market rent requirement of this exercise because those terms would make the
contract very different and not attractive for investors Current holders paying lower
rents could agree those special terms to stay on those lower rents. A very similar
scheme to this was proposed in the paper written by Council officer David Ford but
it was secretly suppressed by certain councilors suppressed and did not go out for
consultation.
We agree with the extra rent for sub-letting. It should be reviewed though to ensure
there is a vibrant sub-letting market so local people who can’t afford a hut have a
chance to use one form time to time.
We do not understand the legal basis for ‘It would not be appropriate to charge the
supplementary rental fee’; assuming there is one rather than just pressure. It is not
clear why the requirement to charge a market rent for rental should not apply to the
sales fee. The Seasalter Fisheries company charges £2500 plus VAT on an annual
license fee of £600 for their huts on Seasalter Beach( witness statement available on
request) . The research on the market was very deficient in not identifying this. We
request a transfer fee of at least the same level .
The valuation report has some professional errors in our opinion, described below,
which lead to the rental valuation being too low. These may be due to the valuer not
understanding the beach hut market or that market locally. A second opinion should
be sought from a local valuer (not involved in beach hit sales or owning a beach hut
of course). We can recommend one.
If higher rents lead to more huts on the market, that will lead to lower prices and
mean that the less well off have a chance to won a hut on these publicly owned sites.
Higher rents and lower hut prices will maximize Council revenue and minimise
unjustified premiums released by hut owners who sell huts at four to five times the
cost of the wooden hut because of a combination of low rents and the new policy of
allowing a licensee to name the next licensee.
Some of the faults in the valuation report.
•
The valuer thinks that the Herne Bay huts are more attractive because they are on the
beach!
•
The view that the Whistable Oyster Fisheries West Beach huts are irrelevant just
because there are more huts at Tankerton is fundamentally wrong. There are quite
large number and market prices are set at the margin in marginal sales. Huts any
have very low turnover. We are amazed by this assertion. This is a major mistake.
Those on West Beach have rents way £1500 pa
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-26447034.html, with far less
security of license renewal and the site are directly comparable with those on
Tankerton Slopes in terms of quality and popularity.
•
If market rents were being charge, the price of huts would be close to the value of
the wooden huts instead of four to five time that level. The value is wrong not to take
account of this strange premium for annual leases in his analysis .
•
The comparison with the harbour huts verge on the amateur in our view with the
arbitrary assumption of half the rent being for the use of the huts themselves. After all
the huts are the same in the front and back row yet the valuer assigns a different
value for the use of the huts as opposed to the differentially advantaged site
locations(front and back) that affect the site rent . The hut use element should be
worked out on the basis of analysis of the wooden huts in term of return on capital
after deprecation . The residual then gives the market rent of the site and it is not
the figure the value has stated.
•
There are more faults.
With regard to the Tankerton bay beach hut letter about increased rates we would like to add
our support to the campaign against these proposals, which we find to be way beyond belief.
98
Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
As retired pensioners who have lived in this area for over 30 years our hut is our main leisure
activity and source of pleasure, and whilst a small increment of these rates is to be expected,
one of this magnitude is more than unreasonable. Our family are very unhappy that we may
have to give this up and even though we get great support from them in maintaining the
beach hut to a very high standard, this still breaches the limits of our capabilities.
Lastly, as one of the few remaining families who actively maintain their beach hut to an
extremely high standard so that it becomes an asset to the slopes at Tankerton, we feel we
must make you aware that by proposing this legislation you may lose one of those families
and have yet another beach hut that falls into a state of disrepair and stains the appearance
of this beautiful stretch of coast. Perhaps it would be a more worthwhile direction of the
councils efforts to continue to support the owners of the beach huts rather than wasting the
councils already limited funds on the proposed outdoor gym along Tankerton slopes.
I apologise for the tone of this email but I must stress the urgency of this matter as it is one
that directly impacts on our lives.
I am a local owner of a beach hut at Tankerton Slopes (Number 10 Tankerton West) and I am
writing to object in the strongest possible terms, to the sudden imposition of changed terms of
conditions. As a long time local (I have lived in Canterbury for forty years). I have always
seen the beach hut as a local amenity and an extension of my own property in Canterbury.
The extra fees and changed conditions will make the beach hut ??? considerably expensive)
impossibly expensive for me – a pensioner.
My owners association (Tankerton Bay) has made representation and we wish our solicitors
to see the written legal opinion you have gained.
We wish you to maintain lower rates for locals.
We wish you to refrain from charging compulsory Public Liability insurance and to keep the
present rules/fees for adaptation.
We are very unhappy about the way in which this whole episode has been managed and
communicated.
I am writing on behalf of my elderly mother, who has owned the above beach hut for over 30
years.
Last year I wrote to the council, letter dated 17 December 12, regarding the extra charge for a
pulpit approved design, verbally given to me by a member of the council. Rather than an
adaption, it is actually an integral part of a beach hut. As if this extra charge is not bad
enough, we are now being subjected to a massive increase in rental rates.
My mother is in no position on her pension to be able to pay these extortionate increases. I
am also a pensioner and between us these increases are not possible.
I cannot understand the Council's logic on this. If they are trying to push the majority of hut
owners into selling, what do they think they have gained? Like us, several of our neighbours
are local families, so, as we use our huts as regularly as weather permits, we are spending
money in the area, whether it be an ice cream or supporting the local shops.
We also take pride in our huts and keep them in very good order. There are several huts near
us that are owned by people from some distance away, eg London and further a field, for the
last 3 years we have never seen these huts even being opened up, so they are not bringing
any revenue into the local area. No doubt the huts will just start deteriorating; is this, the
attractive ambience the council is after?
99
Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
Overall, I think the Council is being very short-sighted. To be able to use the huts, owners
have a very small window of opportunity each season, obviously totally dependent on the
weather. This year has been a good season, but the two previous years we were only able to
open ours up approx six times during each summer. If we are starting to talk about figures
rising to approx £600 and if we have a bad summer, this equates to approx. £100 per visit.
Can the Council please explain how they justify this? At the end of the day we are talking
about a shed with facilities to make a cup of tea.
Unfortunately, my mother is unable to sign this letter as on Wednesday 4th December, while
in Canterbury shopping, she tripped over on the King's Bridge due to uneven cobblestones
and has broken her shoulder/collar bone. Perhaps the Council should turn its attention to
addressing the poor condition of Canterbury High Street instead!
I am writing to you to express my views and opinions with regards to our beach hut tenancy
agreement and fees for 2014/15.
My family has owned our beach hut for many years and it has been enjoyed by many. It really
saddens me that you plan on increasing rent by up to 360%!! Impose extra fees for
adaptations to our huts which are there to make them safe for the general public and also to
make the area a lot be pleasable.
It is such a shame that the council are taking away the joy of our beach hut away from our
family and friends to enjoy and spend quality family time together. Without our beach hut we
as a family would not see each other as much. It would break our hearts if we had to part with
it but with the HUGE increase in rates it would be totally impossible and unaffordable to keep.
The council will eventually end up with rows of derelict empty huts instead of looked after
used huts.
We all pay our taxes and know times are hard, but to take away our hut where we spend our
holidays in the UK putting our money into our economy rather than going abroad.
How can the council possibly justify the huge increases?
We clean the beach, weed the beach and surrounding areas of our hut and also cut the grass
around the huts. We even clear up dog mess that the public leave!! ! If we didn't who else
would? The beach will become a eyesore rather than a place of natural beauty.
Please please reconsider your fees and let families continue to enjoy their huts.
I know the council are facing budget cuts, but please do not ask the humble beach hut
owners to fund all of the shortfall! It is your duty to find as much income as possible but why
pick on us, have we upset you?
A 360% increase in some cases you must admit is excessive, even MP's consider 11% too
much!
To an independent person looking at these proposals it would seem the council have an
ulterior motive to drive the beach hut owners away! Why else would you impose such unfair
increases on such a small group of people?
In the great scheme of things do you not think the time and money spent on this subject has
been out of all proportion to the problem?
I await your reply.
Wishing you and your staff a Happy Xmas
100
Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
Following our telephone conversation today, I'm afraid I have still not received any
correspondence regarding the Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 but I did
manage to get a copy, for reference, from the Tankerton Bay Beach Hut Owners' Association
and I would like to make comment now, as soon as possible, as I am aware this will arrive
after the official deadline of 5pm 4 December – but before the extended deadline you kindly
gave me of Monday 16th December.
Firstly, I would like to submit a view I wrote as a column piece for a newspaper which was
published as follows:
The high price of beach huts might suggest that most belong to rich out-of-towners but in fact
the majority of huts lining West Beach and Tankerton Slopes are owned by local people. I've
enjoyed a beach hut for 14 years but many were purchased for far less as they have
remained within local families for over three generations.
Hut owners who are local residents currently pay £368 per year for what is, in effect, a
Ground
Rent to the council. For that they get nothing (since beach tap water and public toilets are
provided for all.) Non-residents pay £546 and pensioners, who currently receive 'long term
discount', pay £172. Tony Crowe, from Charlton, bought his hut for the princely sum of
£1,175 on his retirement in 1998 as rector. He was looking forward to receiving his 'long term
discount' but has learned, along with many other pensioners, that this will be axed and from
2014 hut owners could pay a staggering £796 per year.
Marilyn Richards of the Tankerton Bay Beach Hut Owners Association has calculated that the
city council's plans will mean increases as high as 360% in some cases. Added to this will be
swingeing fees for any adaptations to huts, even though many have been in place for years,
or on purchase, and despite owners having been given verbal authority from the council to
make them.
The council claims it needs to charge market rents and has therefore studied rates for other
sites, but in doing so it has compared rates for beach hut hire charged by private companies
with local authority site rental charges to hut owners.
It might seem incredible for the council even to attempt this, but remember it wasn't long ago
the same council tried to charge Cromwell Road residents to walk across Bisson's car park to
our homes? Canterbury council has £4 million in reserve but a senior council official declared
'it's our duty to sweat our assets.' Marilyn Richards claims they are milking their 'cash cow'
dry.
Mr Gilbey rules Canterbury Council by an appointed executive rather than a committee
system, and Cllr Peter Vickery-Jones, the executive member for foreshore services, recently
presented a feeble excuse for the rent hikes, claiming the council had been forced into this
position after talks with a barrister. He said 'we are obliged to take note of the advice given
and I hope that owners will understand our position'.
The truth is that the council hired the barrister and is now refusing to allow the Beach Hut
Owners' Association even to see the legal opinion.
If you believe that the council is not a 'business', but a public service, and that no-one
deserves a 360% rent increase, not even a beach hut owning pensioner, please write to
Richard Griffiths at [email protected]
If you've simply had enough of Canterbury Council, you can join the 3,000 people who have
signed a paper petition calling for John Gilbey and his executive to resign. Here's the online
version. http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/gilbey_be_gone
101
Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
Thank you for your letter of 12 November 2013 relating to the above.
Frankly, we find it hard to believe what we're reading in terms of the new proposed
arrangements.
We have a beach hut on Tankerton slopes, purchased less than a year ago, which we have
enjoyed for this summer (weather permitting).
We are horrified by these proposed increases in tenancy fees. First of all they are
astronomical in percentage terms, so for Option 2a (which is where we imagine we fit,
assuming that 'resident' means resident within the Canterbury City Council area) our rent
would be raised from £388 to £663.00. This is an unbelievable 80%increase.
lf this is in response to the ‘external legal advice of a barrister on [your] approach to beach
hut fees’ which says you have to stop charging any supplementary rental fee for when a hut
is sold and instead increase the annual fee to a market rent, then it is clear that things have
not been at all in hand for many years. The very least you might have done is
a)
to seek a second opinion on such swingeing changes to the current practice when you
find what you have been doing in the past is not legal;
b)
allow the Tankerton beach Hut Owners' Association sight of this legal Opinion (the lack
of doing this just makes it sound very fishy) and
c)
consider bringing in any changes over a period of time and not in one fell swoop.
Because this all makes us wonder how the Council got into this situation of being so
out-of-sync that this change requires an 80%rise in the market rent.
In addition you have consulted DVS to advise you on the new charges for ‘a market rent’ but
again failed to consult or share your thoughts with the Association. Neither of these moves
encourages our confidence in the Council as an organisation that practises both transparency
and partnership. It feels like an imposition from on high by an authoritarian body rather than a
body whose authority comes from the councillors elected by the residents of the area.
Looking at the tenancy agreement re-emphasises the one-sidedness nature of our
relationship with the Council. Rules about what we can erect, the nature of changes, repairs,
adaptations, security, access and the very use of it itself, quite apart from health and safety
and so on and so forth make us feel that very little of ‘our’ beach hut really is ‘ours’. And that
is before we consider what we're actually getting for the very high rents we're expected to
pay. Apart from the use of a very small plot, not much bigger than a garden shed,
actually...nothing. The grass gets mown; water is on site as are public toilets; there's some
litter collection. But that is no more than the general public at large receive. We don't even
get any security protection provided by the Council. There is also clearly little if any provision
for Dog Wardens in the areas where the beach huts are situated. We have not infrequently
found dog excrement around our hut and we find this quite disgusting, as well as concerned
about the health hazard to us and our grandchildren. In fact there appears to be no provision
at all for enforcing the requirement for no dogs to be on the beach during the summer
months, as they are often to be seen just running free .
Moreover we're expected to pay for the insurance of our beach huts at premiums that are as
much as for a small house. And now we're looking at the imposition of Public Liability
Insurance. Great Heavens! We had imagined that Public Liability cover to be something that
businesses and organisations take out, not individuals. So, from the website
http://www.simplybusiness.co.uk/knowledge/articles/2008104/200804-29-why-publicliability-insurance-is-essential-5/
102
Beach hut tenancy agreement and fees for 2014/15 consultation responses
it says ‘Public liability insurance is an essential cover for most types of business. It's
especially important for customers to be sure that your business has the right cover. This
type of insurance would cover a business if a customer or member of the public was to suffer
a loss or injury as a result of its business activities and if that person made a claim for
compensation. The insurance would cover the compensation payment plus any legal
expenses.’
Well, I don't think we count as a business in how we ‘own’ our beach hut. The people we
invite to our beach hut are, I suppose 'members of the public', but not in the sense indicated
in the definition, more in the sense of people who we actually invite or permit to come to our
beach hut. We don't have public liability insurance on our own houses (do we?) for the
people who we invite to come here? After all, house insurance is not compulsory, at least not
in the same way as car insurance is, or in the way this is being demanded. And if public
liability insurance on the beach hut is covering those other than invited guests to the hut, then
who could these people be, other than trespassers, prowlers or burglars? The same situation
should therefore prevail in connection with the beach hut as does around our own houses.
So because this is public land over which the Council has jurisdiction and on which it is
exercising its authority, it would be far more appropriate for the Council to be taking
responsibility for Public Liability Insurance.
We think it is clear that we find the Council's proposals disproportionate, unreasonable and
lacking in any kind of transparency and partnership.
I write in response to the letter received from you on 12 November 2013. I object to the
council's position as described in the letter for the following reasons.
1.
The council has asked only one independent body to assess the rent for 2014/15. A
second independent body should be appointed and the results averaged. Even if this
resulted in a further proposed increase in rent it would remove from the equation the
suspicion that currently there are two ‘governmental bodies’ acting in concert. I would
hope that you would ask The Beach Hut owners association to choose the second
valuer and then average the results.
2.
I understand this need to regularise rentals but think that it is not fair to remove the
long term discount rental so quickly I would suggest that three years should be
allowed to bring these rentals in line with the others.
I have no issue with the removal of the resident discount in one go
3.
That the right to sub let should not be given. I see no reason as to why sub letting
should be allowed at all. It is my opinion that if a person has finished with the hut they
should relinquish the license for another person. I would not wish to accept an
increase in rent across all holders to subsidies a few people's desire to sub let.
If it is decided that sub letting should be allowed the surely it is fair only to charge the person
who is sub letting that extra rental rather than to charge extra rental to all licenses for a right
most of us will never use.
I do hope that I have been able to explain my position clearly but should this not be the case
and you feel you need further clarification of my position I would be happy too respond either
verbally or in writing.
I look forward to receiving confirmation of receipt of this letter.
103