Beach hut owners who do not agree to new licence terms by next April will be required to remove their huts.
But many of them are unhappy that among the new terms proposed by Brighton and Hove City Council is a potential four-figure increase in the transfer fee.
Councillors are being asked to sign off the proposed beach hut licence at the council’s Culture, Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Economic Development Committee at Hove Town Hall on Thursday 9 November.
Currently, licences cost £503.60 a year for placing a hut on council-owned land on the seafront, with an ownership transfer fee of £82.
The licence would mean owners having to pay 10 per cent of the sales fee or four times the licence fee when huts change hands.
With sale prices of between £25,000 to £30,000, this could work out as an increase of more than 3,000 per cent on the current transfer fee.
A public consultation, which lasted more than three weeks, generated 145 responses.
Example responses were included in a report to councillors, saying that beach huts would become unaffordable, the proposed fees would not add much to council coffers and the proposed increase was “extortion”.
There were also a few examples of owners supporting the proposals.
Among those objecting the new licence were David and Susie Howells, who have owned their beach hut for 20 years.
They said: “Over that time, we have invested significantly in its upkeep, including repairing and rebuilding it each time it has been vandalised, cleaning around it where it’s been used as a toilet because of the lack of seafront facilities, and recently rebuilding it at a cost of over £5,500.
“The beach huts on the promenade are a much-photographed attraction and beach hut owners all play our part as a community that adds value to the seafront experience for both residents and visitors to Brighton and Hove.”
Serena Mitchell, who bought her hut in 2017, has described the proposals as a “stealth tax”.
She said: “They use the word ‘fee’ as councils are not legally allowed to charge a tax on property sales. The government can and do.
“That’s called stamp duty and, in the case of second homes, capital gains tax.
“This stealth council hut tax would also be applied if a hut owner passes on a hut to a family member, who must be a local resident, as is anyone buying a hut.”
Ms Mitchell said that the price of beach huts had fallen in recent years since “temporary inflation” during the covid-19 pandemic.
A report to the committee said that licences generated revenues of £192,000 for the 459 beach huts.
The annual licence fee is lower than the fee charged by councils covering Bexhill, Worthing, Lancing, Shoreham, Bournemouth and Christchurch, the report said.
About 20 beach huts a year are sold and the new fee was estimated to generate about £60,000 a year.
The report also said that a few other councils such as Rother, Adur and Worthing and Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole, had comparable transfer charges.
These included three times the licence fee or 10 per cent, whichever was greater, or a flat fee of between £6,000 and £20,000.
The Culture, Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Economic Development Committee is due to meet at 4pm on Thursday (9 November) at Hove Town Hall. The meeting is scheduled to be webcast on the council’s website.
By Jove – £6k to build a shed: have non of these people heard of Screwfix.
The council have strict shed specifications for huts and local carpenters charge circa £5k for a hut build. If you can or a qualified carpenter friend can do it cheaper then please give us your details! None of us want to pay that much, as agreed ridiculously expensive to build and replace a beach hut
Can build far cheaper than that from scratch.
I’d also like to add the Council has not followed best practice government guidelines on consultations which states the consultation period should be three months, not three weeks.
There are many examples of councils across the UK who don’t charge such huge transfer ‘fees’ and who provide much more in beach hut facilities and services in return.
The transfer fee is meant to cover the admin costs of the council of transferring the licence to the new owner. An admin cost of £2500 up from £82 is not justifiable. This smacks of tax on perceived profit by the back door. Councils are not allowed to collect tax on private property sales. Even stamp duty is only 5% on the value over £250k…not 10%.
In neighbouring authorities, hutters have larger huts and have electricity and water supplies. Other coastal councils allow subletting and charge an extra license fee for that as a steady income stream. Allowing subletting on a daily and weekly basis to tourists would be far more lucrative as we receive a steady flow of enquiries to rent through the year from visitors or locals wanting to celebrate a birthday or special occasion at a hut.
The council does not appear to be interested in discussing the many alternative finance raising ideas that the hutters have put forward. They just don’t want to consult properly with us, and seem to have a very closed mindset focused simply on grabbing a slice of perceived profit.
However, each hutter spends at least £1000 a year to maintain , insure and lease the plot of land our wooden hut sits on from the council, who owns and maintains the seafront on behalf of all local residents and visitors to the city. We are a tourist town, and our huts are used in council advertising for which we don’t receive any fee.
A hut needs replacing every at least every 10 years at a cost of £5k and rising. So in a 10 year period of ownership, a hutter will have spent at least £15k. Wiping out any notional profit.
With climate change already here, an increase in sea levels predicted by 2030 and increased annual storm damage to huts, we owners bear all the risks, yet recieve nothing in return. The toilets are filthy or closed, the security cameras don’t work, we suffer vandals and antisocial behaviour such as graffiti ,urinating and defacing behind huts. In return we get bullying threats from the Council that if we disagree with the new terms of the new draft lease and refuse to sign, they will order us to take down our huts at our own expense. They can even force us to move our huts without recompense should they wish to redevelop the patch of seafront on which they stand.
We maintain a Brighton and Hove icon at our own expense and are now being threatened by a council that does not wish to have a proper consultation and dialogue with us.
Frankly I am disappointed by these elected officials who supposedly represent their constituents but who don’t wish to discuss with us alternative solutions to raising funds for a cash strapped council. We understand the financial predicament they are in, but alienating and angering a diverse hutter community, (who are not cash rich cash cows, but hard working tax paying locals), is not the democracy I voted for when I voted in the May elections.
You have a good argument and I absolutely sympathise with you. The council are out to screw us for every penny they can get. And in return they give us a Brighton which is run down, dirty, and quiet frankly a national disgrace.
Awful thieving council.
Any contract signed under duress and/or with threat ( implied or implicit) to person(s) and/or property for non compliance isn’t legally valid and those found to be doing so could be liable to criminal prosecution.
“Short-timing” public consultation, as pointed out by Serena, flies in the face of known best practice ( which whilst not legally binding of course) and leaves said authority wide open to further action, appeal and, as a final step, Compulsory Review by Parliament.
Those looking to run roughshod over the electorate would do well to remember they are there to serve, were placed where they are by the electorate and can be removed by them. Including by recall which doesn’t require waiting for the next electoral phase and of course has potential for personal cost should they be found guilty of Administrative Malfeasance
On no account sign a new contract.
You already have a contract.
That is your contract.
Show some backbone and stand your ground.
No battle was ever won by giving in.
Would need legal advice on this. Refusing to sign the new license contract we are threatened with our property to be ordered with removal at our expense. They have us over a barrel…do you know any good lawyer who specialise in this area?
Sounds mafiosi-like behaviour for a council which is meant to be serving the city.
Ask yourself why they need you to sign a new contract when you already have one.
The moment you sign a new contract your current one and any protections under it become null and void so read the current and the proposed very carefully is my advice.
Most things in life are an offer or a threat. They can’t actually do anything to you if you stand up to them.
FOI requests to see and understand the legal advice Councillors have been given have been refused. This is not open and transparent local government.
Is this being done by Council Officers or Councillors? Does one side know what the other is doing? I suspect that I know the answer already.
I suspect you don’t. At all.
The anticipation of an extra £60,000 is very optimistic, because once again it assumes price hikes will not impact sales. We have already seen with parking that this is not the case.
The council’s PR department strikes again. For this guy the council can do no wrong. Don’t listen to him!!!