Beach hut owners' fury as council hands out demolition orders

OWNERS are furious after 20 beach huts worth thousands of pounds were ordered to be demolished by New Forest District Council.

They have been instructed to take down the structures without compensation on part of the seashore at Hordle Cliff, near Milford, where erosion has swept the shingle from underneath.

The area has been cordoned off and four are deemed to be at such risk of toppling over that they have been condemned by NFDC and given a week to be taken down. Sixteen more owners have 90 days to take action.

Owners are angry at NFDC for not doing more to prevent the erosion and claim they have been left at the mercy of the elements. Some have suggested space could be found nearby for them to move their beach huts.

But the council says it has made people aware of the danger in correspondence since many huts were destroyed by a storm in February 2014, and owners had to apply for planning permission to replace them. Fighting erosion was not “economically justified”, it said.

One owner from Milford, who asked to remain anonymous, attacked NFDC for its handling of the issue. He and his wife have a beach hut in the cordoned off area but have not yet been told to remove it.

He told the A&T: “Many beach hut owners are faced with losing everything and many are not wealthy people. Some are retired and have invested significant savings in the dream of a beach hut by the sea.

“The handling of this situation has been a shocking example of the worst type of local council aloof behaviour with a complete lack of transparency together with broken promises about a desire to engage and cooperate with hut owners.”

He feared that without action, the beach erosion would eventually bring the waves up to the base of the cliffs and create an even worse situation.

Beach huts can cost around £25,000 each to build – on top of rent to the council worth hundreds of pounds a year.

Owners took to social media to vent their frustration. Andrew Wort said on Facebook: “My partner has been ordered to remove her family’s beach hut within 90 days by the council because of the erosion.

“Her family has had it for 35 years and it’s been a massive part of all of their lives.”

Denise Pickering said: "This is awful. Space could be made elsewhere. It's just the council don't want the expense. Disgusting.”

Another said: “No beach. No beach hut. Put insurance claim in, rejected. Should've left the hut to be washed away rather than waste more money making it safe and secure.”

As reported in the A&T, there were fears among the beach hut owners’ association last year of enforced evictions, although that was expected to number about 15.

NFDC said in a statement: “The stability of the huts is now deemed to be a significant risk and, due to the reduction in width of the beach and the unstable ground conditions, we have closed an area of the beach and notified owners of those huts affected that they need to remove them due to the safety concerns raised by both our coastal and building control teams.

“Whilst we of course sympathise with the people who have huts at this site, we have never given any assurances that the site would remain suitable for the purposes for which the licence was granted.

“The undertaking of coast protection works at this location would not be viable due to the environmental constraints, lack of coast protection funding and the management policy for this section of coastline.

“Any interim works to provide protection to the huts would purely be anything other than a short-term measure and not could not be economically justified.

“Where applicable, a proportion of the licence fee will be refunded to those hut owners who have had restricted access or been required to remove their beach hut.”

A spokesperson added that there were currently no available spare plots to relocate beach huts and that a large portion of the beach was privately owned.