Fury at plan to bulldoze beach huts and make owners pay for new ones in Milford-on-sea

Daily Echo: Milford beach hut owners make their point outside the council offices. Milford beach hut owners make their point outside the council offices.

CAMPAIGNERS are fighting plans to demolish their privately owned beach huts and make them foot the bill for the replacements.

Civic chiefs have sparked fury by drawing up proposals to bulldoze scores of huts that bore the full force of the storms that devastated parts of Hampshire on St Valentine’s Day.

The 118 terraced huts at Milford on Sea were hit by 80mph winds.

About 30 were demolished in the aftermath of the storm, and New Forest District Council claims the rest will have to be bulldozed in the interests of public safety.

All the huts are due to be replaced – but the council says the owners must meet the cost.

The plan has angered families, who face the prospect either losing their seafront plots or paying out thousands of pounds for new buildings.

Owners say many of the huts suffered only slight damage and should be repaired rather than demolished.

They have already launched a petition and are also threatening to take legal action against the council in a bid to save their property.

Some of the campaigners lobbied a meeting of the council’s ruling Cabinet yesterday.

Yvette Frost, who paid £20,000 for her beach hut, told members: “Imagine if the roof blew off your home and the council argued that you shouldn’t be allowed to repair it.”

Councillors defended the scheme, saying the authority had a duty to ensure the safety of everyone who visited the seafront.

But the Cabinet agreed to commission a new structural survey that would examine the condition of each individual hut.

Comments (7)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:04pm Thu 5 Jun 14

From the sidelines says...

It might help if you actually tried to explain the contractual relationship between the council and the hut 'owners'.

If the council is operating within the contract, there's no story. If they're not abiding by the contract, there is a legal remedy and possibly a story.

But you'll have to do a bit more journalism than this to find out.
It might help if you actually tried to explain the contractual relationship between the council and the hut 'owners'. If the council is operating within the contract, there's no story. If they're not abiding by the contract, there is a legal remedy and possibly a story. But you'll have to do a bit more journalism than this to find out. From the sidelines
  • Score: 2

12:19pm Thu 5 Jun 14

southy says...

Do the people own the Huts or do the Council at £20,000 sounds like the people own the Huts and if this is the case they should be asking the owners to bring there property up to a min safe standard first,
Do the people own the Huts or do the Council at £20,000 sounds like the people own the Huts and if this is the case they should be asking the owners to bring there property up to a min safe standard first, southy
  • Score: 1

1:01pm Thu 5 Jun 14

Peterstevens55 says...

The beach huts are privatly owned, the owners pay an annual licence fee. The contract states that the owners are responsible for all repairs and maintenance - that is what we are arguing for - the right to repair our beach huts at our own costs!!

Many have been demolished by the storm or by NFDC as they were unsafe, however many are unharmed or need varying levels of repair. NFDC refuses us access to repair the huts and would prefer to spend £150K of tax pakers money to demolish them. Once demolished the hut owners will be responsible for the total cost of the rebuild.

Hope this clears thinkgs up a bit
The beach huts are privatly owned, the owners pay an annual licence fee. The contract states that the owners are responsible for all repairs and maintenance - that is what we are arguing for - the right to repair our beach huts at our own costs!! Many have been demolished by the storm or by NFDC as they were unsafe, however many are unharmed or need varying levels of repair. NFDC refuses us access to repair the huts and would prefer to spend £150K of tax pakers money to demolish them. Once demolished the hut owners will be responsible for the total cost of the rebuild. Hope this clears thinkgs up a bit Peterstevens55
  • Score: 5

1:21pm Thu 5 Jun 14

Beachhutdeb says...

These Huts are privately owned YES PRIVATELY OWNED
All us hut owners whose huts are o.k just want to be able to get into them so that we can repair them where needed - the council want to demolish them and for us as owners to pay to have a new one put in its place when at 80 of these huts are untouched or just need repairs

ITS AN OUTRAGE - these are PRIVATELY OWNED
These Huts are privately owned YES PRIVATELY OWNED All us hut owners whose huts are o.k just want to be able to get into them so that we can repair them where needed - the council want to demolish them and for us as owners to pay to have a new one put in its place when at 80 of these huts are untouched or just need repairs ITS AN OUTRAGE - these are PRIVATELY OWNED Beachhutdeb
  • Score: 2

2:23pm Thu 5 Jun 14

Lone Ranger. says...

Beachhutdeb wrote:
These Huts are privately owned YES PRIVATELY OWNED
All us hut owners whose huts are o.k just want to be able to get into them so that we can repair them where needed - the council want to demolish them and for us as owners to pay to have a new one put in its place when at 80 of these huts are untouched or just need repairs

ITS AN OUTRAGE - these are PRIVATELY OWNED
I think its irrelevant that they are privately owned.
.
The council have a duty of care to the public ...... However they have agreed to survey each one of the huts to **** any damage that has been caused.
.
That is not an outrage
[quote][p][bold]Beachhutdeb[/bold] wrote: These Huts are privately owned YES PRIVATELY OWNED All us hut owners whose huts are o.k just want to be able to get into them so that we can repair them where needed - the council want to demolish them and for us as owners to pay to have a new one put in its place when at 80 of these huts are untouched or just need repairs ITS AN OUTRAGE - these are PRIVATELY OWNED[/p][/quote]I think its irrelevant that they are privately owned. . The council have a duty of care to the public ...... However they have agreed to survey each one of the huts to **** any damage that has been caused. . That is not an outrage Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 0

2:40pm Thu 5 Jun 14

Peterstevens55 says...

The council have a duty of care to the public - true. Thier argument is - as it would be unsafe for every beach hut owner to undertake repairs independantly - then demolition is the only option.

We made it clear that owners in blocks will collaborate in the repairs (engaging all repairs to be undertaken by professionals and carried out in a safe and co-ordinated manner), therefore, causing no more of a risk to the public than those which would be trhe case if the huts were demolished and rebuilt. The rebuilding of the huts that were demolished may also be factored into the repair schedule to ensure the most safe and efficient way of restoring ALL the huts
The council have a duty of care to the public - true. Thier argument is - as it would be unsafe for every beach hut owner to undertake repairs independantly - then demolition is the only option. We made it clear that owners in blocks will collaborate in the repairs (engaging all repairs to be undertaken by professionals and carried out in a safe and co-ordinated manner), therefore, causing no more of a risk to the public than those which would be trhe case if the huts were demolished and rebuilt. The rebuilding of the huts that were demolished may also be factored into the repair schedule to ensure the most safe and efficient way of restoring ALL the huts Peterstevens55
  • Score: 2

8:52am Fri 6 Jun 14

andysaints007 says...

From the sidelines wrote:
It might help if you actually tried to explain the contractual relationship between the council and the hut 'owners'.

If the council is operating within the contract, there's no story. If they're not abiding by the contract, there is a legal remedy and possibly a story.

But you'll have to do a bit more journalism than this to find out.
God you are so boring
[quote][p][bold]From the sidelines[/bold] wrote: It might help if you actually tried to explain the contractual relationship between the council and the hut 'owners'. If the council is operating within the contract, there's no story. If they're not abiding by the contract, there is a legal remedy and possibly a story. But you'll have to do a bit more journalism than this to find out.[/p][/quote]God you are so boring andysaints007
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree