Hove beach hut owners face having to pay a 10 per cent transfer fee under proposals that the council plans to bring in from next spring.
It is not the first time that Brighton and Hove City Council has proposed bringing in a percentage-based transfer tax when beach huts are sold.
At the start of the year the transfer fee was £82 and the annual licence was £457 and due to go up 5 per cent to £480.
The council said: “Hove beach hut owners are currently being consulted on changes to their licence fee by the council.
“The council is proposing to modernise the beach hut licence issued to owners who place their beach hut on council land on Hove seafront.
“The new licence will include a 10 per cent transfer fee which will be payable to the council on the sale of the beach hut and include a clear prohibition on hiring out beach huts.
“There are 459 beach huts on Hove seafront that are privately owned by Brighton and Hove residents.
“Over the last 10 years, the value of a beach hut on the seafront has risen well above inflation and more in line with the increases in the local property market.
“Huts for sale can regularly range in price between £25,000 and £35,000 depending on the location and the condition of the hut.
“Other neighbouring authorities charge a transfer fee which is linked to the sale price of the beach hut including Adur and Worthing Councils. Adur charges a 10 per cent transfer fee as does Rother District Council.
“Many coastal councils also charge more for the annual licence fee. Worthing and Adur charge between £612 and £810 per annum. Rother District Council charges £650 and Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council charges £1, 090. Brighton and Hove charged £503.60 including VAT for 2023-24.
“The introduction of the transfer fee is being proposed in lieu of increasing the annual licence fee charge.”
Councillor Alan Robins, who chairs the council’s Culture, Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Economic Development Committee, said: “The Hove beach huts are an iconic part of our seafront and character of the city.
“We know beach hut owners take great pride in maintaining the huts all year round and they do a fantastic job.
“The proposed changes will allow us to keep the yearly licence fee payment the same and puts us in line with other local authorities along the coast.
“Currently the council is not benefiting in any way from the profit made on the sale of a beach hut when most of the value is due to its prime position on the seafront.
“If the transfer fee is introduced, then the additional revenue can be reinvested back into seafront services such as our lifeguards.
“It’s an extremely challenging time for local government finances and the potential income will go towards providing essential life-saving services while offering council land for hut owners to enjoy the seafront.”
A report is due to be presented to the Culture, Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Economic Development Committee next month, with an update on the consultation and recommendations.
The new licences would take effect from Monday 1 April 2024.
More classic Labour behaviour – opposed to something when they’re not in charge but once they’re in charge they realise the need to raise more funding. The damage they have done to the city by their opportunistic opposition is staggering and now it will be up to them to make the cuts needed to balance their actions.
Classic strawmanning from Linda; I believe last time you made a comment, most people called you out for strawmanning disabled blue badge holders on an issue, I believe you used the word “entitled” to describe them; it would be worth remembering that the internet has a long memory for these things.
Once Labour got in charge, they discovered a financial black hole left for them, and what’s worse, is that a month later, they found out that black hole was even worse then initially thought by the Greens mismangement of the Council funds. The damage done by Green party opportunistic scapegoating is staggering, and now it is up to Labour to make the cuts need to balance their actions.
This is barefaced, gratuitous money grabbing. The administration fee is meant to reflect the work needed by the council to transfer the license = £82. It is a fee for a service – the administration of the license transfer which is a very simple matter. Charging a percentage of the sale cost is not a fee – it is a form of duty or tax. BHCC can’t even be honest about that. Even stamp duty on a second home is only 3%. At a push 3% might be reasonable. BHCC refuse to uphold their end of the deal when it comes to providing services on the seafront (taps, toilets, enforcement of laws to ensure safety on the promenade) yet wants to fleece beach hut owners because they are an easy target. Many beach hut owners are not well off – some don’t even own their own homes but own a hut to provide them with some outdoor space they can call their own. The beach huts are of great value to this city and are iconic. Look at how often they are used in promotions etc. Fleecing beach hut owners when they sell will yield little (probably < £50K/year) as there is not a high turnover. The yield will not make an iota of difference to the black hole that is largely brought about by Green Party malfeasance.
Unfortunately, if we’re going by comparison logic, the majority of coastal towns are 10%. Still, that’s also not the full story either, because it’s a choice of two different options that have been proposed, if one happens, the other will not.
Shoring up the finances is something that should have been done years ago, it’s just now Labour is stuck with the Green Party malfeasance…the belt needs to be tightened in every direction. They’ve been pretty upfront about having to make some unpopular decisions to deal with this black hole – it would be unfair to say there wasn’t some forewarning!
Councils around the country are facing the strain on finances through unprecedented inflationary demand and central government intransigence. Unfortunately, this means either services being cut to the bare minimum or increasing revenue streams no matter how small.
It seems on the face of it that Hove hut owners have been getting a bargain compared to hut owners in other south coast locations, and it’s worth pointing out that if the current hut owners don’t sell then there is no increase in fees for them and they are still getting that bargain.
That’s very well articulated. From what I’ve been reading up on, the standard is 10% across most of the coastal towns, Brighton is the exception, so this change would bring the city in line. Because of the Green mismanagement, this bargain deal has to be closed off, still – like you said, if you aren’t planning on selling it, then it’s a non-issue, which I suspect will be the majority.
“Benjamin” seems to have rather a lot to say on this subject. I wonder why he or she has such an axe to grind. Envy?