Councillors have voted to put up the Hove beach hut transfer fee from £82 to at least £1,600 and possibly as much as £3,500.
The increased transfer fee will be the higher of 10 per cent of the sale price or four times the annual licence fee, which is currently about £500 a year or £420 before VAT.
It was voted through by the eight Labour members of a council committee, with Conservative councillor Anne Meadows voting against and Green councillor Raphael Hill abstaining.
At a meeting at Hove Town Hall, Labour councillor Jilly Stevens said that she and her colleagues were having to take “some horribly hard decisions” to maximise income.
Hove Beach Hut Association chair Cathy Biggs told the meeting that the transfer fee increase was unfair and was being imposed on hut owners – rather than being agreed with them.
Outside the meeting, fellow beach hut owners said that the council had ramped up the licence fee in recent years, making beach huts increasingly unaffordable for people like pensioners or the low-paid.
They have to be maintained, repainted and sometimes repaired and rebuilt because of weather-related wear and tear as well as break ins and vandalism. The bill can come to thousands of pounds a year.
And the prospect of the transfer fee – or sales tax – has been blamed for leading to a drop in sale prices by some who have spent significant sums on their huts over many years.
The council suggested that beach huts were selling for up to £35,000 each. But owners said that prices at the moment appeared to have dipped to about £22,000, with owners being forced to cut asking prices yet still not finding a buyer.
Some owners had suggested that the law only permitted Brighton and Hove City Council to charge transfer fees that covered the cost of the administrative work involved.
But the council’s head of law, Elizabeth Culbert, said that beach huts were a commercial service not a statutory service so they weren’t covered by those rules. In short, like any freehold property owner, the council could charge what it liked.
The transfer fee changes are being brought in under new licence terms which the council has told beach hut owners that they must agree by the end of next March.
A report to councillors said: “Owners of any beach huts remaining on council land after Saturday 1 April 2024 without a new licence agreement in place (will) be required to remove the beach hut.
“Officers may take enforcement action if necessary to ensure that any unlicensed areas are vacated.”
Labour councillor Alan Robins, who chairs the council’s Culture, Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Economic Development Committee, said: “Under the current beach hut licence, the council may require hut owners to remove their hut without specifying a reason.
“The new licence states that the council will only be able to require the hut owners to remove their huts from council land for the following reasons
- in the event of redevelopment of the land
- public safety
“This provides more certainty and protection for the beach hut owners than under the current arrangements.”
This afternoon (Thursday 9 November) Councillor Robins also said that doors would no longer have to be just one colour but could be striped.
Councillor Meadows asked what beach hut owners could expect in return for the increased money that the council expected to make. She said: “Will it mean that public toilets are opened and kept clean?”
The report to councillors looked at charges elsewhere but Councillor Meadows said that the council wasn’t necessarily comparing like with like.
She echoed remarks outside the meeting by hut owners who said that, in other places, beach huts had electricity and water and could be rented out – unlike the 459 huts in Hove.
The council said that the owners were making a profit when they sold their huts because of the prime council-owned seafront location.
But Councillor Meadows said that the beach hut owners provided an enhanced seafront experience while the council did very little for the area except charge hut owners an annual licence fee.
She also criticised the way that the council planned to impose the new licence terms, saying: “It’s rather a brutish approach. It’s pay up or get out – and you’ll have to pay for the removal of your beach hut … Hardly a caring council.”
Councillor Stevens said: “We’re not picking on beach hut owners. We are in the process of working out our budget for next year.
“We are looking at all council services and all council assets where we can maximise income. We’re having to make some horribly hard decisions and I think everybody knows that.
“I’m just sad that feelings have run so high on this one.”
She praised the level of engagement by hut owners and thanked them for writing to councillors, adding: “We may disagree but thank you anyway because it shows you’re engaged.”
Green councillor Raphael Hill said: “Owners spend a lot of money on their beach huts. I don’t think beach hut owners make a profit.
“We may be pricing people out through these transfer fees. There is considerable consultation that still needs to be done.”
Separately, the meeting was told that new beach chalets will shortly be arriving on Saltdean seafront, and look set to be quickly snapped up by residents currently on the waiting list.
The new “chalets” would bring the total number of beach chalets available across Hove, Rottingdean, Madeira Drive, Ovingdean and Saltdean to 119.
Dear, dear. Someone should tell the BHCC Head of Law about the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 and contract law.
Consumer protection for beach hut owners already exists, irrespective of whether beach huts are a statutory service or not and their licence/contract is continuous and they cannot be forced to break it without full compensation to beach hut owners.
No company, charity, council or government is exempt from this Act.
Behaving like the mafia is not a good look for the Labour administration.
Hi Barry, As a beach hut owner, I am furious at the way we have been treated in this so called consultation that did not listen to our reasoned arguments and concerns over opaque decision making. Which section of the Act do I need to look at in detail?
The council’s own arguments are all over the place, don’t stack up, and they are in effect introducing a property tax through the back door. They don’t own the huts they own the land on which the huts stand.
A freeholder of a block of flats can’t charge a 10 per cent fee on the sale of a leasehold flat. So how an earth can a council claim.it can do so a freeholder on the sale of a licenced hit that does not belong to them?
The council legal team have been proven to get things wrong with planning law, so it wouldn’t summer they have made decisions we could challenge. Please do send me details of relevant sections of Act.
Thanks!
Added some insight. See later comment
ATB
Serena, here is the specific case law for you which would invalidate any new contract they wished you to sign under duress.
“In the case of Occidental Worldwide Investment Corporation v Skibs (1976) – commonly referred to as The Siboen and The Sibotre – the court recognised that where a person is compelled to sign a contract, for example, under the imminent threat of having their house burnt down, that the law should not uphold the agreement. It is likely, therefore, that the courts may intervene in circumstances where a threat to property is serious.”
Contracts also need to be fair and balanced, preferably conferring equal benefit to both sides.
Easy money taken from people speculating on an open property market. Makes sense, we all pay stamp duty on house sales. If you own a beach hut and are not selling it, what’s the problem?
The caveat to that is, the money raised should be spent on the area not frittered away by throwing it into the councils pot of cash
Well, this is what you get with Labour. And people think that it’s going to get better when the Knighted Multi-millionaire, champagne-socialist gets into No10 next year.
And the drippy Greens abstaining, well what do you expect from a bunch of clueless, directionless lefty do-gooders…
The disenfranchisment of beach hut owners, loss good will, and burning of political capital by BHCC in an effort to raise just £60,000/year is lamentable. The beach hut owners are wonderful stewards of our unique and much admired Hove promenade. BHCC refuses to ensure that the promendade is safe and that the facilities are well maintained. If BHCC is going to charge a sales tax, disguised as a fee, then it should only be on the PROFIT made from the sale, NOT the sale price.
This isn’t Labours fault – blame the Conservative government that had cut the central government grant to the city by £120m in the last 13 years. We have to pay for education, social care and children’s services – how should we do that?
Not the beach hut owners’ problem, never mind an excuse to racketeer from them.
What about taking a scythe to all the useless council departments which just seem to exist to impose hell on our lives, rather than to serve?
Are you aware of how many empty posts department heads have to fill or they will lose their funding and see their department shrink? This has nothing whatsoever to do with needing these posts or these being useful or necessary jobs in any way.
Or the £128m contract for ‘temporary’ staff?
There are many other financial obsenities which could be cited.
Start with the hopelessly inept Parking And Transport department!
The way you start is to become more efficient. Stop wasting money, cut back on your wage bill, stop consultants costs, stop vanity projects, improve your purchasing contracts……etc etc. Just as any pragmatic business owner would.
Ask yourself the question. Would I spend it if it was my money? If the honest answer is no then don’t spend tax payers hard earned cash on nonsense. This is where you start, not kicking people when there down like vulnerable families, or easy targets like motorists, beach hut owners and the like.. The idiots of all political colours have brought Brighton to it knees through total management and incompetence.
Typical lefty, always blames cuts from central government.
Yet in the last 13 years my council tax has virtually doubled, what is the council doing with my money, wasting it on pointless vanity projects and appointing ‘Inclusion Managers’ on £50k per year.
And what about the public money wasted by the free-spending Gordon Brown bailing out the banks. Fred the Shred and co.
The upshot of this is we, the tax-payers are still funding bankers’ bonuses at RBS.
Yes and as I have said on this site before – even a Labour government cannot give what it does not have.
The only way out of this mess is wealth creation, not increased taxation. Councils need to facilitate commerce and not muck about on the perimeter with these small sideshows.
Have they really just spent £13m on Beryl Bikes?
That’s insane!
According to the published budget (https://democracy.brighton-hove.gov.uk/documents/g10764/Public%20reports%20pack%2023rd-Feb-2023%2016.30%20Council.pdf?T=10 search for “bike”) they’re spending £1 million this tax year and £250,000 next. That’s about the same as they’re spending on redoing the heritage street lighting on the seafront.
In the context of the full £891 million budget neither of these are significant amounts really.
An important point in regards Sales of Goods Act
If there’s no interest in the land like selling the licence (see terms of transfer) or use for commercial gain then the protections of the statute will not apply.
On the circumstances : much of the value of the sale of a beach hut is the location so the right of transfer has a realisable value. This value is eroded without negotiation and here is the core of any claim.
Should any such situation be in writing as part of the licence or transfer terms then straight line breach.
Pay up! You have the benefit of being in one of the best spots to enjoy the beech,
Why is it that I sense an expensive legal battle inbound, one where the council pays 10 times more than it stands to gain so they can walk away from it having wasted more than they gain. I hope, but am not sure that the councilors took legal advice before flying this particular kite, which has the smell of moral posturing and virtue signalling about it.
So funny this, nimby’s on the warpath over a beach hut. They’re all loaded and paranoid about parting with money.
Why should they not pay the charge, it’s just a capital gains tax.
They should just enjoy sitting outside their palatial hut’s gloating at folk passing by who dont give a toss about them, their money or their huts.
Ah – funny you should mention that – as it is not a main residence it is liable to CGT if the profit made is over the annual allowance. Any fees payable to the council I believe would be deductible from the CGT take.
That said I do believe what the council is proposing would be found outside of the law should it go to court. I also suspect that the council know this but are prepared to “give it a go”