Agenda item

To consider an annual review of Beach Hut and Chalets service, for a 12 month period following the previous 2021/22 review.

The Portfolio Holder for Finance, Estates and Property Services, Councillor Shires, presented a report giving an annual review of the Beach Huts and Chalets Service for a twelve-month period following the previous 21/22 review.

The Estates and Asset Strategy Manager (EASM) responded to Councillor Boyle’s question on how to better publicise beach huts availability by advising that the storm boards had now been replaced and it was proposed to cover those with more information or advertising about the availability of huts in that area.

The EASM added that despite the additional maintenance costs the weekly lets produce more income than the five year lets but it was an option to consider as to whether there should be more five year lets offered rather than weekly lets.

The EASM in response to Councillor Penfold’s question on whether there was flexibility to take short term bookings stated that the bookings closed on Thursdays and the service was working with the Tourist Information staff to allow them to book huts if members of the public would like to use a weekly hut.

The EASM advised in response to Councillor Holliday’s question on whether the Council could change its emphasis from weekly lets to five year lets that some of the costs fell across both types of lets and won’t disappear if there was a change to more 5 year lets but there might be a difference in business rates. A more detailed analysis could be brought back to the committee.

The EASM confirmed to Councillor Holliday’s further question of how a green levy could be used that the green levy mentioned in the report related to Net Zero and how the weekly lets were used could make a small contribution to the Council’s Net Zero target but that it would be possible to consider whether a payment could be sought.

Councillor Shires confirmed that use of the green levy would be considered, and it would take a wider perspective to see if it could be applied elsewhere.

The EASM in response to Councillor Dixon’s question about those people who are still on the waiting list stated that some people had been on the five-year let waiting list since 2013. Some of those people will have been offered a Chalet and refused it as it did not meet their needs but remained on the list.

The EASM in response to Councillor Finch-Tillett statement about the offer from a private farmer to store private huts in Overstrand over the winter so that they were not damaged during storms advised that the tenants had been consulted and the majority of them had not replied or had said no. however, the council had changed the lease renewal process which will take effect from April 2024 so that it would be possible to do that in the future.

The EASM in response to the Councillor Withington, Portfolio Holder for Community, Leisure and Outreach comments about the number of beach huts that had stayed on the beach in Sheringham when the requirements for insurance had changed, confirmed that the council has asked beach hut owners to take out public liability insurance for their huts and that some people like to use their huts over the winter months with the block blocking over the winter being really popular.

The EASM in response to Councillor Housden’s question about the wider costs of maintenance of the beach huts to the council stated that recharges from other Council departments included the Leisure service seafront inspectors and the Property service. If a hut is swept away by a storm surge it was not economical to rebuild the hut as the income from it would not cover the building cost.

The Director of Resources added that the net cost of providing the beach hut included a depreciation value to cover its value rather than an amount to replace the hut. It would not take into account any potential future storm damage. The Council could set up a sinking fund but don’t consider it appropriate at the current time.

The Estates and Asset Strategy Manager added that the Council did have insurance that could cover some or all of the cost of rebuilding a hut.

Councillor Shires confirmed that this was a part of a wider position in that if the weather conditions became increasingly more adverse it would not be safe or sustainable to keep putting these huts on the coast.

The EASM in response to Councillor Holliday’s question that it was now easier for the Council to move the huts confirmed that the council’s costs would increase if more huts had to be moved but the lease now included the ability for the Council to recharge those costs.

The EASM in response to Councillor Withington’s question on whether it was more beneficial to lease all of the beach huts to members of the council stated that there were 17 beach huts out of the weekly list that could be looked at to ascertain the costs of transferring the maintenance of the huts from the council to the private owners so that the Council’s role was just one of lease management.

The EASM in response to Councillor Brown, Portfolio Holder for Planning and Enforcement question on whether an administration fee for renewal of the beach hut licence stated that the Council did charge an administration fee of £75 for renewing the licence which is phased over the five-year period and had been recently introduced.

The EASM advised in response to Councillor Holliday’s question on what the carbon effect of people coming to the area to use the beach huts was, that it would be possible to assess the effect on the carbon footprint of people coming to the area to use using the beach huts.

The Committee agreed that it would a further report on a number of issues that had been raised during the meeting and that report come back to its October meeting.

Resolved – that a report be submitted to the October committee meeting on the Beach Huts and Chalets that covered

-   How to best market and promote the beach huts

-   The possibility of conversion from weekly to five year leases

-   The split of costs between weekly and five year huts

-   The question of not having Council huts and instead having them as private leases

-   The green levy and how far that might be extended

-   The relationship with private tenants including the removal of huts from the beach

-   The Sustainability of the beach huts physically and financially, and

-   The effect on the carbon footprint of people coming to use the beach huts