Officials have pressed ahead with plans to start charging beach huts full council tax on the basis they are second homes.
Cash-strapped BCP Council in Dorset unanimously voted through the controversial policy that will see the 344 timber huts at Mudeford Spit, Christchurch, put in the council tax band A.
Councillors dismissed the concerns of fed-up hut owners who feel the local authority is using them as a ‘cash cow’.
Mike Cox, the council’s cabinet member for finance, said the hutters are sitting on a “very valuable asset” and they have to prioritise helping “those that can least afford it”.
The sought-after huts at Mudeford are Britain’s most expensive, and can sell for between £400,000 and £575,000.
But they can only be slept in for eight months of the year and have no mains water, electricity or toilets.
Hut owners have to use communal toilet and shower blocks, which they say are no longer fit for purpose and need upgrading.
With the tax change approved, it will mean from April owners will have to pay the council about £5,200 a year.
The Mudeford Sandbanks Beach Hut Association say most owners are not wealthy but ordinary families whose huts have been passed down the generations having been bought for as little as a few hundred pounds in the 1950s.
Darren Pidwell, chairman of the association, said: “We are extremely disappointed and frustrated.
“The council made a pre-determined decision, they considered none of the sensible, reasonable and legal arguments that have been presented.
“As a result of this we need to consider what our position is and what action we look to take going forward.
“I’ve received a lot of emails from hut owners, words fail people. It does beggar belief.
“For the vast majority of people on that beach, the hut has been passed down through generations.
“For many this will become a significant financial burden.
“With insurance and maintenance costs, all of a sudden that hut is costing people £7,000 a year.
“I think it will tip a lot of people over the edge to say they can’t afford it or to say it’s not the same anymore and they don’t want the constant battle.
“The huts have no mains water, electricity or sanitation. They can be occupied for only eight months of the year, how can these be considered as homes?”
The association has already said it is considering legal action over the matter.
Members of the Lib Dem-run council said they had faced “beyond brutal” cuts from central government and had to find more money from somewhere.
Mr Cox said: “I do have a lot of sympathy for the points being made by Mr Pidwell and the association. But we have to concentrate our efforts on those that can least afford it.
“In terms of the beach huts, they do sit on some very expensive assets.
“I do have a lot of sympathy for those that have inherited those and are not necessarily individually wealthy, but at the end of the day it’s a very valuable asset that they sit on.”
David Brown said they needed to find millions to fund coastal protection schemes, something which would directly benefit hut owners.
Andy Hadley said while mains water and sanitation are funded by things like water rates, hut owners are using public facilities provided by the council.
He added: “Lots of second homes are on 200 per cent premiums, we are not asking that from them.”
Richard Herrett said that promises about money being reinvested back into facilities at Mudeford sandbank were made by the previous administration.
