2nd Home Council Tax on beach huts
Discussion
At 1st I thought bit early for April fools.
Then I read
The huts, that can be stayed in overnight for part of the year, often sell for hundreds of thousands of pounds.
One Mudeford beach hut was sold in 2025 for £485,000 within 24 hours of it being listed for sale.
Then I had a look at these “huts”. Pretty impressive, Windows, Sliding patio doors, solar panels. I imagined the old garden tool shed tiny huts.
Now I think fair enough if you can afford one then pay.
Beach hut owners say they are looking into the legal basis of plans to reclassify their huts as second homes for the purposes of council tax.
More than 300 owners will have to pay full council tax from April on huts at Mudeford Spit in Dorset, if plans by Bournemouth Christchurch and Poole Council (BCP) are agreed.
Mudeford Sandbanks Beach Hut Association (MSBHA) said the second home rule was being applied to "a wooden shed with no mains connections or individual toilet facilities".
BCP finance councillor Mike Cox said the council was "looking at every nook and cranny" as it attempted to tackle a £9m budget shortfall.
The 344 huts on the sandbank near Christchurch can only be used overnight for part of the year but can sell for hundreds of thousands of pounds.
The 2026/27 council tax is expected to be set in February but, based on the 2025/26 charge for band A properties, bills for the huts would increase from £618 to £1,236 a year.
Then I read
The huts, that can be stayed in overnight for part of the year, often sell for hundreds of thousands of pounds.
One Mudeford beach hut was sold in 2025 for £485,000 within 24 hours of it being listed for sale.
Then I had a look at these “huts”. Pretty impressive, Windows, Sliding patio doors, solar panels. I imagined the old garden tool shed tiny huts.
Now I think fair enough if you can afford one then pay.
Beach hut owners say they are looking into the legal basis of plans to reclassify their huts as second homes for the purposes of council tax.
More than 300 owners will have to pay full council tax from April on huts at Mudeford Spit in Dorset, if plans by Bournemouth Christchurch and Poole Council (BCP) are agreed.
Mudeford Sandbanks Beach Hut Association (MSBHA) said the second home rule was being applied to "a wooden shed with no mains connections or individual toilet facilities".
BCP finance councillor Mike Cox said the council was "looking at every nook and cranny" as it attempted to tackle a £9m budget shortfall.
The 344 huts on the sandbank near Christchurch can only be used overnight for part of the year but can sell for hundreds of thousands of pounds.
The 2026/27 council tax is expected to be set in February but, based on the 2025/26 charge for band A properties, bills for the huts would increase from £618 to £1,236 a year.
Edited by Downward on Wednesday 7th January 15:53
Downward said:
At 1st I thought bit early for April fools.
Then I read
The huts, that can be stayed in overnight for part of the year, often sell for hundreds of thousands of pounds.
One Mudeford beach hut was sold in 2025 for £485,000 within 24 hours of it being listed for sale.
Then I had a look at these huts . Pretty impressive, Windows, Sliding patio doors, solar panels. I imagined the old garden tool shed tiny huts.
Now I think fair enough if you can afford one then pay.
It shouldnt come down to whether you can afford one or not.Then I read
The huts, that can be stayed in overnight for part of the year, often sell for hundreds of thousands of pounds.
One Mudeford beach hut was sold in 2025 for £485,000 within 24 hours of it being listed for sale.
Then I had a look at these huts . Pretty impressive, Windows, Sliding patio doors, solar panels. I imagined the old garden tool shed tiny huts.
Now I think fair enough if you can afford one then pay.
It should be, is it a fair and reasonable charge.
Apparently the council isn't providing any facilites - and they are clearly not dwellings, which therefore shouldn't attract Council Tax.
I did lol when I saw that after the hut owners recent complaints about the Beach House restaurant down there.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/37302521/fuming-beac...
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/37302521/fuming-beac...
Richard-390a0 said:
I did lol when I saw that after the hut owners recent complaints about the Beach House restaurant down there.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/37302521/fuming-beac...
Bit of a fire risk then having solar panels and electrical items in wooden sheds when there’s no access for the fire brigade to get there.https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/37302521/fuming-beac...
No ideas for a name said:
It shouldnt come down to whether you can afford one or not.
It should be, is it a fair and reasonable charge.
Apparently the council isn't providing any facilites - and they are clearly not dwellings, which therefore shouldn't attract Council Tax.
This. It would be ridiculous to charge "second home" council tax on these. Or any council tax at all really ..It should be, is it a fair and reasonable charge.
Apparently the council isn't providing any facilites - and they are clearly not dwellings, which therefore shouldn't attract Council Tax.
Edited by 130R on Wednesday 7th January 17:07
119 said:
Good.
Not sure why they think they should have any special exemptions.
I don't care so please don't get all stroppy, however I guessing because they don't have a toilet, sewerage, power or running water do they?Not sure why they think they should have any special exemptions.
In which case, let's apply council tax to every building everywhere, every farm building, every allotment shed, every lockup and yurt, fishing hut and scouts tent box and so on and on..
I think that's why they're a bit pissed. This looks like another example of punishing the rich to me, so what if they cost half a million, that's not the point.
dundarach said:
119 said:
Good.
Not sure why they think they should have any special exemptions.
I don't care so please don't get all stroppy, however I guessing because they don't have a toilet, sewerage, power or running water do they?Not sure why they think they should have any special exemptions.
In which case, let's apply council tax to every building everywhere, every farm building, every allotment shed, every lockup and yurt, fishing hut and scouts tent box and so on and on..
I think that's why they're a bit pissed. This looks like another example of punishing the rich to me, so what if they cost half a million, that's not the point.
119 said:
Good.
Not sure why they think they should have any special exemptions.
Because they're wooden boxes that sit there doing nothing and consuming nothing. Not sure why they think they should have any special exemptions.
Hopefully they get their behind handed to them in court if everyone clubs together.
Soon enough your motor will be paying council tax if it spends more than 4 hours in one position.
bloomen said:
Because they're wooden boxes that sit there doing nothing and consuming nothing.
That's not quite true when you can cook, sleep, generate solar power etc in them. They also make use of some council services, from bins through to roads, safety etc. I don't think these huts should pay full second home tax, but contributing to in a modest way to local services seems a reasonable request.
The "pay nothing, they are boxes" smacks of entitlement from wealthy owners.
Downward said:
BCP finance councillor Mike Cox said the council was "looking at every nook and cranny" as it attempted to tackle a £9m budget shortfall.
Aside from, no doubt, massive internal waste and inefficiencies, more dead wood than an ash dieback forest, gold plated pensions etc, which remain sacrosanct. Edited by Downward on Wednesday 7th January 15:53
dundarach said:
I don't care so please don't get all stroppy, however I guessing because they don't have a toilet, sewerage, power or running water do they?
Presumably somebody with an off-grid "normal" second home (no water, gas, electric or mains drainage) will pay council tax though? None of those are council services either.This one is up for rent at £250/night! The bedroom is a mezzanine floor with two mattresses, and convertible seating downstairs:
https://www.beachhuts.com/beach-huts-for-rent-ref-...
POIDH said:
That's not quite true when you can cook, sleep, generate solar power etc in them. They also make use of some council services, from bins through to roads, safety etc.
Aye, but they're already paying significant fees to the council. Fees that presumably acknowledge what their actual nature is. And it sounds like they've done nothing in return for them for 20 years. They pay half council tax too at present.
This is just taking a s
t on top of them because they can. For now. It's down to the Valuation Office Agency what can be classified as a habitable dwelling subject to council tax. A property subject to council tax should be one that's self contained. Hence, for example, the difference between an individually taxable bedsit and a room in an HMO where someone uses kitchen or bathroom facilities shared with others.
If a property is let, or available to let, as a holiday home for a certain portion of the year, it can be made subject to business rates rather than domestic council tax, which is more money but comes with various tax breaks and exemptions.
https://www.gov.uk/introduction-to-business-rates/...
The claim that the tax on these beach huts will double indicates they're already subject to council tax, just not the 100% premium charge levied on second homes. If they're properties that are already subject to council tax and they're no one's main place of residence, they are second homes. It shouldn't need any sort of special process or change to legal regulations to classify them as such and add the premium charge.
If a property is let, or available to let, as a holiday home for a certain portion of the year, it can be made subject to business rates rather than domestic council tax, which is more money but comes with various tax breaks and exemptions.
https://www.gov.uk/introduction-to-business-rates/...
The claim that the tax on these beach huts will double indicates they're already subject to council tax, just not the 100% premium charge levied on second homes. If they're properties that are already subject to council tax and they're no one's main place of residence, they are second homes. It shouldn't need any sort of special process or change to legal regulations to classify them as such and add the premium charge.
I walk around this section of the beach through all seasons and I'm glad they are giving it a shake up, its probably the only good thing BCP Council has done recently.
The owners are sitting on them and pass them around generation to generation. I saw one in an estate agent for 445k, thats just a joke to the working man.
What isn't shown is that the council have spent a shedload of money redoing the groyne to protect hengistbury head itself, it wont exist if they don't.
They also have a road they go up in landrovers that they think runs itself, in fact it needs repair and it's falling to bits in areas with pot holes etc.
Toilets are up there to be used but probably need investment.
The owners are sitting on them and pass them around generation to generation. I saw one in an estate agent for 445k, thats just a joke to the working man.
What isn't shown is that the council have spent a shedload of money redoing the groyne to protect hengistbury head itself, it wont exist if they don't.
They also have a road they go up in landrovers that they think runs itself, in fact it needs repair and it's falling to bits in areas with pot holes etc.
Toilets are up there to be used but probably need investment.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff