Councillors vow to 'take back control' over Portland Bill beach hut extensions

Tempers flared at a Weymouth and Portland Borough Council planning committee meeting as councillors rejected two applications for beach hut extensions. 

The former Bake Off star’s son, Tom Hunnings, was granted approval by the council to extend a hut at Portland Bill last year.

However, the hut was extended beyond approved plans and as a result of an enforcement enquiry and investigation, retrospective planning approval was applied for.

At the meeting, Portland resident Michael Munro urged the council to take action against breaches of planning approval.

He said: “Out of six conditions put on the hut, four have been broken. If you allow this application, it may as well be build what you like now and put in for retrospective planning later.”

The inspection also found an internal mezzanine floor had been added – which the applicant said was for a water tank – plus timber shutters, larger windows and other features were added contrary to plans.

The hut was also painted blue and a basement was added but planning officers said the hut had since been repainted and the basement filled in.

Council planning guidance for beach huts on Portland states: “Proposals to fundamentally alter the function, character and size of huts are likely to be detrimental to the character of beach hut areas.”

It adds huts should remain as single storey structures and any extension should match the existing hut in materials, roof height and pitch or provide an overall improvement through rebuilding with improved materials.

The retrospective planning application received more than 31 objections.
Cllr Ray Nowak said allowing huts like this to stand had a ‘knock on effect’. 

“The bigger huts come at a price in terms of both space and impact. They are being used as holiday homes with more and more overnight stays,” he said. 

Cllr Margaret Leicester said she did not believe the hut fulfilled what she considered a ‘replacement’. 

“It has a floor upstairs. Whoever has built this, thinks they can do what they like. Our own policy gives us grounds to refuse this.

“This is a protected area and this hut sticks out like a sore thumb,” she said. 

Cllr Sandy West said huts on Portland were getting bigger and no longer resembled the small fisherman’s huts they once were. 

“This is not a beach hut, this is a chalet,” she said. 

Cllr Ian Bruce said if the council allowed this hut to stand, owners of neighbouring huts would all request extensions, while Cllr Paul Kimber said he couldn’t believe the council had got into this situation. 

“We all expect there to be huts extended, but this is a step too far,” he said. 

The councillors unanimously voted against the planning application.
Mr Hunnings was not present at the meeting.

Second extension is refused 

A second beach hut extension at Portland Bill was also rejected by the committee. 

The owner applied to increase the footprint of an ‘outdated’ beach hut and rotate it to face the same direction as its neighbours. 

Senior planning officer, Jo Riley said the applicant wanted to to bring the hut up to date and although it was bigger it left adequate space between neighbouring huts. 

Cllr Margaret Leicester said the could not see how the application differed from the other and that it was ‘not a replacement’ hut.

“It destroys the whole ethos of what the huts were designed for. We need to take back control of these huts,” she said. 

Cllr Sandy West said: “If we let this application through the whole of Portland Bill will become a housing estate.”

However, head of planning, Jean Marshall questioned the councillors opinions saying that fact the hut was bigger was not an issue and the councillors needed to decide what the permanent impact to the area would be. 

“The policy you have does not say it has to be a direct replacement,” she said. 

Cllr Ian Bruce spoke in support of the extension saying it was a tired hut that needed replacing.

The councillors rejected the application with three votes in favour and six against on the grounds of loss of space and that it was out of keeping with the surrounding area.