Letter: Why not move threatened Milford beach huts to Barton?

Just read your news about 46 newly condemned huts.

This might not be the best time for the owners, but could they do two things for themselves?

If the measures of geolandscaping and drainage (copied from Christchurch Council’s Flood Protection Officer, M Frank Tyhurst) were again copied at Hordle Cliffs the problem would be sorted. Then there were government grants and since then councils have found fewer opportunities to finance schemes with wider sourcing.

You can see the difference at Barton before and after this sea defence work which benefits the hinterland as well as the beach hut owners.

If you accept that argument, then why not offer the hut owners denied their bit of England at Hordle Cliffs hut sites at Barton which only has, tops, 100 huts, when the works continue in both directions, and another 100 huts could easily be accommodated tomorrow!

You might even say the huts are chasing what is the very best instead of abandoning what is the very worst.

I think with the additional revenue the costs of administering the change would be negligible. Maybe a new toilet at 100 huts? Otherwise, business as usual.

To pursue the insurance companies for the losses is an obvious route, but all that expense for them is only going to multiply around the areas which have huts, and I have hundreds of photos from looking out for this around the country already.

To pursue the councils for consequential losses for not maintaining the line with huts aplenty losing the ground under their bases seems to be unnecessary if the council add to the holdings at Barton.

I have been saying this for years. One more toilet would be nice. Some more parking would be good. But transferring site licences from anywhere else first to those losing their huts at Hordle seems to me to be a process worth using up while we still can save the day from rancour, trauma and hopeless incompetence.

Tim Baber

Ringwood