Wealthy owners of Britain's most expensive beach huts accuse local restaurant of turning peaceful idyll into a 'Magaluf rave scene'

Wealthy owners of Britain's most expensive beach huts are accusing a local restaurant of turning their peaceful idyll into a 'Magaluf rave scene'.

The pleasant wooden cabins that line Mudeford Sandbank in Christchurch, Dorset, have long attracted well-heeled buyers willing to shell out over £400,000 to own one.

But residents have become embroiled in a bitter dispute over a temporary kiosk, The Beach House, selling snacks and drinks out of a hatch to queues of visitors.

They branded the shop a 'visual horror', claiming it has turned the golden sands - cut off from roads and seen as its own secluded community - into a 'drinker's paradise'. 

Hut owners are fighting a bid to make it a permanent fixture but face a battle against council officers who are recommending its owners be granted planning permission.

The plans have sparked 60 letters of objection calling on Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (BCP) to change its mind ahead of a decision next week.

Sally Harris, who owns a hut on the stretch, warned that granting planning permission would encourage a slew of other kiosks to open up and 'ruin' the sandbank. 

She said: 'All the paraphernalia associated with the temporary use of this hut has caused huge congestion, more deliveries and massive quantities of rubbish.

'The platforms, the signage, the stairs, the lighting all cause visual horror. The beach huts nearest to the cafe are blighted by massive queues.'

The sandy peninsula is home to 350 highly-coveted huts which can be slept in overnight from March to October. 

The Beach House is the only restaurant on the sands and has been housed in temporary shipping containers since the old building burnt down in 2018.

Owners have added serving hatches, ramps and steps, for which they are applying for retrospective permission - and are now hoping to get permission to sell food.

Many objectors said the kiosk was only meant to be a 'stop gap' and when new facilities were built the shop was meant to be incorporated back into its old footprint.

Claire Bath said: 'Hut residents accepted this arrangement as temporary because at all times they were told that the shop would return to the main cafe site once rebuilt.'

The hut owner and deputy chair of the local beach hut association added: 'It was never meant to offer take away food, drinks and ice cream sales.

'Take away in such close proximity to residential beach huts with children sleeping overnight would cause a public nuisance to neighbours.

'Noise, odours, light pollution, increased commercial deliveries, commercial waste and litter would negatively impact this green belt, open space.'

Peter Jones added: 'Beach hut owners and users have already shown considerable patience over the last seven years whilst plans for the cafe have been developed.

'During this period they have also experienced increased visitor numbers and footfall, particularly following Covid and the emergence of the cafe as a popular destination.'

Amanda Dodd said: 'As hut owners we are entitled to peaceful and quiet enjoyment of the beach and environment.

'This over commercialisation of the beach means there would be increased delivery activity, more litter, and greater use of public toilet facilities.'

Kim Slater, the restaurant's owner, previously hit back and accused some hut owners of 'blatant snobbery' and a witch hunt to get his establishment closed down.

He branded the proposed licence restrictions 'disproportionate' and said: 'We vehemently disagree with their assessment.'

The owner added: 'We are keenly aware of our responsibilities to not just run a business, but act as a de facto guardian of the area.

'We litter pick regularly, provide shop facilities, offer huttie discounts and we create jobs. We believe this is a special place and we have a responsibility to keep it so.'

'I believe that throughout our long trading history we have demonstrated consistent responsibility, integrity, and commitment to upholding the licensing objectives.'

The Mudeford Sandbank Beach Hut Association called for the council to refuse it permission and order the removal of unauthorised platforms, signage and hatches.

It said: 'The hut was never intended to become a permanent or expanded commercial facility on the Sandbank.

'It has created significant footfall, extensive queuing, and increased pressure on the site through litter, waste generation, and frequent commercial deliveries.

'The current setup represents an unacceptable expansion of commercial activity on the Sandbank.'

BCP Council's planning officers are recommending the shop owners be granted planning permission with the matter set to be voted on next week.