Owners of Britain’s most expensive beach huts at war over ‘party bar’

The developer behind a controversial floating restaurant, which has enraged the owners of Britain’s most expensive beach huts, has labelled the council’s decision to reject his application as ‘hypocritical’ and ‘ridiculous’.

Paul Trickett, 66, and his wife Virginia, 50, had sought to bring a fully licensed premises called Christchurch Harbour Kitchen to the waters of the idyllic Mudeford Spit in Bournemouth.

He has even begun building the float, which he says will seat around 50 people and had hoped to play ‘ambient’ music from 8am until 7pm while selling alcohol until 10.30pm with meals such as fresh fish, steak and lobster.

But a council meeting saw his licensing application thrown out, and the 66-year-old says he is now gearing up to take Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole (BCP) Council to the courtroom.

Mr Trickett found himself locked in a weeks-long feud with hut owners on the Spit, who said they would be ‘traumatised’ by the disruption of their sea views and the prospect of drunken revellers urinating off the vessel.

He has since hit back at those claims, insisting that it would not be a ‘party boat’ and that he wanted to give people the chance ‘enjoy themselves’ by having a meal while watching the sunset on the water.

Speaking this week to MailOnline, Mr Trickett vowed that he will still sell food on the Spit this summer – even to those who vehemently objected to his proposals.

‘We’ll be there selling food shortly so the restaurant will carry on,’ he said.

‘With a premise licence we would’ve had to be in a fixed place and on that same spot all the time.

‘But without it we can go anywhere we like. We could go round to the beach tonight if we wanted. 

‘And we have temporary licenses we can use. There’s no problem with them, you just apply. We have up to 50 of those to use during the summer. So we could do that.’

Mr Trickett and his wife are from Christchurch and he said the idea for the food float came to him after he waited more than an hour to be served fish and chips at a local establishment.

The 30ft by 30ft motorised venue will have a kitchen in the middle with seating and tables around the outside.

He also said he wanted to give ‘healthy competition’ to the Beach House, which is the only currently licensed restaurant and cafe on the Spit. 

The Beach House building burnt down in November 2018 and has currently been replaced by a temporary cafe, operating from three shipping containers while the council make plans for a replacement. 

‘It’s a monopoly,’ he said. ‘But there’s no reason I can’t go down there. 

‘I’m not going to be down there every day. It’s not going to be in the winter. It’s not going to be in early spring. Just the summer months. And I’m looking forward to it.’

In total Mr Trickett said his application received 37 objections, with two subsequently withdrawn.

As the Spit has just under 350 beach huts, the 66-year-old believes that a silent majority actually support his plans.

‘I know that there are lots of them who can’t wait for another option down there,’ he added.

MailOnline visited the Spit prior to the BCP Council decision being finalised to speak with hut owners, renters and regular visitors about how they felt about the plans. 

And while only a smattering supported the idea – citing high prices at the Beach House as a reason – many who were happy to speak about the proposals were in dismay at what Mr Trickett had put forward. 

With huts on the Spit fetching almost £500,000, and are permitted to be slept in from March until October, some owners believed that the premium price should be rewarded with serenity.

Julia Greenham, 72, from Bristol, purchased her ‘Bournemouth bolthole’ in 2009 for around £100,000 and said she was ‘so angry’ after hearing of the plans.

The actress and singer continued: ‘We all are. Those huts are worth almost half a million, and nobody told us formally. We just saw a planning notice on a bit of blue paper in front of my hut.

‘I’m traumatised because my hut is worth more to me than most other things in my life. I adore it, it’s where I come for solace.

‘I don’t want a b****y restaurant floating along in front of me with a licence for drink and music when I’ve got that already. It’s ridiculous.’

‘They mean a lot to everyone. It’s the tranquility and view that you go there for.’

Mrs Greenham says the venue getting a licence would also encourage far-flung visitors to spend the day who would end up drinking to the point of being ‘trollied’.

‘We have a silent code of conduct on the Spit,’ she continued.

‘Everybody knows how to have a great time and behave themselves, but I can’t imagine if people are coming from town that they won’t understand that and abuse it.

‘It’s very sad. I’m not a prude at all. I’m the person that’s there first in line for a party.

‘But to have a restaurant in front of the view that people pay almost half a million for is barking, that’s what it is.’

‘Everybody’s incensed about it. I think I can pretty much say all of the owners are not happy at all. The only ones I’ve spoken to are all outraged as much as I am.’

The proposals by Mr Trickett would have saw the restaurant moored on the water in front of Mrs Greenham’s beach hut.

And this would have affected Yvonne Manning, 63, from Surrey, who rents the hut every year from Mrs Greenham.

A regular on the Spit for years, the 63-year-old said she would have no longer been interested in visiting if the plans went through.

She said: ‘The beauty is just the naturalness of the place. There’s no Wi-Fi, kids can skim stones, paddle and all of that stuff. My daughter loves it and comes with her friends.

‘But I’d be reluctant to stay here if it was to come. I certainly wouldn’t pay [Mrs Greenham] to come here if so she’d be losing income if it was there.

‘It just wouldn’t fit.’

Steve Barratt, 74, who is the former chairman and current committee member of Mudeford Sandbank Beach Huts Association (MSBHA), doubted that BCP’s decision would halt Mr Trickett’s plans.

He said: ‘I think he’s just an opportunist and he’s got an idea and wants to go for it. I think even if he doesn’t get permission, he might even put it down here, just to see what the reaction is.

But Mr Barratt says he doesn’t think the ‘stupid idea’ will last very long, casting doubts over the restaurant’s appeal. 

‘They’ll probably have a chemical toilet on board,’ he added.

‘They’d have to take that away with them. I doubt they’d empty it over the side unless they were being a bit cavalier.

‘It’s not going to be a particularly savoury environment and I can’t see people being attracted to it.

‘If there’s a cavalier personality running it, then who knows where the oil they use to cook is going to end up.

The 74-year-old’s wife, Jennie, added that the full ordeal was ‘cloud cuckoo land.’ 

A point of concern for the council was ‘how hazardous toilet/sanitary waste would be disposed of’ particularly on busier days.

Mr Trickett insisted that he had built a ‘posh thing’ that would limit smells on board and allow for easy disposal thanks to its cassette function – which are the toilet builds typically found in caravans and motorhomes.

But the idea that there would only one loo on board struck fear in locals who said drunken tourists may urinate off the vessel if it were to be occupied. 

Jim Longman, 69, who owns a hut with his wife Sallie, said he was concerned that if the only toilet on board was occupied that ‘people might p**s over the edge’. 

He added: ‘I don’t know how they’re going to connect their toilet to the mains, so how and where are they going to pump it out? 

‘You’ve also got the problem where if it’s open that late and people are getting drunk they then may think “Oh we’ve got to walk back but we can steal a boat and go across to the run and make that distance shorter”.

‘I believe the developer’s argument is that he wanted his wife to have something to do as a business interest, and so he’s building this thing with little foresight. Just buy her a bloody dog.’

Mrs Longman, 61, told how urination had been a problem on the beach when alcohol has been previously involved – potentially sparking these fears.

She said: ‘When the cafe had an event called “Sax on the Beach” it got out of control and people were p*****g outside.

‘There are a lot of kids around, it’s quite Enid Blyton-esque down here. It’s just not that kind of vibe at this beach, they should go to Sobo or Sandbanks for that.’

She also believes that Mr Trickett has been ‘arrogant’ throughout the process.

‘He’s telling people that everyone’s for it and most of them are really not,’ she continued.

‘He wants to play music which will affect almost all of this area.

‘It might be a quiet breakfast vibe but nevertheless, sometimes it’s nice to have no noise. If you want to play music you can, but you can’t ask a restaurant to turn their music down.

‘The waves and sound of the birds is lovely, not their choice of music inflicted on you. I can’t think of anything good about it to be honest.

‘A floating pontoon with oil hot enough to do fish and chips for up to 70 people, does that sound like a safe idea?’

Mr Trickett labelled accusations of his prospective customers urinating off the float as ‘ridiculous’.

He added: ‘No one’s going to be peeing off the side. Do they pee off the ferry when they come across? No, they don’t.

‘Let’s be fair. There’s not going to be any drunks on board because it’s not a bar. You can’t come on and sit there and have a drink. You have to have a full meal.

‘We discussed that in the meeting. They wanted to know whether by buying a packet of crisps would entitle them to buy a drink? No, they’d have to sit down and have a meal.’

Despite Mr Trickett’s arguments, the committee said that approving his application would ‘undermine the licensing objectives of the prevention of crime and disorder, prevention of public nuisance, public safety and the protection of children from harm.’

A spokesperson for the council told MailOnline: ‘Members of the licensing sub-committee have refused this application after careful consideration of the proposals, the views of residents, and the four licensing objectives.’ 

He has been given 21 days to appeal, and Mr Trickett says he is ready to take it to a Magistrates’ Court.

He believes that having the backing of environmental staff, the fire brigade and police may work in his favour.

In their rejection, the committee highlighted concerns over storage of waste on the vessel which they said ‘could cause a public nuisance, especially in hot weather’.

However, Mr Trickett debated that the Beach House store their food in general waste bins which ‘bake under the sun for days’ and that this was an example of ‘double standards’ in the decision-making.

‘All their rubbish is stored in council bins,’ he added. ‘It’s a bit hypocritical.’

The committee also had concerns regarding the restaurant’s ability to raise up and down with the tide, which they say posed a risk to children and families playing in the water nearby.

But Mr Trickett said it was clear in his application that ‘the vessel would attach itself to the seabed by way of arrowhead pole structure that would raise up and down with the tide.’

He added that because the restaurant would be in the inner harbour, that this negated any risk.

‘Not many people play in the inner harbor because of the sewage,’ he continued.

‘The seaside is where they all go. So they contradicted themselves there. I’ve told them that it goes up and down with the tide.

‘They’re saying they’re worried that it doesn’t, which they’re thinking could cause an accident if if it’s stuck up in the air and a child goes underneath it.

‘But that’s not the case. There are other boats all around that area doing exactly the same as what I’m doing.’

The committee said that these concerns, as well as the vessel having no barriers, ‘was a significant risk to public safety’ as it could see customers fall into the water.

‘There’s going to be a fully secure barrier completely around the craft,’ Mr Trickett said.

‘It even has kickboards on the bottom so that when you pull your chair back, it doesn’t go over the side and fall in. 

‘They obviously didn’t look at the pictures very well and they were told that it’s got barriers.

‘So that once again, that is not true. The others aren’t true. It should have passed.’

The 66-year-old also criticised members of the MSBHA, who he says act like they ‘own the place’.

‘I have family and friends who’ve got huts down there,’ he continued.

‘And they all talk about the hut association acting as if they own the place. 

‘They don’t own the place. They own the hut. They’ve paid silly money for the huts and they seem to think they own it. 

‘I am floating on the water much the same as any other craft. And it’s something different. It’s an option, it’s competition.

‘You can have lobster, steak, pizza or fish and chips, a cup of coffee now or your soft drinks and have a bit of an experience. 

‘They do it all around the world. Dartmouth have got a floating one. Plymouth have got a floating one.

All around Asia they’ve got floating ones everywhere. The Thames have even got them. So it’s nothing new, but it’s new for Christchurch.’

Mr Trickett said he won’t give up on the project which he has spent ‘a lot of money’ on, and says he is looking ahead to secure a license for next summer.

There are 346 beach huts at Mudeford with prices rising dramatically in the last 30 years.

Many of the owners MailOnline spoke with had inherited the huts which were propped up on the beach following the end of the Second World War. 

The remote location makes them very desirable as an exclusive bolthole, and with cars banned and the only way to reach it is by a 20-minute walk, a short ferry trip or a novelty land train ride.

They can be slept in from March to October, but have no running water or mains electricity, and toilets and washing facilities are in a communal block.