Felixstowe beach hut owners 'disappointed' over refusal of judicial review but focus is on finding sites for the remaining huts
A judge has refused Felixstowe beach hut owners permission to proceed with a judicial review against the district council that terminated their licences for their historic seaside location.
Owners of the beach huts in the area of the Spa Pavilion have campaigned for their huts to remain there following the decision by East Suffolk Council (ESC) to relocate them.
ESC said their temporary siting on the promenade impacted on other users of the prom and there was no safe option to return them to their original beach location, which has suffered from erosion and storm damage.
The Felixstowe Beach Hut and Chalet Association instructed London-based Devonshires solicitors in February over ESC's decision to terminate the site licences for the 44 huts at the Spa.
Beach hut campaigners felt the licences should not have been revoked before sites were found for all of the huts.
Nick Billingham, a consultant for Devonshires, said the firm issued an application for a judicial review, which is a special procedure in the administrative courts in the High Court in London in which you can challenge the decisions of public bodies.
But at the permission stage the judge decided that the case did not have sufficient merit to proceed for a variety of reasons, he said.
Mr Billingham said the judge's decision was 'hugely disappointing', but the process had achieved their objective that the council shouldn't remove the huts from the prom at the end of March - which is when the licences ended - without finding alternative sites.
Mr Billingham said: "The refusal of permission is extremely disappointing. The issue now which the association wants to concentrate on is finding an alternative site for the remaining 14 huts."
He added: "One would hope the council will now get behind support for the outstanding planning applications to ensure the 14 beach hut owners whose huts remain on the promenade are found an alternative site."
Last month, ESC began removing 30 of the huts to their new locations, but 14 remain with nowhere to go after ESC's planning committee refused plans submitted by the same local authority for Manor Road, also referred to as Manor End.
The association has recently submitted its own planning application for Manor End, at Martello Park, and another three sets of plans - including two that would keep huts at the Spa - are at the pre-application stage.
Crime writer and beach hut campaigner Ruth Dugdall said of course the beach hut owners were 'disappointed' the judicial review had been rejected, but for them it was never the full story.
Ruth, whose beach hut is one of the 14 with nowhere to go currently, added: "We may have lost in the courts, but we have certainly won in the hearts and minds of Felixstowe locals and, for me, that's a more important place of judgement."
She added: "I think the chance we have to remain at the Spa is in our planning applications."
She added that the bar for a judicial review was 'incredibly high'.
Mr Billingham said the reasons for the refusal of the judicial review included that they were out of time as the judge said the decision to move the huts and terminate the licences was made in July 2021, and proceedings need to be brought within three months.
Another point was that the judge felt there had been proper consultation prior to the termination of the licences - and there was no right to statutory consultation - and there had been consideration of the alternatives.
In a statement last week, an East Suffolk Council spokesperson said: “We continue to engage with the beach hut owners and will work through the next steps in relation to the remaining 14 units.
"In relation to this, we are pleased that our efforts to engage appropriately have now been recognised in the courts, with the rejection of a judicial review brought against the council by the beach hut owners.”
