05
The Committee received and considered the report from the Head of Property & Assets, which covered the following questions which had been raised by the Committee: -
a) The total cost of construction of the huts at Great Yarmouth & Gorleston
b) The cost of hiring a beach hut in Great Yarmouth & Gorleston
c) The income since construction of the beach huts
d) How many beach huts will be purchased or hired in the 2025/26 season
e) The cost of repairs
f) Staffing Costs to manage the beach huts; and
g) Update on the Wellington Pier Beach Huts
Councillor Newcombe asked about the accessibility of the new beach huts and amenity block, and it was noted that the utility amenity block is accessible, and the beach huts are designed in such a way so if required, they can be quickly adapted to meet the disability access requirements.
Following observations by Councillors Grant and Murray-Smith, the Committee noted that all the beach huts in Great Yarmouth are currently on an annual hire with no huts on a long lease. Although the Council has reserved the right to offer long leases on these, it has decided not to do so in the initial year, as an annual hire does not allow for sub-letting and provides a slightly increased annual revenue income (should all huts be let). Councillor Murray-Smith asked if a clause could be added to the leases of the beach huts to include sub-letting.
The Head of Property and Assets reported that it was planned to have the GY beach hut offer mirror the Gorleston beach hut offer, i.e., the offers are standardised.
Scrutiny Committee was informed that parking permits are not offered in conjunction with beach huts at Great Yarmouth and when using the beach huts people have to park according to local parking restrictions. The Committee asked that a parking incentive scheme be considered at the North Drive car park for the users of the adjacent beach huts.
The Committee noted that other coastal areas offered short term rentals (such as daily/weekly). This tends to be in locations where the councils have a significant stock and a larger team to manage this function.
The Head of Service informed the Committee that the annual cost of hiring a beach hut at Gorleston commands a higher annual fee due to their location which is closer to the beach and sea and benefits from free parking. Consequently, the leasehold valuation of the Gorleston Huts is also higher for the same reasons.
The Head of Service reported that during the construction phase, there was significant interest in annual hire of the Great Yarmouth beach huts, with 65 interested parties requesting further information regarding annual hire. When further correspondence was sent to them in April 2025, many interested parties no longer wished to proceed leaving only 16 huts on an annual hire. This was mainly associated to cost, wishing to take a longer lease rather than annual hire and the vandalism at the Gorleston huts which had occurred during the previous week.
A marketing campaign was launched with 500+ emails being sent to previously interested parties. Three additional Beach Huts have been hired since that campaign, a total of 19 are hired whilst 36 interested parties requested more information regarding a long-term lease and whether this was an option.
The Head of Service reported, that to date, the cost of repairs for the Great Yarmouth & Gorleston Beach Huts has been minimal. The main cause of repairs was due to attempted break-ins and small-scale, routine repairs. However, as these assets age, the cost of repairs and improvements will increase as the Council maintains these huts to a high standard. It was noted that the benefit of the long-term lease is that all repairs and maintenance falls to the owner, who are responsible in maintaining the huts to a high standard and this is enforceable within the lease.
The Committee noted that the cost of constructing the Great Yarmouth Beach Huts was higher than those at Gorleston with the original contract being agreed at £253,000 for the construction and installation of the Beach Huts. However, it was identified that the initial contractor was not VAT registered, and the Council is unable to enter into a contract with companies that are not VAT registered. Despite attempts to register the contractor for VAT, the contractor went into liquidation, effectively terminating the contract. A total of £141,409 of materials and goods had already been ordered with this contractor, which the Council was legally required to pay for and requested delivery of, as these goods were still required and necessary for the build.
The appointment of the initial contractor had been under the Council’s previous procurement service provider, and it was a failure in their processes that due diligence checks had not been conducted to confirm the accuracy of information before the appointment of the contractor. As a result of this failure, all such checks are now conducted by the Council’s own finance team to ensure that all is in order prior to any contractor award.
The Committee noted that the contract was subsequently re-tendered, and the new quotes received were upwards of £421,000 leading to increased costs of around £250,000. However, if it had not been for the failure of the first contractor then this project would have been delivered to budget.
In response to comments raised by Councillor P Carpenter, it was agreed that this experience has provided an opportunity to learn, improve and to strengthen GYBC procurement practices. The Committee agreed that it might be prudent to ensure that there was a press release explaining how the Council has learned from the delivery of this project, for example, the processes, or services and how in the future the risk of any supplier failure would be managed.
Councillor Murray-Smith commented that all procurements should be conducted in a fair, legal and transparent manner, that reflects the Council’s overarching strategy and meets the Council’s specific business needs.
Councillor Murray-Smith suggested that the Council should pursue the contactor through the Courts to indemnify the Council for its losses. The contractor was bankrupt, and the Council would be able to go after his assets, for example, his house.
The Chair stressed that it was important to have good governance in the procurement process to help to ensure that contracts are awarded in an objective, competitive and ethical manner, reduce cost overruns and to control how contracts are managed and monitored to ensure timely delivery of goods or services.
Councillor Wainwright commented that whilst there had been issues, 90% of the £141,409 of materials and goods provided by the initial contractor had been recovered and used in the construction of the beach huts. The remaining 10% had either been damaged in storage or needed reworking before being used in the construction of the huts.
Following comments by the Executive Director – Place and the Monitoring Officer, it was noted that the Council had worked hard to maintain a positive and productive relationship with the first contractor to help them retain the contract. However, once the contractor had advised the Council that they were going into liquidation, the Council, as the employer then exercised its right to terminate the agreement prior to the contractor going into liquidation.
The Executive Director - Place reported that the contract for the Great Yarmouth beach huts had employed standard JCT procedure as they have consistent format to suit a wide range of projects and procurement options. The Chair asked that a report be bought back to a future meeting to look at the original GY beach Hut contract and to provide an update on the progress of sales of the beach huts in GY & Gorleston.
The Head of Service reported that the footings required for the beach huts in Great Yarmouth were installed at a cost of £259,115, this was because the beach huts were not permitted on the promenade as the promenade was not wide enough to maintain an accessible walkway. Therefore, they were required to be set back from the promenade with a stable, level concrete base which had been factored into the original business case as approved by the Council.
Councillor Wainwright stated that whilst brick weave had been added to visually improve the appearance of the beach huts in Great Yarmouth, the majority of it it was covered over by the beach huts.
Councillor Wainwright felt that to effectively market the Beach Huts, the Council needs not only to make use of its website and social media presence, but also use printed advertisements, displayed in public areas.
The Committee noted that as part of lease exchange negotiations for the Beach House Café located near to the Winter Gardens and Wellington Pier, the Council had received 18 beach huts into its possession in September 2024. Accordingly, consideration had to be made as to the future use of these. In addition, after an inspection carried out by the Council’s Repairs and Maintenance team, the beach huts had been found to be in a very poor condition and would therefore require significant refurbishment/investment prior to any potential future lease arrangement. It was understood that the forecasted income for these beach huts would not offset the costs incurred to bring these up to a standard to lease to the public. Therefore, these beach huts will be removed in June 2025, which will create a clear site with improved vehicle and pedestrian access for the forthcoming works. The removal of the beach huts would also help to negate the construction noise and environmental pollution during the regeneration of the Wintergardens.
Councillor Jeal wished it to be noted that he was not in favour of the removal of the beach huts situated at the Wellington Pier.
The Chair summed up the concerns raised by the Committee as follows: -
1. To encourage greater sales uptake of the GY Beach Huts
2. Greater Accountability – a specific R & M finance line introduced for the profit & loss incurred by the GY & Gorleston beach huts
3. Procurement issues associated with Breckland DC
4. Stronger Governance measures to be put in place for future procurement.
RESOLVED:-
That the Committee:-
(i) Note the contents of the Gorleston and Great Yarmouth Beach Huts report,
(ii) Note the comments and concerns made in respect of the contents of the report; and
(iii) That an update report be presented on the contract procured through Breckland DC and the progress of the sale of the Beach Huts in Great Yarmouth & Gorleston.