Dozens of beach hut tenants will be lobbying councillors tomorrow not to up their rents by a planned 76 per cent.
They are furious about the massive increase which the council claims is to bring it in line with the fees charged by other east coast resorts.
Those who rent huts in Shoebury will see their charges rise from £71.03 a year to £125, and people leasing Thorpe Bay huts are faced with bills of £153, compared with the previous £87.43.
Both new charges are exclusive of rates and come as the tenants' six-year leases expire at the end of December 1998. They are also required to pay £30 to cover the council's legal costs and £15 surveyors' fees to set up the new rental agreement.
Leisure bosses claim tenants have been let off lightly for the past few years.
Officer Andy Shepherd, said: "The proposed rents represent increases of some 76 per cent because an assessment has now been based upon market evidence.
"The current rents represent a historic assessment which has merely been increased in line with inflation therefore making the current rents fall below market rental levels.
"In effect, beach hut tenants have benefited from such historically low rental assessments for some years and therefore in order to bring rental levels to current market levels a large scale increase is now necessary."
However, tenants are also angry that the extra money will mean no extra or improved services, and will be asking members of the leisure committee on Thursday to refuse the officers' recommendation.
Mr Shepherd added: "A number of tenants have raised the issue of whether additional or better services could be offered by the council.
"However, this has not been taken into account in rental assessment as the benefits of such additional facilities would result in further increases."
The council owns 491 huts along the foreshore. Two are let to charities and will not be subject to the increases.
Mr Shepherd said that 414 tenants, around 84 per cent, have agreed to the proposed rents. A further 49 tenants, representing some 12 per cent, have complained about the increase either verbally or in writing, and one has given up his site as he is unwilling to pay the extra cost.
Converted for the new archive on 19 November 2001. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article