huts and hutters in scotland (1999) draft research material

HUTS AND HUTTERS 1999 DRAFT RESEARCH MATERIAL
Information released following an information request to Scottish Government in May 2012.
Background Information:
In 1999 the then Scottish Office Development Department commissioned a study Huts and Hutters in
Scotland. Research Consultancy Services carried out this research under the management of the
then Central Research Unit, and the final output of the study was produced in the form of an
accessible 40 page report in 2000.
This 2000 Scottish Executive report available remains available on the Scottish Government website
– link:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/156526/0042031.pdf
Draft Report Information Request:
In Spring 2012 Scottish Government was asked to release draft reports which were submitted to
Scottish Government in the course of the above study. Scottish Government had not retained draft
report material, and passed the information request to the contractor. The now retired contractor had
retained draft reports, and following checking the reports in relation to contemporary Data Protection
guidance passed the material to Scottish Government for release (see following pages).
Guidance on referencing material: This information is draft research report material produced by
Research Consultancy Services. The material is unpublished and would be categorised as ‘grey
literature’. The suggested academic reference for this material is shown below:
Research Consultancy Services. 1999. Huts and Hutters in Scotland 1999 draft research
report material retained by Research Consultancy Services. Released by Research
Consultancy Services via Scottish Government in response to a Freedom of Information
request in May 2012.
Any text reproduced from these draft research materials report should be acknowledged.
Disclaimer: this is draft research material dating from 1999. The views expressed are those of the
researchers. They do not necessarily represent those of the then Scottish Office or Scottish Executive
or the then Scottish Ministers.
The Research Consultancy Services contractor who produced this draft material, and the 2000 report,
has now retired and any enquiries regarding the 2000 report, or this information release, should be
directed to the Scottish Government Central Enquiry Unit ceu@scotland.gsi.gov.uk
1
HUTS AND HUTTERS IN SCOTLAND
(1999)
DRAFT RESEARCH MATERIAL:
a composite of three draft repots on studies undertaken in 1999 released
following an information request to Scottish Government in May 2012
2
PART 1
CONTEXT (May 2012)
Background Information
1.1
In 1999 the then Scottish Office Development Department commissioned a study Huts and
Hutters in Scotland. Research Consultancy Services carried out this research under the management
of the then Central Research Unit, and the final output of the study was produced in the form of an
accessible 40 page report in 2000.
1.2
This 2000 Scottish Executive report available remains available on the Scottish Government
website – link: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/156526/0042031.pdf
Draft Report Information Request
1.3
In Spring 2012 Scottish Government was asked to release draft reports which were submitted
to Scottish Government in the course of the above study. Scottish Government had not retained draft
report material, and passed the information request to the contractor. The now retired contractor had
retained draft reports, and following checking the reports in relation to contemporary Data Protection
guidance passed the material to Scottish Government for release (see following pages).
Guidance on referencing material
1.4
This information is draft research report material produced by Research Consultancy
Services. The material is unpublished and would be categorised as ‘grey literature’. Any text
reproduced from these draft research materials should be acknowledged. The suggested academic
reference for this material is shown below:
Research Consultancy Services. 1999. Huts and Hutters in Scotland 1999 draft research
report material retained by Research Consultancy Services. Released by Research
Consultancy Services via Scottish Government in response to a Freedom of Information
request in May 2012.
Presentation of reports
1.5
This preface, Part 1, sets the scene. The three RCS reports follow: Part 2 deals with
numbers, distribution and characteristics of sites; Part 3 considers the ‘hutter’s perspective; and,
finally Part 4 looks through the eye of the landowners. For ease of viewing what is now a large and
rather complex document, in each case paragraph numbering has been modified to add a ‘Part’ prefix,
e.g. 2.5.23 or 4.6.15.
Disclaimer
1.6
This is draft research material dating from 1999. The views expressed are those of the
researchers. They do not necessarily represent those of the then Scottish Office or Scottish Executive
or the then Scottish Ministers.
The Research Consultancy Services contractor who produced this draft material,
and the 2000 report, has now retired and any enquiries regarding the 2000 report,
or this information release, should be directed to the Scottish Government Central
Enquiry Unit: ceu@scotland.gsi.gov.uk
3
PART 2
FINDING THE HUT SITES
4
‘HUTS AND HUTTERS’
STAGE 1
The numbers, distribution and
characteristics of ‘hut’ sites
throughout Scotland
Report on the first stage of a study
undertaken for
The Scottish Office Central Research Unit
on behalf of
Housing Division 2
of
The Scottish Office Development Department
Research Consultancy Services
5
April 1999
6
CONTENTS
2.1
INTRODUCTION
Report format
The context
2.2
THE SOURCES
Survey of local planning authorities
Ancillary sources
Maps
Air photographs
Land Registry
Valuation Rolls
Rent Registration Service
Site inspection
2.3
HUT SITES IN SCOTLAND
Preliminary sources
Responses from Planning Departments, Valuation Assessors
and other sources
The summary picture
2.4
SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Size of sites
Date of origin
Site settings
Access
Site history and planning issues
Additional supporting material
Hut values
2.5
OWNERS AND OCCUPIERS
Owner information
The occupiers
2.6
THE WAY AHEAD
Data requirements
Landowners
Occupiers
Data collection methods
Landowners/agents
Occupiers
A potential scale for a Stage 2 study
2.7
AN OVERVIEW OF THE CURRENT POSITION
APPENDICES
2.A
2.B
2.C
THE QUESTIONNAIRE TO PLANNING DEPARTMENTS
A DESCRIPTION OF THE SITES
THE SITE INVENTORY
7
2.1
INTRODUCTION
2.1.1
This report presents the findings of the first stage of a study of ‘huts’ and ‘hutters’ in Scotland
undertaken by Research Consultancy Services [RCS] for The Scottish Office’s Central
Research Unit [CRU], on behalf of Housing Division 2 [H2] of The Scottish Office
Development Department [SODD].
Report format
2.1.2
The report is set out as follows:
This introductory section sets out the context for and aims of the study;
Section 2 summarises the sources used for Stage 1 of the study;
Section 3 draws together the results of the postal survey of local planning authorities
and the ancillary sources which have been consulted to assess the overall scale of huts
and hut sites across Scotland;
Section 4 looks at characteristics of hut sites as revealed by the Planning Department
survey, together with information from the map search;
Section 5 is concerned with the owners of sites and occupiers of huts in terms of what
information has been uncovered by Stage 1 and what may continue to emerge;
Section 6 assesses approaches to a possible Stage 2 of the study;
Section 7 summarises the situation of huts and hutters at the present day as revealed
by the Stage 1 study;
Appendix A reproduces the questionnaire used in the survey of Planning
Departments;
Appendix B gives a description of each of the known sites;
Appendix C is a detailed inventory of each site, drawing together the data from the
Planning Departments, the Valuation Boards, the RRS trawl and the results of the
map search;
The context
2.1.3
When driving through Scotland, one occasionally comes across groups of small and rather
untidy buildings often painted dark brown or green, on a piece of hillside or other open
ground, sometimes arranged in a fairly orderly pattern, others in haphazard fashion. While not
beautiful, generally they are not very large groupings and are generally muted in colour so
they do not stand out from their setting in the same way as serried ranks of holiday caravans
on their sites do. What are these groups? Why are they in certain places and not in others?
How did they come to be there? Who owns them and what are they used for?
2.1.4
There is much uncertainty and not a little mythology about the answers to these questions.
Most commonly it was seen initially as philanthropic. It was thought that, following the first
World War, some Scottish Landowners made land available on lease on which ex-servicemen
8
and other town and city dwellers would be allowed to erect dwellings at their own cost. By so
doing they could enjoy the benefits of the countryside and fresh air for holidays and at
weekends. These dwellings were not intended for permanent residence, generally being of
modest timber construction with few, if any services available to them. Over the years, these
‘dwellings’ have acquired a generic name of ‘huts’ with their occupiers being known as
‘hutters’ and, for simplicity, despite possible variations throughout Scotland, this terminology
is used throughout the report.
2.1.5
Towards the end of 1998, in the context of a number of land use and tenure issues, The
Scottish Office became aware that huts and hutters might be more common than at first
thought but that little was known about them. Following preliminary enquiries about possible
information sources, at the beginning of 1999 The Scottish Office’s Central Research Unit
invited Research Consultancy Services to develop proposals for a systematic investigation
into numbers and locations of hut sites, their origins and characteristics, the purposes for
which they are used and by whom.
2.1.6
The RCS proposals were for a two-stage study, the first to concentrate on establishing site
numbers and characteristics and the second dealing with direct approaches to site owners and
occupiers to explore tenure and use patterns. It was eventually agreed to separate the stages,
since the second would be very dependent on what emerged from the first. However, the
Stage 1 report was expected to clarify possible methodologies for Stage 2.
2.1.7
It should be noted at this stage that this report does not consider any of the specific issues
relating to the site at Carbeth in Stirling since these are currently in a state of flux, both in the
general future of the site and in terms of legal cases proceeding through the courts. The
Scottish Office Development Department is already fully appraised on these issues and this
report is intended more to give a first overview of the presence and nature of hut sites across
Scotland as a whole.
9
2.2
THE SOURCES
2.2.1
From the outset two main strands to the research need were identified. The first was
concerned with fairly straightforward collection and compilation of data on the number and
location of ‘hutter’ sites throughout Scotland, in effect creating an inventory. It was envisaged
that most of this data would or should be available through secondary sources. The second,
would explore in more detail on one hand the history of the sites and their administration, and
on the other the extent and nature of their occupancy and their occupiers. This second stage
would involve collection of primary data from both the owners of land on which huts are
located and from those owning and occupying the huts (the ‘hutters’).
2.2.2
Existing information on locations and numbers of huts appeared, at best, sketchy. The SODD
Housing Division 2 had already made enquiries of the Rent Registration Service [RRS] to see
whether this was an aspect of accommodation about which they had any information,
particularly as, over the years, some huts were thought to have been used for increasing
period of time. While a rapid telephone trawl by RRS of its regional offices generated some
preliminary information it was patchy and limited in content.
2.2.3
A number of possible data sources were considered for the study with a view to their being
used in combination, each with potential either to expand on information revealed only
partially by one source or to cross check other sources for accuracy. In practice, in the course
of the study additional sources emerged and were used in similar ways.
Survey of local planning authorities
2.2.4
It was assumed that local Planning Departments should be aware of developments of this kind
within their areas and therefore were seen as a prime source. The initial line of enquiry was
therefore a postal survey of the Planning Department in each Council in Scotland, using a
simple form to ensure consistency of data. A necessary first stage was to agree a definition of
huts and hutters for the purposes of the survey. This broadly followed the description set out
in paragraph 1.4 above, but emphasised that the definition excluded a number of other forms
of development such as beach huts and chalets used for holiday letting, huts on allotments,
caravans and mobile homes. The definition also indicated that the nature of tenancy or licence
arrangements was often uncertain, with the ‘hutters’ occupying their plots as ‘tenants’ or
‘licensees’, paying an annual rental or ‘licence’ for their plot, though they own the dwellings
on the land. Again it was emphasised that both on account of the nature of the structures and
the extent, or lack, of services available to them, these dwellings were not intended to be used
as permanent residences, though in practice some have come to be used for protracted
periods.
2.2.5
The covering letter and form, with its notes on definitions, were discussed with CRU and
SODD-H2 before issue with a view to keeping the approach low key and striking a balance
between obtaining necessary information and placing too heavy a load on Planning
Departments. For each ‘site’ (i.e. location at which huts were known to exist) data was sought
under a range of simple headings. A copy of the questionnaire and its explanatory notes is at
Appendix A. Planning Departments were also asked for a contact name in the event of it
being necessary to clarify points of detail subsequently.
2.2.6
As well as completing the basic survey questionnaire, authorities were asked, where possible
to provide map extracts covering any site for which they made a return. As it was recognised
that some of the information on the questionnaire might not be held by or even known to the
local authority they were asked for any supplementary information about the sites which
might help the enquiry or for pointers to alternative sources.
10
2.2.7
Authorities with no sites within their areas were specifically asked to make a nil returns.
2.2.8
Local authorities were asked for returns within two weeks. Initial written reminders were sent
to non-responders immediately after this, allowing a further week for additional returns.
Telephone follow-up was used to try to encourage any outstanding Councils to respond.
(It should be noted that a number of initial letters failed to reach their destinations, despite
all 32 being posted in a single batch at the main central Edinburgh sorting office. A smaller
number of reminders to some of these same authorities also never reached their addressees.
These problems were revealed through both written and telephoned reminders. Apart from
possible losses in the post (which seems unlikely given the disappearance in some case of
both stages of correspondence) a possible explanation, judging by some of the response to
telephone queries, is that, with restructuring within Councils the post of ‘Director of
Planning’ as given in SODD address lists appears no longer to exist in some Councils.)
2.2.9
About half the Planning Departments responded within by the initial date and, by means of
both written and telephoned follow-up responses of some kind were eventually received from
all 32 by the middle of March.
2.2.10 As well as using telephone calls for reminder purposes, they also proved useful in following
up aspects of interest or clarifying items of information in a return.
Ancillary sources
2.2.11 Given the possibility that a local authority might know of the existence of huts somewhere
within its area but hold only limited information about a given location ancillary sources were
used to confirm and expand the data. Large scale maps and aerial photo coverage of Scotland
were suggested as alternative or complementary sources. Three possible such sources were
considered: maps, aerial photos or the Land Registry. An alternative was a follow up
approach to individual RRS offices with a view to expanding their initial information.
1: Maps
2.2.12 In the postal survey, Planning Departments were asked to give six-figure Ordnance Survey
Grid References [OSGRs] for any sites which they identified. They were also asked for map
extracts or layout plans of sites where these were available. In practice the former were only
provided in a few cases and the latter were very rare.
2.2.13 A number of possible map scales were considered as alternative or confirmatory sources.
Where OSGRs were provided, locations could be identified on the old 1inch to 1 mile series
or its successor 1:50,000 Landranger Series. Where there were thought to be hut sites but
only a general location was given, the 1:25,000 series was a possible alternative but proved
unreliable for searching, particularly for small sites. In practice it proved necessary to use the
1:10,000 or 1:10,560 (the former 6” to the mile) series both to obtain consistent location maps
for all identified sites and also as a search scale for areas where it was suggested sites might
exist.
2.2.14 In practice a map search was undertaken for every site identified in either the Planning
Department or Assessor (see below) surveys, either to try to find a site location where only an
address or an uncertain OSGR was available but also to provide some information on site
character, particularly where the Assessor survey was the only source of information.
2.2.15 The larger sites generally are fairly easily recognisable at the 1:10,000 scale. A number of
basic criteria were developed at an early stage in the map search. These were based on the
size of individual buildings and their pattern on the ground where occurring on the larger sites
or, for the smaller groups they had to be similar in building scale, generally accessible by a
road, track or path, mostly isolated rather than in an identified plot on open or semi-wooded
11
ground or near beaches or shorelines. Potential huts had to be clearly ‘solid’ buildings on the
map, rather than possible sheepfolds (which in any case are often so identified) or derelict
structures. Buildings in small regular surrounding plots were regarded as more likely to be
normal cottages, while farm or estate buildings could generally be recognised by their
proximity to a main farmhouse. The Valuation Rolls (see paragraph 2.18 below) generally
made the searches for individual huts easier as they gave clearer addresses than some of the
Planning Department returns. However, it must be recognised that there is a likelihood of
error with the location of individual huts.
2: Air photographs
2.2.16 Air photographs were initially considered as a potential source of confirmatory information
though, as with the large scale map searches, it seemed likely that they would only be of
value as a means of confirming sites identified by other means rather than attempting to
identify sites from scratch. In practice this source was not pursued since it was unlikely to
contribute much extra detail and was not regarded as cost effective for general searching.
3: Land Registry
2.2.17 The Land Registry was seen as a possible source of ancillary information on site ownership
for sites already identified by other means rather than as a way of initial site identification. In
practice it proved useful for this purpose in a small number of cases within the Stage 1
survey.
4: Valuation Rolls
2.2.18 A further source which came to light during the inquiry was that of the Valuation Rolls
maintained by the Valuation Boards throughout Scotland. As a result of the return provided
by one Planning Department which included extracts from local valuation rolls giving direct
reference to ‘living huts’ on four of the known sites within that Council’s area, it was
eventually agreed that an additional survey of all the Valuation Boards (with one or two
specific exceptions) should be undertaken, seeking similar extracts from local Rolls. With the
letter of enquiry, Assessors were also sent copies of the Planning questionnaire in order to
ensure that definitions would be clear. By the time of this report responses had been received
from seven out of the twelve Boards which had been approached. Six of these were positive,
though two said that information could only be provided at a later date. These returns,
together with follow-up telephone discussions with Assessors’ Departments proved useful
both as a confirmatory and supplementary source for Stage 1 and, even more, in their
potential as source material for any direct approaches to owners and occupiers should SODD
decide to continue to Stage 2 of the study. The only reservation about this source, as
confirmed from telephone discussions with a number of the Assessors, is that while the Roll
lists ‘proprietor’ and ‘occupier’ separately for each hut, the proprietor is not necessarily the
landowner, though further searches by the Assessors’ may subsequently be able to provide
the latter information.
5: Rent Registration Service
2.2.19 The initial rapid trawl by the headquarters of the RRS of its regional offices provided a
certain amount of information which once again was used as a cross check on information
generated by other sources. In a few cases, where there appeared to be inconsistencies a
subsequent check was made directly with the regional RRS office to clarify points from the
initial return.
6: Site inspection
2.2.20 Site inspections were not scheduled for Stage 1 of the study. However, in one case where the
Council’s Planning Department was unable to provide information within the time frame of
the study, but where the RRS indicated possible sites, a chance opportunity was taken to the
12
visit the locality. This revealed a number of groups of properties which might fit the study
definition. These were subsequently confirmed as relevant by information from the local
Assessor’s staff. This one visit demonstrated the benefits of checking other information
sources on the ground and similar visits to the other larger sites are likely to be an essential
element in any second stage of the study.
13
2.3
HUT SITES IN SCOTLAND
Preliminary information
2.3.1
According to the initial RRS trawl, huts were said to exist in only ten of the thirty-two local
authorities in Scotland, with numbers varying from two or three huts on a single site up to
‘many hundreds’ said to be scattered across three main areas (though with some doubt as to
the extent to which these fitted the real ‘hut’ definition). Of the 22 authorities not included in
this list either nil returns were made or information was not available at the time of the RRS
telephone enquiry. The RRS information suggested a total of some 15 ‘sites’ in Scotland,
though in three instances it was suggested that these were very scattered and even uncertain
as to whether they fitted the criteria. Most appeared to be fairly small with the exception of
the very large and, by then well known, site at Carbeth in Stirling Council’s area which was
said to have approaching 250 huts. Allowing for the uncertainty over the accuracy of the
‘many hundreds’ of huts referred to in North Ayrshire this trawl suggested a possible total of
some 500 for Scotland as a whole.
Responses from Planning Departments, Valuation Assessors and other sources
2.3.2
Most of the Councils responding to the postal enquiry recognised the definition used for the
study. A clarification was suggested by Angus Council in an early telephoned discussion
since their Planning Department and the local Valuation Board used the term ‘living huts’ to
describe dwellings of this kind and this modification was included in the letters to Assessors.
The only other query was raised by Western Isles, where it was suggested that while they
had no huts as defined, there were people known as ‘cottars’. Subsequent discussion with the
respondent clarified this term which appears to be common throughout the crofting counties
for people, often numerous, without conventional crofting tenure but who at some time in
the past have found small pieces of land on which they have built and have acquired what
amount to ‘squatter’ rights. For the purposes of this study they have been excluded, though
they remain a grey area.
2.3.3
Nil returns were received from 21 planning authorities. Perhaps not surprisingly these
included the four City Councils and the three Islands Councils. Each of the Councils in this
list were also either recorded as nil returns to the RRS trawl in November 1998, or no
information was available at the time, while a further four not in that list had also made
indicated a nil return or no information was available.
Aberdeen City
Aberdeenshire
Argyll and Bute
City of Edinburgh
City of Glasgow
Clackmannanshire
Dumfries and Galloway (see para. 3.10)
Dundee City
East Ayrshire
East Dunbartonshire
East Renfrewshire
Falkirk
Highland
Midlothian
Moray
North Lanarkshire
Orkney Islands
Shetland Islands
South Lanarkshire
West Lothian
Western Isles
14
2.3.4
Although Highland Council gave a nil return for most of its areas it was suggested that there
might be some properties in the Ross and Cromarty district, possibly on the Black Isle fitting
the search criteria. Subsequent discussion with local housing department staff appeared to
rule these out. Similarly the RRS return had noted that there were ‘possibly six’ huts in the
Skye and Lochalsh area though no location was given. Again, while subsequent enquiries to
the RRS revealed that these were in the Kyle of Lochalsh area, they were now thought to be
holiday log cabins rather than huts as defined in the study criteria, so the nil return for this
Council is taken to be correct.
2.3.5
Using the Planning Department returns, nine Councils identified one or more sites within
their areas.
Angus
Stirling
Scottish Borders
Inverclyde
Perth & Kinross
Fife
West Dunbartonshire
East Lothian
Renfrewshire
2.3.6
A further two Councils, North and South Ayrshire, indicated that they had no comprehensive
record of sites and could not undertake a survey at the time in order to complete the
questionnaire. As both had been identified in the RRS return as having sites alternative
sources of information were explored to clarify the position.
2.3.7
In the case of North Ayrshire, the RRS information had suggested that... ‘there might be
“many hundreds” - this Council says they have hundreds of holiday chalet-type dwellings but
are unable to identify specifically those matching our requirements; particular locations are
near Skelmorlie, West Kilbride and Arran’. In order to try to identify these apparently large
numbers, an exhaustive search was made of 1:10,000 scale maps for the whole of Arran and
the mainland between Inverkip and the southern boundary of North Ayrshire for two or three
miles inland from the coast. Results of this proved generally negative with no clearly
identifiable large sites and only one or two very small groups or isolated buildings which
might meet the criteria but which would need on-site confirmation. At the time of the RRS
trawl the Council suggested the Valuation Assessor as a possible alternative source. The
subsequent systematic postal enquiry to all the Valuation Boards produced a response from
the Ayrshire Joint Valuation Board which significantly reduced the apparent numbers for
North Ayrshire. This identified only 11 ‘holiday huts’ located in West Kilbride, basically on
a single site but with another single hut at a nearby location and under the same ownership.
2.3.8
RRS information for South Ayrshire had suggested Lendalfoot, on the coast south of Girvan
as ‘a prime candidate’ with possibly 30-40 properties. At the time of the postal survey the
Planning Department was unable to complete the questionnaire as no information was readily
available, though it was acknowledged that Lendalfoot might be relevant and that some
information might be forthcoming at a later date. A site visit to the area in early March
identified a number of properties immediately to the south of the village of Lendalfoot which
appeared to fit the study criteria, i.e. they were in a number distinct groups unlike other forms
of development along that stretch of coast and building styles generally suggested nonpermanent dwellings. Subsequent information from the Ayrshire Valuation Board confirmed
these as groups of ‘holiday huts’. The largest of the groups, while identified by the assessor as
possibly fitting the study criteria, were now listed as full dwellings on the Council Tax roll.
These groups at Lendalfoot have nevertheless been included in the study numbers and are
discussed further in the text descriptions of each of the sites in Appendix B.
15
2.3.9
As well as these Lendalfoot properties, the Valuation Roll identifies two other sites in South
Ayrshire with ten huts and one respectively and these are included in the summary totals.
2.3.10 The other Council over which there was some uncertainty was Dumfries and Galloway,
where a nil return was made by the Planning Department. Subsequent information provided
by the Valuation Board identified a very large number of ‘living huts’ (a term used in the Roll
by the Assessor to describe ‘non-domestic properties which are used for holiday purposes but
not let on a commercial basis’). While there are three sizeable groupings, and three small
clusters of between two and four huts, the remainder comprise ten individual huts at different
locations, all but one along the Solway coastal fringe. Discussions with the local Assessor
identified other locations on the Solway coast where there had been sites in the past which
had then been redeveloped as much more up-market ‘holiday villages’.
The summary picture
2.3.11 Drawing primarily on the Planning Department returns supplemented where appropriate by
all the other source material currently available, the total number of hut sites and huts is
summarised in Table 3.1. This reveals higher numbers of both sites and huts than identified in
the initial RRS trawl. Although there are minor caveats about aspects of these sites and some
uncertainty over a few other areas in Scotland (which may be further clarified if additional
Valuation Roll data is received), this would seem to be as comprehensive a list as can be
produced. Sites can be identified in twelve out of the 25 Councils which were seen as
potential contenders (i.e. excluding the City and Islands Councils).
2.3.12 The general characteristics of the sites are discussed in the next section of the report, while
Appendix B gives a brief description of each site. Appendix C gives a detailed inventory of
the sites in spreadsheet form.
16
TABLE 3.1
Council
Sites
Huts
RRS trawl
information
4 +(1)
112 total?
Stirling **
Scottish Borders **
3
3
c205
107
247(2)
c60
Inverclyde **
Perth & Kinross **
2
2
c15
c10
6
15
Fife
West Dunbartonshire
East Lothian
Renfrewshire **
1
1
1
1
49
24
10
3
c2-3
A - Planning Department returns *
Angus **
B - Assessor information for areas with no Planning Department return
North Ayrshire **
1
11
(3)
South Ayrshire **
5
6+(5)
34
30-40(4)
Dumfries and Galloway *
68
C - RRS returns where nil returns were made by Planning Departments
9(6)
6(7)
Falkirk **
Highland (Skye & Lochalsh) **
TOTALS
*
**
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
c28+ sites
c650 huts
Numbers of sites and huts in Section A are based on the Planning Department returns. Where other sources
indicate different figures these are discussed later in the text.
Councils marked with an asterisk appeared in the RRS returns.
Angus has four large sites plus five other small groups or individual huts.
The figure given by RRS applied only to Carbeth.
The RRS suggested that there might be ‘many hundreds’ particularly in the vicinity of Skelmorlie and West
Kilbride and on the island of Arran.
Lendalfoot was referred to by RRS as a ‘prime area’ with a ‘guesstimate of 30-40’.
The Valuation Roll for Dumfries & Galloway indicates three large groups and three other small groups plus ten
individual scattered huts .
The figure given by RRS referred to two sites with 3 and 6 but ‘official tourist board sites, probably with
amenities’.
Highland Councils made a nil return to the postal survey. The figure given by RRS suggested ‘roughly 6’ in Skye &
Lochalsh. Subsequent checks with RRS narrowed the location down to Kyle of Lochalsh area but the properties
were now thought more likely to be holiday log cabins rather than huts as defined by the study.
17
2.4
SITE CHARACTERISTICS
2.4.1
The Planning Department survey sought information on sites under number of headings. As
well as the name and address of each site and the number of huts, the questionnaire asked for
an Ordnance Survey Grid Reference and an approximate site area in hectares. Other features
included the general nature of the site, particularly in terms of whether it was a clearly
bounded area or scattered across open ground; the nature of its road access and proximity to
settlements; site ownership; and the general history of the site, if known, particularly, in terms
of recent planning issues. Where possible Planning Departments were asked to provide
supplementary material such as location and layout plans or other details which might aid the
survey.
2.4.2
This section summarises the available information about site characteristics culled from the
Planning Department returns supplemented where possible from the Assessors’ survey and
the map search. Comments on each site are given in Appendix B and tabulated details for
each are given in the site inventory at Appendix C.
Size of Sites
2.4.3
Out of the total of just over 700 huts identified from the Planning Department survey and the
data available to date from the Assessors’ survey, there are 35 locations with two or more
huts. As many as 87 percent of the hut total is found on sites of ten or more.
2.4.4
Few sites are very large in terms of their number of huts. With the exception of the Carbeth
site with 180 huts, the remainder fall into five size groups. Three sites are around the 50 mark,
six around 20-30, ten in the 10-20 bracket and fifteen in the 2-9 bracket. Finally, a total of 27
individual huts have been identified, mostly through the Assessors’ records available to date.
Table 4.1 lists all the locations with 2 or more huts. Here the number of huts from each of the
three sources is given, together with a ‘composite’ total to allow for variations between the
sources, particularly since some of the specific responses are in generalised terms such as
‘max. of 3’, ‘about 10’, etc. Where there are discrepancies in the figure generally the
Assessor’s figure has been taken for the composite as being the more reliable.
(It is possible that some of these numbers will increase should further Assessor data become
available.)
2.4.5
Information on size of site in terms of area of land is dependent on the Planning Survey
information. This is given for only a very small proportion of sites, others being described as
‘dispersed’ or ‘difficult to calculate’. Carbeth covers the greatest area of land with 140ha and
one site in Angus is spread over 25-30ha, though accommodating only 11 very dispersed
huts. Other sites for which areas are recorded range from 3 to as little as 0.05ha. There is no
particular relationship between the sizes of site and number of huts since two of the very
small sites (0.4 and 0.6ha) had totals of 23 and 24 huts respectively. Even for the larger
groups for which no Planning data is available, the map search suggests that most sites are
under two or three hectares with very tiny plots for the more scattered groups of two or three.
Individual huts are on tiny areas of ground.
Date of origin
2.4.6
The oldest site appears to be at Carbeth, where the first huts were built in 1924. The larger
sites in Angus date from the 1930s with another in the 1940s, while those in the Scottish
Borders appear to date from immediate post-war (? late 1940s). Comments from staff in
Assessor’s Departments also suggest late inter-war or possibly the 1940s for the site at Ayr
18
and the larger Dumfries and Galloway sites. However, for the majority of the sites the date of
origin is not known.
TABLE 4.1 - SITE SIZES (Nos. of huts)
NUMBER OF HUTS
Site
No.
Site name
Comp.
total
Plg
survey
180
180
Large sites (c50)
AN1
The Downs, Barry
PK3
Clayton, St. Andrews
SB1
Soonhope, Peebles
49
49
47
49
49
47
Medium sites (c20-30)
SB3
Windy Gowl, Carlops
SB2
Hattonknowe, Eddleston
SA6
Carleton Crescent, Lendalfoot, Girvan
EL1
Belhaven, Dunbar
AN2
Lucknow, Barry
DG1
Carrick Shore, Gatehouse of Fleet, Castle Douglas
30
30
28
24
24
23
30
30
Smaller sites (c10-20)
SA1
Old Toll, Ayr
PK2
Rumbling Bridge
DG2
Glen Isle. Palnackie, Castle Douglas
ST2
Carronbridge
AN4
Corbie Knowe, Lunan Bay
AN3
Craigendownie, Glen Lethnot
IN1
Cloch Road, Gourock
DG3
Rascarrel, Auchencairn
NA1
Lawhill, West Kilbride
WD1
Aber Mill, Gartocharn
16
15
15
14
13
11
11
11
11
10
Small groups (2-9)
RE1
Boghead, Lochwinnoch
ST3
Dalmary, Gartmore, Aberfoyle
PK1(a)
Snow Plough Meadow, Glendevon
SA2
Gamesloup, Lendalfoot, Girvan
SA3
Whilk Meadows, Lendalfoot, Girvan
PK1(b)
Myrehaugh, Glendevon
SA4
Carleton Fishery, Lendalfoot, Girvan
DG4
Portling, Dalbeattie
IN2
Lunderston Bay, Gourock
AN6(b)
Tarfside, Glenesk, Edzell
DG5
Sandyhills, Dalbeattie
AN6(a)
Cairncross. Glenesk, Edzell
AN7 (a)
Breadownie, Glen Clova, Kirriemuir
PK1(c)
Glendevon
DG6
Bowmains, Glencaple, Dumfries
9
8
7
7
6
4
4
4
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
The largest site
ST1
Carbeth Estate, Stirling
Individual huts
NOTE
1
2
3
27
___
703
Assr.
survey
247
49
10
30
25
28
24
23
24
23
5
16
15
15
14
12
11
11
13
11
11
11
10
3
8
9
7
7
6
4
4
4
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
___
509
___
295
Where the Planning Department have given generalised numbers of cN, for the purposes of
this table they have been taken as actual numbers.
The Assessor survey total inevitably is low as only partial data is available.
As well as the listed RRS numbers the total includes 40 for ‘30-40’ for Lendalfoot,
9 for Falkirk, 6 for Skye and Lochalsh and 100 in respect of the ‘many hundreds’
suggested to RRS by N Ayrshire Council.
19
RRS
trawl
___
481
Site settings
2.4.7
Huts are located in very diverse settings from the very edge of the foreshore, through coastal
dunes, links and scrub land to hillsides of mixed woodland and scrub or open grassland.
2.4.8
Site descriptions on the questionnaires again are variable ranging from ‘fairly defined site on
links/scrub land’ (Barry, Angus), through ‘mixed woodland/scrub on hillside overlooking
watercourse - only visible if going to the site’ (Craigendownie, Edzell, Angus), ‘coastal
location within dunes’ (Lunan Bay, Angus), ‘bounded on three sides by fencing and the river
provides the fourth boundary’ (Carronbridge, Stirling), ‘strip of land between road and high
water mark’ (Cloch Point, Inverclyde); ‘bounded by field to the west, caravan site to the east,
road to the north and River Eden to the south’ (Clayton, Fife), ‘enclosed site bounded by
fences and hedges’ (W Dunbartonshire), ‘enclosed area in farmland’ (Renfrewshire), ‘site
well defined with fence lines’ (E Lothian). A few of the sites are just ‘undefined’, as in the
case of the Peebles and Carlops sites in Scottish Borders, or the two sites in Perth and
Kinross.
2.4.9
The map search reveals some additional information for sites in Dumfries and Galloway and
in South Ayrshire. The larger sites in the Solway coastal area are on promontories, either in
some of the deeper bays (Glen Isle, Palnackie) or more exposed to the open sea (Carrick
Shore). In both these instance the sites appear fairly flat on scrub or partially tree-covered
land. Small groups such as that at Portling are clustered right on the coast edge just above
rocky shoreline. The Rascarrel site cannot be easily identified but would appear to be either
on the coastal edge or on fairly open farmland near the coast as names of individual huts, such
as ‘Forest Edge’ suggest the inland edge of a coastal strip. The small group at Sandyhills
appears to be right on the beach. The individual huts occupy a variety of setting from a small
field corner with the odd bit of vegetation around it or isolated and exposed, right on the coast
edge.
2.4.10 The South Ayrshire sites at Lendalfoot are spread along a narrow low coastal strip facing
open sea and with a steep old cliff line behind them. While some properties are very ‘hut’like, the rest are more anomalous in that they have been developed and modernised, even, in
the case of one group, to the extent of now being on the Council Tax roll, though not
necessarily permanently occupied. In this instance the ‘site’ now has its own name road
(Carleton Crescent), albeit being close to a surfaced track, and some of the properties have
been converted into substantial houses, though others retain their ‘seaside chalet’ style. This
particular group were confirmed by the Assessor’s Department as having originated as a ‘hut’
site, though now much transformed. Another of the small sites in this group (Whilk Meadows)
has properties which are still recognisably huts, though of a rather better standard within a
defined area of ground which, while hummocky with scattered rock outcrops, has been
landscaped and partly grassed.
2.4.11 The individual huts in the Angus Glens appear from the 1:10,000 maps to be very much on
the borderline between the cultivated land in the Glen and the rougher beginnings of the
hillside, perhaps surrounded by some trees or scrub.
Access
2.4.12 Most of the sites are either directly accessible by road or within under a few hundred metres
of track (three of the Angus sites). Only two of the coastal sites (one in Inverclyde and the
other in Angus) are less accessible, in the first case by footpaths from a main road and in the
other by a 1.5km track to the nearest (unclassified) road. In contrast the South Ayrshire sites
are immediately adjacent to trunk roads. A number of sites are immediately adjacent to a
substantial settlement, as in the case of the East Lothian site at the edge of Dunbar and the
20
North Ayrshire site at West Kilbride or close to very small villages or hamlets such as
Sandyhills on the Galloway Coast and the sites in Glendevon. Others are between one and
two kilometres from a settlement, though again it may be small. Only two substantial sites are
more remote with one (Craigendownie) being 9-10km from Edzell in Angus and the other
10km from Denny (Stirling). Perhaps most remote are the small but scattered sites in the
Angus Glens.
Site history and planning issues
2.4.13 Local authority information is again patchy, probably depending on whether these have been
sites of a scale which has attracted attention. As noted above, most of the sites are long
established, at a time when planning and building control regulations were virtually nonexistent. They have therefore just acquired a status over time. However, there have been
changes.
2.4.14 The most marked changes are those at Carbeth, the oldest of the sites. The first huts were
established in the 1920s when the estate was owned by the current owner’s grandfather, who
encouraged the continued expansion of huts on the estate, firstly for the rehabilitation of exservicemen, then also the socialist Sunday-school movement and refugees from the Glasgow
blitz. Here there has been a reduction in the number of huts from a peak of around 250 in
1941 to 180 currently in use. According to the local authority, historically there has been
little, if any planning control over the development until applications were encouraged for
new development in 1994-1997. The owners have prepared a management plan for the estate
which has proposed the removal of certain areas of huts.
2.4.15 Some sites have remained static for many years. In a few cases there have been minor
enhancements of individual huts, either through formal planning applications or else merely
unauthorised. Others, particularly the larger sites, have been declining in numbers of huts, in
part through deliberate policy on the part of the site owners. The largest sites are now well
below their former peak numbers, not just at Carbeth but in Angus where the two largest sites
have reduced from a peak of 159 in the early 1960s to a current figure of 49 and 24. Comment
from Assessors suggests that there have been reductions in numbers on some of the larger
Solway Coast sites, in some cases with their partial replacement by more planned and highly
developed holiday sites. At the extreme of this change, reference was made to a former hut
site at Southerness (to the south of New Abbey) which had been completely cleared of huts in
order to redevelop at a more up-market level, a potential change which appears to be a
significant aspect of the owner/tenant disputes at Carbeth. A more gentle and evoloutionary
process of change appears to be that at Lendalfoot referred to in paragraph 4.10.
2.4.16 Among the Councils with sites, Angus appears to be the only one which has had any coordinated approach to its hut sites over the years, though in practice this appears to be in the
context of a single local plan, that for Carnoustie. A study for that done by the then District
Council in the late 1970s refers to very considerable numbers of huts at the Downs site,
increasing from the initial 37 huts in 1937/8 to a peak of 159 in the early 1960s before
dropping to around 110 in 1978. At that time it was noted that there were no proper facilities
in the Downs area, no running water except for a single free-standing cold-water tap and no
rubbish or waste disposal facilities, while sanitary facilities comprised outside chemical
closets attached to only some of the huts. The survey also referred to a number of huts at the
Lucknow site having been upgraded with the installation of proper sanitary facilities but
noted that the remaining huts would be gradually phased out by the landowner. The local plan
emphasised that ‘the sanitary problems at Downs needed further investigation and longer
term development policies must be set down for the area’. The eventual policy statement for
the area summarised the opportunities as: (a) maintain the status quo; (b) provide adequate
21
sanitary and waste disposal facilities; and (c) develop a comprehensive policy and plan for the
area. At the same time the implications were seen as (a) continued under-provision of much
needed facilities, possibly constituting a health hazard - no guidelines for future development
in the area; (b) short-term problems of the area to some extent overcome - longer-term
policies for the area still required; and (c) permits a phased programme of expenditure and
services provision and allows the area to develop or change in character in a planned rather
than a random manner. Since then it is said that these two sites have been reducing steadily,
apparently the policy of the owner and both sites are now used in part for caravans and
caravan storage.
2.4.17 Of the other Angus sites, that at Lunan Bay is described as ‘a small group of living huts and
caravans at a superb coastal location’, but the Council has no knowledge of its history. Here
there has been one planning application in recent years to improve a dwelling. There is no
information for the other mid-sized site to the north-west of Edzell.
2.4.18 The small site in W. Dunbartonshire also appears to have reduced in size with reference to
‘only six huts remain on the site and it would appear that only two or three are currently in
use’. Here there was a proposal to replace the huts with modern chalets in 1992, approved in
1995 subject to a legal agreement on short-term letting, but since then there has been no
further interest in the site, the planning consent has remained un-implemented and there is
even doubt as to whether the ownership has remained the same.
2.4.19 On two of the Scottish Borders sites, at Carlops and near Peebles, while the site history is not
known, there appear to have been various applications to extend or replace huts together with
a number of unauthorised developments.
2.4.20
The site at Dunbar (E. Lothian) is owned by the local authority. Here the position has been
static, with little change over many years. In the early 1990s the then District Council had
considered closure of the site and its incorporation into the adjacent golf course, but this was
not pursued. In Fife again the history of the site is not known but it seems to cause little
problem in planning terms with only occasional issues relating to individuals on the site
which, on further discussion with local planning staff, appeared to relate more to changes to
residential caravans.
Additional Supporting Material
2.4.22 As well as completing the basic survey questionnaire, authorities were asked, where possible
to provided any supplementary information about the sites. However, in practice, while in a
number of instances location plans and occasional site layouts were available with three
exceptions, there was little other material. The exceptions were Carbeth where a number of
press cuttings and photocopies of press photographs were supplied. Inverclyde reproduced
photographs of the isolated and very tumbledown huts at Lunderston Bay and Angus Council,
as noted in paragraph 4.16, provided substantial information from earlier planning sources
together with extracts from the local Valuation Rolls covering the four main sites. These
proved of particular interest in pointing the way to additional source material for the study,
the value of which has been proved by the early response from a number of Valuation Boards.
Hut Values
2.4.23 An aspect of huts which was not practicable to consider in the Planning Department Survey
but which emerged as a by-product of the information on occupiers contained in the
Valuation Roll data was that of the ‘value’ of the huts themselves. Where Valuation Roll data
is available it is possible to see the range of rateable values attributable to huts which gives
22
some indication of their relative quality or the extent to which they have been improved or
extended.
2.4.24 The most basic of the huts appear to have a rateable value of between £80 and £100. Slightly
bigger or better huts tend to be in the £100-150 range but then additions and improvements
increase the values towards £300. Small numbers of the huts that are further up the transition
progress towards a holiday home carry much higher values, the highest recorded being £710
and £800.
2.4.25 There are clear differences between the four Councils for which there is data as shown in
Table 4.2. Angus has and average RV of £119 in a range of £85-230. The small number of
huts on the single site in North Ayrshire are all between £215 and £230. While South
Ayrshire has an average of £226 in a range of £105-710 the higher values essential are
outliers, though there is a cluster of rather better huts in the £200-400 range, mostly at
Carleton Fishery. All the huts on the Ayr site are the same value at £170-175. Here though it
must also be remembered that the largest of the South Ayrshire sites is now into Council Tax
territory, divided between Band A and Band B properties.
2.4.26 It is Dumfries and Galloway which has the ‘best’ huts in terms of rateable value with an
average of £330 in a range of £90-800, though only one example of each of the extremes
occurs. Beattock has the bottom value, but very few are under £200 and approaching half the
total are in the £400+ range. The Carrick Shore site appears to have the most developed and
therefore high value huts, from around £400 upwards. The other two significant sites at Glen
Isle and Rascarrel are broadly in the upper and lower halves respectively of the £200-300
range, though one at Glen Isle is as high as £615. The scattered individual or paired huts are
variable in value.
Table 4.2 - Rateable values of huts in four Councils
Under £100
£100-199
£200-299
£300-399
£400-499
£500-599
£600 plus
Angus
26
67
5
0
0
0
0
N. Ayrshire
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
23
S. Ayrshire
0
22
5
4
0
1
1
Dumfries & Galloway
1
6
27
12
11
22
5
2.5
OWNERS AND OCCUPIERS
2.5.1
While the Planning Department survey sought information on the landowners for each site,
with a view to a possible second stage of the study, no details of occupiers were asked for as
it was not expected that this information would be available to the Planning Departments.
However, the initial response from Angus Council with extracts from the Valuation Rolls for
its main sites, referred to at the end of the previous section, provided useful data on the
‘catchment areas’ for these sites, a point emphasised by the Planning contact in the course of
subsequent discussions. This, and the corresponding data which has become available from
the other Valuation Boards helps to provide additional insight even within Stage 1 and is
examined further below.
Owner information
2.5.2
Information from the Planning Departments on land ownership is limited. Names and
addresses are available for either an owner or agent for eight of the sites and a name, but no
address, for a ninth. In the case of the Fife site the information was given as ‘not known’ but
with a rider that ‘most huts are owned’.
2.5.3
The Valuation Roll data was seen as a possible additional source, but in practice this has to be
treated with caution. Specific comment from the Angus Assessor indicated that the
‘proprietors’ and ‘occupiers’ of the individual huts, which generally appeared to be identical
referred to the ownership of the huts themselves, though not to the land on which they were
situated. Only in a few cases, such as the site in Renfrewshire and the site at Ayr is there a
likely indication of the proprietorship of the whole group of huts, with separate names for the
occupiers of individual huts. The Dumfries and Galloway Assessor indicated that it might be
possible to find land ownership from other parts of their records, but this would be a separate
and slower exercise.
2.5.4
Another potential source of information on land ownership is the Land Registry. Here pilot
attempts were made to identify the owners of a small number of the larger sites, with a view
to assessing (a) the ease and (b) the cost of a wider search. In this instance the results were
mixed. In one or two cases it was possible to identify the most likely owner, or at least
confirm that the land belonged to the neighbouring farm. Details of this kind are included in
the site inventory at Appendix C. In another case it proved possible to clarify the areas of
land, and their owners, to which the site did not belong, i.e. the Registry searches delimited
the adjacent areas of land all round a site, though not the site itself. On the other hand, in the
event of needing to contact landowners in a second stage of the study, this kind of
information is likely to be of value in terms of contacting a neighbouring landowner in order
to ascertain who owns the small unknown area of the site. Practicality of identifying
ownership generally depends on being able precisely to indicate the property boundary and
give it a name, something which in the case of a number of the smaller sites is not possible
because the information on the site from other sources is imprecise.
2.5.5
By means of these different sources it is estimated that a usable name and address exists for
all but the very small or individual hut sites or, if not, at least for an adjacent owner through
whom it may be possible to get more accurate local information.
The occupiers
2.5.6
Preliminary information suggest that, in general, the occupiers or ‘hutters’ occupy their plots
as ‘tenants’ or ‘licensees’, although currently there is some doubts about the legal status of
these terms. They pay an annual rental or ‘licence’ for their plot, though they own the
24
dwellings on the land. In recent years problems have begun to emerge as landowners seek to
reclaim the land for other uses. Such problems have been most in evidence in Stirling
Council’s area where major increases in annual rent and other charges have been imposed by
the landowner with threats of eviction where these are not paid. Considerable concern and
publicity about the position of the hutters in this area has developed, primarily in terms of
whether they enjoy any protection for their tenancies. Currently a large number of eviction
notices are progressing through the courts.
2.5.7
Perceptions of the functions of hut sites, particularly the larger ones, have tended to be that
they arose in a somewhat philanthropic way, to provide opportunities for access to fresh-air
and countryside for urban dwellers after the first world war. Other purposes quoted in
questionnaire returns and in discussions included, in the case of Carbeth ‘firstly for the
rehabilitation of ex-servicemen, then also the socialist Sunday-school movement and refugees
from the Glasgow blitz’. The sites at Barry in Angus were seen as places to which whole
sections of Glasgow might decamp for the Fair fortnight and possibly at other times of the
year and comments have been made about similar reasons for establishing the site in Ayr and
some of the Solway Coast sites.
2.5.8
In the early stages of the study, difficulties were envisaged in finding ways to contact the
occupiers of properties which are only in occasional use and often scattered or remote. Here
the Valuation Roll data which has already emerged has proved valuable both in providing
names and addresses for occupiers, something which is discussed further in the next section
dealing with ‘The Way Ahead’, and in providing at least a partial picture of the places from
which the occupiers of the huts come. These are summarised below for each of the relevant
sites.
Angus
2.5.9
On the large Downs site at Barry in Angus, approaching half the occupiers (20) come from
Glasgow, Clydebank, Kirkintillloch and Cumbernauld. Nearly as many (16) come from the
Stirling/Falkirk area together with one from Broxburn. In contrast only 12 come from the east
coast area with 6 from Dundee, 3 from the Arbroath/Carnoustie area, one from Stonehaven
and two from Aberdeen.
2.5.10 Although so close to its neighbour, the pattern of ‘proprietors and occupiers’ on the Lucknow
site at Barry is quite different with 16 coming from Aberdeen, three from Dundee and one
from Carnoustie. The others are from further afield with one each from Kirkcaldy, Edinburgh
and Glasgow.
2.5.11 The Lunan Bay site occupiers come primarily from Arbroath, Carnoustie, Monifieth and
Dundee (8), with two from Edinburgh and one each from Dalgety Bay, Kirkliston and St
Andrews.
2.5.12 The other main Angus site at the entrance to one of the Glens draws mostly, though not
entirely from a more local area with nine from Brechin, one from Glenlethnot itself and the
others one each from Dunfermline, Stirling and Blairgowrie.
2.5.13 The small Angus Glen sites draw from Brechin (3), Dundee (2), Kincardine-on-Forth (2),
Arbroath (2), Kirkcaldy, North Queensferry, St. Andrews, Newport on Tay, Cambuslang and
Forfar.
Dumfries and Galloway
2.5.14 There are three medium sized sites along the Solway coastal area. The largest of these, that at
Carrick Shore draws from home addresses in Bradford, Castle Douglas [x2], Dalbeattie [x2],
25
Headcorn (Kent), Newton Stewart, Edinburgh [x2], Plymouth, Kirkcudbright [x3], Cheshire,
Sheffield, Lockerbie, Harrogate (Yorks.), Dumfries, Carlisle, Mauchline, Rochdale (Lancs.).
A smaller site at Glen Isle, Palnackie draws from Palnackie, Carlisle [x2], Hoghton
(Lancashire), Hexham (Northumberland), Troon, Woking (Surrey), Dumfries [x2], Bearsden,
Littleborough (Lancashire), Northallerton (Yorkshire), Dalbeattie, Thornhill. Finally the third
main site at Rascarrel has one local proprietor from Auchencairn and the other addresses in
Dumfries [x8], Leeds and Basingstoke (Hampshire).
2.5.15 Of the smaller Dumfries sites, the group of four at Portling has two locally based proprietors
and one from Sunderland (the fourth is unknown). A group of three at Sandyhills, also near
Dalbeattie has two locally based proprietors and the third is based in Oxford. Finally, two
huts at Glencaple respectively have Dumfries and London-based proprietors.
2.5.16 The individual huts are all but one along the Solway coastal fringe or the Rhinn of Galloway.
The remaining site is at Beattock, near Moffat. A number of the proprietors have addresses in
the immediate locality of the hut, but others come from much further afield as follows:
HUT LOCATION
PROPRIETOR LOCATION
Ringford, Castle Douglas
Drummore, Rhinn of Galloway
Maryport Bay, Drummore
Dundrennan, Kirkcudbright
Ringford
Drummore
Drummore
Dundrennan
Auchenmalg, Glenluce
Glenluce
Ardwell, Stranraer
Barcloy, Rockliffe, Dalbeattie
Sandgreen
Woodend, Beattock
Dumfries
Glasgow
Johnstone, Renfrewshire
Dumfries
Doncaster
Oundle, Peterborough
Perth and Kinross
2.5.17 With a few exceptions the scattered and individual huts in Glendevon and Rumbling Bridge
draw from east central Scotland.
HUT LOCATION
PROPRIETOR LOCATION
Boreland, Glendevon
Boreland, Glendevon
Glendevon Park
Glenfoot, Glendevon
Myrehaugh, Glendevon
Myrehaugh, Glendevon
Snowplough Meadow, Glendevon
Cairneyhill, Fife
Livingston
Auchterarder
Orkney
Rosyth (2)
Langholm (2)
Rosyth; Falkland; Tillicoultry;
Falkirk; Glasgow; Alloa; Cupar
Kindallachan, Ballinluig, Pitlochry
Dunkeld
Blairgowrie
Alyth
Fossoway, Kinross
Bristol
Stirling; Caputh (Perth)
Blairgowrie
?
Cardenden
Rumbling Bridge
Lochgelly (2); Edinburgh (2); Kirkcaldy (2);
Dunfermline (3); Falkirk (3); Thornton;
Bo’ness; Grangemouth
Ayrshire
26
2.5.18 In contrast to the more varied catchments of the above sites, those in North Ayrshire (on the
fringes of West Kilbride) and South Ayrshire (Ayr and Lendalfoot) draw almost exclusively
from Glasgow and its immediately neighbouring towns.
2.5.19 As the largest of the Lendalfoot sites is now on the Council Tax Roll information on its
proprietors is not available, but the other sites in that area follow a similar pattern to the other
Ayrshire sites with all but one each of those on the Gamesloup and Carleton Fishery sites
coming from Glasgow (the others come respectively from Girvan and Ayr).
27
2.6
THE WAY AHEAD
2.6.1
One function of this report is to consider the potential for a Stage 2 of the study intended to
provide information about two broad aspects:
2.6.2
(a)
the historical and current administrative arrangements applicable to each site
and to the tenants/licensees and
(b)
the characteristics of hutters and of their use of their huts/plots.
Initial proposals for the study identified a number of alternative approaches, though it was
recognised that these contained a number of adverse implications in both practicality and cost
terms. In the light of the findings of Stage 1 it is now possible to consider alternative and
more practical and cost-effective scenarios. This section first outlines the broad information
fields respectively for the owners and occupiers and then looks at possible data collection
methods.
Data requirements
Landowners
2.6.3
While the term landowner is used, in practice this information may only be available from an
owner’s agent (e.g. an estate manager or a firm of lawyers) or the site may be vested in a
trust.
2.6.4
Information likely to be generated from such sources is a mix of factual and legal, dealing
with tenancy/licence arrangements, rents and other forms of charge, and more historical and
to a degree anecdotal. The latter may be less reliable depending on the source but nevertheless
will help to give fuller picture of the hutting issue.
2.6.5
The main headings to be included in any approach to owners or their agents are likely to
include the following:
The site itself
Date of establishment
Area of land (acres/hectares)
Number and size of plots originally allowed
Subsequent changes in number or size of plots
General history of site
Number of plots currently occupied
Services provided (water/electricity/other)
Access arrangements
Communal facilities (past and present)
Future plans for the site (improvements to access, services etc.)
The plots
Terms of tenancy/licence
Rights of occupiers
Constraints upon occupiers
Costs of rent/licence
Other costs (service charges/insurance etc.)
Changes in these costs over time
Security of tenure
Rights of assignment of tenancy/licence
28
Occupiers
2.6.6
As with the owners, occupier information is likely to be a mix of fact, recall and, possibly
more, supposition, particularly in terms of past history of use, not just by the current
occupiers but, more, when a tenancy/licence has changed hands by purchase or handing down
within a family. While much of this information will be specific to occupiers, some overlap
with the information headings for the landowners will be inevitable, since perspectives on
administrative arrangements may differ. Such alternative perspectives may also be beneficial
in building up a balanced picture.
2.6.7
Occupiers should be able to provide four broad categories of information covering,
respectively their tenancy/ownership, the huts themselves, their personal characteristics and,
finally, the extent to and ways in which they use the huts. The list below represents the ideal
though, depending on the final data collection method chosen, it may have to be pruned, or at
least dealt with in very specific terms.
Tenancy arrangements
Length of time tenancy/licence has been held by current occupier
Tenancy/licence arrangements
Occupier rights and constraints
Rent/licence costs
Other costs (e.g. service charges/insurance) and changes in these over time
Security of tenure
Rights of assignment of tenancy/licence
The hut itself
Date first constructed
How acquired by present occupier
Changes to the structure over time, where known
Type of structure
Number and function of rooms
Facilities /services within the hut itself; the plot; the site as whole
Occupier characteristics
Age of tenant/licensee
Structure of licensee’s household
Employment status
Occupation
Broad income band
Location of main residence
Patterns of use
Frequency of use of the hut
Duration of occupancy at different times of year
Purposes for which used
Changes in pattern of use over time
Numbers of people using the hut
Data collection methods
2.6.8
Two possible data collection methods may be considered: face to face interview and self
completion. Each has advantages and disadvantages in this study but there may be
possibilities of using them in combination in order to achieve the most cost-effective coverage
of the target populations.
29
Landowners/Agents
2.6.9
Interviews are likely to be the most effective method with owners/agents. To be most
effective these should be semi-structured to enable certain aspects to be explored in more
detail and a minimum of 30-45 minutes is likely to be required, particularly as some
information may not be immediately available.
2.6.10 At least with owner/agent interviews it should be possible to set up dates and times for
interviews in advance, allowing cost effective planning of an interview programme. The
results of the Stage 1 study indicate that the numbers involved will not be large, though it is
likely to be most cost-effective to concentrate on the large sites. A significant degree of travel
would still be involved for each interview but in some cases it would enable site visits to be
made, possibly in conjunction with the owner, which would be beneficial to the end result.
2.6.11 One potentially problematic issue is the continuing acrimonious dispute between owner and
occupiers at Carbeth in Stirling. Inclusion of this site is important as it is the largest and most
complex development of its kind in Scotland. Two views may be taken. One is that the
owner/agent is unwilling to participate for fear that the results may be used to disadvantage,
given that the site is so clearly identifiable. On the other hand there may be perceived
benefits in participation if the complete objectivity and independence of the study is
emphasised. At the same time it is this site about which most information is known about
many of the issues to be covered in an interview, either through material already in the hands
of the Scottish Office or the information contained in this report.
Occupiers
2.6.12 It is with the occupiers that initially there was considerable uncertainty about how data
collection could be achieved. While, as with the owners, interviews, probably longer than
those for owners, would be a preferred approach to build up a full picture, even a modest
sample was seen as costly. Quite apart from the costs, a major issue of the practicality of
accessing the occupiers was identified. Contacting occupiers in their huts inevitably will be
problematical. By their nature huts are not intended for permanent residence, even though
some may now used for fairly long periods through the year. It must therefore be assumed
that in general they are used mostly for holidays and at weekends, particularly on the smaller
sites. Finding occupiers ‘at home’ would be uncertain, even in the summer months with
interviewers working at weekends and in the evening. Contact therefore essentially would be
a matter of chance, i.e. travelling to the site in the hope of finding occupiers present and then
trying to arrange interviews with them.
2.6.13 Given these constraints discussed above, alternative approaches were explored, with a view to
reducing costs while maintaining and even enhancing coverage of the target population. Here,
the most likely alternative would be some form of self-completion questionnaire. This would
be simpler in content than the interview questionnaire but aimed at a much larger target
population, possibly every hut. However, the principal constraint that remained was how to
get the questionnaires to the occupiers. Again alternatives were considered, firstly to attempt
direct delivery of a questionnaire to each hut on each of the a small number of selected sites.
This would still be labour intensive and while it was thought unlikely that huts have letter
boxes, questionnaires might be pushed under a door. The main constraint would be
potentially very low response rates, both as a result of the time at which occupiers might find
their questionnaire and in their readiness to respond.
2.6.14 The second method was that of trying to find lists of occupiers with their home addresses,
with the site landowners seen as the most likely source. Questionnaires could then be posted
30
to these addresses with a greater likelihood of response and the possibility, if necessary, of
reminders.
2.6.15 The emergence of the Valuation Rolls as a data source during the course of Stage 1 represents
a likely answer to the problems outlined above. Only partial data of this kind is currently
available though two other Valuation Boards have already indicated a readiness to assist and
replies may be forthcoming from the others.
2.6.16 On the assumption that Valuation Roll data can be provided for all the hut sites in Scotland
(or even for the majority), the most likely approach would now be to develop a simplified
questionnaire, with a greater reliance on closed choice questions or very specific open
response questions. This could then be sent to a large sample, or possibly even to all
occupiers of sites above a certain size. Here the costs of increasing the sample size would be
marginal and, even allowing for possible low response, would be more likely to generate
sufficient numbers to enable a reasonable picture to be drawn.
2.6.17 Among the other benefits of such an approach is that with fairly tightly structured data,
processing and analysis is likely to be easier than for semi-structured interviews of the kind
recommended for owners/agents. Consequently larger target numbers become more feasible.
2.6.18 The issues about the Carbeth site raised in paragraph 6.11 are also relevant in the context of
the occupiers. On the other hand, if all the occupiers have the opportunity to reply to a
structured and objective questionnaire, sent to their home addresses and returned in
confidence, with a guarantee that no individual responses will be identifiable, this may help to
generate a more accurate picture of the Carbeth issues that that emerging through the press
and the local action groups.
A potential scale for a Stage 2 study
2.6.19 There are 20 sites in Scotland with ten or more huts, but in one or two cases more than one
site is under the same ownership while one or two others may no longer be under a single
ownership, as they have progressed further through the transitional process. On this basis
interviews might be required with 15 owners/agents. There is unlikely to be a great deal of
value in approaching the owners of the small sites unless it is clear that these are only the
remnants of formerly larger sites where it might be of value to explore the reasons for the
decline.
2.6.20 Assuming the availability of complete Valuation Roll data, a self completion questionnaire to
occupiers of all the sites of ten or more huts might be considered. This would represent a
target population of around 600. This population could either be approached in full or
sampled, either on a straight 50% or 25% basis, giving samples of 300 or 150 respectively, or
using variable sampling proportions depending on size of site with a view to achieving a
given target of issued questionnaires. Choices here would be governed by the number of
responses it is hoped to achieve since, even though good postal surveys can achieve
reasonable responses, rates are unlikely to be high in this instance.
31
2.7
AN OVERVIEW OF THE CURRENT POSITION
2.7.1
On the basis of the initial RRS trawl, making an assumption that the ‘many hundreds’ in
North Ayrshire might include a possible hundred fitting the definition, a base of c500 huts
spread across c16 locations throughout Scotland was suggested at the outset of the study.
2.7.2
The results of the Stage 1 study now begin to give a picture of the scale and nature of huts
and hut sites in Scotland and, to some extent, even of the hutters themselves. Nevertheless
this picture is still hazy in many places and will require further exploration of owners and
occupiers.
2.7.3
The numbers of sites and huts is shown to be considerably higher than at first thought, with a
total of just over 700 huts on 62 locations identified to date. This is an even bigger increase
than it appears, given that the RRS returns suggested (a) a figure of 247 for Carbeth whereas
the study reveals a lower 180 and (b) a possible ‘many hundreds’ in North Ayrshire and
Arran, though there was some doubt at the time about their fitting the criteria and for
estimation purposes at the beginning of this study a figure of 100 was allowed for subsequently much reduced in reality. While it must be recognised that approaching half the
‘sites’ are individual huts, and even a number of the others represent very small clusters,
nevertheless there is still quite a number of sites with substantial groups and 611 huts, or 87
percent of the total, are on sites of ten or more huts.
2.7.4
The Stage 1 study has probably identified all the large and medium-sized sites in Scotland,
sites on which there are significant clusters of huts. It is the single or possibly paired cluster
where others may well exist, though they probably are not regarded as of interest by the
planning authorities. If they do exist, it will be the Valuation Roll data which has yet to be
made available which will identify them. In practice, identification of the single huts has been
a by-product of the study since the study mainly set out to identify clusters. The fact that the
addtional source of Valuation Roll data has already identified significant number of huts,
including some larger groupings, suggests that, once - or if - data from all the Valuation
Boards is forthcoming, the numbers of huts and sites could increase, though any such change
seem unlikely to be substantial as the scope for major new finds seems limited. Areas where
small groups might yet appear from this data include Argyll and Bute where it was indicated
that they were ‘not aware of any significant groupings of ‘hutters’ in Argyll & Bute, although
there may be small numbers’. Given the current and possibly greater past presence along the
Clyde and Ayrshire coast one might expect some sites in Argyll & Bute, though they may
either have disappeared or transformed into other forms of development. Likewise
Aberdeenshire noted they were ‘aware of the debate on hut and hutters presently ongoing
within certain parts of Scotland ........ from my knowledge Aberdeenshire does not appear to
have examples of hutter communities as found elsewhere in Scotland’. In this case there may
be less scope, given the greater apparent early use of huts primarily for people from Glasgow,
but Aberdeenshire and the Moray coast might have been seen to have similar attractions for
Aberdeen city dwellers.
2.7.5
The spread across Scotland is largely in a band from the Angus coast to the Clyde coast, with
extensions into East Lothian and the northern Borders on the east and south to the Solway
coast in the West. No hut sites are recorded to the west of the Clyde, to the south-east of
Peebles or north-west of a line from Stirling to Aberdeen. Map 1 shows the general locations
of all sites with two or more huts. Coastal sites have been important in Angus and along the
Clyde Ayrshire and Dumfries and Galloway coasts, together the one East Lotian site.
Otherwise sites have been in reasonably close proximity to major urban centres, primarily
Glasgow but also to a lesser extent Dundee and Edinburgh.
2.7.6
The limited information even from those Councils recording sites may be a function of their
generally low-key presence. Planning Departments may not know a great deal about the sites
32
in their area because they have little interest in, or problems with them, a supposition which
appeared to be borne out in discussion. Apart from the principal sites, the rest are generally
modest in size and probably do not cause significant problems. They have been there a very
long time, as noted at the beginning of this report they are not usually as obvious as large
caravan sites and, perhaps more, there seems to be little that can be done to remove them
under Planning regulations, a point made in discussions with Angus which appeared to have
been the only Council to have looked specifically at the problems of its two large sites at
Barry at the time of preparing a Local Plan for Carnoustie in the late 1970s and found that
there was little in the way of available controls.
2.7.7
Some of these sites do now appear as something of anachronism. The larger sites seem to
have grown up as part of a deliberate policy of group provision. The small clusters of two or
three and, even more, the individual huts may have developed in a different way, perhaps
initially through a personal link, as suggested locally might apply to the individual Angus
Glen sites where someone sought a plot of land, possibly in return for some sort of assistance
to the landlord at times. Sites were developed to fit a particular need at a particular time and
those times and needs have changed right across the socio-economic spectrum. This is
reflected in the declining numbers, particularly on the larger sites as instanced above at
Carbeth and on the sites at Barry in Angus which are now only the remnant of what was
formerly a much larger area of huts spread across two adjacent sites, initially set up before the
second world war and peaking in numbers in the 1960s, before dropping to 110 in 1978 and
subsequently further to their present totals. This steady reduction over a period of years,
appears to have been the owners’ policy, not so much as a deliberate removal of occupiers but
rather a process of non-replacement, allied to a shift in use on both sites to partial use for
caravans and caravan storage.
2.7.8
There appears to be a process of transition in the hutting world. In many ways hut sites
probably were superseded first by small sites for mobile or semi-mobile caravans and then,
later, by the large static caravan sites which became so much a feature of later post war years.
It may be that the trend will continue, with sites simply atrophying with lack of use, declining
interest and a lack of investment. Even some of the smaller sites have reduced, as in Ayr and
some of the main groups in Dumfries and Galloway. In the latter, in some case this appears to
have led to complete disappearance of former hut sites. In some cases the sites appear to have
been redeveloped for other, possibly more gainful uses. Other forms of or stages in the
transition process are as instanced in South Ayrshire where the sites at Lendalfoot now appear
to be somewhere between hut sites, ‘holiday homes’ and even full scale two storey houses.
Elsewhere too, what were huts in the past, either singly or in groups, have individually put
down firmer roots and acquired facilities until they become little distinguishable from many
other small rural or coastal dwellings in Scotland, a point highlighted as potentially risky in
the comments made when recommending refusal of a planning permission to rebuild a hut on
the Lunan Bay site in Angus.
2.7.9
Despite these changes, where the huts continue to exist more or less in their original form at
present they appear to be in reasonably active use and are serving a positive function. Only a
second stage of the study will be able to identify the nature of this function, how it has
developed over time and what is its potential for the future.
33
34
PART 2 APPENDICES
35
APPENDIX 2A - THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT SURVEY
‘HUTTERS’ IN SCOTLAND - LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY INFORMATION ON SITES
COMPLETING THE FORM
Forms may be completed in type or manuscript, but please write clearly.
Each planning authority should complete the details on this page, whether or not they know of hut sites within their area. NIL returns should be made where appropriate.
For the purposes of this questionnaire, huts are defined in paragraph 2 of the guidance sheet
(p.1) .
Where your authority knows of hut sites within its area, please complete the details asked for on the following two pages, using one column for each site.
In the event of there being
more than three sites within your area, please copy the next two pages and use them as necessary for the additional sites.
We recognise that not all the information sought may be held by your department
(or others within your council) but please provide as much as you can, even where it can only be sketchy.
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
Where hut sites are known within your authority’s area, it would be helpful if you can also provide a map extract
(at 1:10000 scale or larger) for each site location.
Please attach any other information about the site, such as press cuttings, which you feel might be helpful to this survey.
RETURNING THE FORM
Please return the completed form, in the envelope provided, to the address given at the bottom of this page, to arrive no later than
Thursday 18 February 1999 .
IF YOU HAVE QUERIES
If you have queries about any of the questions on the form, please telephone RCS on
0131-XXX-XXXX.
REFERENCE DETAILS
NAME OF COUNCIL
CONTACT NAME (Normally the person completing the form - to facilitate any follow-up queries)
Telephone number (including extn.)
How many hut sites are located within your authority’s area?
PLEASE RETURN THE COMPLETED FORM, IN THE ENVELOPE PROVIDED, TO:
Research Consultancy Services, XXXXXXXX,XXXXXX, Edinburgh
THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP IN PROVIDING THIS INFORMATION
36
SITE DETAILS
Notes
1 Name of Site
The name by which this site
is most commonly known.
Address of
2
site
While a site may not have a
conventional postal address
it is important to be able to
identify it on the ground as
easily as possible so please
provide as much detail as
possible.
3 OSGR
If possible, please give a full
refererence, i.e. Grid letters
plus 6 figures.
Date at which
4 site was
established
This is the date (if known) at
which the landowner first
made land available for
hutter occupance.
Approximate
5 area of site
(in hectares)
This is the total area of land
which on which hutter plots
have been/are available.
Number of
6 huts on the
site
This is the total possible
number of individual
plots/dwellings, even though
some of these may no longer
be in use (Generally a ‘plot’
may be equated with a
‘dwelling’).
To what
extent is the
site formally
7 bounded or
merely part of
an undefined
area of land?
Some sites are in specific
enclosed areas, others
scattered on links, heath,
moorland, or in mixed
woodland and scrub. Please
give as full a description of
this site as practicable.
Does the site
have direct
road access
(Yes/No)?
8
If ‘No’, what is
the length of
access
road/track?
Is the site (as opposed to
individual plots) directly
accessible from a classified
road (i.e. without additional
service road/track). If not,
how far is the site access
point from the nearest
classified road (approx.
metres).
SITE 1
SITE 2
SITE 3
SITE 1
SITE 2
SITE 3
p.3
Notes
9
Name of and
proximity to
nearest
settlement
Please give the approximate
distance in km. from the
nearest small village or
town.
10
Name and
address of
current
landowner
The site may now be ‘owned’
by a Company or Trust
rather than an individual.
Please include a telephone
no. if known.
Name and
address of
11
landowner‘s
agent
Administration of the site
may be through a land agent
or, particularly in the case of
a Trust, through lawyers
acting for it. Please give the
details of the
individual/organisation as
appropriate (include.
telephone no. if known).
Brief history
12
of site
Please give any available
information on the age and
development of the site,
including growth or decline
in numbers or levels of
occupation of huts over the
years and changes in
ownership etc.
Brief history
of any recent
planning or
13
related issues
affecting the
site.
This includes attempts
within the past five to ten
years to develop, close or
change the use of the site,
issues affecting neighbouring
land uses or occupiers etc.
37
APPENDIX 2B - A DESCRIPTION OF THE SITES
This Appendix gives a brief picture of each of the sites, with the exception of the individual huts. It is ordered in terms of
site size (number of huts) within a the following groupings:
A
B
C
D
E
The largest site
Large sites with c50 huts
Medium-sized sites with c20-30 huts
Smaller sites with c10-20 huts
The small clusters with fewer than ten
Within these groupings sites are ordered alphabetically by Council.
A
The largest site
Stirling:
The largest hut site in Scotland is that at Carbeth in Stirling, currently said to have 180 huts in use. This also appears to be
the first of the hut sites, with the first dwelling being erected in 1924. The huts are all located within the Carbeth estate,
approximately 3km west of Blanefield and a little further from Strathblane, 15km north of Glasgow and 43km miles northwest of Stirling. The huts are in five distinct groupings within the estate with a total area of some 140ha. The main group is
on an exposed hillside, fairly scattered, while the others are in smaller and more compact groups more hidden within
woodland and scrub. Despite the spread-out nature of this site it is all accessible from classified roads. The site was
established in the 1920s when the estate was owned by the current owner’s grandfather who encouraged the continued
expansion of the number of huts, firstly for the rehabilitation of ex-servicemen then also the Socialist Sunday-school
movement and refugees from the Glasgow blitz. The current owner inherited the site in 1990 but, according to the Council,
in 1998 it was in process of being transferred to a family trust (the Carbeth Trust). Historically there has been little if any
planning control over the development of the huts until planning applications were encouraged for new replacement huts in
1994-97. The number of huts currently on the site is a substantial reduction from peak figures of 250 in 1941. According to
the Council many of the ‘plots’ for former huts are still visible within the current layout. A management plan for the estate
has been prepared by the owners, involving the removal of certain areas of huts.
B
Large sites (c50 huts)
Apart from the largest site at Carbeth, three sites may be classed as ‘large’ with around 50 huts. These are located one each
in Angus, Fife and the Scottish Borders.
Angus:
The largest of the Angus sites is ‘The Downs’ at Barry, a fairly well defined site at the edge of Barry Links/Barry Camp,
the large area of land stretching out to the south and terminating at Buddon Ness. Much of this land, to the south of the
railway line is used for MoD purposes, while between the rail line and the A930 road from Monifieth to Carnoustie there are
golf courses. Barry village lies about 1km to the north-east, with Monifieth a little further to the west. The site, covering
about 2ha, currently forms a long rectangle with huts arranged in fairly regular patterns on either side of a central open area.
It is about 100m from the A930 and approached by a hard surfaced track. The site is now only the remnant of what was
formerly a much larger area of huts spread across two adjacent sites (see also Lucknow under B below), initially set up in
1937/38 and peaking in numbers at around 150 in the 1960s, dropping to 110 in 1978 and subsequently further. The current
figure on the Downs site is given as 49. The site appears to form part of a much larger area of land under the same
ownership much of which is now used for holiday caravans and caravan storage and the reduction in numbers of huts over
the past 20-30 years appears to be a deliberate policy on the part of the owner. However, the remaining part of the site is
thought still to be fairly actively used and the local Council is aware of huts being bought and sold and alterations still being
made to them from time to time. The 1978 survey for the Carnoustie Local Plan and the subsequent policy document noted
the absence of any proper facilities on this site... ‘no running water except for a single free-standing cold-water tap, no
rubbish or waste disposal facilities and sanitary facilities comprise outside chemical closets only attached to a number of
huts’. It also emphasised that ‘the sanitary problems..... need further investigation and longer term development policies
must be set down for the area’. The Policy Statement summed up the future prospects in terms of opportunities and
implications as follows
Opportunities:
(a)
maintain status quo;
Implications:
(a)
38
continued under-provision of much
needed facilities, possibly constituting a
health hazard and no guidelines for
future developments in the area;
(b)
provide adequate sanitary and
facilities;
(b)
short-term problems of area to some waste disposal
extent overcome but longer term policies
for the future of the area still required;
(c)
develop a comprehensive
policy and plan for the area
(c)
Permits a phased programme of
expenditure and services provision and
allows the area to develop or change in
character in a planned rather than a
random manner.
The Tayside Valuation Joint Board Valuation Roll for 1998/99 provides information on the names and addresses of the
‘proprietors and occupiers’ of each of the ‘living huts’ on this site and its slightly smaller neighbour at Lucknow. For the
Downs site, approaching half (20) come from Glasgow, Clydebank, Kirkintillloch and Cumbernauld. Nearly as many (16)
come from the Stirling/Falkirk area together with one from Broxburn. In contrast only 12 come from the east coast area with
6 from Dundee, 3 from the Arbroath/Carnoustie area, one from Stonehaven and two from Aberdeen.
Fife:
The only site known in Fife is at Clayton, about 6km to the north east of Cupar and close to the main A91 road from Cupar
to St Andrews. The site currently has 49 huts on 1.54ha and, like the Angus site above, is adjacent to a caravan site. It is in
open and flat land close to the mouth of the River Eden (at Guard Bridge) which bounds it to the south. The land appears to
form part of the estate of the former Clayton Mansion House, now demolished, with the site of the house itself now
occupied by a pub, an electricity substation and a number of other structures, together with two houses, probably originally
lodges to the Mansion House. Generally well defined, the large Clayton Park caravan site forms its eastern boundary, with
the main road to the north and open fields to the west. The huts themselves are laid out along four named roads. Dairsie is
the nearest settlement 2km to the south west. The site has direct road access. Its origins are not known. While the Council
does not appear to know the site ownership it also refers to the fact ‘most huts are owned’. The site does not appear to be
seen as a problem in planning terms and the only issues that have arisen in recent years relate to individuals on the site these subsequently proved to have been to do with adaptations to trailer homes on the caravan park rather than to the huts.
(Note – Subsequently it became evident that this was not a ‘hut’ site)
Scottish Borders:
The site at Soonhope, very close (1.5km) to the centre of Peebles, currently has c47 huts, but these are dispersed over a
substantial area without direct road access (about half a mile of track) and the overall site size is said to be difficult to
calculate. It is thought to have developed in the immediate post-war years. While the name of the owner is known the
Planning Department could not provide an address - this has subsequently been identified through the Land Registry. This
still appears to be a fairly active site, the Council making reference to there having been ‘various applications and
unauthorised developments to extend/replace huts’ over recent years. There is little other information about the site and no
layout plan - while the area has been checked on the 1:10,000 map there is no clear indication of the exact whereabouts of
the site.
C
Medium sized sites (c20-30 huts)
The medium sized sites are classed as those with between 20-30 huts. Six of these have been identified, initially one in
Angus, two in Scottish Borders and the fourth in East Lothian. At a late stage in the study one was identified in Dumfries
and Galloway and one in South Ayrshire.
Angus:
The site at Lucknow, Barry, has 23 huts and is almost adjacent to the larger Downs site described under B above. Here the
characteristics of the location are virtually the same, although the site area is smaller (0.4ha) and the huts are less regularly
laid out within it. Like the larger site it started in 1937/38 with six huts and subsequently grew until the 1960s, since when
there has been a steady reduction also apparently a deliberate policy on the part of the owner. though it is apparently still
fairly active. Similarly, increasing areas of the site as being given over to holiday caravans and caravan storage. The 1978
survey undertaken for the Carnoustie Local Plan referred to a number of the huts at this site having been upgraded with
installation of proper sanitary facilities, something which apparently had not been echoed on the larger Downs site.
Although so close to its neighbour, the pattern of ‘proprietors and occupiers’ is quite different with 16 coming from
Aberdeen, three from Dundee and one from Carnoustie. The others are from further afield with one each from Kirkcaldy,
Edinburgh and Glasgow.
39
Dumfries and Galloway:
A nil return was received for Dumfries and Galloway but at a very late stage information through the Assessor’s Office
identified the largest of the Dumfries and Galloway sites at Carrick Shore, to the south of Gatehouse of Fleet. Given the
source, no information is available for the site, though the map search shows it as being on a low exposed promontory on the
eastern side of Wigtown Bay and at the southern tip of Fleet Bay. The Roll lists 23 huts. The site appears to be approached
via a track at the end of a minor road. While the Roll lists proprietors and occupiers for the huts it does not indicate a
landowner, however, an older 1” to the mile map marks this area of land as being under National Trust for Scotland
ownership. In terms of its proprietors, this site draws from home addresses in Bradford, Castle Douglas [x2], Dalbeattie
[x2], Headcorn (Kent), Newton Stewart, Edinburgh [x2], Plymouth, Kirkcudbright [x3], Cheshire, Sheffield, Lockerbie,
Harrogate (Yorks.), Dumfries, Carlisle, Mauchline, Rochdale (Lancs.).
East Lothian:
Dunbar in East Lothian has a site of 24 huts between the shore of Belhaven Bay and the Winterfield Golf Course on a well
defined but exposed coastal site of 0.6ha with direct road access individually fenced plots. This site is in the ownership of
the local authority but once again the date of origin is not known. It appears to be a static site with little change over the
years. In the early 1990s the former District Council did consider closure of the site in order to incorporate it into the
adjacent golf course but the closure was not pursued.
South Ayrshire:
No return was received from the South Ayrshire Planning Department, though it was thought that there might be some huts
at Lendalfoot, on the coast to the south of Girvan. This ‘site’ and its neighbours in Lendalfoot were visited in early March
and the characteristics suggested that it might be a rather anomalous contender for inclusion as it was a distinctive format
and a number of the dwellings were still essentially seaside chalets. Subsequently the Valuation Roll identified this as a
large group of 28 dwellings which are, or were huts. This site represents a late stage in the transition process from hut to
house as the ‘site’ now has its own named road (Carleton Crescent), albeit more of a surfaced track, and some of the
properties have been converted into substantial houses. All these are now listed on the Council Tax Roll, rather than the
Valuation Roll, even though many are thought not to be occupied as permanent dwellings. Discussions with the Assessor’s
Department confirmed this group as having originated as a ‘hut’ site, though now much transformed. Given their Council
Tax listing, no information is available on the ownership of the site or the dwellings.
Scottish Borders:
One of the medium sized sites in the Borders is at Hattonknowe, 1km from Eddleston and some 7-8km north of Peebles.
This occupies a formally bounded 3ha site with direct road access from the B road linking Eddleston to the A72 and
currently has approximately 30 huts. Like its larger neighbour in Peebles this is thought to date from immediately after the
war. The ownership was not known and no other information could be provided by the Council. Subsequent Land Registry
searches reveal that the site is owned by the immediately adjacent Hattonknowe Farm. The map shows this as a fairly tightly
bounded site on the west side of a valley, between a minor road and the now abandoned Borders railway line.
The third Borders site is close to the A702, Edinburgh-Biggar road, 1km from Carlops. Approached by a 400m track,
‘Windy Gowl’ currently has approximately 30 huts, described as ‘dispersed’ on an area ‘difficult to calculate’. Despite the
name the site itself is some distance north of the steep slope of Windy Gowl itself. This grouping is clearly visible from the
A702 on a rather exposed hillside just to the west of Carlops itself. Once again this is classed by the Council as an
‘immediate post-war’ development. As with the Soonhope site at Peebles there appear to be occasional authorised and
unauthorised modifications to the huts. No ownership was known and the Council could not provide any other information
on the site. Again a Land Registry search identified the owner and address.
D
Smaller sites (c10-20 huts)
Ten sites have between 10 and 20 huts, two of them in Angus, two in Dumfries and Galloway and one each in Stirling,
Inverclyde, West Dunbartonshire, Perth and Kinross, North Ayrshire and South Ayrshire.
Angus:
The larger of the two Angus sites, Corbie Knowe, is in what is described as ‘superb coastal location’ by the mouth of the
Keillor Burn at the southern end of Lunan Bay, some 8km south of Montrose. The nearest village is Inverkeilor, 3.5km
distant. The 12 huts, together with a few caravans, are close to the shore but scattered among dunes over a 1.5ha site in a
fairly isolated situation approached only by a rough unmade track some 1.5 km from the main road. The site, with a local
owner, dates from the 1940s, but the Council has no other details of its history. The only known change to its details appears
40
to be a planning application in September 1995 to reconstruct and slightly enlarge one of the existing huts. The structure of
the proposed 6m square dwelling comprising a living area, kitchen and bedroom was to be ‘bituminous felt roof, dark grey,
on reclaimed timber couples; lap-boarding cladding on plywood racking on reclaimed timber studs; reclaimed timberframed windows on reclaimed timber floor on existing concrete and brick foundations’. As well as the proposed hut, the
application plan indicates the presence of an existing store, an outside w.c. and a community well. The planning application
makes reference to the whole site having been ‘in situ for some years having been established without planning permission’,
reference is also made elsewhere in the application to 1945 as the date of the site’s establishment on what was formerly a
gun emplacement. The application was recommended for refusal as follows:
‘In terms of current planning legislation the Town and Country (Use Classes) (Scotland) Order 1989 does not differentiate
between temporary or permanent residential use and this application has to be considered in this context.
There are practical problems entailed in detecting breaches of planning law in respect of situations such as this and the
application arises from a member of the public being concerned enough to refer the matter to the planning authority. The
application site is remote and far from public view but this does not diminish the local authority responsibility.
A number of huts exist at this location which are of generally substandard nature and it is not a situation the Council would wish
to perpetuate. Whilst it would be difficult to prevent incremental improvements to these buildings, what is proposed here is a
complete rebuild to create a modern building out of character and dominating the other huts. There is a danger of this property
being utilised for permanent residential use, leading to other owners seizing the same opportunity and thus the eventual creation
of a small hamlet in a remote location with poor access and lack of facilities.
In addition and in these circumstances the proposed dwelling is a visually intrusive element in the rural scene and its approval
could be precedent for other similar applications. I should point out that this situation is a good example of how the remoteness
of the site makes enforcement action extremely difficult.
A limited approval for ten years is, in my opinion impractical and serves no purpose other than securing a permanent consent by
the back door.
Grounds of refusal:
1
That the scale of the proposal is incompatible with its setting inasmuch as it would be unduly prominent and of alien
character in a rural setting.
2
That the proposal, if approved, would constitute a visually intrusive element in the rural landscape to the detriment of the
visual amenity of the area.
3
That the proposed building is capable of being occupied on a permanent basis in a location undesirable for permanent
occupation.
4
That the proposal, if approved, could lead to application of a similar nature to the detriment of the visual amenity of the area
and create a precedent for other existing buildings to be rebuilt for permanent occupation.’
This application was eventually approved by the District Council, subject to its being painted an agreed colour and ‘used for
holiday purposes only and not for full-time occupation and for no other purposes....’.
The contact in the local Council notes that in contrast to the two Barry sites already described, where the ‘proprietors and
occupiers’ mostly come from outside Angus, on this site they are ‘local people’. Again it has been suggested that these
patterns reflect the site’s history and development.
The local Valuation Roll for 1997/98 indicates the proprietors on the Lunan Bay site come primarily from Arbroath,
Carnoustie, Monifieth and Dundee (8), with two from Edinburgh and one each from Dalgety Bay, Kirkliston and St
Andrews. 1997/98 Net Annual Values/ Rateable Values for these huts are mostly between £90 and £105 with one lower at
£85 and one much higher at £160.
The second Angus site in this size bracket is very different from the others being much more remote and less visible. The
Craigendownie site at Lethnot is in one of the Angus Glens some 9-10km from Edzell and about 12km from Brechin. This is
a scattered grouping of 11 huts spread over some 25-30ha of mixed woodland and scrub on a north-facing hillside
overlooking a watercourse. The site is part of the larger Careston (Carestow?) estate with an estate office near Laurencekirk
but neither the date of origin nor the subsequent history is known by the Council. Access is via a minor road up Glenlethnot
and then a 200m track and the site is said only to be visible if actually going to it.
Occupiers on the 1997/98 Valuation Roll are mostly local with 9 from Brechin, one from Glenlethnot itself and the others
one each from Dunfermline, Stirling and Blairgowrie.
As on the Lunan Bay site above Net Annual Values/Rateable Values for these huts are mostly between £90 and £105 with
one lower at £85 and two higher at £120 and £140.
41
Dumfries and Galloway
Glen Isle, at Palnackie, Castle Douglas, is the second largest Solway Coast site with 15 huts, probably a reduction from a
formerly larger site. Again, with a nil return from Dumfries and Galloway Planning Department, this site was only identified
with the arrival of Valuation Roll data. Map searches identified it as a scatter of huts on an exposed promontory overlooking
the mouth of the Urr Water and Kippford at the head of Rough Firth, to the south of Castle Douglas. The ground appears to
be low and grassed with some trees. While the site ownership is uncertain one hut proprietor comes from Palnackie itself
and two from Dumfries but the others are much wider spread, from Carlisle [x2], Hoghton (Lancashire), Hexham
(Northumberland), Troon, Woking (Surrey), Bearsden, Littleborough (Lancashire), Northallerton (Yorkshire), Dalbeattie,
Thornhill.
The third main Galloway site listed is at Rascarrel, near Auchencairn to the south of Castle Douglas and Dalbeattie, was also
identified through the Valuation Roll. However, despite the number of huts (11), careful map searches and the identification
of a farm called Rascarrel the site itself is unclear. One or two small groups of buildings have been identified on the edge of
the shore to the south of Rascarrel but it is not certain that these are huts. It may be that this is not so much a single defined
site as a number of isolated huts spread over a wider area. One proprietor is locally based, in Auchencairn, together with
eight from Dumfries and one each from Leeds and Basingstoke (Hampshire).
North Ayrshire
Despite the RRS information that there might be ‘many hundreds’ of possible huts in North Ayrshire in the Skelmorlie,
West Kilbride and Arran areas, the only site identified in the Valuation Roll is at Lawhill (NA1), on the eastern fringes of
West Kilbride. In practice the Roll lists one group of ten huts at Lawhill and another single hut at Law. Both are under the
same ownership so are treated together here. The site is not clearly identifiable on the 1:10,000 map, though it may be the
small group of plots in line along the edge of a minor road linking Lawhill and Law. On this site the Valuation Rolls
identifies a ‘proprietor’ for all the huts, with an address at Lawhill, while the occupiers of the huts are based almost
exclusively in Glasgow and its adjacent towns.
South Ayrshire
Apart from the group of sites at Lendalfoot, the only site identified in South Ayrshire is a site for 16 huts at Old Toll, Ayr,
immediately adjacent to the A70 and just to the east of the A77 Ayr by-pass., about two miles from the centre of Ayr. This
site is also known only through the Valuation Roll. Discussion with the local Assessor’s staff clarified some aspects of the
site which is thought to date from just after the war (though whether the 1914-18 or 1939-45 war is uncertain). The
numbering of the huts on the site suggest that it was formerly rather larger, possibly around 20 and this was confirmed by in
discussion. The huts appear to be in two groups with different owners but all the occupiers are based in the Glasgow
conurbation.
Stirling:
As well as the large Carbeth site in Stirling Council’s area there is a smaller site in the Carron valley at Carron Bridge,
10km west of Denny. Here there are 14 huts and 4 caravans on a small site of 0.85ha, bounded by the river Carron on one
side and fences on the other three, with direct access off the road. No other information about this site was available from
the Council. Land Registry searches have identified the adjacent landowners but not the owner for the site itself.
West Dunbartonshire:
Although the local authority records the site at Gartocharn at the southern end of Loch Lomond as having 10 huts, this
would seem to refer to hut ‘plots’ since comment in respect of its recent planning history indicate that only six huts remain
with probably only two or three in use. The Aber Mill Chalet site is an enclosed area of 1.54ha bounded by fences and
hedges with direct access on to an unclassified road and 1km from Gartocharn village and only a short distance from the
southern shore of Loch Lomond. This seems to be a site in transition as the Council’s return refers to the fact that it is
now.... ‘infrequently used, which is likely due to the present condition of the structures....... there has been a relatively
recent planning application seeking to replace the huts with modern chalets and this was approved following the signing of
a legal agreement to restrict occupancy (for short term letting) between the former Dumbarton District Council and the
applicant. Since the above date there has been no further interest in the site and the planning consent to develop the site for
chalets remains un-implemented by the owner, indeed I am uncertain whether the applicant remains owner of the site or if it
has changed hands’.
42
Inverclyde:
One of the most unusual hut sites is to be found on the shores of the Firth of Clyde, just to the south of the Cloch Point
lighthouse . It is not known when this site originated but it comprises 10-12 huts in a row tucked in at the foot of a steep
bank at the inner edge of the rocky foreshore, immediately above the mean high water mark. While the return itself does not
indicate the area of the site, a figure of 2662 on the map extract may represent 0.2662ha. The site is immediately adjacent to
and below the main A770. The site is part of Ardgowan Estates but no other information was available from the Council.
E
The very small clusters (9 or fewer huts)
The remaining 15 locations for which there is at least some information are very small with up to nine huts, some fairly
scattered. Three each are in Perth & Kinross and Dumfries & Galloway, one each in Stirling, Renfrewshire and Inverclyde
and five clusters in the Angus Glens.
Angus Glens:
Small numbers of huts appear to exist in some of the Angus Glens. The Angus return indicates five individual huts in
Glenlethnot (in addition to the Craigendownie site referred to above) and a similar number, again as individual sites in Glen
Esk. Glen Clova and Glen Prosen appear to have three and two respectively. Individual huts were also noted at two other
locations, one at Kilry at the mouth of Glen Isla and the other unspecified. While the Council’s respondent noted that details
of these were not available to complete the return within the time scale, information might be forthcoming as part of a
follow-up exercise. The subsequent Valuation Roll data has clarified the position somewhat and a number of huts have been
identified by their fairly clear addresses, though some of the others are less certain.
Dumfries and Galloway
As noted above, information on the Dumfries and Galloway sites is based entirely on Valuation Roll extracts provided by
the Valuation Board, coupled with a telephone discussion with the Assessor. A subsequent detailed map search enabled
most of the locations to be identified.
Three small groups are in this same general area. A small group of four exists at Portling, on the coast south of Dalbeattie,
apparently on a small lane leading to the shore from the hamlet of Portling. Of these two have locally based proprietors
while the address of a third is unknown. The fourth is tenanted with a proprietor from Sunderland. A group of three at
Sandyhills, also near Dalbeattie is located on the shore of Sandyhills Bay. Here the map shows a rather larger group of five,
so it is assumed that the others have disappeared in recent years. This has two locally based proprietors though one hut is
classed as empty and the third is based in Oxford. Finally, two huts at Howmains, Glencaple near Dumfries respectively
have a Dumfries and a London-based proprietor.
Dumfries and Galloway also has individual ‘living huts’ at ten locations, all but one along the Solway coastal fringe or the
Rhinn of Galloway. Some of these have been identified with varying degrees of accuracy. The remaining site is at Beattock,
near Moffat. These are noted in the Valuation Roll but little or no other information is available about them. A number of
the occupiers have addresses in the immediate locality of the hut, but others come from much further afield as follows (the
location of the hut is given followed by the location of the proprietor in brackets): Auchenmalg, Glenluce (Dumfries);
Glenluce (Glasgow); Ardwell, Stranraer (Johnstone, Renfrewshire); Drummore, Rhinn of Galloway (Drummore); Maryport
Bay, Drummore (Drummore); Barcloy, Rockliffe, Dalbeattie (Dumfries); Dundrennan, Kirkcudbright (Dundrennan),
Ringford, Castle Douglas (Ringford); Sandgreen (Doncaster); Woodend, Beattock (Oundle, Peterborough).
Inverclyde:
A small site with a maximum of three isolated huts can be found on the foreshore at Lunderston Bay. These have no direct
access being approachable only by footpaths from the A770 across the open ground between the road and the foreshore. As
with the Cloch Point site described above these are part of Ardgowan Estates. Photographs which accompanied the return
suggest very tumble-down shacks, in one case right at the edge of the Firth of Clyde foreshore and in the other adjacent to a
picnic area off the A770.
Perth & Kinross:
Very limited information has been provided on the two sites, one in Glendevon and the other a few miles to the south at
Rumbling Bridge. Each of these sites is recorded as having five huts, giving a Perth and Kinross total lower that the 15
suggested by the RRS trawl. In each case the site is described as being part of undefined land with direct road access, in
Glendevon village being between the road and river and at Rumbling Bridge at the rear of the post office/tea-room. In
neither case is an owner identified.
43
More recent information from the Valuation Roll in April 1999 gives a total of 15 huts in Gledevon and 15 at Rumbling
Bridge, each three times the number given by the Planning Department.
The Glendevon list with addresses is much more specific than the Planning Department and the small groups, are reasonably
well identifiable on the 1:10,000 map with one group of seven which appears to be in the village itself and the others in
three pairs and two singles on the northern edge of the village or a few hundred yards further northwards up the road.
The Planning return for Rumbling Bridge just notes five huts behind the PO/tea-room. The 15 recorded in the Valuation
Roll presumably includes these together possibly with other scattered huts less easy to identify.
Renfrewshire:
A small site, thought to have three huts, exists 1km from Lochwinnoch in Renfrewshire, about 12-14km south west of
Paisley. The site, of 0.05ha, is an enclosed area of farmland apparently belonging to Boghead Farm but with direct road
access but no other information was available. The site is confirmed by the Valuation Roll, together with identification of
the owner but from this source the number of huts is given as eight, together with one additional hut classed as ‘site 2’ on
the Roll.
South Ayrshire:
Three fairly small groups of huts in South Ayrshire were identified from the Valuation Roll at. All are at Lendalfoot, a small
village on the Ayrshire coast south of Girvan and are in close proximity to one another and to the Carleton Crescent site
identified under C above. The three sites are known as Gamesloup, with seven huts, Whilk Meadows, with six and Carleton
Fishery with four. both are spread along a narrow low coastal strip facing open sea and with steep former cliff line behind
them. While some properties are very ‘hut’-like, the rest are more anomalous in that they have been developed and
modernised. Whilk Meadows lies on the inland side of the A77 and has properties which are still recognisably huts, though
of a rather better, closer to holiday chalets and these appear to be serviced. All but one are set within a defined area of
ground which, while hummocky with scattered rock outcrops, has been landscaped and partly grassed making an attractive
and established setting. The other hut, known as Rockhaven, while still listed as part of the same group is isolated from the
rest a few hundred yards to the south at the base of the steeper cliff. The Gamesloup group is the furthest south of the
Lendalfoot sites and lies on the flatter and rather wider coastal strip virtually on the foreshore and at the southern end of the
Bennane Hill caravan site. These are approached by a track through the caravan site (possibly an original main road line,
now by-passed). The last of the groups, the four dwellings at Carleton Fishery comprises four huts on the inland side of the
A77 tucked between it and a steep outcrop of rock, facing north over Carleton Bay. These again probably originated as huts
and certainly at least one appears still to be free-standing on corner supports rather than on conventional foundations, but
they have developed over the years into something between huts and cottages. The proprietors of almost all the huts in these
groups come from Glasgow, the remaining two being from Girvan and Ayr.
These three groups, together with the Carleton Crescent site listed under C form a good example of the transition process
from the traditional hut to something which already is almost a conventional house on the Council Tax Roll.
Stirling:
The second small site in Stirling is at Dalmarry, near Gartmore which is about 5km south of Aberfoyle. The site is thought
to have eight huts plus possibly two others, arranged more or less in line and mostly individually fenced. No other
information about origin date or ownership was available from the Council, though it does not appear to have been the
source of any planning difficulties, having been generally static over many years.
The map shows a single line of huts along a fence line of partially but otherwise open grassy/scrub land, together with one
or two other huts scattered further to the north. The site is accessed directly off the minor road to Dalmarry and Gartmore
from the A81 north to Aberfoyle. The adjacent landownerships are known but it has not been possible to identify the owner
of this site.
44
APPENDIX 2C – INVENTORY OF HUT SITES IN SCOTLAND
(Note: This inventory was based on the Stage 1 sources – later on-the-ground checks showed some
variations from these records)
45
46
47
48
49
50
PART 3
THE OCCUPIER PERSPECTIVE
51
CONTENTS
3.1
INTRODUCTION
3.2
GATHERING THE INFORMATION
The postal survey
3.3
THE NATURE OF HUTS AND SITES
Abstract
The parameters
Acquiring a hut
How old are huts?
How big are huts?
Dimensions
Usable space
How are huts constructed
Foundations
Building materials
Services
Huts within sites
3.4
THE ORGANIC NATURE OF HUTS
Abstract
Maintenance and change
3.5
THE ADMINISTRATIVE ARRANGEMENTS FOR HUTS
Abstract
Introduction
Who owns what?
Agreements between owners and occupiers
Plot rentals
Restrictions placed on occupiers
Transferring ownership of a hut
3.6
USING A HUT
Abstract
Introduction
Frequency of use
Seasonal use patterns
Changes in use levels over time
3.7
WHO ARE THE OCCUPIERS OF HUTS ?
Abstract
Introduction
Occupier gender and age profiles
Occupier households
Employment status and occupations
3.8
THE PROS AND CONS OF HAVING A HUT
Abstract
Introduction
The advantages of owning a hut
What are the disadvantages of hut ownership?
52
3.9
AN OVERVIEW
Introduction
The huts
The hutters
Hut use
Administrative structures
The role of huts
The future
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A - THE SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE AND REMINDER LETTER
APPENDIX B - METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES
APPENDIX C - HUTTER OCCUPATIONS
53
‘HUTS AND HUTTERS’
STAGE 2 - OCCUPIERS
Huts, hut use and hutters through the
eyes of the occupiers
Report on the occupier element of Stage 2 of a study
undertaken for
The Scottish Executive Central Research Unit
on behalf of
Housing Division 2
of
The Scottish Executive Development Department
Research Consultancy Services
December 1999
54
CONTENTS
3.1
INTRODUCTION
3.2
GATHERING THE INFORMATION
The postal survey
3.3
THE NATURE OF HUTS AND SITES
Abstract
The parameters
Acquiring a hut
How old are huts?
How big are huts?
Dimensions
Usable space
How are huts constructed
Foundations
Building materials
Services
Huts within sites
3.4
THE ORGANIC NATURE OF HUTS
Abstract
Maintenance and change
3.5
THE ADMINISTRATIVE ARRANGEMENTS FOR HUTS
Abstract
Introduction
Who owns what?
Agreements between owners and occupiers
Plot rentals
Restrictions placed on occupiers
Transferring ownership of a hut
3.6
USING A HUT
Abstract
Introduction
Frequency of use
Seasonal use patterns
Changes in use levels over time
3.7
WHO ARE THE OCCUPIERS OF HUTS ?
Abstract
Introduction
Occupier gender and age profiles
Occupier households
Employment status and occupations
3.8
THE PROS AND CONS OF HAVING A HUT
Abstract
Introduction
The advantages of owning a hut
What re the disadvantages of hut ownership?
3.9
AN OVERVIEW
55
Introduction
The huts
The hutters
Hut use
Administrative structures
The role of huts
The future
3.APPENDICES
3.A
3.B
3.C
THE SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE AND REMINDER LETTER
METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES
HUTTER OCCUPATIONS
56
3.1 INTRODUCTION
3.1.1 Early in 1999, Research Consultancy Services [RCS] was invited to undertake a study of ‘Huts
and Hutters’ in Scotland. This work was commissioned by the Scottish Executive’s Central
Research Unit [CRU] on behalf of Housing Division 2 [H2] of The Scottish Executive
Development Department [SEED].
3.1.2 The study as whole comprised a number of elements. A first stage, undertaken in the early
spring of 1999, assessed the scale and distribution of hut sites throughout Scotland and created
a detailed inventory of sites. This part of the study drew on a number of sources, primarily local
planning authorities, large-scale-map searches and Assessors’ Valuation Rolls. The report on
this element was completed in April 1999, identifying a total of approximately 700 huts, spread
over 35 sites of two or more huts, together with a further 27 individual huts. However, it was
recognised that data was missing for some areas and that eventually there might be some
modification of these totals.
3.1.3 An important additional purpose in Stage 1 was to examine the potential for and practicalities of
a second stage which would examine the issue of Huts and Hutters in more depth and, in
particular, provide information about two broad aspects:
(a) the historical and current administrative arrangements applicable to each site and to
the tenants/licensees; and
(b) the characteristics of hutters and their use of their huts/plots.
3.1.4 In the light of the outcome of Stage 1 it was deemed practicable to mount the second stage,
commissioned in June 1999. Here, two separate but related elements were involved: first a
series of discussions with owners of the larger sites (defined as those with ten or more huts)
and, second, a postal survey of a large number of owners/occupiers of the huts themselves.
3.1.5 This report brings together the information from the element dealing with huts and their sites as
seen from the perspective of the ‘occupiers’ and is structured in the following way:
This introductory Chapter sets out the context for and aims of the study;
Chapter 2 summarises the methodology for the occupier survey, with a number of the
issues being covered in more detail in Appendix B;
Main features of huts and their sites as revealed by the survey are examined in Chapter
3;
Chapter 4 looks at how individual huts have changed over time as occupiers have
maintained or improved them;
An important factor in huts and hutting is the legal and administrative arrangements
surrounding them and relationships between occupiers and site owners and these are
considered in Chapter 5;
Patterns of hut usage through the year and changes over time are covered in Chapter 6;
Chapter 7 summarises some of the characteristics of hut occupiers, both as revealed by
their own responses to the survey and by the spatial relationships between the location
of their homes and their huts;
57
Chapter 8 looks at occupier perceptions of the benefits and disadvantages of hut
owning;
Finally Chapter 9 draws summarises the general features of huts and hutters as
revealed by the different parts of the report and takes a look towards the future.
Each chapter of findings is prefaced by a short abstract highlighting the main points to emerge
from the survey. In combination these also form the report summary.
3.1.6 A note on terminology as used in the study as a whole and in this report is necessary here. The
terms ‘hut’ and ‘hutter’ appear to have emerged in recent years in the context of the site(s) at
Carbeth in Stirling Council’s area. For lack of better encapsulatory terms, these were adopted as
a basis for both the Stage 1 enquiries to local Planning Departments and, subsequently, to the
Valuation Boards, but in each case quite full definitions of what we understood by these terms
were set out. Similarly, initial letters to site owners and the explanatory letter on the front of the
occupier questionnaire used these terms but also tried to make it clear what and who we
assumed we were talking about. In practice it became clear that neither term necessarily applies
everywhere in Scotland. As emerged from the Stage I enquiry to Valuation Boards, what we
identified were variously referred to in the non-domestic Rolls as ‘hut’, ‘living hut’, ‘holiday
hut’ or ‘chalet’. Similarly, discussion with site owners also made it clear in one or two instances
that they - and the occupiers - always referred to their ‘chalets’, perhaps seeing ‘hut’ as a rather
derogatory term. Nevertheless, for convenience the term ‘hut’ is retained throughout this report
to refer to the structures themselves. It also seems that the people who own the huts may object
to being referred to as ‘hutters’, particularly those on sites where they have acquired the land on
which the hut sits and where almost certainly the term ‘hut’ would not find favour. For
simplicity and consistency we have used the term ‘occupier’ throughout to describe these
people.
3.1.7 Throughout the report aspects of responses to particular questions are quoted in the
respondents’ own words since these give a richer and more immediate flavour of hutting, both
good and bad. Comments of this kind are italicised and are in parentheses. Inevitably it is only
possible to use a few examples of people’s views and experiences under any one heading and
they are not necessarily strictly representative but are chosen as typical of the comments about a
given issue.
58
3.2 GATHERING THE INFORMATION
3.2.1 Given that, when the study was commissioned, there was little or no body of knowledge about
both where and what huts and hutters were, two considerations were of particular importance in
trying to build up a picture from the occupier. The first related to the kinds of information
which occupiers might be able to provide about themselves and their huts. Second, and even
more crucial in practice, was the ways in which that information might be accessed.
3.2.2 At an early stage, four broad information areas were identified as relevant to the study:
(a)
the nature of the huts themselves;
(b)
the administrative arrangements between site owner and hut owner;
(c)
patterns of use of huts by their occupiers;
(d)
the characteristics of the occupiers themselves.
3.2.3 It was recognised that any information available from occupiers was likely to be a mix of fact,
recall and, possibly, supposition, particularly over past history of use, not just by current
occupiers but, even more, when a tenancy/licence changed hands, whether by purchase or by
handing down by inheritance, some huts being thought to have been owned by a number of
generations of the same family
3.2.4 At an early stage, gathering information from owners of the sites themselves was seen as
amenable to fairly conventional methods using initial letters followed by telephone contacts to
arrange interviews with a cross section of owners. This proved successful in practice and the
results of this element are discussed in a separate report.
3.2.5 There was much greater uncertainty about how data could be collected from occupiers. At an
early stage it was recognised that face-to-face interviews would not be practical, mainly on
grounds of the difficulty of making contact with occupiers. Alternative methods of self
completion questionnaire were also explored. Given the nature of huts and their use it seemed
unlikely that questionnaires could successfully reach occupiers in their huts. Eventually, since
rates are generally payable on huts, the names and home addresses of occupiers were traced
through the non-domestic Valuation Rolls enabling a conventional postal survey approach. The
ability to contact occupiers at home had a number of benefits.
(a) The survey could target all occupiers of sites above a certain size in a cost-effective
way;
(b) if all occupiers had an opportunity to reply to a structured and objective
questionnaire, sent to their home addresses and returned in confidence, with a
guarantee that no individual responses would be identifiable, this might help to
generate a more accurate picture on any site which had been experiencing difficult
landlord-tenant relationships;
(c) it would be possible to send reminders to slow responders in order to boost
response.
The postal survey
3.2.6 The target population for the survey was occupiers on all sites with four or more huts, a larger
coverage than the cut-off point of ten huts used for the site owner element .
59
3.2.7 One data source which proved particularly valuable in Stage 1 of the study in identifying hut
sites was the Valuation Rolls used for rating assessments of non-domestic properties. These
Rolls provided basic data on a large number of sites throughout Scotland. For most of these
sites the rolls also included names and addresses of individual occupiers. Using this data a
viable target population of 541 names and addresses was built up. This covered a total of 27
sites across Scotland from Deeside and the Angus Coast to the Solway and from Loch Lomond
to East Lothian, a remarkably good coverage of sizes and types of site. In most cases these sites
had already been identified in the Stage 1 report but a small number of additional sites
apparently fitting the study’s parameters emerged from additional data subsequently provided
by one or two of the Valuation Boards.
3.2.8 Questionnaires were sent to all these occupiers at the end of July. The self-completion nature
meant that these had to be fairly brief and largely confined to pre-coded questions. Nevertheless
it was possible to incorporate all the information headings identified at the outset as relevant to
the study. As well as factual data it was also seen as important to obtain open responses on a
number of aspects, both about legal arrangements between site owners and hut owners and
about benefits and disadvantages of hut ownership and these questions had the added benefit of
providing information and reporting experiences in the occupiers’ own words. A copy of the
questionnaire is included at Appendix A.
3.2.9 To encourage response a prize of £200 was offered, to be drawn from the serial numbers of all
completed questionnaires returned. Confidentiality of individual questionnaires was emphasised
throughout with clear confirmation that no information relating to any individual would be
disclosed to their site owner.
3.2.10 Early response to the survey was poor, with less than one in five of the questionnaires
completed and returned by the target date. The fact that questionnaires were sent to home
addresses meant that reminder letters could be sent to boost response and in this instance the
effect of these was significantly more beneficial than is normal in a survey of this kind, more
than doubling the level of response.
3.2.11 The eventual response rate of 34 percent of issued questionnaires may be regarded as very
satisfactory for this survey. In practice it probably represents a higher proportion of the eligible
population, i.e. excluding addresses where the person had moved home or had previously
disposed of their hut and therefore could not have taken part in the survey. One important
feature of the response was that it was well spread across the range of sites covered and hence
can be regarded as providing a good cross-section of the hutter population.
3.2.12 The survey also clarified the position about a number of sites which proved outwith the strict
definition of ‘hut sites’ as initially defined, since their occupiers also owned, or at least had a
long lease on the land on which the hut was located rather than being in a loosely ‘tenant’
situation. Although these owner-occupiers might have regarded the survey as inapplicable to
them - and some made this clear in the form of written refusal - there was a surprising overall
consistency of response between the two categories. Since many of these sites either had started
life in similar ways to the main group or were similar in many of their characteristics the
responses from these occupiers have been included in the report, though separately identified.
3.2.13 Another important factor increasing the general robustness of the response is that data quality
was good with significant amounts of valuable and informative comment in responses to open
questions. Being in the occupiers’ own words, the latter are of particular benefit in fleshing out
the numerical bones of the survey results.
3.2.14 This survey identified a number of interesting methodological issues in relation to its target
population and reasons for some of the patterns of response. These are discussed in more detail
in Appendix B.
60
3.3 THE NATURE OF HUTS AND SITES
Abstract
This chapter examines the main characteristics of the huts as revealed by the postal survey, dealing in
turn with how occupiers have acquired their huts, the age of huts, their size and methods of
construction, the services available to them and some features of the sites themselves.
X
Almost three in four huts change hands through purchase of some kind and only one in five
through inheritance. Some still remain in the hands of the people who built them.
X
‘Purchase’ more often takes place as a result of word of mouth knowledge rather than the
conventional open market. Some people may have been on the look-out for a hut for some time,
other may have seen a vacant hut in passing and been tempted to acquire it.
X
One in four huts has been in the hands of its present owners for at least 30 years, while a few
occupiers were still in huts acquired before the war.
X
Huts have proved remarkably resilient over the years despite essentially being temporary
‘dwellings’.
X
Huts are very variable in size but most have separate living and sleeping rooms and a small
kitchen - a few are open-plan.
X
As many as one in three initially date from before World War II and most of the rest from the
1940s and 1950s.
X
Huts come in all shapes and sizes and are built of many different materials, though wood or
wood derivatives are the most common.
X
The survey confirms the original assumption that huts mostly sit on the ground rather than
being built into it.
X
Mains services are very rare, though a number of huts on ‘owned’ sites have them.
X
Lighting is mostly by bottled gas, oil lamps or small fluorescent lights run from a battery or a
small generator.
X
Water generally comes from a standpipe on or near the site or from a spring or well. A few huts
draw water from an adjacent stream, though mostly only for washing purposes. Many occupiers
bring drinking water with them when using the hut.
X
Toilet facilities may be integral with the main hut or in a small adjacent structure, but these are
usually limited to chemical or earth closets.
X
About half the occupiers say that all the huts on their particular site are still in use and nearly
all the others say that most huts are still in use.
X
Generally the layout of huts on sites is scattered, either over an extended or a more compact
area, but about one in five are in row format. Two thirds have their plot enclosed either by a
fence, a hedge or a wall.
X
Access to individual huts is very varied. While half refer to a surfaced road or track between
themselves and the nearest public road the quality of such road often leaves a lot to be desired,
being just a farm road or a very rough track.
61
The parameters
3.3.1
As a first stage in the questionnaire we asked occupiers when and how they had first acquired
their hut and when it was first built. We then tried to build up a picture of what huts were like,
in terms of their size, the materials of which they were made, the basic facilities which they
possessed and their position within the wider setting of the site on which they were located.
Finally, we asked about the kinds of changes which occupiers had made to their huts over the
time they had had them and how much they spent on maintaining or improving them in a
typical year. Most of these questions were based on pre-coded responses, though there was
scope for fuller response about a number of aspects.
3.3.2
Given the division referred to in Section 2 between the ‘conventional’ sites and those where it
turned out that occupiers owned the land as well as the hut, it is of interest to look for possible
differences between the two groups and for simplicity a common pattern is adopted for all
tabulated material throughout this report, showing results for each group - ‘rented’ [R].
‘owned’ [O] together with an overall [ALL] figure. Throughout, to facilitate comparisons,
percentages are also used rather than numbers of responses but it must be remembered that
the small base numbers allow only fairly broad-brush differences to be inferred.
Acquiring a hut
3.3.3
While nearly a third of the huts had been acquired within the past ten years, as many as a
quarter of the occupiers had owned their huts for at least 30 years and a few dated their
acquisition or their family’s ownership to before World War II......
‘Has been in the family since 1934’
‘I inherited from my parents - my father built it in 1932’
3.3.4
On the owned sites the proportion of recent acquisitions appears to be much lower and with
proportionally greater numbers having been acquired in the 1970s and 1980s.
When occupiers acquired their huts
1990s
1980s
1970s
1960s
1950s
1940s
1920s/30s
Don’t know
R
%
O
%
ALL
%
37
25
14
14
4
3
2
1
6
38
22
19
6
3
6
0
31
27
16
15
5
3
3
1
100
(145)
100
(32)
100
(177)
62
3.3.5
While initially a general assumption was that inheritance was the almost common
way of acquiring a hut, in practice this proved not to be so. Only about one in five
appear to have been inherited and the great majority (70%) had been acquired by
purchase. The remaining 10% were acquired by other means. However, in the case of
the ‘other means’ we asked occupiers to elaborate and these comments, together
with some comment made in the context of the inherited and bought huts helps to
throw some more light on acquisition.
Methods of acquiring a hut
Bought
Inherited
Other
3.3.6
R
%
O
%
ALL
%
70
19
12
78
19
3
71
19
10
100
(145)
100
(32)
100
(177)
Among those which were inherited, in addition to the two quoted above, similar transfers
included.....
‘My hut was left to me by a family friend’
‘Personal approach to landowner by my father’
‘Two huts on site, one built 1925, other built 1956’
....while references to just to a simple inheritance transfer but to long family association with
a particular hut also featured in a number of the later comments about the advantages of
having a hut.....
‘Family holiday home for five generations........’
(rented site) (f) (>60) (ret.)
‘....The hut is part of me - it has been in my family all my life and before I was born.....’
(rented site) (f) (41-50) (empl. f/t)
‘I have been associated with [site x] through most of my life through family’
3.3.7
Of those which were bought, most were through informal contacts, either by word of mouth
or by the hut being offered by a friend. Only 17 percent were in response to advertisements
and a similar proportion through other channels.
Ways in which occupiers found out about the hut they bought ?
Word of mouth
Offered by a friend
Advert
Other
No information
R
%
50
17
15
17
2
100
O
%
35
23
23
15
4
100
63
ALL
%
46
18
17
17
2
100
(145)
(32)
(177)
3.3.8
In some instances supplementary comments clarified the ways in which huts were found. Of
those who had found their huts through an advertisement, some clearly knew about and had
an interest in a particular site in advance since they referred to having seen the advertisement
as ‘a notice on hut’, ‘postcard in window’ or ‘advertisement in local inn’, while others found
it through the press as in ‘local newspaper - Galloway News’, ‘through Evening News
advert.’ or just ‘newspaper ad.’. One must have been on the lookout for a site for some time
judging by the comments that...‘when my partner was an apprentice, some 20-odd years ago,
his boss owned a hut and it was always my partner’s wish to buy one’.
3.3.9
Locating a hut via word of mouth might be either a direct purchase ‘bought it from a friend‘
or more obliquely.... ‘was told of chalet by a friend of a friend’ or someone known on a site
as in...‘discovered it was for sale by talking to another hut owner’ or ‘There was a sale sign
outside hut when on holiday’. Others might find out via a relative...‘my sister already had a
hut on the same field and I used it for about 20 years‘ or ‘my brother-in-law knew person
who was selling it and I particularly wanted this hut’ or, again, ‘I had previously owned
another hut - a neighbour informed me of a possible sale’.
3.3.10 Sometimes it might be more of a chance contact as in ‘visited site and decided I would like to
have one of the huts’ or ‘saw it for sale when staying at a friend’s hut’ or else through a third
party ‘a friend at work arranged it for someone who felt it was too much for him’.
3.3.11 However, there is some other evidence of people’s long term interest in and desire for a hut.
Some had been on a deliberate hunt.....
‘Been looking for one for several years at suitable location’
‘Had one in the 70s and before had huts over the last 35 years’
‘Waited two years on waiting list; friend still owns one’
‘Kept enquiring for vacancy to farmer‘
....while for others it was more of case of chance.....
‘Happened upon [site] during a country walk’
‘Saw from a distance on National Trust work. Went to look and found one for sale’
‘Visited farm to arrange boat mooring on [x] - saw semi-derelict chalet’
‘While walking on holiday noticed ‘for sale’ card in window of hut’
‘Asked landowner if occupied caravan was for sale - she no longer required it’
‘Visited site and it was empty and saw the farmer’
3.3.12 There were also other ways of finding out about a hut which was then bought.....
‘Belonged to a company that we bought’
‘Bought it from a relative’
‘Mother and father owned one’
‘Mother in law who had hut on site heard about it and bought it for us and gave her
own to sister in law’
‘Through sister who also has one’
‘The hut was acquired to me by a friend. It was in my friend’s family for at least 30 years I used to go as a child’
64
3.3.13 Where huts were said to have been acquired ‘through other means’, in practice this was
generally because the occupier had been the first to have that hut and has built it.......
‘Built it in 1977’
‘Built it with planning permission’
‘Built it - Bought present hut in 1946, sole owner’
‘We rent the land and built our own hut’
...or, in one case, had had it built....
‘We found the site by accidental visit - Had it built by local joiner’
.....though sometimes the means of acquisition are less conventional......
‘The hut was an old single deck bus on site which was given
to us free if we changed its appearance’
How old are huts ?
3.3.14 Most huts have been on their sites for a considerable length of time. If we exclude those
where the occupier did not know the age of the hut, one in three date from before the second
world war and two out of five from the 1940s and 1950s. Most of the remainder date from the
1960s/1970s and only a few (8 percent) since 1980.
Dates at which huts were first built
1980s+
1960/70s
1940/50s
1920/30s
Don’t know
No information
R
%
O
%
ALL
%
6
14
35
22
21
2
9
6
31
47
6
0
7
12
34
27
18
2
100
(145)
100
(32)
100
(177)
How big are huts ?
Dimensions
3.3.15 Huts vary widely in their size but it was important to at least get an impression of their scale
in the postal survey questionnaire. Occupiers were asked the approximate length, width and
height of their hut. Inevitably the information which they gave has to be treated with caution
since it was based on estimates made at home addresses rather than accurate measurements
made on the spot. When looking at the range of dimensions against each of the three criteria
occasional very substantial outliers emerged and have been excluded from the calculations as
probable errors in the way the respondent recorded the estimate.
65
3.3.16 Typically a hut is around 25 feet in length, 16 feet in width and 10 feet high, though the last
of these figures probably is a peak of roof height rather than an internal. However, these mean
figures hide what is a very diverse range of measurements.
3.3.17 Since huts have been built and modified at different times and are essentially individual
creations rather than standardised, as in a purchased caravan or commercial ‘chalet’, it is not
surprising that the ranges are so broad and there is no consistency of pattern within individual
sites. This probably also accounts for the absence of significant variations between the huts
on owned and rented sites.
The diversity of hut dimensions
Length
n
Mean (feet)
Range (feet)
R
30
29
15-57
O
131
24
8-60
n
Mean (feet)
Range (feet)
R
31
16
8-26
O
129
16
6-36
n
Mean (feet)
Range (feet)
R
31
11
9-18
O
125
10
6-21
Width
Height
Usable space
3.3.18 There was little prior knowledge about what might constitute a hut in terms of its internal use
of space - was it literally an open hut, or more of a small bungalow? To try to build up a
picture we therefore asked about the number of rooms used for each of three main purposes:
living rooms, rooms used mainly for sleeping, kitchens or rooms used mainly for cooking
and, finally, rooms used for other purposes. In a few instances occupiers merely ticked the
answer boxes rather than giving a number and here, for simplicity, a tick has been equated
with ‘one’.
3.3.19 In practice most huts consist of more than one room and, indeed, some appear to be quite
versatile in their accommodation. Perhaps predictably, virtually all have a single living room,
with a number of occupiers specifically emphasising that this is a fairly general purpose room
used for cooking as well as sitting and eating in. Only a very few appear to have more than
one living room. The presence of the ‘open plan’ or multi-purpose room in the above table
probably also accounts for many of those responses indicating that there was no kitchen as
such in the hut.
Number of ‘living’ rooms
1
2
3 or 4
Open plan/L-R & K
None/No information
R
%
86
2
1
8
2
O
%
88
6
3
3
0
66
ALL
%
86
3
2
7
2
100
(145)
100
(32)
67
100
(177)
Number of kitchen/room used mainly for cooking
1
2 or 3
None
No information
R
%
O
%
ALL
%
78
1
16
6
72
3
19
6
77
2
16
6
100
(145)
100
(32)
100
(177)
3.3.20 In the same way, the use of the hut as an all purpose space in which people sleep as well as
live during the day probably accounts for the share with no primarily sleeping areas.
However, almost all huts have at least one bedroom and more than half have two or more.
Here again it appears that the huts on owned sites are rather better equipped, perhaps being
larger and more substantially built.
Number of rooms used mainly for sleeping
1
2
3 or 4
None
No information
R
%
O
%
ALL
%
35
48
7
6
3
19
53
19
3
6
32
49
9
6
4
100
(145)
100
(32)
100
(177)
3.3.21 About a quarter of the occupiers indicated that their hut had a room used for other purposes,
though the proportion on the owned sites rented sites was double that on the private sites.
Here a few specified its use, most often as a toilet, though in three of the huts on owned sites
it was specified as a bath/shower room, and in practice it seems likely that most of the
unspecified ‘rooms for other purposes’ were toilets, sometimes integral with the main hut
structure or in an adjacent ‘sub-hut’ and the general presence of toilet or bath facilities is
considered in paragraph 3.39 below. Nevertheless in one or two cases the ‘other room’ was
specified as a separate sitting room or even a ‘sun-room’.
How are huts constructed ?
Foundations
3.3.22 One of the initial assumptions about huts was that the nature of their origins and supposed
tenure patterns meant that they were ‘temporary’ structures sitting on the ground with some
form of solid support, rather than being built into the ground with proper foundations as in a
normal house. The survey proved this generally to be the case although with some variations,
generally related to the hut’s tenure.
68
3.3.23 Two thirds of huts sit on some form of support blocks, mostly brick or concrete, rather than
on full foundations. Little over one in ten appear to have conventional foundations and the
remainder have a variety of other supports.
How huts are supported on the ground
Support blocks
Other
Foundation slab
Don’t know/No information
R
%
O
%
ALL
%
69
18
7
7
28
28
34
9
62
20
12
7
100
(145)
100
(32)
100
(177)
3.3.24 Full foundations are much more common on the owned than on the rented sites, probably a
reflection of their greater long-term security of presence. As many as 70% of the huts on
rented plots are just on support blocks, compared to only 25% where the land is owned by the
occupier. One of the most common other forms of support on rented sites was that of old
railway sleepers......
‘Mainly railway sleepers plus brick supports’
‘Combination of railway sleepers, rail and brick and mortar pillars;
also part dug-in foundation’
....while alternatives included....
‘As hut is on a slope front dwelling is on concrete blocks, rear is on
railway sleepers, supplemented by enclosed cavity walls’
‘Chained to metal supports’
‘Brick and wooden beams’
‘Concrete pads and mortared brick support columns’
‘Stone - native stone’
‘Support blocks 3 sides; support wall one side
(hut on hillside - support wall on lower side)’
‘Hut sits on 3x2 joists which are supported by outer brick walls and
the old bus main steel frames which rest on transverse brick walls’
Those on the owned sites were generally similar....
‘Railway sleeper, vertical in concrete’
‘4"x4" timber posts’
‘Rest on bricks/timber/dwarf walls’
‘Wooden legs’
....though some less conventional forms of support emerged....
‘Beer barrels’
Building materials
69
3.3.25 When first built, huts were seen as ‘temporary’ structures, mostly built without foundations
and probably no long-term future was envisaged. Most were built, or perhaps put-together, by
people who were largely amateurs, though some probably had a degree of building or joinery
skills or at least were reasonably ‘handy’, though this was long before the days of ‘DIY’.
Because of this, and the fact that they were intended as low-cost structures, they were built of
whatever materials were cheap or easily available, often recycling material from other
purposes. Reference was made by some site owners to sites have started with old bus-bodies
being set on brick or stone supports and gradually adapted for weekend and holiday use. We
have already seen a reference above to what is now a hut having changed over the years from
a bus shell, whose frames still form part of the basic support, while another hut is described as
‘a converted railway carriage’.
3.3.26 We asked for brief descriptions of the materials of which each occupier’s hut was made in
respect of walls, floor and roof. Many of the occupiers, perhaps older ones or those who had
more recently acquired a very old hut, may have had only fairly sketchy ideas of the
construction and we were not seeking a great degree of detail. Nevertheless it is possible to
get a fairly good picture of the range of materials used from the varied responses.
3.3.27 Almost all the huts are built of wood in some form. Most commonly this is just described as
‘wood’ or ‘timber’ (71 responses), in some instances with elaboration on the terms, such as ‘T
& G planks’, etc. The second most common specific term used is ‘weather boarding’ (48
responses) and thirdly ‘plywood’ (32 responses). Chipboard is only referred to in a few
instances as an exterior material, possibly partly because it is more vulnerable to weather and
also it was probably not a readily available material at the time many of the huts were built. A
very few occupiers more specifically referred to their huts being made of ‘cedar’.
3.3.28 The few huts not made of some form of wood provide a few examples each of asbestos, metal
(sometimes corrugated iron), and more permanent materials such a brick, concrete or stone. A
very few said that their huts were made of plasterboard but this seems an unlikely external
wall material and in reality there probably was some form of additional external shell.
3.3.29 Almost one in three of the occupiers distinguished between internal and external wall
materials. Here plasterboard was by far the most common but some were lined with plywood
- often available in decorative interior ‘boarded’ finishes and a few with ‘T & G lining’,
chipboard or hardboard. In a few instances references is specifically made to the
incorporation of insulation, probably a very necessary feature not just when the hut is
occupied but when it is empty during winter months.
3.3.30 Flooring is generally of timber, either specified as ‘floorboards’, ‘flooring planks’, ‘T & G
flooring’ and so on. Otherwise it is plywood or chipboard with very rare examples of concrete
or stone.
3.3.31 The pre-eminent roofing material, at least as far as the outer covering is concerned, is roofing
felt, either tarred or, as now often termed, ‘mineralised’. This is generally laid over the top of
wooden boarding, often specifically referred to by its building trade name of sarking, or less
often by chipboard or plywood. A number of references were made just to ‘boards’, ‘wood’
or ‘plywood’. Again, as in the outer shell in par. 3.28 above these in themselves are unlikely
to be adequately weatherproof and probably had an outer shell of felt or, in some case were
just tarred. Corrugated metal or other forms of metal cladding are occasionally used as
roofing and, less commonly, asbestos. A number of occupiers indicated various combinations
of materials.
Services
3.3.32 Lifestyle in a hut seems to lie at some mid-point in a triangle between camping, a caravan and
a house. Much also seems to depend on what the individual occupiers makes of it and the
extent to which their hut is used.
70
3.3.33 Overall, very few huts have mains electricity, though here again there are marked differences
between those on owned and rented sites. More than half the owner-occupied huts have mains
electricity compared to only a tiny proportion of those on rented plots. Indeed with electricity
and with other mains services, some sites specifically prohibit any form of mains supplies.
Mains electricity
Mains electricity available in hut
Mains electricity not available in hut
R
%
O
%
ALL
%
3
97
59
41
13
87
100
(145)
100
(32)
100
(177)
3.3.34 Although as we shall see later, much use of huts is in the summer when there are long
evenings, even so some form of artificial light is essential. Where there is no mains
electricity, occupiers use a variety of forms of lighting - to say nothing of power - for other
domestic appliances. A few are dependent on a single methods but more commonly they are
used in combination. The Table below shows the proportion of all the huts in which each of
the methods is used and, here, further emphasises the difference between the two types of site.
The most common is some form of bottled gas, used in almost half the huts with no mains
electricity. Batteries come a close second, probably mostly heavy duty car batteries, often
used to power small fluorescent lights as in many caravans. While these may be brought
ready charged from home or charged at a local garage, about a quarter of the huts have their
own small petrol generator for this purpose. Traditional oil (paraffin) lamps remain common,
used in about one in five huts though a similar proportion also use, or even just depend on
candles as a source of light.
Alternative sources of lighting in huts
Source
R
n
O
n
ALL
n
Gas
Battery
Candles
Paraffin
Generator
Torch/other
No information
48
46
21
21
24
3
1
6
8
7
6
0
0
1
54
54
28
27
24
3
2
(145)
(32)
(177)
3.3.35 As with electricity, mains water is more likely to be provided to the huts on owned plots (64
percent) than those on rented plots (3 percent). The latter generally are dependent either on
access to a standpipe (55 percent) or some other source of water.
71
Availability of mains water supply in huts
Hut connected to mains water
Huts not connected to mains water:
Use water from standpipe on site
Use water from another source
Combined sources
R
%
O
%
ALL
%
3
66
14
54
37
7
3
31
0
45
36
6
100
(145)
100
(32)
100
(177)
3.3.36 There is evidently a substantial degree of resourcefulness and ingenuity among occupiers in
finding ways of obtaining or keeping water for different purposes. Again these alternative
sources are likely to be used in combination depend on the purposes for which water is
needed. Of those who said that they used sources of water other than a site standpipe, sources
cited by 87 occupiers (ten on owned sites) the following sources were used, alone or in
combination.
Alternative sources of water
Source
n
A spring
Water brought in containers
A stream/burn/river
Collecting rainwater
Using a tap/standpipe at some distance from the site
A well
A storage tank
A local source outwith the site
Some other arrangement
35
22
9
8
8
7
6
4
3
3.3.37 Some sites may have access to a spring as indicated by occupier comments....
‘Private spring water’
‘Water piped from the hill’
‘Spring with pipe and tap attached’
‘Spring - water tested and passed by local district council water board’
‘Fresh water from hills’
....or possibly a well....
‘From well into bucket’
‘Well - analysed annually’
‘Communal well approx. 3 mins. from hut’
....while others may be located near a burn or river.
3.3.38 While the first two of these may be pure enough for drinking, they and the burns are more
often used for washing purposes rather than as drinking water. Drinking water is often
brought from home in containers or perhaps obtained locally....
‘I take my water from my house in plastic containers’
72
‘Drinking water taken from home or bought from local supermarket; washing up water from spring’
‘Bottled water; spring water for utility use’
‘Carry water from home for drinking; carry from nearby river for washing’
‘Bottled drinking water; rainwater for garden etc.’
3.3.39 A number of occupiers collect rainwater from the hut roof into large water butts, either inside
or adjacent to their hut which may even be piped to a wash-basin or sink, though water from
this source seems most often to be used for washing purposes only....
‘Also roof water into inside tanks piped to kitchen and cloakroom’
‘For kitchen and washing I have plumbed rainwater collected from guttering’
‘Water-butt (rain for non-drinking purposes)’
‘Barrel at the side attached to a tap to collect rainwater’
‘Standpipe water runs to water butt and fed into hut‘
‘Water tank on roof filled by hose from standpipe’
‘Plumbed into hut from communal spring’
‘Pipe hose from well to barrel and sink’
....but a few people have to rely on less direct sources....
‘Mains tap at [x] village hall’
‘Local hotel’
‘Carried water from home or from the farmer who owns the site’
3.3.40 We asked occupiers whether they had any kind of toilet facilities within or attached to their
huts and, where they did, whether this was a chemical closet or some other kind of facility.
For those with no facility we also asked whether there were alternative communal toilet
facilities on the site. Virtually all huts appear to have at least some form of toilet, all of those
on owned sites and 94 percent on rented sites. In practice most of these are chemical closets,
though there may be some confusion between these and ‘dry’ or ‘earth’ closets. These are
either within the main structure of the hut or immediately adjacent in a ‘sub-hut’, though in
only a few instances did respondents specifically refer to the latter. Once again it tended to be
the huts on owned sites which were more likely to have properly plumbed in facilities and, as
noted above, on at least one site occupiers were specifically prohibited from installing flush
toilets. On a small number of sites huts even appear to have full bathrooms plumbed in,
including at least one on a rented site visited in the course of the study.
Type of toilet provision when part of/adjacent to the hut
Chemical closet
Other
NK
R
%
O
%
ALL
%
89
10
1
34
66
0
79
21
1
100
(145)
100
(32)
100
(177)
3.3.41 In the very small number of cases where occupiers said that their huts had no facilities of their
own we asked whether there were any toilet facilities on the site as a whole. These appear to
be very rare. Two responses, both from the same site indicated that there were communal
facilities, while another response from a different site also indicated that there was some
facility available on part of the site, adjacent to the hut area, which was being developed for
static caravans. The fact that other responses from each of these sites did not refer to the
presence of communal facilities presumably reflects that fact that they had their own.
73
Huts within sites
3.3.42 As a confirmation of some of the figures of huts on sites generated by the Stage 1 study,
occupiers were asked how many other huts there were on the site on which their own hut was
located. The response to this question proved very inconclusive for a number of reasons and
so cannot be taken as any guide. In some cases it was clear that the person just did not know,
perhaps not surprising given the rather scatter nature of some of the sites, added to which it
would not normally be a matter of any concern to them. The other complicating factor was
that what was thought to be one very large site turned out to consist of a number of quite
separate groups, spread over a large area, much of it semi-woodland where other huts would
not necessarily be generally visible. Here some responses clearly referred to the overall site,
others to numbers within their own particular grouping.
3.3.43 Possibly a more useful guide to the extent to which sites are active or declining is the question
about how many other huts on the site are still in use - asked on a fairly simplistic scale basis.
Here there is a marked difference between the owned and the rented sites with three quarters
of the former having ‘all’ the huts in use, compared with under half of those on rented sites,
though on the latter ‘most’ of the huts were still in use on the other half. The apparent
anomaly on the owned sites is the ‘no other huts’ response made in a very small actual
number of cases. Here ii possibly represents more scattered huts which we may class as a
group at a location but in practice, and certainly in the occupier’s eye, are classed as
individual isolated huts.
The extent to which other huts on a site are still in use
All
Most
Some
A few
No other huts
No information
R
%
41
50
5
2
1
1
O
%
72
0
3
0
19
6
ALL
%
47
41
5
2
5
2
100
(145)
100
(32)
100
(177)
3.3.44 Responses to a question about the way in which other huts on the site were grouped tend to
bear out some of the above problems. Almost three-quarters of huts are either ‘scattered over
a larger area’ or ‘grouped loosely within a small area’, both making it fairly difficult to know
the numbers involved. Only about one in five huts were seen to be in some form of orderly
layout.
How huts are grouped on sites
Scattered over a larger area
Grouped loosely within a small area
Adjacent in a row
Mixed groupings
No other huts
74
R
%
O
%
ALL
%
46
30
20
0
2
38
19
16
19
9
44
28
19
3
3
No information
2
0
2
100
(145)
100
(32)
100
(177)
3.3.45 Tied in in many ways with the above issue of layout is that of whether the huts are in clearly
defined plots with some form of fencing creating a ‘defensible space’ or whether they are just
scattered over open ground. Clearly there is no set pattern across or within sites in the way in
which the area of land on which a hut sits is defined. There does not appear to be much in the
way of stipulation on the part of the site owner as to how it is done and generally is left to the
individuality and ingenuity of the individual occupier.
Hut plots - enclosed v. open
Enclosed (Fence/hedge/wall)
Open
Other
No information
R
%
O
%
ALL
%
72
27
0
1
100
(145)
50
44
6
0
100
(32)
68
30
1
1
100
(177)
3.4.46 Two thirds of the occupiers said that their plots were enclosed in some way, although in some
cases they elaborated on the basic ‘fenced’ versus ‘open’ alternatives posed in the
questionnaire to give examples such as....
‘Open plot 60' square’
‘Chain link fence’
‘Enclosed with drystane dyke’
‘Enclosed with hedgerow’
‘Fenced at back, open at front’
‘Locked gate’
‘Partially fenced’
‘Partly open, part stone wall’
‘Total site fenced, individual hut open’
3.4.47 Another important feature of hut sites and, even more the individual huts is how you access
them. Most sites are in rural areas, often fairly remote and either amongst hills or sometimes
on the coast. We asked occupiers whether there was a surfaced road or track between their
own hut and the nearest public road and, if not, what was the nature of the access between the
site entrance and the hut itself.
Ways of accessing huts
Surfaced road/track between hut
and nearest public road
No surfaced access
No information
R
%
O
%
ALL
%
54
45
1
100
38
63
0
100
51
48
1
100
75
(145)
(32)
(177)
3.4.48 In practice, individual occupiers interpreted this question in their own ways in relation to the
terms ‘surfaced’ and ‘road/track’ but even so the combination of the numeric responses and
the descriptions serve to emphasise both the diversity of access and also sometimes the
problems associated with it. Often there is not much to choose between the descriptions
associated with both ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ answers. Among those occupiers who identified there
being an access of this kind it was generally qualified as to its quality.........
‘Although it’s not a very good road’
‘Road is rough; some times out of repair and one patch a hill repaired
with uplifted waste tar dried out becoming very rough’
3.3.49 Where no surfaced road/track was present the alternatives were generally very basic....
‘A rough, ill-kept lane of dry road metal passes entrance with gravel ending half- way to hut’
‘An old coach road’
‘Climb a hill on foot; have to cross two fences by stile’
‘Footpath from end of track’
‘Old forest road, badly in need of repair’
‘Opening into field off public road’
‘Stone surfaced track to within 50 yards’
‘Straight off the main road in by a farm gate’
‘The hut is situated on a farm road away from public roads’
‘By right of way along shore line’
‘Right of way over adjoining private property along with car parking’
....though clearly the occupiers themselves may make efforts to upgrade their own private
stretch of access....
‘Track with chippings; another hutter puts the chippings down, not the site owner’
‘Home made stone path’
‘Forest road and slab path’
‘Grassy slop down from main gate with a few slabs as steps’
‘Well worn pathway with stone steps’
‘About half a mile of cart track from surfaced road. Residents jointly maintain road’
76
3.4 THE ORGANIC NATURE OF HUTS
Abstract
This chapter looks at the ways in which huts are not just maintained but change over time and the amounts of
money which their occupiers spend on them
X
Most huts were ‘built’ by their original owners rather than having them built for them.
X
In addition to the considerable amount of maintenance needed, huts change organically over time to
meet changing family needs, to modernise them or just to ‘develop’ them as a hobby.
X
Few occupiers have completely rebuilt their huts, and this if often prohibited by planning regulations.
One in four have extended the hut but reduction in size is rare. About half have renewed the roof,
probably the most vulnerable element, and rather fewer have renewed walls. Almost two in three say that
they are just concerned with general repair and maintenance.
X
Other change and modernisation of huts includes improving windows, heating provision, renewal of
windows and improving plumbing or toilet facilities.
X
Around half the occupiers would spend between £100 and £250 in a typical year on maintaining or
improving their hut and about one in five spend less than this. A few spend quite substantial sums.
Maintenance and change
3.4.1
Huts were almost all built by their original owners, rather than being assembled from kits or
by professional builders. Because of the materials from which they are built, the nature of
their foundations and of the quality of land on which they sit they need a considerable degree
of maintenance. However, as well as just being maintained they change over time. While it is
possible to find the occasional original hut dating from the inter-war period with little
outward sign of change it is much more common for huts to have been enlarged, reduced,
rebuilt, re-clad and so on, to say nothing of internal changes and improvements. In most cases
planning permission is needed for changes - though possibly not always sought - and some
planning authorities prohibit complete rebuild as opposed to replacing a wall at a time or
renewing a roof. The owner’s permission may also be needed, though on most sites this seems
to be a fairly relaxed arrangement. Even apart from these fairly major aspects of upkeep, there
is a fairly constant need to repaint in order to keep the hut weatherproof.
3.4.2
We asked occupiers what changes they had made to their huts over the time they had owned
them, against a range of criteria.
Changes made to huts over during the present occupiers’ duration
Just repainting and general maintenance
Renewed roof
Renewed walls
Extended it
Renewed floor
Other changes
Completely rebuilt it
No changes
n
77
R
%
O
%
ALL
%
62
47
41
21
26
21
16
6
69
53
34
41
13
25
9
3
63
48
40
25
24
21
15
6
(145)
(32)
(177)
3.4.3
On the whole there few major differences between the huts on the rented and owned sites in
terms of any changes made. Repainting and general maintenance is clearly a fairly common
activity done by around two thirds of all occupiers, though it is likely that just how much this
involves means different things to different people. At the lower end of the proportion scale
only a very few huts have had no changes during the current occupiers’ time there and a fairly
modest proportion have been completely rebuilt. On the other hand substantial proportions
have done major work in renewing complete parts of the hut, particularly roofs - which are
probably the most vulnerable element in terms of any lack of maintenance - and walls. Floors
are less likely to have been renewed. However, it is interesting to note that while overall only
a quarter of the huts have been extended, this is more common in huts on owned sites,
perhaps reflecting the greater security of tenure and hence the worth of making such an
investment.
3.4.4
In the comments on the benefits and disadvantages of having a hut discussed later in the
report there is evidence that for some owners working on their huts, whether on maintenance
or more major change is a hobby in the same way that many people ‘tinker with cars’, ‘potter
in the garden’ or ‘mess about with boats’......
‘...maintaining and renovating hut is a very satisfying hobby’ (51-60) (unwaged)
‘...opportunity to learn handicraft skills.....’ (31-40) (empl. p/t)
‘....upkeep is a hobby; change of scenery’ (f) (51-60) (empl. f/t)
‘Creating something with you own hands and using the discarded materials that so many people throw
away; Having a garden and enjoying the fruits and vegetables of your labour ’ (m) (>60) (ret.)
3.4.5
A fifth of the huts - or their immediate surroundings - have had a variety of other changes
made to them. Some examples of these are given below together with the original date at
which the hut was built. In some cases the ‘other changes’ reflect aspects of the main
elements of change summarised above, for example....
‘Renewed porch’ (1940s/50s)
‘Renewed roofing felt, facings, window frames; renewed whole roof
in kitchen; painted whole hut; windows replaced’ (1920s/30s)
‘Renovated inside walls; partial double glazed’ (build date not known)
‘Several doors; re-felting of roof; double glazed window’ (1940s/50s)
‘Re-cladding with light weather board over existing hut’ (1920s/30s)
‘Knocked down internal wall; replaced fire; stripped insulation’ (1940s/50s)
3.4.6
The most common of the additional work cited was replacement or improvements of
windows......
‘Added a roof window’ (1940s/50s)
‘Replace old windows’ (1920s/30s)
‘Replaced windows and door over a period of years’ (1940s/50s)
‘Double glazing; new doors’ (1940s/50s)
....followed by work associated with plumbing or toilet facilities......
‘Plumbed in’ (1920s/30s)
‘Put toilet within hut/verandah area’ (1940s/50s)
78
‘Installed flush toilet and cess pit’ (build date not known)
‘Improved system for collecting rainwater and the discharge of toilet waste
and kitchen waste’ (build date not known)
‘Added kitchen and toilet, renewed windows and any necessary maintenance
as required’ (1960s/70s)
....and heating or lighting......
‘Wood burning stove fitted; exterior deck built; French window fitted’ (1940s/50s)
‘Installed a wood and coal-burning stove’ (1920s/30s)
‘Wired for electricity via my generator; rebuilt internal walls’ (1920s/30s)
‘Installed calor gas lighting and rainwater tank’ (1940s/50s)
....and, finally, some improvements have been made outside the hut, either to its own supports
or to boundaries......
‘Gravelled and slabbed the surroundings to the hut’ (build date not known)
‘Concreted step to hut from road; built small wall to help retain banking from slipping’
(build date not known)
‘Had to have new fencing which changed the boundaries’ (1960s/70s)
‘Rebuilt support wall and garden walls’ (build date not known)
3.4.7
Where ‘other changes’ were made to the huts on owned sites in most cases these related to
provision of mains services or improved plumbing of a kind not normally either practicable or
allowed on the rented sites....
‘Added electricity, water, drainage’ (1920s/30s)
‘Electricity, water piped in. We have had it wired for electricity. Installed
water and shower’ (1920s/30s)
‘High pressure water system’ (1960s/70s)
‘Installed a shower in the small shed, also upgraded the toilet’ (1940s/50s)
‘Renewed verandah’ (1940s/50s)
3.4.8
All these changes cost money and, as will be seen later in the context of the pros and cons of
owning a hut, the constant maintenance is the most commonly perceived disadvantage. Here
examples of comments, both about the hut itself and the plot as a whole, include....
‘Constant maintenance’ (m) (51-60) (empl. f/t)
‘Responsibility of maintaining two homes;......cutting the ****** grass’ (f) (41-50) (self empl.)
‘Maintenance of wooden structure’ (m & f) (>60) (ret.)
‘Structure prone to high wind’
79
(m) (51-60) (unwaged)
3.4.9
Occupiers were asked how much (to the nearest £50) they would spend in a typical year on
maintaining their hut and its immediate surroundings. The most common annual amount was
between £100 and £250, indicated by just over half of the occupiers, while one in five spends
less than this. About one in ten spends between £250 and £400 while the remaining few may
spend more.
Approximate amount spent on maintaining
a hut and its plot in a typical year (£)
<50
50 to 99
100 to 149
150-199
200 to 249
250-299
300-349
350-399
400-449
500-549
900
Not known/No inf./Nothing
R
%
O
%
ALL
%
3
17
30
14
12
3
5
3
1
2
1
10
0
16
16
3
28
6
9
0
3
9
0
9
3
16
28
12
15
3
6
2
1
3
1
10
100
(145)
100
(32)
100
(177)
80
3.5 THE ADMINISTRATIVE ARRANGEMENTS FOR HUTS
Abstract
Chapter 5 looks at the relationships between site owners and hut occupiers in terms of tenancy arrangements
and other ‘legal’ structures, rents and other charges, the things which occupiers may and may not do
and the arrangements for transfer of huts between occupiers.
X
On sites where there is a single landowner, effectively all occupiers say that they own their huts.
X
Four out of five of the occupiers do not own the land on which their hut is situated.
X
On a number of sites, occupiers have acquired ownership of their plots in fairly recent years,
sometimes on the death of the former site owner. On one site the land has recently been acquired
communally by a trust set up by the occupiers for their mutual benefit and the preservation of the site.
X
Half the occupiers on rented sites have some form of ‘legal agreement’ with the site owner.
X
Since on most sites there are few services and not a great deal of commitment by the landowner,
agreements are generally informal and occupiers are vague and uncertain about what they cover - few
are in writing. Generally they just entitle the occupier to keep a hut on the land for a twelve-month
period in return for an annual payment to the site owner.
X
Some agreements set out, sometimes only verbally, what may or may not be done by occupiers, but
only in one case is there a conventional and detailed missive of let with strict rules.
X
Occupiers on one or two sites feel that the terms of their occupation of the site are very strict and
limiting and they have very limited or no rights.
X
About four out of five occupiers on rented sites pay their rent annually though monthly payments are
available on one site.
X
In most cases annual rental for a plot is modest with nearly half paying less than £200. One in ten pay
less than £50 though some of these are not conventional ‘rent’. Much higher rents - between £700 and
£900 - are paid by occupiers on one site.
X
Generally rents have risen very little over time, even allowing for a very low base, though in two cases
there have been substantial increases in the past few years, largely after acquisition of the site by a
new owner with ideas about the future of the land.
X
One site includes and element of ‘service charge’ within the rent but generally the only other charge
which occupiers have to pay is non-domestic rates which are paid directly to the local council. Levels
are mostly low, in keeping the nature of the huts themselves.
X
Most of the restrictions placed upon occupiers relate to the modification to their huts, particularly
without prior permission from the landowner or the local planning authority. There are also
restrictions on the colours which huts may be painted. Other conditions restrict the nature of the hut’s
use and users.
X
Some conditions are straightforward in relation to the communal benefit to site occupiers and to the
landowner’s use of the land, particularly where this is some form of agricultural business.
X
Occupiers are uncertain about the extent of their freedom to transfer their hut to someone else if they
wish to give it up. While two out of three say they are allowed to do so generally it is hedged about
with some constraints.
X
Perhaps predictably, landowners need to know to whom a hut is being transferred, and sometimes to
vet their suitability, and occupiers are generally expected to seek permission first.
81
X
On one or two sites the landowner may exercise a right to buy a vacant hut and/or to charge a transfer
fee on the transaction.
Introduction
3.5.1
One consideration which underlay the need for the study was the uncertainty surrounding the
arrangements between the owners of the sites and the occupiers of the huts in terms of tenure
rights, formal legal agreements, site restrictions and rights of transfer of huts within or
outwith family groups. It was therefore necessary to explore these to see whether there were
any common patterns either in the eyes of the site owners or, as dealt with in this report, the
occupiers. However, it should be emphasised that it was not a part of this study to examine
any of the formal legality of particular arrangements.
3.5.2
A number of factors were considered within this broad heading. These covered occupiers’
ownership (or perhaps their perceptions of such) both of the huts themselves and of the land
on which they were located. It also looked at the existence of any form of legal agreement
entered into by occupiers on acquiring their huts and, where these existed, their nature, in
particular any restrictions on hut or site use. ‘Rentals’ and other forms of charge were
explored together with the amounts involved, the frequency with which they had to be paid
and the things to which occupiers were entitled to in return for their ‘rent’. Since, as we have
seen in Section 3, huts change hands both by inheritance and by sale it was important to
assess the amount of freedom which occupiers had in transferring ownership by either of
these means.
Who owns what ?
3.5.3
With the exception of one hut on a rented site every occupier said they owned their hut (it is
not clear from any other comments by this occupier whether non-ownership was for a
particular reason or possibly just an error in completing the questionnaire).
3.5.4
The great majority (82 percent) of occupiers said that they did not own the land on which
their hut was located. However the proportion of land-owning occupiers was rather higher
than expected. Here it appears that a number have acquired the land relatively recently, either
because the former landowner has sold off the plots on a piecemeal basis or, in one case,
because the occupiers have set themselves up as a trust through which the land has be
acquired for their mutual benefit and to preserve the site as an entity.
Agreements between site owners and occupiers
3.5.5
Half of the occupiers said that there was some form of legal agreement between them and the
site owner, though in practice most of these either were extremely vague or the occupiers
were very uncertain as to their nature. On only one of the sites included in the survey was
there a formal missive of let and clearly defined rules and regulations. One or two other semiformal arrangements were referred to but the rest appear to be very indistinct. In some cases
this may reflect occupiers’ unfamiliarity with formal or apparently ‘legal’ documents and
arrangements but it is evident that on many sites the whole system is highly informal and
based on historical person-to-person agreement.
Existence of any form of ‘Legal Agreement’
between site owner and occupier
Some form of agreement
No agreement
Other
R
%
48
50
3
O
%
47
53
0
82
ALL
%
47
50
2
100
(145)
100
(32)
100
(177)
3.5.6
The simplest forms of agreement referred to on rented sites were ‘handshake and told we
could do as we wished’, ‘just to keep everything clean and tidy’ or ‘to abide by rules, keep
tidy and maintained’, while one occupier also referred to ‘a nominal charge of 1/- per annum’
- clearly arranged before 1971 decimalisation. Similarly a number just referred to a
responsibility to ‘pay their rent (to the landlord) and rates to [x] Council’ or even just ‘to
keep to the rules of [x] Council’ or ‘to sign only for payment of rates and a land fee’.
3.5.7
Commonly occupiers just referred to ‘a yearly (or 12-month) lease’, ‘annual agreement’,
‘annual missive’ or ‘missive of let’, in one case noting that it was signed with two witnesses.
Another referred simply to ‘a contract’. Others with a fairly simplistic and informal
agreement referred to ‘ground let on yearly basis’. But some gave fuller descriptions such
as....
‘I rent the land and pay a service charge for water, rubbish disposal and maintenance’
‘He supplied standpipe water supply; a yearly fee for ground your hut is sitting on’
‘To pay yearly ground rent at Whitsun; either party can terminate the let after 40 days,
giving no reason; the proprietor accepts no responsibility for roads, water etc.’
3.5.8
Some responses indicated more detailed aspects of the agreement, governing when and by
whom the hut could be used....
‘Notification if visitors are staying with you; conditions of your toilet; car parking etc.’
‘A proper missive regarding who sleeps in the hut, ages and sex’
‘Dig a sump to his specification to drain waste water; hut to be occupied at weekends and two
weeks during the summer only; only those on missive could stay in hut; maximum of six weeks’
....while others indicated restrictions on changes to the hut and the nature of facilities
allowed....
‘No pets; no occupation between October and April. Paint hut green or brown only; No letting
except to immediate family and close relatives; keep site free of rubbish’
3.5.9
Elements in one or two agreements were basic considerations of land use in a rural area....
‘Not to feed or harass livestock; to keep my garden area tidy; should I wish to vacate my chalet I
must first let the landlady know’
‘30-day Notice to Quit. Keep fencing and hut in good repair and close gate for horses’ safety’
‘That we don’t have guns and that we don’t keep dogs - but now the new owner
allows us dogs as long as they are under control’
3.5.10 Although outwardly many of the above examples appear to be relatively uncontentious, albeit
with the balance of advantage apparently to the site owner, there were a number of more
specific comments which clearly indicated significant unhappiness with landlord-tenant
arrangements. While some of these related to rent levels....
‘Lease agreement with strict rules and regulations and a very high rent’
‘Yearly lease with no security of tenure and which appears to give the landlord the right to charge
any amount of rent as he sees fit’
83
...more often they reflected what the occupiers saw as a total absence of any rights on their
side....
‘Agreement is renewed only at landlord’s discretion each year - you have no rights whatsoever. If
you complain about anything, including rent increases he tells you if you don’t like it , leave.’
‘Completely feudal. No right of appeal on any subject. Landlord decision is final and you would
have to remove your hut if he said so regardless of how much you had spent on it’
‘He owns the land; I own the hut; if he wants me out I have to accept, basically’
‘Do as he want you to do or he will evict you’
‘Landowner has right to terminate lease for no reason - put us off land with no payment for our hut’
3.5.11 Even on rented sites where there was said to be no formal agreement between site owner and
occupier there were often expectations of how the occupier would behave....
‘No strictly legal agreement. My grandmother got permission to build the hut in 1934 from the
laird of [x] and a ‘gentleman’s’ agreement has been maintained since then’
‘Permission to build hut from laird’
‘To keep [the hut] in good shape and condition’
‘When I bought the hut from friend and I had a hut previously, [site-owner] says there is no rules
if you don’t become a nuisance, keep the place the tidy, no pets like goats, animals, fowl, you have
nothing to worry about and pay your rent and come and go’
....though the position was not always positive....
‘We were told we had no rights’
3.5.12 Although occupiers on owned sites sometimes indicated the existence of agreements of some
kind, in practice these often proved to reflect the situation prior to their purchase of the land,
perhaps relating to a long lease or else various kinds of feu restrictions. Most of the responses
- and the arrangements - were very simple, as in the examples below......
‘1967 - formal missive of let of land on 20 year lease £50 p.a.; 1982 - land purchased at
site, feu disposition drawn up’
‘In 1969 we rented the land from [x] Estate but bought it later on when available’
‘Lease - later we were sold the plots’
‘Owner since deceased - land purchased outright’
‘We paid rent to landowner - when he died his son sold us the land’
....but a few were more specific about the range of things covered by some continuing form of
agreement....
‘Original lease of the land subject to conditions. Then purchase of the land subject to Ground
Superior conditions’
‘Landowner maintains mineral right; specifies colour of hut; restricts use - e.g. no business of any
kind; on selling has right to buy the hut at the going rate’
84
‘Replacement/alterations to be approved by superior. No caravans, tents, shooting; not to be used
for commercial purposes; share cost of road maintenance; occupiers to join Assoc. to deal with
matters concerning site’
‘That we always keep the fence in good repair and keep dogs under control’
3.5.13 Even where owner-occupiers said that there was no longer any form of agreement they noted
that their predecessors had one or else that any agreement between them and an a former land
owner was just verbal.
Plot rentals
3.5.14 In virtually all cases (96 percent) on rented sites, some form of rent is payable to the site
owner. Even a few people on owned sites said that they paid a rent but in most cases they
proved to be referring to an annual contribution to the trust referred to above.
3.5.15 Rent is generally payable on a yearly basis, though on the one very large site there is option
of monthly payments and nearly one in five of all the respondents from that site said that they
paid on this basis. However, a continuing rent strike on that site appears to have affected
people’s choice of one or other payment frequency.
Frequency of rent payments
Yearly
Monthly
Quarterly
Half-yearly
Not applicable
No information
R
%
O
%
ALL
%
78
17
1
1
0
3
100
(145)
6
0
0
0
91
3
100
(32)
65
14
1
1
16
3
100
(177)
3.5.16 Rent levels for a plot on a site vary widely. Getting on for half the rental occupiers pay less
than £200 per year to keep their huts on the site. At the lowest levels one in ten pay less than
£50, though these include the fairly nominal amounts paid as an annual contribution to the
trust-owned site. Nevertheless there is one site on which only £25 a year is charged. A similar
proportion pay between £50 and £99 a year. Just over a quarter (27 percent) pay between
£100 and £199 a year and almost one in five (18 percent) pay between £200 and £299. There
are then only small numbers who pay between £300 and £649. However very high rents are
charged to approaching one in three of the respondents (30 percent), almost all of these on the
large Carbeth site. Here rents of between £700 and £900 are quoted. It is clear that some of
the amounts quoted are a little uncertain as there are variations in response between different
people on a given site, again particularly at Carbeth though some of these seem to reflect
either recent or forthcoming increases which were commented on elsewhere in the
questionnaire. Even so the broad range of rents may be regarded as a reasonable indication.
Annual rent levels on sites (£)
%
19
27
18
2
2
2
<100
100-199
200-299
300-399
400-499
500-599
85
600+
30
100
3.5.17 When asked what this rent entitled them to, most just indicated that it allowed to have their
hut on the land for a year, though some of these qualified it as referring only to ‘weekends
and holidays’ or ‘on a temporary basis, while a few specified that they could use the hut at
any time of the year, others were restricted in the amount of time they could spend there, such
as ‘six months’ or ‘from April to October’. A small proportion noted that the they had the use
of the hut plus a limited degree of services, mostly provision of water or the uplift of rubbish.
Nevertheless a few people more cynically said that it entitled them to ‘nothing’.
3.5.18 The questionnaire did not specifically ask for changes in rent levels over time. However, in a
number of instances occupiers made passing reference to changes. As well as those quoted on
the Carbeth site, occupiers on another site (acquired by a new owner a few years ago) noted
the fact that their rent, which had increased from £100 to £200 on change of ownership, was
now likely to increase to £300 from May 2000.
(More information on changes in rent levels is given in the report on the site-owner element.)
3.5.19 Occupiers were also asked about other charges which they had to pay to the site owner, for
example charges for water, access road maintenance, insurance on the hut, or whether rates
were payable. Here the picture is rather confused. The only consistent charge identified was
that of rates, generally paid direct to the local council. Rating charges varied on rented sites
but were mostly modest. Of 123 occupiers who quoted the amount of their rates 23 percent
paid under £50 p.a., 37 percent paid between £50 and £99, 27 percent paid between £100 and
£150 and the remainder paid more than this, though only one paid more than £200. Other
referred to paying rates to [x] Council but gave no indication of amounts. A few occupiers
made specific comment about the rates, such as ‘rates very low ‘cos no water etc.’, ‘refuse
uplift at most three times a year from top of field’ or ‘rates include rubbish collection from a
central point’.
3.5.20 About one in five referred to some form of water charge but it was not specified whether this
was payable to the site owner or formed part of/additional to the rates paid to the Council.
Amounts were mostly under £20 p.a., though a few were higher and two were quoted at £130
and £140. No-one on the rented sites specifically referred to any access charges and only a
few to insurance which was probably a personal arrangement rather than a charge imposed by
the site. Here the insurance premiums ranged between £50 and £200 p.a.
3.5.21 One or two instances of ‘other charges’ emerged including ‘estate imposes a service charge’,
‘keys for non-existent gates’ or ‘variable sub. for site maintenance/ administration (the site is
owned by a charitable trust) ’.
3.5.22 On the owned sites about two thirds of the occupiers referred to there being some form of
charges. Mostly these were rates but here, although there were two low values of £50 and
£70, amounts were generally higher - up to £395 quoted - probably reflecting larger or more
solidly built huts with access to some mains services and generally of higher value. Some
noted a water charge, varying between £17 and £40, but, as with the rented sites, it was not
clear to whom this was paid and in practice may have been a water element within the rates.
About two in five referred to insurance, again probably a matter of personal choice. Only five
referred to access charges, four of £20 a year and the other of £25 but two people specified
that these were annual subscriptions or voluntary contributions made as a share of the costs of
maintaining a site access track.
Restrictions placed on occupiers
86
3.5.23 We asked occupiers whether there were restrictions placed on them in their use of their huts
or the site as a whole and, more particularly, to list the things they were and were not allowed
to do. There was a roughly equal split between occupiers who did and did not identify
controls of some kind, though perhaps not surprisingly they were much less common on
owned sites.
3.5.24 Generally the sorts of things people are allowed to do are various normal forms of upkeep of
their hut and plot, including painting - generally in an agreed colour - running repairs and so
on, sometimes with an implied obligation so to do to keep the place looking tidy. There were
also occasional references to being allowed to ‘alter it inside’ or ‘modernise it’. Other refer to
their being allowed to use the site’s facilities.
3.5.25 The relaxed nature of some site owners is emphasised by the considerable degree of freedom
in what some occupiers may do, provided they show respect for the site as a whole and for
their neighbours on it....
‘Anything legal in general terms of tenancy agreement; behave
responsibly with concern for others and the environment’
‘Anything as long as you are not breaking rules which any normal person would expect’
‘Anything as long as you get permission’
‘As long as the landlord is notified of any modifications prior to them
being done - he tends to be very reasonable’
‘Anything within reason’
‘Normal restrictions apply same as anywhere else’
....but at the other extreme a few are more terse about what they are allowed to do....
‘Nothing’
3.5.26 On owned sites only occasionally were there instances of specific allowance, mostly related
to feu rights....
Feu disposition - right of access; lay water pipes, electricity cables, drains and septic tank
3.5.27 In practice some of the things classed as allowed in terms of the hut’s use are more akin to
things not allowed and is the latter which are more frequently itemised. Many of these echo
things were are referred to under the legal agreement heading above. The most common
constraint is not being allowed to extend or alter the hut, or even to rebuild it to the same
structure without permission, mostly from the site owner....
‘Change it in any way without permission of landowner’
‘No changes to hut is allowed without us letting landlord know’
‘Not allowed to change or extend structure’
‘Start from scratch (I.e. take down old hut and build new)’
....including restrictions on paint colour - mostly green or brown - but also, in some cases,
planning permission from the local council was identified....
‘Extend or alter without planning permission’
87
‘[x] Council prohibit extensions’
‘......however, recent letter from landlord advised that Council will
not permit any alterations or replacements of any structures’
‘[x] Council do not allow alteration to a hut’s original dimensions’
3.5.28 In some cases restrictions on change referred more to an extension of the agreed area of the
plot, particularly on sites with virtually undefined plots on open rough ground....
‘Take any more ground or alter the structure of the hut’
‘To extend outwith property’
3.5.29 Reference has also been made earlier to the fact that on some sites there are also restrictions
on installing certain kinds of facility....
‘Fit flushed toilet; extend size of hut’
‘Place any electricity or plumbing’
‘Construct permanent structure e.g. brick; create car park; install permanent electricity supply
and plumbing; increase or extend size of hut; alter external paintwork other than to suitable
??country colours?? - green, brown’
‘Extend hut; no flush toilets; no running water; stay all year round;
paint hut colour of your choice; rent out hut….etc….etc.’
3.5.30 A number of restrictions concern the use of the hut. These are mainly in terms of the length of
time occupiers may use their hut during the year....
‘Huts are for holiday use only’
‘Rent hut out; stay in it permanently’
....whether they are allowed to have visitors staying overnight....
‘Alter or change hut in any way; allow anyone to stay overnight in your hut
without 4 weeks prior consent from landlord; rent out hut to family’
‘Paint hut other than approved green; people other than those on lease not
allowed to stay overnight; holiday home only, not residence’
‘Visitors are not allowed to stay overnight without permission;
no building on to hut without permission’
....and, in particular, restrictions on sub-letting....
‘Not allowed to let it out; must be used by family only’
‘Rent out for reward’
3.5.31 Other restrictions are perceived as dampening to other forms of leisure enjoyment...
‘Light fires; play football; walk on any fenced off land; put up tents;
owner shall be sole judge of what is a nuisance (in missive)’
‘Camp; anything the landlord says he doesn’t like; climb over fences; fish, bathe;, let anyone else
stay overnight; trap rabbits; sub-let; move dead wood; live [permanently] at [x] etc.’
88
....while one occupier just saw the restrictions placed upon him as all embracing....
‘Too numerous to mention’
3.5.32 Nevertheless, in the same way as some of the apparent freedoms referred to earlier carried
implied obligations even a number of the things not allowed may be regarded as reasonable
in terms of the general benefit of the site to its occupants as well as the site owner....
‘Make changes without permission; behave without consideration to others and the
environment’
‘Anything that would demean the site or bring it into disrepute’
‘Have dogs on the field without a leash; no naked fires; gates to be kept shut’
‘No camping or caravan trailers or shooting with anything’
3.5.33 Even where occupiers now own their land as well as their hut, there are occasionally
restrictions on what they may or may not do. Again these may be straightforward planning
controls, or things that might damage the site or its facilities, but others forbid the hut being
used for business purposes, or are conventional feu conditions
‘Not allowed to rebuild on permanent foundations’
‘Put up tents; keep caravans; keep chickens; hang out washing’
‘Put waste into the burn or pollute the site’
‘No business; no camping; no extensions without consent of landlord;
only 10 months residency per annum’
‘Extract minerals; erect anything other than a chalet; no caravans or tents;
no business to be carried on; dogs to be kept under control; no discharge of
or airguns; not to sell chalet or site before offering it to the superior’
Transferring ownership of a hut
3.5.34
There seems to be much uncertainty among occupiers on rented sites as to the extent to which they can
transfer ownership of the hut to someone else, although about two thirds (64 percent) say that they can,
this may be hedged around with constraints.
Transfers of ownership
Allowed 64
Not allowed
Not applicable
Don’t know/No information
R
%
O
%
ALL
%
56
29
2
4
63
0
16
28
24
5
9
100
(145)
100
(32)
100
(177)
3.5.35 In many cases occupiers are expected to at least inform the landowner before they transfer
their hut to someone else, whether by inheritance or sale or even seek formal permission....
‘Huts cannot be passed on without owner’s permission’
89
‘....... the estate vets and agrees to any prospective buyer of my hut....’
....though on two sites there is some form of charge imposed by the site owner, either charged
to both seller and buyer as a fixed fee....
‘ If to be sold, owner must be informed first - 10% of purchase price to landlord’
....or taken as a percentage of the sale price of the hut though details in responses are a little
vague....
‘We rent the land and if we ever want to sell the hut it has to be done
through the landowner who charges a fee from both buyer and seller’
90
3.6 USING A HUT
Abstract
Chapter 6 considers the ways in hutters use their huts over the year in terms of frequency and duration and the
extent to which use patterns have changed over the years.
X
Huts were originally only intended for weekends holidays and both site owners and local councils still
restrict them to this type of use.
X
Huts are still quite intensively used with three-quarters of the occupiers using them ‘regularly’,
‘frequently’ or ‘all the time’.
X
Use varies seasonally and also between the occupiers of huts on rented and owned sites.
X
Most winter use is limited to odd days or the occasional weekend though many occupiers do not use their
huts at all at this season. Use begins to increase during the spring and peaks in the summer before
declining again during the autumn.
X
Huts on rented sites tend to be used less in the winter and also are more likely to be used for a few longer
periods, whereas on rented sites there is an emphasis on weekend and some longer periods of summer
use.
X
Two out of three occupiers make frequent overnight stays, mostly for two or three nights and most of the
rest occasionally stay overnight.
X
The use of huts does not appear to be declining over time. One occupier in three now uses their hut more
than they did formerly and only one in five uses it less.
X
Where there has been a decline in use it reflects a mixture of personal reasons such as age, health or
changing personal relationships, or else is site-related, mostly disagreement with a landlord, though this
is concentrated on only one or two sites.
Introduction
3.6.1
Huts were never intended to be used for purposes other than holidays and for weekends or
odd days. As we have seen in the previous section there are generally specific provisions
prohibiting permanently dwelling in them and some sites only allow overnight use during six
months of the year. It was important in the study to assess whether huts continued to be used
to any great extent, any patterns of use during the year and any changes in levels of use over
recent years.
Frequency of use
3.6.2
In general huts continue to be well used. Taking both owned and rented sites together, two
respondents out of five said that they used them ‘frequently’ or ‘all the time’. Nearly as many
(36 percent) use them ‘regularly’ compared with only 16 percent ‘occasionally’. Few people
admit to using them only ‘rarely’. Frequency of use is slightly lower among the huts on
owned sites with twice as many people saying that they used their huts ‘occasionally’.
Seasonal use patterns
3.6.3
Use varies seasonally, reflecting both inclemency of weather and the constraints, referred to
above, imposed by some landowners on the periods of the year at which huts can be used -
91
though there is often a degree of flexibility in the latter where occupiers are allowed to come
and do occasional maintenance of their huts in winter even if they cannot stay in them.
3.6.4
Four alternative (or complementary) types of use were posed and respondents asked which of
these they adopted at each season of the year. Predictably most winter use was limited to
weekdays and some weekends though more than two fifths of hut owners did not use their
huts at all at this season. Use begins to increase during the spring particularly at weekends
and now some stay for longer periods, possibly during Easter holidays. By the summer it is
concentrated as weekend and longer period use for around one in three respondents in each
case. Autumn use closely mirrors that of spring with a return to mainly weekend use in about
half the cases. There are differences in use patterns between the rented and owned sites with a
predominance of the ‘longer period’ use on the latter in the summer and autumn periods and
the predominance of ‘weekend’ use on the rented sites, which are perhaps closer to home
locations and therefore easier to use.
Patterns of use of huts throughout the year
WINTER
SPRING
SUMMER
AUTUMN
None
Evenings
Weekdays
Weekends
Longer stays
Combinations
3.6.5
R
O ALL
R
O ALL
R
O ALL
R
O ALL
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
44 33
1
0
10 20
34 27
3 10
8 10
100 100
(145) (32)
%
42
1
12
33
4
9
100
(177)
11 7
1
0
8
3
52 37
7 27
21 27
100 100
(145) (32)
%
10
1
7
50
10
22
100
(177)
1
3
2
0
5
0
32 13
23 53
36 30
100 100
(145) (32)
%
2
2
4
29
29
35
100
(177)
14 3
2
0
7
3
50 30
6 37
20 27
100 100
(145) (32)
%
13
2
6
47
11
21
100
(177)
Few hut owners restrict use of their huts to daytime. Nearly three quarters use them for
frequent overnight stays and the rest for occasional overnights. This is reflected in the number
of nights for which people generally stay at one time.
Daytime versus overnight use of huts
Frequent overnight stays
Occasional overnight stays
Day visits only
Other combinations (incl. ‘not used’)
3.6.6
R
%
O
%
ALL
%
69
26
1
2
1
100
(145)
66
13
3
6
13
100
(32)
68
23
2
3
3
100
(177)
Two or three nights are the most common lengths of overnight stay, primarily on the rented
sites, equating with the commonality of their weekend use of huts. In contrast the huts on
92
owned sites tend to be used for longer stays, particularly seven and fourteen nights, equating
with greater use for spring or summer ‘proper holidays’.
Usual length of overnight stays in the hut
Number of nights
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
10
14
21
Longer periods *
2 and 7
Variable
No information
R
%
O
%
ALL
%
1
7
31
29
7
4
1
4
1
4
1
5
1
1
3
100
(145)
3
6
6
6
13
9
0
22
3
13
0
3
0
0
16
100
(32)
2
7
27
25
8
5
1
7
2
6
1
6
1
1
5
100
(177)
* ‘Longer periods’ ranged between 30 and 100 nights and it is likely that in these
instances the occupier has given a total number of nights for the year rather than the
usual number at any one time.
Changes in use levels over time
3.6.7
Only one in five of the respondents said that over the time during which they had owned their
hut they were now using it less, while one in three said they were now using it more, leaving
nearly half for whom use patterns had not changed.
Changes in level of use of huts over time
Use the hut more often now
No change in level of use
Use the hut less often now
No information
3.6.8
R
%
O
%
ALL
%
34
44
20
2
100
(145)
31
41
22
6
100
(32)
33
44
20
3
100
(177)
Where there was a reduction in use over time, we hypothesised a number of potential reasons,
some related to personal and family circumstances and others to negative features about the
site. Occupiers were asked which - together, where appropriate, with any other reasons - had
contributed to their own situation. Within the relatively small numbers in the group there
were often multiple reasons but tended to reflect one or other of the two broad reason groups.
93
Taking all these responses together the picture is as shown below in descending order of
overall frequency.
3.6.9
The most common reason for decline in use, cited by one in three of these occupiers seems to
be that the family has perhaps outgrown the hut and prefer other forms of holiday and this is
also reflected in the proportion, albeit much smaller, saying they prefer other places for
weekends and holidays - though the latter are more common among those on owned sites.
The next most common is the lack of time to use the hut but this is much more common
among those on rented sites whereas in contrast it is distance from the site which affects the
largest proportion of those on owned sites. A group of reasons for decline which, not
surprisingly, only affects rented sites relates to landlord-tenant matters such as ‘disagreements
with site owner’, ‘owner wants to redevelop site’, ‘site has become run down’ and ‘owner
trying to close site down’. It must be emphasised that the great majority of these reasons
relate to a single problematic site. It may also be a similar type of problem which is being
referred to in the small group finding their hut ‘difficult to get to’, rather than the issue of
distance affecting so many of those on owned sites. However, it is interesting to note that it is
only on the owned sites that declining use is attributed to poor relations with other site
occupiers.
The reasons for decline in occupiers’ use of their huts
R
%
O
%
ALL
%
Personal reasons
Other members of the family don’t like it now
Not enough time to use it
Too far away from where I live
Prefer other places for weekends/holidays
Cost to much to maintain it
Difficult to get to
34
29
8
8
11
5
33
11
44
22
0
0
34
26
15
11
9
4
Site-related reasons
Disagreements with site owner
Owner wants to redevelop site
Site has become run down
Owner trying to close site down
Don’t get on with other people on site
26
26
18
16
0
0
0
0
0
11
21
21
15
13
2
Other reasons
39
33
38
3.6.10 It is clear from the table that there was a substantial number of reasons other than those
suggested on the questionnaire. These included personal factors such as age and ill health
making it difficult to use the hut....
‘Getting on in years’
‘We are getting older and family go elsewhere’
‘Health reasons’
‘Ill health’
....or change in domestic circumstances....
‘Breakdown in relationship’
94
‘Ex-partner now has hut so I don’t go there at all’
‘Full time care of mother in law restricts all holidays; sister (joint owner) takes friends’
‘Parents used it extensively; have both died in last year’
‘Also used by other family members more than me now as my children are older now’
‘Partner working weekends’
`Change in financial status makes it too expensive’
3.6.11 Two other reasons related to the landlord-tenant situation....
‘Landlord is asking too much for what we have’
‘Site charges rising exorbitantly; getting worse each year and getting nothing in return’
....while finally there were two practicality reasons....
‘Access in winter months can be difficult due to weather conditions’
‘Close for winter October to March’
....and one terminal reduction in use....
‘Since filling in this form I have sold the hut, solely because we
no longer had the time to get away due to other commitments’
95
3.7 WHO ARE THE OCCUPIERS OF HUTS ?
Abstract
Chapter 7 summarises the main characteristics of hutters in terms of their gender and age, attempts a typology
of their household structures and looks at the occupational fields from which they come.
X
Just over half the occupiers completing the questionnaires were male.
X
The survey reveals a fairly elderly occupier population with more than two thirds being over 50 and two
out of five over 60. One or two people still occupying their huts are now of very advanced years.
X
The most common type of households among the occupiers is couples aged over 60 with or without
‘children’ still in the household
X
Single hut owners are in the minority
X
Given the age structure it is not surprising that half the occupiers class themselves as retired
X
One occupier is four is employed full-time and one in ten is self-employed
X
Occupiers come from a very varied current or former work background
Introduction
3.7.1
Another aim of the study was to build up a picture of the types of people who own and
occupy huts. We looked at this in terms of gender and age, of family structure and of working
status. While the first two and the last of these were fairly straightforward, the information on
family structure generated by the responses was uneven.
Occupier gender and age profiles
3.7.2
The questionnaires were directed at the person registered on the Valuation Roll as the
occupier of the hut. Most of the responses presumably were made by that person and so a
gender breakdown is possible, though in a number of cases people responded as a couple.
Overall, just over half the occupiers were male, particularly those on rented sites, while it is
from the owned sites that almost all the ‘joint’ responses came.
Gender of hut occupiers (respondents)
Male
Female
Joint
No information
3.7.3
R
%
O
%
ALL
%
59
37
3
1
44
41
13
3
56
38
5
1
100
(145)
100
(32)
100
(177)
The picture of occupiers revealed by the survey is of a fairly elderly population with more
than two out of three being aged 50 or over, with heavy emphasis towards the over 60s. Here
again the owned sites had a greater predominance of these older occupiers (78 percent as
96
against 66 percent). One respondent couple even specified their ages as 84 and 79. Only 15
percent of occupiers were under 40, nearly all of them on rented sites.
Age of hut occupiers (respondents)
<30
31-40
41-50
51-60
Over 60
No information
R
%
O
%
ALL
%
1
16
17
26
40
0
0
3
13
31
47
6
1
14
16
27
41
1
100
(145)
100
(32)
100
(177)
Occupier households
3.7.4
In order to try to understand the family structures involved, the questionnaire followed a
fairly standard approach asking how many people there were in the respondent’s household
(apart from him/herself) respectively in the categories of spouse/partner, children under the
age of 12 and aged 12-18, related adults and unrelated adults. Probably as a function of what
turned out to be the predominantly elderly population shown above, some of the occupiers
misinterpreted this structure and described some remarkably large and extended families.
However, it is possible to build up at least a tentative typology from the majority of the
occupier households at least as far as they and their partners and or children, if any are
concerned. Even then there is a need for caution about some of the ‘children’ and the area of
greatest uncertainty is the presence of any related or unrelated adults, both groups of which
have been ignored for the purposes of this typology.
Types of ‘household’
Couple aged over 60, with and without children
Couple aged 51-60, with and without children
Couple aged 41-50, with and without children
Single male or female aged over 60, with and without children
Couple aged 40 or under, with and without children
Single male or female aged 51-60, with and without children
Single male or female, aged 40 or under, with and without children
3.7.5
%
25
21
18
13
9
8
6
100
158
The largest category, a quarter of the possible households, is the couple aged over 60, of
whom all but a very few had no children in their household. Of course many of them may
have grown-up families with children of their own as evidenced by many of the references
elsewhere in questionnaires to grandchildren enjoying the benefits of the hut. The next
category is the slightly younger couples in the 51-60 age band, accounting for one in five of
the total and of these only a third still have children at home. Children are more common in
the similar proportion of couples aged 41-50 just over half of whom have children. In each of
these three age bands the single adult, whether male or female, is less common and children
feature fairly rarely in these households.
97
3.7.6
In the youngest age band, with a respondent aged 40 or under, couples are more common than
singles and the great majority of them have children. However there are a few single parent
families in this band and fewer single people on their own.
3.7.7
Just over a quarter of the households consisted of single adults rather than couples but of
these only about one in three included children. Across all single adult households including
children there were more or less equal numbers of male and female parents, but in those
without children single females outnumbered males by nearly two to one.
Employment status and occupations
3.7.8
Given the age structure it is not surprising that about half the respondents were in the ‘retired’
category, particularly among those on owned rather than rented sites. However, a quarter
were in full-time employment, here more commonly among the rented occupiers and a few
part-time. The self employed and un-waged each accounted for about one in ten but most of
the former and none of the latter were on owned sites.
Employment status of hut occupiers (respondents)
Employed full time
Employed part time
Self employed
Unwaged
Retired
No information
3.7.9
R
%
O
%
ALL
%
28
5
7
12
46
2
16
6
19
0
56
3
25
5
9
10
48
2
100
(145)
100
(32)
100
(177)
Information about the nature of work in which occupiers are/were involved in proved rather
sketchy and incomplete, particularly for those now retired, even though we asked for former
occupations. Despite this there is enough information to get a flavour of the range of current
or former occupations across the hutter population.
3.7.10 The initial supposition that huts and hutting emerged as way of providing a means of
weekend and holiday escape into the country for people from poor and overcrowded urban
conditions may have been correct. Nowadays, while much of the hut catchments remain the
same on locational terms the occupiers are very diverse in their background. Here it is only
possible to summarise the types of job background from which hutters come. A full listing is
included at Appendix C as quoted by respondents in terms of either their current occupation
or, in the case of those now retired, a former one. Among the occupiers of rented sites, the
largest number were those who were already retired. Here there were a number of people who
had been in the broadly engineering/technical field, a group in jobs associated with the
building industry and some in broadly professional/managerial jobs. Education accounted for
a few former occupations, together with some in transport and a couple formerly in the
medical field. Finally there was a miscellaneous group of former occupations....
3.7.11 Among those occupiers who were in full-time employment there was a variety of
occupations. Some were in jobs in what might broadly be termed the building trades. and a
number in some form of industrial or manufacturing work. A few each came from
98
professional/managerial jobs, from education and from the medical/nursing sector, while a
diverse group came from what are probably fairly lowly paid jobs.
3.7.12 Only a few people specified the nature of their part-time employment but again, apart from a
couple of teachers, it was diverse.
3.7.13 Self-employment again included some in the building trades, together with more
miscellaneous occupations. Only a few occupiers classed themselves as unwaged.
3.7.14 The picture of occupiers is slightly different on the owned sites. Here, among the retired
people most had been in the professions, as were most of those still in full or part-time
employment, though the self employed were more mixed.
99
3.8 THE PROS AND CONS OF HAVING A HUT
Abstract
Owning a hut brings both benefits and disadvantage. This chapter tries to summarise the main features of each,
essentially using the occupiers’ own words to convey some of the ethos of hutting.
X
The benefits of owning a hut fall under a number of broad headings, but most occupiers see more than
one benefit and it is often difficult to determine the most essential of these.
X
The most important benefits seem to be the ability to ‘escape’ from urban life and to reach a haven of
‘peace and quiet’ and ‘tranquillity’
X
Issues of access to }countryside’ and ‘scenery’ also rank highly, often associated with concepts of
healthy living and various forms of open air exercise.
X
Relaxation and stress relief are seen as important, particularly in the sense of not having phones, or
television and associated with this is a feeling of a ‘basic’ or ‘simple’ lifestyle.
X
Despite the top-heavy age profile of hutters, many stress the benefits to children of contact with a hutting
life, either in terms of grandparents sharing time with grandchildren, or with nostalgia for taking their
own children.
X
Younger parents appreciate the benefits of bringing up their children with a knowledge of country life
and also the advantages of safe places to play.
X
Huts appear to generate good community spirit in many instances, with occupiers making friends with
each other. This is particularly true where there are strong family links over the years.
X
Both the emphasis on a simple life plus the family links means that members of a family often spend more
time together than they would at home and do more things together, either in practical activities or just
in social contact with board and similar games shared rather than sitting in from of a television.
X
Easy availability is seen as important, particularly in the context of weekend visits, while cost, or rather
the lack of it, is another perceived benefit compared to many other forms of holiday.
X
One of the principal perceived disadvantages of hut ownership is maintenance, particularly for the older
occupiers, though even younger ones can also find it a burden.
X
On a number of sites the disadvantages relate mostly to relationships between occupiers and
landowners, partly in the context of a basic perception of lack of security of tenure and the implications
of this for a hut on which the occupier has made a significant investment of effort and money.
X
It has to be said that bad relations existing between landowner and occupier are limited to a very few
sites out of those covered within the survey and, even within those, may only affect only a small
proportion of all the occupiers, but they are significant enough to have an effect throughout the site.
X
Inevitably there are things which some occupiers see as benefits which to others are disadvantages,
particularly the lack of services, but this reflects changing expectations.
Introduction
3.8.1
We have seen how people acquire huts in a variety of ways, some through inheritance, most
by purchase and the remainder in a variety of other ways. While purchase and most of the
‘other’ ways imply a positive desire to own a hut and the upkeep and possible problems that
go with it, inheritance may be a doubtful pleasure. We know from other sources (primarily
the site owners, considered in a separate report) that in some cases people have just lost
interest in their hut or have found it too much of a burden and have just left it to decay.
100
Generally huts continue under new ownership but number of smaller sites seem to have
completely disappeared in this manner.
3.8.2
What then are the good and bad aspects of hut ownership? We asked occupiers firstly what
they would describe as the main benefit of having their hut and then what other benefits
having a hut brought them and their family. In a similar way we asked whether occupiers saw
disadvantages in having a hut and, where so, again asked for main and other disadvantages.
Looking at the range of both pro and con reasons, in practice it proved difficult to distinguish
main and secondary responses since many people gave a variety of benefits or disadvantages
under each so for the purposes of analysis all the pro points are taken together and likewise all
the con points.
3.8.3
Responses proved particularly important when trying to identify the ethos of being a hutter
since they gave an opportunity for occupiers to express experience of and comments about
being a hut owner in their own words. While the questions themselves related directly to
benefits and disadvantages, it is not surprising that responses also reflected wider aspects of
hut ownership and we have already borrowed some of these comments to use as illustrations
in earlier parts of the report. However, in this section we concentrate to a greater extent on
their comments to help give a flavour of hutting. Allowing for the fact that any one occupier
might identify a number of benefits - more so on the whole than the disadvantages - the total
number of points made was substantial, some very brief, others fuller. However, within both
pros and cons it is possible to identify a number of common headings under which comments
can be grouped. Here we can only take a selection of the many comments under the different
headings.
(NB - In the quotes in the rest of this section taken from the responses all the benefits referred
to by a given occupier. The type of occupier quoted is indicated in terms of whether they are
on a rented or owned site, their gender, age band and employment category. A similar
pattern is used in discussion of the disadvantages of hut ownership.)
The advantages of owning a hut
3.8.4
We look first at the perceived benefits which are summarised in the table above. Here the
grouping are simplified and are shown in terms of the proportion of the total comments which
broadly can be assigned to each and also the rank order of importance. This also provides
some comparison of benefits between the occupiers on rented and owned sites, set against the
‘ALL’ ranking. However, this should be treated with caution as a fairly crude tool given the
respective numbers of comments and the nature of the benefit groupings.
The perceived benefits of having a hut
R
%
Escape from town/freedom
14
Peace and quiet/tranquillity
15
Countryside/location/scenery/nature 11
Healthy/walking/sea/boats
11
Relaxation/stress relief
11
Benefits for children
8
No TV/phone/basic living
5
Contacts/friends/family link
5
Availability/easy access
4
Weekend breaks
4
Cost
2
Self-help
1
Miscellaneous benefits
9
O
%
18
13
12
11
6
5
7
5
5
2
2
0
15
ALL
%
15
15
11
11
11
7
5
5
4
4
2
1
10
100
100
100
101
R
rank
B
A
D
E
C
G
I
H
J
K
L
M
F
O
rank
A
C
D
E
G
H
F
I
J
K
L
M
B
ALL
rank
A
B
C
D
E
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
F
(476)
3.8.5
(85)
(561)
Taking all occupiers (i.e. on rented and on owned sites) two major groups of benefits emerge
as the most substantial, in practice, fairly closely related in role. These may be summarised as
‘escape’ and ‘tranquillity’, both frequently used phrases in responses. The first represents the
need to get away from the town for a break of some kind, together with the freedom which
this brings......
‘Weekend avoidance of [town], in which I am not happy’
(rented site) (m) (51-60) (unwaged)
‘An escape from city life; Can get away from it all, any time we wish peace and quiet’
(rented site) (m),(f) (51-60) (ret.)
‘Having a place to go to away from the people whom you see and talk to most days.......’
(rented site) (m) (>60) (ret.)
‘After a week in the big city, great to get away and potter about......’
(rented site) (m) (51-60) (unwaged)
3.8.6
Images of ‘peace’ or ‘peace and quiet’ and of ‘tranquillity’ are less tangible but nonetheless
frequent in comments about the second principal benefit....
‘......Peace, perfect peace’
rented site) (m),(f) (>60) (ret.)
‘Tranquillity, peace and quiet.....’
(rented site) (m) (31-40) (self-empl.)
‘The most peaceful place in the world.....’
(owned site) (m) (51-60)(self-empl.)
3.8.7
Three headings, each of equal importance, relate in turn to the value of surroundings, of
health and of relaxation. The first is associated with the kind of environment in which huts are
located, seen in terms of ‘countryside’, ‘location’, ‘scenery’ and ‘nature’......
‘Holidays for the family in the countryside’
(rented site) (m) (31-40) (empl. f/t)
‘Access to countryside’
(rented site) (f) (41-50) (empl. f/t)
‘ Being able to be out with nature on regular basis and get to know a place really well;
I knew every wild-flower till the owner’s horses and cattle put in the field have
churned it to mostly buttercups and nettles......’
(rented site) (f) (31-40) (empl. f/t)
3.8.8
The feeling that being at the hut is ‘healthy’ and that, depending on the locality, there it
incorporates some form of health inducing activity such as ‘walking’ or ‘sea and boats’ is
also perceived as important to occupiers......
‘Peace and quiet and the healthy outdoor life; little or no pollution in the air......’
(rented site) (m) (>60) (ret.)
‘ Provides opportunity for fresh air, exercise and, above all, solitude’
(rented site) (m) (>60)
‘Living in a large town we all benefit from the fresh country air;........walking the hills’
102
(rented site) (m) (>60) (ret.)
‘My health is not the greatest, the country air is much better and I was born in the country;
having a garden of flowers; country life and it is better for my children; the love of
the country....... Freedom (and) a simple life is most important for my health’
(rented site) (m) (51-60) (ret.)
3.8.9
‘Relaxation’ and ‘stress-relief’ constitute another important beneficial concept, perhaps
refreshing the part that other types of break cannot reach....
‘Somewhere to totally relax’
(rented site) (m) (<30) (self-empl.)
‘Rest and relaxation’
(rented site) (f) (>60) (ret.)
‘Stress relief; get away from television, phone, work’
(rented site) (m) (51-60) (empl. f/t)
‘Unwinding from pressures of life......’
(rented site) (m) (41-50) (empl. p/t)
3.8.10 Despite the high average occupier age they frequently identify the benefits to children of hut
access. Clearly many of these comments are made in the context of grandchildren......
‘Sons can use hut at anytime, also grandchildren can play without fear of traffic’
(rented site) (m) (51-60) (empl. f/t)
‘Nice; quiet; relaxing and know my grandchildren love weekends with me ’
(rented site) (f) (41-50) (unwaged)
.....or else perhaps nostalgia for a stage at which they themselves were enjoying the hut with
their own children when they were younger..........
‘A ‘get away from it all’ sort of place and was a place to take the kids;......’
(rented site) (m) (41-50) (empl. f/t)
‘........Family has benefited growing up here most of their lives.....’
(rented site) (m) (51-60)
.....nevertheless, there is a continuation of such perceptions among younger parents still
concerned about bringing their children up in a better and safer environment than weekday
inner city homes.......
‘...... a nice safe place for children’
(rented site) (m) (41-50) (empl. p/t)
‘......Kids don’t have to hang about street corners’
(rented site) (m) (31-40) (empl. f/t)
‘ I have a young family. We live in the busy West End of Glasgow. Hut....gives children a
chance to explore countryside; also have disabled son - this is the reason I bought hut......’
(rented site) (f) (31-40) (unwaged)
‘Children can run freely and in safety.....’
(rented site) (f) (31-40) (unwaged)
‘To bring my child up to have knowledge and respect for nature......’
(rented site) (f) (31-40) (empl. p/t)
3.8.11 An interesting aspect of benefits, very much related to the ‘P & Q’ feelings illustrated above,
is that of release from the trappings of conventional present day home/work lifestyle, with an
absence of televisions and phones and even a more primitive urge to return to ‘simple’ or
103
‘basic’ living associated with oil lamps, limited washing and cooking facilities and getting
water other than just out of the mains tap (though, as will be seen later, the absence of these
can be equally disadvantageous to some)...........
‘.......listening to the radio instead of going square-eyed looking at a TV set......’
(rented site) (f) (31-40) (empl. f/t)
‘The chance to be able to spend regular nights in the countryside with the owls, the bats, the stars
and the dawn chorus and wildlife and flowers without the discomfort of being in a tent, which is
the only other way we could afford regular access to the countryside; reminder of the pleasures of
simple living without electricity and telephones; a chance to escape overcrowding
in a flat and all the worries and pressure; a sense of belonging in a community’
(rented site) (m)
(41-50) (empl. p/t)
3.8.12 The camaraderie of hutting is a significant benefit, referred to both in the questionnaires
themselves and also in some of the chance conversations with occupiers which took place in
the course of the study. Comments often relate to get-togethers, barbecues or chatting to
friends or just as an opportunity to meet friends.........
‘Meeting our friends the other hut owners......’
(rented site) (m) (>60) (ret.)
‘....a good sense of community amongst hutters....’
(rented site) (m) (31-40) (empl. f/t)
‘.............The friendliness of the other hut people’
(rented site) (51-60) (unwaged)
‘.........friendly community‘
(rented site) (m) (31-40) (empl. f/t)
3.8.13 Given the way in which sites grew up it is not surprising that in some case family links, both
horizontally and vertically, exist within a site and examples have been quoted earlier. On a
few sites these links are particularly strong with members of extended families with long
association with it coming to stay at various times of the year......
‘......It is a family magnet; children make lifelong friends; wide family circle meet throughout
summer’
(rented site) (f) (>60) (both) (ret.)
‘This is a small hut with sleeping facilities for 2 which has been used and maintained
by four generations of the same family, it is of great sentimental value....’
(rented site) (m) (41-50) (empl. f/t)
‘Sentimental reasons - my great, great grandfather had the original hut on this site. He was
the local fisherman and rented the site from the landowner. This burnt down c1937.
My family is connected to the area and means I retain a family connection.....’
(owned site) (f) (51-60) (empl. p/t)
3.8.14 Both the emphasis on ‘simple life’ referred to earlier and the ‘family’ also manifests itself as a
cohesive concept of family members spending more time together at the hut than at home. In
part this reflects enforced close proximity but can be encouraged by the absence of electricity
placing greater dependence on non-television-based evenings and a general sense of
togetherness....
‘Closeness of family; no electricity or computers means that we talk
and play games as a family........ community spirit’
(owned site) (f) (41-50) (empl. f/t)
‘......We play board games and read more than at home’
(rented site) (f) (31-40) (empl. f/t)
104
‘....Having no electricity - hence no TV/videos etc./ Entertainment is sought by
playing games as a family (cards, board games etc.)’
(rented site) (m) (31-40) (empl. f/t)
‘.......Time to talk, play board games, walks, do things together’
(rented site) (m) (>60) (ret.)
3.8.15 Easy availability of the hut is a particular benefit in some cases, either because it is just there
to be visited whenever one feels like it or else because it is easy to get to from home.........
‘Accommodation in country which is always available; no need to pre-book.....’
(rented site) (f) (31-40) (empl. p/t)
‘Freedom - easy to get to (only a few miles from where we live.....’
(rented site) (f) (41-50) (self-empl.)
‘It is on a quiet site by the sea near a cottage where I was born
and within easy reach of where I live now....’
(rented site) (m) (>60) (ret.)
....and similarly benefits of regular short weekend breaks are emphasised, something which
we have seen earlier in terms of the use patterns of huts in general........
‘Weekends away or longer any time there is free time....’
(rented site) (f) (41-50) (unwaged)
‘Like getting out into the country at weekends and holidays.....’
(rented site) (f) (51-60) (ret.)
‘Being pensioner, my wife and I manage odd weekend and odd days’
(rented site) (m) (>60) (ret.)
....or even just going there for even shorter times....
‘....... ideal day trip destination on a nice day’
(rented site) (f) (31-40) (empl. f/t)
3.8.16 Although only occasionally referred to, given the apparent background of many of the
occupiers cost, or rather the lack of it, can also be a significant factor, highlighted in
comments such as......
‘.......Good cheap holidays over the years’
(rented site) (m) (>60) (ret.)
‘Low cost breaks for family - i.e. food only item to pay for....’
(rented site) (m) (>60) (empl. f/t)
‘To enjoy some relaxation away from home, at reasonable cost.....’
(rented site) (m) (41-50) (empl. f/t)
‘....... It is a cheap holiday for grandchildren who cannot afford to go and holiday further away’
(rented site) (f) (>60) (empl. p/t),(ret.)
3.8.17 Finally, an interesting perceived benefit is that of ‘self-help’, reflected in a number of
comments which have already been quoted in the context of maintaining or enhancing a
hut.......
‘Creating something with your own hands and using the discarded materials that so many
people throw away; also enjoying the fresh air and the peace and beauty of the landscape
.....having a garden and enjoying the fruits and vegetables of your labour’
(rented site) (m) (>60) (f) (51-60) (ret.)
105
‘Maintaining and renovating hut is a very satisfying hobby’
(rented site) (m) (51-60) (unwaged)
What are the disadvantages of hut ownership ?
3.8.18 Although as response under the heading of advantages, at the lowest end of the perception
scale one occupier was concise and candid about them....
‘None’
(rented site) (f) (>60) (ret.)
....and emphasises that while the preceding paragraphs and illustrative comments have looked
at the good side of hut ownership, inevitably there is also a bad side. About two out five
occupiers felt that there were disadvantages in owning a hut, though with little difference in
overall proportion between the rented and owned site occupiers.
3.8.19 As with benefits it is possible to group the range of free comment made by occupiers about
disadvantages under a number of main headings and again the table summarises these in
terms of descending proportions within all comments and for each type of site. Rankings for
each also identify some differences of perception between occupiers and it is in
disadvantages, much more than benefits, that differences are evident.
Perceived disadvantages of owning a hut
R
%
Maintenance (effort/cost) 17
Services
16
Tenure
17
Landlord
14
Rent
11
Vandalism
7
Distance
2
Ability to use
3
Access
4
Site condition
4
Miscellaneous reasons
5
100
(121)
O
%
45
10
0
0
0
5
15
10
0
0
15
100
(20)
ALL
%
21
15
14
12
9
7
4
4
4
4
6
100
(141)
R
rank
A
C
B
D
E
F
K
J
H
I
G
O
rank
A
D
G
H
I
F
C
E
J
K
B
ALL
rank
A
B
C
D
E
F
H
I
J
K
G
3.8.20 Perhaps the biggest down-side of hut ownership is that of maintaining it, accounting for a
fifth of all comments made - much more so among occupiers on owned sites, possibly a
feature of distance from home to hut and possibly of more expensive huts. Maintenance is a
combination of both cost and effort, the latter being of particular significance to some of the
older occupiers....
‘Having to maintain it’
(rented site) (m) (>60) (ret.)
‘A lot of work against sea erosion at the site....’
106
(rented site) (m) (>60) (ret.)
....though even younger ones find it a burden....
‘Maintenance can get on top of you - have to keep up with it’
(rented site) (f) (41-50) (self empl.)
‘Minor disadvantage of having to maintain for a weekend or so every other year’
(rented site) (m) (31-40) (empl. f/t)
3.8.21 Three issues of significant concern to occupiers on rented sites perhaps not surprisingly are
absent from the owned-site list. These relate to tenure, landlords and rents. However, in terms
of overall balance of disadvantages, it must be acknowledged that most, though not all, of the
comments under this heading relate to one site with a troubled history.
3.8.22 Under tenure, as well as just a basic perception of lack of security....
‘ Not being able to own the land’
(rented site) (m) (31-40) (empl. f/t)
....a particular worry is the amount of effort and money spent on a hut and the possibility of this being
lost if the owner decides not to continue the site, or if it changes hands....
‘We spend a lot of time, money and effort in maintaining the hut yet we have no
security of tenure’
(rented site) (f) (31-40) (empl. f/t)
‘No security of tenure;. Since having acquired the hut in 1990 I have spent several
thousand pounds on repairs and equipment etc. and if for any reason I was told
to leave the site how could I move the hut?’
(rented site) (m) (>60) (ret.)
....and an example of this actually having happened came in the course of a conversation with
a hut occupier, now on another site, who lost her hut and virtually everything in it when a site
changed hands during a summer about ten years ago and the new owners wished to develop
the land for housing. When she returned to the site after a summer absence it was to find that
the hut which she and her late husband had built and owned for many years and which had
been a major part of their existence, had been lifted off the site by a digger in her absence and
destroyed. She received no recompense.
3.8.23 The attitude and powers of the landlord causes concern in some instances. This may be in
fairly low key terms....
‘Only the fact that there is disharmony between tenants and landowner’
(rented site) (m) (41-50) (empl. p/t)
‘The landlord.....this is the only disadvantage’
(rented site) (m) (41-50) (empl. p/t)
....perhaps reflecting the results of a change in ownership....
‘The current landowner’
(rented site) (m) (51-60) (self empl.)
....but more often there are more strongly articulated issues....
‘ Bad situation with landlord means that I can’t make long term plans; total lack of security;
General dereliction and management of the whole area - unfinished roads and building sites;
lack of water at standpipes is frequent; multiple break-ins - very upsetting’
107
(rented site) (f) (31-40) (empl. p/t)
‘[disadvantages] at present but I love my hut. Landlord tells us he can charge what he likes,
change rules, make rules any time he likes; Most people I know having a hut just like
peace and quiet and a fair rent and rise with inflation’
(rented site) (m) (51-60) (ret.)
‘What appears to be an unfair lease; The landowner’s total mismanagement of the site and
what’s going on around the estate - i.e. the type of people he likes to employ; their
lack of knowledge at running estate’
(rented site) (m) (31-40) (self empl.)
3.8.24 While we have seen that in general site rent levels are low in some instance they are much
higher and constitute a major disadvantage of ownership........
‘Rent a bit expensive’
(rented site) (m) (31-40) (empl. f/t)
‘Paying too much rent’
(rented site) (m) (>60) (ret.)
....mainly in the context of steep and supposedly unjustified increases in relation to what is
provided in return....
‘The site charge is too high compared to other sites where there are huts; There is a rent strike at
[x] and has been for 2 years. Although I did not join the rent strike I sympathise with the strikers’
(rented site) (f) (>60) (ret.)
‘That we don’t own the land; we don’t have running water; Rent for site are
far too high; when we rented the site in 1957 the rent was £5 per year’
(rented site) (m & f) (>60) (ret.)
‘Having no rights: for example landowner putting rent up £100 but not improving the site; also
demanding 10% of the sale price if I decide to sell my hut; Not having mains water on the site’
(rented site) (m) (31-40) (empl. f/t)
....eventually being a substantial factor in one occupier’s decision to throw in the towel....
(A) Being at the mercy of the landlord without any form of appeal; (B) I have recently sold my
hut due to my sons losing interest in it plus the unprecedented rises recently in site rent and site
charges
(rented site) (m) (>60) (ret.)
3.8.25 The isolation of many hut sites and the fact huts themselves are in only intermittent use means
that they can be prone to vandalism. In some cases this perceived disadvantage of hut
ownership is based on actual experience of damage to the person’s hut....
‘......Frequent break-ins over the years - causes a lot of damage leading
to cost of repairs to sort out damage.....’
(rented site) (f) (41-50) (empl. f/t)
‘......no security from break ins and vandalism......’
(rented site) (m) (aged 84) (ret.)
‘Site is not properly patrolled by the ‘wardens’ who are appointed to do so. Have had many
break-ins which should have been reported to me by the ‘wardens’’
(rented site) (f) (31-40) (unwaged)
....but even among other occupiers there are general concerns about a potential problem....
108
‘ Worry of damage (storm/vandalism)‘
(rented site) (f) (51-60) (unwaged)
‘ Risk of burglary’
(owned site) (m & f) (>60) (ret.)
3.8.26 We have seen perceptions of the ‘simple life’ as a distinct benefit for some occupiers, but
others view it from a different perspective where absence of mains services is a disadvantage.
Though mains electricity and water is occasionally mentioned....
‘ Lack of mains water service’
(owned site) (m) (>60) (ret.)
‘The disadvantage of not having mains electricity or mains water’
(rented site) (m) (>60) (ret.)
....drainage and flush toilets are seen as a more significant lack, in spite of a high presence of
at least a chemical closet for most huts.
‘No proper toilet facilities’
(rented site) (f) (31-40) (empl. f/t)
‘Except toilet facilities - no disposal facilities for chemical waste (we bury it)’
(rented site) (f) (41-50) (empl. f/t)
...while sometimes it is occupiers’ own efforts at improving their huts can cause problems for
others on the site....
‘Many other hutters have put water in their huts but drainage goes into field and as I’m
at bottom of field my site is always flooded. Farmer will do nothing to drain it; Farmer
does not enforce his rules. As a result there are cats and dogs roam all over field
and letting is a common thing, especially among newer hut owners’
(rented site) (f) (>60) (ret.)
....but clearly the experienced hutter may be more tolerant of these absent services than their
visitors....
‘Lack of facilities - water, mains sanitation and electricity; I don’t mind this but family
and friends do not wish to share the experience with me’
(rented site) (f) (31-40) (empl. p/t)
‘No toilets on site and running water (but then between my mother in law’s hut
and our own now my wife has been coming to this site 55-58 years and we love it)’
(rented site) (m) (>60) (ret.)
3.8.27 Two related difficulties figure much more in the comments of occupiers on owned sites and
this probably reflects use pattern. These are issues of distance from home - and we have
shown that some of this group of owner-occupier may live very long distances from their hut
- and ability to use it in the context of not being able to get to the hut as often as they would
like. For these occupiers, use of the hut may be largely limited to a summer holiday or
perhaps a shorter break around Easter, rather than the pattern of regular weekend use which is
more common among occupiers on rented sites.
‘Feel guilty when we don’t use it enough’
(owned site) (f) (41-50) (self empl.)
‘Too far away from where we live’
(owned site) (m) (51-60) (self empl.)
109
‘You can’t always give your family the hut when they want it at holiday times’
(rented site) (m) (>60) (ret.)
3.8.28 Although it might appear to be a related disadvantage, in practice some comments about
difficulties of access relate more to physical access in terms of roads or paths within the site,
and this also applies to problems of the general condition of the site.
‘......very poor roads (often not accessible in winter)’
(rented site) (f) (41-50) (self empl.)
3.8.29 However, while ways may be found to overcome some of these disbenefits of having a hut,
three others highlighted in responses are more resistant to change....
‘Weather can be dreadful’
‘.....Battle to avoid mouse invasions!’
‘....the Scottish midgie....’
110
3.9
AN OVERVIEW
Introduction
3.9.1
When Stage 1 of this study was commissioned, there was no body of knowledge on which to
draw, other than some generalised background, largely in the context of one large site.
Accordingly a number of preliminary assumptions were necessary as a basis for exploration.
The purpose of Stage 2 of the study was to build up a fuller and more accurate picture. Some
of the initial assumptions have proved correct, others disproved.
3.9.2
This report has tried to present a picture of the huts and hutters from the perspective of the
latter. While information about sites and their history and operation could come from the site
owners, only the occupiers of individual huts could tell us about themselves and about their
huts and their use of them both within and across the years. It is based on the experiences and
views of about one in three of the target population. While there is a possibility that those did
not respond to the survey may have been occupiers with lower levels of use of and
involvement with their huts and hence less disposed to contribute, nevertheless the responses
represent a significant cross-section of the ‘hutter’ population on a range of sizes of site
across Scotland. Most are in a single ownership, with occupiers owning their huts but not the
land on which they sit, but a few are included where occupiers now also own the land, though
at an earlier stage it was rented in the same way as the others. What, then, is the nature of the
picture which emerges?
The huts
3.9.3
Despite being structures not initially intended to have a long life and essentially for temporary
use, huts have proved remarkably resilient. As many as one in three date from before World
War II and most of the rest date from the 1940s and 1950s. With few exceptions they are the
product of people’s own efforts, built with minimal cost, often out of easily available or
recycled materials - some even have been transformed into dwellings from other uses such as
old bus bodies or railway carriages, though the former, while initially more common, have
largely disappeared other than in remnants incorporated into a subsequent structure. The
survey confirms the initial assumption that they sit on rather than being built into the ground
where they are located, mostly supported at the corners by brick or concrete piers, but often
with the addition of other supports such as railways sleepers. Only in a few cases, mostly on
sites where land as well as hut is owned by the occupier, are there more solid and
conventional foundations.
3.9.4
Huts come in all shapes and sizes and are built of many different materials. While wood in a
variety of forms is the most common, metal, asbestos and occasionally brick or stone play
their part, the latter often appearing as chimneys, though also occasionally as other parts of
the structure. Most huts are essentially organic in nature and, like Topsy, they have just
‘growed’ over the years. This reflects both the never-ending responsibility of regular
maintenance and also a wish to modernise or extend, the latter not generally allowed without
permission from the site owner and the local planning authority - though it has nonetheless
taken place on occasions over the years. Here it must be remembered that many huts started
their lives before much or any planning or building control. Hut modification reflects
changing needs within occupier households or else just a wish to do something different in
the context of a dwelling that can be worked on with minimal skills but plenty of enthusiasm.
At the same time upkeep responsibilities clearly are a burden for some occupiers, particularly
those of advancing years who are such a large segment of the hutter population.
3.9.5
An early assumption that most huts change hands through inheritance has largely been
disproved, with nearly three-quarters having been acquired through purchase and only one in
111
five through direct inheritance. A small number still remain in the hands of their original
owners who had built them themselves many years ago. Purchase is not so much a case of
normal open market processes but rather via word of mouth or through relatives or friends.
Quite a number of people had been on the lookout for a hut for some time, keeping their eyes
and ears open, either on sites that they knew or more widely, while some made direct
approaches to a site owner because they had seen an empty hut or on the off-chance of one
potentially becoming vacant. Conventional newspaper advertising accounts for only a very
small proportion of transactions. Whatever the methods, it seems that on most sites the bulk
of huts are still in use and in demand whenever they become available.
3.9.6
Although the huts have been acquired in these different ways, in practice they mostly have
been in the hands of their present occupiers for some time, a quarter for at least 30 years,
while a few occupiers were still in huts acquired before the war.
3.9.7
Huts have little in the way of services and life in them is on a level somewhere between
camping or mobile caravans. Only on owned sites are there likely to be mains connections for
water, electricity or, more rarely drainage. Lighting is a mix of calor gas, small fluorescent
strip lights (powered by heavy duty batteries, often charged by small petrol generators ) or by
traditional oil lamps. Some huts even rely almost entirely on candles but generally there is a
mix of these various forms of lighting. For those on rented site water either comes from a
standpipe on the site or from a variety of other sources such as a spring, a well or even a
stream adjacent to the site. Such alternative sources tend to be used for washing rather than
for cooking or drinking, for which water is often brought on to the site in plastic containers,
either from home or some other nearby source. Despite these constraints, some occupiers
exercise considerable ingenuity in meeting their water needs, having installed plumbed sinks
or showers supplied from storage tanks beside or above their huts which they fill either with
water taken from the standpipe, or else rainwater collected from the roof. Most washing water
is disposed of via soakaways. Toilet facilities similarly are fairly basic, though most huts have
some form of provision, generally a chemical or dry closet.
3.9.8
Despite methods of construction and available space, the survey gives the impression that
occupiers have made their huts fairly comfortable, mostly with separate rooms for living and
sleeping, often more than one of the latter, together with a kitchen. Toilets may be integral
with the main hut or in a small separate structure adjacent. Four examples can be given based
on observation of interiors through chance meetings with occupiers in the course of the
‘owner’ survey. Each is in regular use in summer months and sometimes at other parts of the
year :
(a)
a large and bright, white-painted general purpose living room with the equivalent of a
traditional Scottish bed-closet or sleeping-recess off it plus a small kitchen area. The
occupiers in this instance are a couple with grown-up children and extended family and,
as they live only about a hour’s drive from the hut, it is frequently in use for weekends
and occasional longer holidays. Their son has recently bought another hut on the site and
was in process of doing it up internally, fitting it with bunk beds and kitchen units;
(b)
a small but cosy sitting room with fireplace (gas) and mantelshelf laden with small
ornaments and a wall of horse brasses above, carpeted and furnished with a three-piece
suite and table. In addition there are two bedrooms, a small kitchen and a toilet
compartment. The occupier, a man, has been coming there every weekend since he built
in some forty years ago, emphasising that it was with full planning permission, the letter
for which he displayed and now that he is retired ‘weekends’ tend to increase in length.
Other relatives occasionally come and visit him and he is a well known figure on the site,
occasionally helping the site owner with small site jobs;
(c)
again a small hut with a sitting room and separate kitchen, plus two double-bed
bedrooms, everything brightly painted and furnished and apparently equipped with a total
of four television sets, all operating from car batteries. The two mature sisters who have
owned it for many years travel some thirty miles to the hut almost every weekend from
112
spring to autumn, as they have been doing ever since they acquired it and do all their own
maintenance. The regularity of their use does not stop their regular six week Spanish
holiday in January - the two places meet quite different needs for escape and relaxation.
(d)
3.9.9
the fourth example, though still on a rented site, is closer to a small bungalow, being a
more fully finished structure, both internally and externally, with its own parking drivein, a small enclosed garden and a front patio. Here the ‘hut’ has a comfortable living
room, full modern kitchen, two bedrooms and a fully plumbed bathroom, this site having
drainage connection to communal septic tanks. Occupied by a couple, it is regularly used
at weekends and, being retired they are able to use it for longer periods in the summer,
particularly as it is little more than half-an-hour’s drive from their city home.
The majority of the sites from which there were replies appear still to have all or most of their
huts in use, though the scattered nature of the layout on many of the larger sites means that
occupiers may not be fully aware of what goes on over the site as a whole. This generally
scattered nature also means that access to individual huts is likely to be by means of pathways
or rough tracks, and even into the sites as whole there may only be a very rough track. Little
is ordered or organised on hut sites, and individuality is the order of the day.
The hutters
3.9.9
The survey reveals a hutter population about two thirds male, largely late middle-aged or
elderly and with at least two very long-term occupiers aged as much as 84 and 79. Few are
under 40 and almost none under 30. Hut occupiers are primarily couples and the younger of
these may or may not have children. Only about a quarter of occupiers are single, nearly all in
the 50+ age band and often the remnant of a former couple. While households of older
couples are less likely to contain children, the latter continue as a presence in the hut use in
the form of grandchildren, often specifically identified as beneficiaries of hut ownership, with
or without their grandparents.
3.9.10 The top-heavy age profile means a substantial proportion of retired occupiers, together with a
few who class themselves as unwaged. Only one in four are in full time employment together
with small proportions of part-timers and self employed. Current jobs of the employed and
former jobs of the retired reveal a spread within the socio-economic spectrum though with a
bias towards middle and lower income groups. Both from inference from questionnaires and
from in occupier comment in conversation it would seem that whatever the job types and
income levels of current owners, their predecessors, especially where the hut had come down
through inheritance, were likely to have come from modest backgrounds, often with some
form of trade experience or skills. Huts on owned sites tend to have more occupiers from
higher income groups, but here the huts generally represent a greater investment both in
themselves, in the land they occupy and the running costs associated with higher rateable
values.
Hut use
3.9.11 Although at the outset it had been thought that hut use might be in decline, having been
overtaken by other more exotic forms of holiday, on the sites included in the survey this does
not seem to be the case. Many huts are still in steady use through much of the year, though
obviously with seasonal variation, either because occupiers are only allowed to use their huts
at certain seasons or, more commonly, because they are not really designed for winter
occupation or access. At least two thirds of occupiers make frequent overnight stays, and
most of the rest stay over at least occasionally.
3.9.12 What little winter use there is is mostly concentrated at weekends or occasional weekdays,
and is more likely to be associated with necessary upkeep of the hut. Spring emphasis is still
113
on weekends but there begins to be more longer period use. In the summer weekend and
longer period use account for similar shares, while the latter starts to tail off again in the
autumn. Use patterns through the year highlight differences between huts on rented sites and
on owned sites. With the latter often owned by people whose home is much further away
from the hut location use is often concentrated into a few more extended summer and, to a
lesser extent, spring and autumn holidays. In contrast, there is much more regular weekend
use by occupiers on rented sites with easier access.
3.9.13 Among those huts currently occupied, usage has not been declining significantly over time,
with only one in five occupiers apparently now using their huts less. Indeed the largest
proportion are now actually using them more, perhaps a reflection of the top-heavy age
profile of the occupiers, with retiral giving greater scope for use, whereas the younger ones
may be more restricted to weekends plus a summer holiday. At the same time access by car is
now easier for many occupier households whereas in the past isolated sites could only be
accessed via bus and a long walk or perhaps by bicycle. Where there is a decline in use,
factors are a mix on the one hand of personal and family constraints - perhaps not surprising
with an older population - and, on the other hand site-related issues, though these seem
mainly to be concentrated on one site which has experienced difficulties over the past few
years.
Administrative structures
3.9.14 The greyest area within hutting is that of the tenure and landlord-tenant arrangements. This is
probably a function of the time at which ‘sites’ began to appear and the informal way in
which sites developed, again discussed in more detail in the report on site owners. Most
arrangements between landlord and ‘tenant’ started in a very informal way and many have
continued in this. Rents are charged, mostly modest, though with a few high exceptions, but
in return for these few if any services are provided. While rents have increased over time
again these have mostly been small increments in line with inflation, or when an owner
suddenly decides it is about time he raised the rent from £50 or £75 to perhaps £100.
Generally these seem to be accepted as reasonable by the occupiers. However, in one or two
cases there have been major increases with additions indicated in the near future, mostly in
situations where a new owner has taken over the site and sees it as more of a business with
formal operational structures. For most occupiers rates are the only additional charge they pay
- direct to the local council - and, given the very low rateable value of most huts, these
charges again are modest, though some occupiers emphasise the absence of any form of
service provided by the councils in return for these payments.
3.9.15 While most occupiers say that there is a legal agreement between them and the site owner in
practice these are extremely vague in their form and many occupiers are equally vague in
their understanding of them. In most cases they just seem to make an allowance for the
occupier to have the hut on the land for a year, sometimes with restrictions as to when and for
what purposes they can use it. With the exception of one site formal rules and regulations are
a rarity and where there are constraints they are mostly in connection with paint colours - to
tie in with the landscape - or understandable in the context of rural land use - keeping gates
closed for safety of farm animals, not polluting streams and so on.
3.9.16 Although on one site the question of tenure has become a major issue with occupiers seeing
themselves as helpless and without rights in the face of a ‘feudal’ owner, on other sites there
is also awareness of the uncertainty of their position. Despite this they are clearly prepared to
invest time and money in maintaining and improving their huts which, though in theory they
might be removable, in practice would not be possible.
3.9.17 Site owners sometimes put constraints on transfer of hut ownership, particularly if it is to be
by sale, though sometimes even for transfers vertically within a family. Mostly this is just a
114
matter of letting the site owner know in advance, something which is important since owners
need to provide the local Valuation Boards with a record of who owns and, even more,
occupies the huts for rating purposes. Some occupiers say that the site owner has to ‘vet’ the
person to whom the hut is being transferred. However, there are instance where a hut which is
to be vacated has to be sold to the site owner or else where it is sold to someone else the site
owner charges a fee or claims a percentage of the sale price.
3.9.18 In all these ‘arrangements’, the absence of formal agreements means that site owners can set
both terms and rent, very much as they like. In practice, on many sites, this does not seem to
cause much of a problem because of low rent levels, the relaxed attitude of the owner and an
acceptance by occupiers of it being a two-way relationship. On the other hand it leads to a
sense of powerlessness among some occupiers and a feeling that they are being exploited and
getting nothing in return.
3.9.19 At present many of the sites appear to function fairly smoothly, but their nature, their current
owners and current occupiers have implications for the future. We have seen that there is
strong involvement in and affection for the huts on the part of the occupiers. There are even
occasional instances of outright praise for site owners....
‘…..[X] is a very good landowner…is within reason and likes the place, huts inside and outside.’
‘As long as the landlord is notified of any modifications prior to them being done - he tends to be
very reasonable.’
‘Current feudal superior seems very reasonable, tho’ have not needed to deal with him’
‘Water supply plus very, very nice and helpful landlords’
....but at the same time there is an awareness of the relationship being a personal one based on
a degree of trust on both sides and that things could change for the worse if an elderly
landowner dies or decides to give up running the site....
‘Worries about tenancy; relations good with current owner but unsure about future when owner’s
sons take over as in [x].’
(A) No legal rights for tenants regarding rent rises or eviction from land; (B) Relying
landowner’s goodwill if land ever changes hands
(rented site) (m) (41-50) (empl. f/t)
.... Already there have been one or two examples where sites have changed hands and new
owners have regarded them as more of a business, leading to fairly rapid increases in rents
and tightening of regulations.
The role of huts
3.9.20 Huts meet a range of needs for their occupiers. Most of the sites developed in a haphazard
way over a period of years, the earliest dating back to the 1920s and 1930s, and were in
response to requests from people in towns and cities seeking at least a temporary escape from
urban life of a kind which would be within their limited means. They were seen as informal
but based on self help or even communal help. Phrases like fresh-air and healthy seem to have
been features of early use of huts, often with an emphasis on the benefits to children. These
needs clearly are still uppermost in the minds of the present occupiers and the same phrases,
particularly ‘peace and quiet’, ‘tranquillity’ or ‘escape from stress’ are constantly recurring in
their comments about the advantages of having a hut. With a largely ageing current
population many of the benefits for younger people are geared towards grandchildren. Within
these phrases there is also a feeling of the benefits of bringing families closer together, not
just in the limitations of space, but of doing things communally indoors and out, particularly
115
where there is no television, leading to ‘playing board games together’ or even just chatting
round the fire’. Younger parents who perhaps live in inner city areas still emphasise the
benefits of bringing their children up with a knowledge of and respect and love for the
countryside. As in the third of the examples quoted above the ownership of a hut does not
necessarily mean it is the only source of “escape’, but rather it is complementary to other
forms of holiday, with the special value that it is easily accessible.
The future
3.9.21 As well as uncertainties about potential for change on the part of the owners, it must be
recognised that inevitably there will be change in the occupier population. We have seen that
hutters tend to be elderly. Apart from one or two comments about huts getting too much to
keep up ever these older people seem to maintain and use their huts quite vigorously, often
not just for themselves but for their children and grandchildren, but they are getting yet older
and there will be time at which they will become an excessive burden. At present there seems
to be demand for any huts that become available and current younger owners put effort into
doing up their huts and identify the benefits for them and for their children. Therefore it may
be that more people in those age bands will take over. However, they are likely to be doing so
at a time at which not only may the owners and their expectation from the site be changing,
but the occupiers themselves may have higher expectations in terms both of what they are
allowed to do with their huts and the security of their place. These changes are already taking
place on some sites.
3.9.22 For the foreseeable future, most of the sites with which this survey has been involved seem
likely to continue in some form. Much will depend on the continuity of current owners and of
their attitude to and interest in their sites, many of which cause them little in the way of hassle
even if they do not bring in much income. Even though there is a lack of security for most
occupiers this may be better than no hut site at all which could be the alternative if structures
are made too rigid for the present type of landowner. Reference has been made by occupiers
to two alternative approaches to change which so far appear to have worked. The first is the
selling off of individual plots of land to their occupiers which has occurred on a few former
sizeable sites. It would appear that these have led to more substantial and perhaps better
serviced huts, though there are some differences in the kinds of occupier and patterns of use
that these huts now have, being closer to a form of ‘second home’ than the conventional
picture of huts. The second is that of occupiers setting up a trust and being able to acquire the
land and operate the site for their mutual benefit, and the site’s preservation (this is explored
in more depth in the site owner report). These types of change may be possible on other sites
but they depend on both landowner and occupiers factors. Both depend on landowner
willingness to sell - sometimes doubtful if it threatens the integrity of a larger land holding while the second depends on there being a suitable and cohesive group of occupiers both
knowledgeable and willing to set up and maintain the necessary structures.
3.9.23 The benefits in a continuity of hut ownership and use in Scotland, meeting the needs of
various members within a single household, may be summed up in two contrasting final
comments by ‘hutters’, one complex....
‘The hut is a release from the stress of living in an urban area which is socially disadvantaged. It
allows individuals to escape for short periods, relieving family tensions while preserving the family
structure. Living for a while in a country environment; Besides being in a healthy and peaceful
environment the hut provides straightforward holidays which do not throw our everyday lives into
dark contrast with others more exotic and costly. The overall effect is, I believe, a deeper and
lasting contentment which provides us with an inner strength and self confidence to cope with work
and the urban environment from which we must draw our livelihood’
(rented site) (m) (41-50) (empl. f/t)
...... the other very simple.....
116
‘Peace, tranquillity, beautiful fresh air and scenery; If I go [it] gives the wife peace at weekend’
(rented site) (m) (>60) (ret.)
117
APPENDIX 3A – THE OCCUPIER SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
118
119
APPENDIX 3B – METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES
Data collection methods - the constraints
B.1
In the early stages of the study as a whole, gathering information from owners of the sites
themselves through the medium of conventional face-to-face interviews was seen as the best
approach. It was with the occupiers that there was much greater uncertainty about how data
collection could be achieved. Initial assumptions on the part of the client were that information
could similarly be obtained through interviews with a sample of occupiers on each of a number
of sites in order to build up a cross-section of views and experience. It quickly became clear that
this would be impractical on a number of counts. Eventually it was only as a by-product of
Stage 1 of the study that a possible viable method was identified. The constraints, possible
alternatives and the approach which eventually emerged are assessed in this appendix.
B.2
The constraints may be summarised as follows:
Cost
As with the owners, interviews were seen as the preferred method both of obtaining factual
information and exploring attitudes and experiences. However, even early on it also became
clear that, given the range of information sought, interviews were likely to be markedly longer
than those for the site owners. Initial thoughts of a sample of perhaps ten occupiers on each of
ten sites would therefore be costly, not just in terms of individual interviews but in costs of
achieving them which are considered below.
Practical/legal
While occupiers were thought to own their huts, the sites themselves were assumed to be owned
by an individual or an organisation, whose permission would be necessary to visit such private
land and attempt to contact occupiers. For a variety of reasons this permission might not be
forthcoming. At the same time occupiers themselves might be unwilling to participate
depending on any difficulties which they might experience with a landlord or uncertainty as to
the underlying purpose of an interview.
Making contact
The over-riding constraint was that of the practicalities of accessing the occupiers themselves.
Hut sites appeared to be very variable in size and, by their nature, huts themselves were not
intended for permanent residence - though it was suggested that some were now being used for
fairly long periods through the year. It therefore had to be assumed that use was mostly for
weekends or summer holidays, particularly on smaller sites. This meant that the main period of
use would be high summer, possibly extending at each end into late spring or early autumn.
While at other times there might also be a degree of evening use in periods of good weather this
was seen as unpredictable.
All these factors meant that finding ‘occupiers’ at home would be uncertain, even in the summer
months, the assumed main period of holiday or weekend use. Making contact would be
essentially a matter of chance, i.e. travelling to the site in the hope of finding occupiers present
and then trying to arrange interviews with them mostly at weekends or possibly in evenings. On
small sites there was a likelihood of making numerous trips to a site without finding anyone at
home. Consequently any interviewing programme would be likely to involve considerable levels
of non-cost-effective ‘dead time’. The target spread of interviews suggested in the brief therefore
seemed impractical.
Alternative data collection possibilities
B.3
Given these constraints alternative approaches were explored with a view to containing costs
while maintaining and even enhancing coverage of the target population. The most likely
120
alternative was seen as some form of self-completion questionnaire, simpler in content than the
interview questionnaire but aimed at a much larger target population.
B.4
Here again the principal remaining constraint was simply how to get questionnaires to
occupiers. Possibilities considered included attempting direct delivery of a questionnaire to
each hut on each of a small number of selected sites. This might get over the difficulty of
finding people at home at the time since it was assumed that they would find it at the time of
their next visit to their hut. With this method, conventional reminders to slow responders
would be impossible. It would still be labour intensive and it was thought unlikely that huts
would have any form of letter box through which questionnaires could be delivered. Such an
approach was also likely to lead to particularly low response rates, both as a result of the times
at which occupiers might find their questionnaires and in their readiness to respond. As with
an interview approach there was also likely to be a possibility of site owners refusing access to
the site.
B.5
A second method was that of trying to find home addresses of occupiers, with the site
landowners seen as the most likely source since it was assumed that they would hold lists of
their tenants. On the assumption that they were prepared to make this information available, it
might be possible to send questionnaires direct to home addresses. Here the possible benefits
were, firstly, enhanced response rates with less influence from their hut neighbours and,
secondly, the ability to use reminders to for slow responders. Against this was the unknown
factor of site-owner co-operation, depending on the size of the site, identification of the owners
themselves and their general landlord-tenant relationships.
An eventual practical approach to data collection
B.6
A chance by-product of one early Planning Department response to the Stage 1 study provided
a likely solution to most of the difficulties identified above. This suggested the potential of local
Valuation Rolls as an additional data source, since in that area huts in that Department’s area
were known to be rateable and identifiable within the non-domestic Roll as ‘living huts’. More
important, the extracts from the Roll sent with the Planning response gave information on
names and home addresses of the site owners and individual hut owners. It was also suggested
that similar information might exist in other areas. In the light of this, approaches were made to
all the Scottish Valuation Assessors to ascertain whether such data was held. The results of this
inquiry showed that while across Scotland there was no consistent definition, or recording, of
huts which met the study definition, it was generally possible to make a fairly good guess at
potential sites and their occupiers. The Valuation Rolls eventually proved to be a very valuable
source both as a way of confirming or augmenting Planning Department returns but also as a
likely answer to the difficulty of making contact with individual hut owners.
B.7
On the assumption that Valuation Roll data could be obtained for all, or at least most, of the hut
sites in Scotland it became feasible to develop a conventional postal self-completion
questionnaire survey to occupiers’ home addresses to access their experience and views.
Inevitably this called for a simplified questionnaire, relying mainly on closed or very specific
open response questions. However, it could now be sent to a much larger sample, or possibly
even to all occupiers of sites above a certain size in a cost-effective way. Even allowing for low
response levels typical of a survey of this kind, it seemed more likely than any other method to
generate sufficient numbers to enable a reasonable picture to be drawn. An added potential
benefit would be that if all occupiers had an opportunity to reply to a structured and objective
questionnaire, sent to their home addresses and returned in confidence, with a guarantee that
no individual responses would be identifiable, this might help to generate a more accurate
picture on any site which had been experiencing difficult landlord-tenant relationships.
121
B.8
On this basis it was agreed to go ahead with a survey along these lines and to include the
occupiers on all sites with four or more huts, a larger coverage than that used for the site owner
survey which used a higher cut-off point of ten huts or more.
The scale of the postal survey
B.9
Stage 1 showed that the Valuation Roll data provided basic information on a large number of
sites throughout Scotland. This in turn acted as a basis for Stage 2, though it was recognised
that some of these might not eventually prove exactly to fit study definitions. In practice names
and addresses of individual occupiers were not always given in the Roll itself or else were not
included in data extracts provided by the Assessors - though in one case it proved possible to
extract these directly from an up-to-date roll in a local library.
B.10 By these various means a viable target population of 541 names and addresses was built up,
covering a total of 27 sites across Scotland from Deeside and the Angus Coast to the Solway
and from Loch Lomond to East Lothian. This provided a remarkably good coverage of sizes
and types of site.
B.11 Questionnaires were sent to all the people at the end of July with returns asked for within three
weeks. To encourage response a prize of £200 was offered, to be drawn from the serial numbers
of all completed questionnaire returned. Again with a view to encouraging response,
confidentiality of individual questionnaires was emphasised throughout with clear
confirmation that no information relating to any individual would be disclosed to their site
owner.
B.12 Though, as noted above, the questionnaire had to be fairly brief and largely confined to precoded questions but nevertheless it managed to incorporate the main information areas of
relevance to the study identified in par. A.2 above. However, as well as factual data it was seen
as important to obtain more general open comment on a number of aspects, both about legal
arrangements between site owners and hut owners and about benefits and disadvantages of
hut ownership. A copy of the questionnaire is included at Appendix A.
Response to the survey
B.13 Early response to the survey was poor, with only some 18 percent of completed questionnaires
back by the due date, together with a number that helped to confirm some of the uncertainties
about making contact, indicating that the addressee had ‘gone away’ or was ‘not known at that
address’ or in a few cases a response from an earlier owner that the hut had now been sold.
B.14 In this survey, the fact that home addresses were being targeted allowed reminders to be sent
to slow responders with a view to boosting response. Reminder letters, emphasising the
importance of building up as large an information base as possible of hutter experience was
sent to the large number of outstanding addresses at the end of August. Normally, in a survey
of this kind, reminders give only a minor response boost, but in this instance they proved
unusually effective, doubling the number of completed questionnaires to an eventual 34% of
the issued number.
B.15 Given the constraints, the final response may be regarded as very satisfactory for a survey of
this kind. In practice it may be a significantly higher proportion of the eligible population, i.e.
excluding those where the person had moved or had disposed of their hut and therefore could
not have taken part in the survey. That the latter was significant factor was suggested by the
number of questionnaires returned as ‘not known’ (a combination of out-of-date data in the
Valuation Board lists and possible inaccuracy in that data which is dependent on returns made by site
owners who in turn depend on information given by hut owners).
122
B.16 Two other factors which may have affected response to this particular survey include: (a)
possible general resistance to the survey and its subjects, given current concerns in some places
over the future of sites and over landlord-tenant relations, as confirmed by sources in Carbeth
suggesting that a number of occupiers were not prepared to complete their questionnaires
because there was a serial number on it; and (b) effects of some of the age and social
characteristics of the hutter population eventually revealed by the completed questionnaires.
Finally it is possible that there was a greater degree of non-response from occupiers who now
used their huts very little and had largely lost interest in them or in contributing to the survey.
B.17 One important feature of the response was that it was well spread across the range of sites
covered and hence can be regarded as providing a good cross-section of the likely target
population. With sites of such varying sizes it is hardly surprising that there is some variation
in response between individual locations but, as the first table below shows, when looked at by
the broad size groupings identified in Stage 1, response levels are remarkably consistent across
all the bands, even including the largest site at Carbeth where it was feared that there might be
greater inconsistency.
B.18 The occupier survey also revealed that a number of sites did not fall within the study’s strict
definition of ‘hut sites’ since their occupiers also owned, or at least had a long lease on the land
on which the hut was located rather than being in a loosely ‘tenant’ situation. Although these
owner-occupiers might have regarded the survey as inapplicable to them - and some made this
clear in the form of written refusal - there was again a surprising overall consistency of
response between the two categories. Nevertheless, since many of these sites either had started
life in similar ways to the main group or were similar in many of their characteristics the
responses from these occupiers have been included in the report, though separately identified.
Completed
questionnaires
Ineligible
Nonresponse
TOTAL
Q/NAIRES
ISSUED
Response
rate
(% of
eligible pop.)
The largest site
A
48
3
110
161
30%
0
1
1
34
28
62
47
46
93
28%
38%
33%
1
1
0
1
0
3
26
16
10
16
5
73
28
25
23
23
16
115
4%
33%
57%
27%
69%
35%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
12
13
3
10
3
7
15
15
15
13
13
11
11
47%
20%
13%
77%
23%
73%
36%
Large sites (c50)
B
C
TOTAL
13
17
30
Medium sites (c20-30)
D
E
F
G
H
TOTAL
1
8
13
6
11
39
Smaller sites (c10-20)
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
7
3
2
10
3
8
4
123
P
Q
R
TOTAL
3
0
1
41
0
1
1
2
8
8
4
76
11
9
6
119
27%
0%
20%
35%
2
2
4
2
1
3
1
1
2
18
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
10
5
3
5
4
1
3
2
0
33
12
8
7
7
5
4
4
3
2
52
17%
29%
57%
29%
20%
75%
25%
33%
100%
35%
1
0
0
1
100%
177
10
354
541
33%
Small groups (4-9)
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
AA
TOTAL
AB
ALL SITES
B.19 Inevitably there was greater variation between individual sites within the broad groupings,
with some remarkably high response levels and others which were very low. However, likely
reasons for some of the extremes can be identified. In only two cases is response very low. The
zero response from site Q probably reflects individual plot ownership although here the
original Valuation Roll data was unclear. Site D reflects the fact that while this may have
originated as a hut site, nowadays it has become a row of ‘houses’, albeit of a coastal chalet
style now in the Council Tax listings rather than the non-domestic Valuation Roll. These now
probably represent the final stage of a process of transition from seasonality to permanence
discussed in the report on Stage 1 of the study (there was indeed some uncertainty about this site at
the outset but it was included within the postal survey due to the lack of clarity about its origins and
status). Two questionnaires, returned blank apart from a brief comment, emphasise this
distinction....
‘This property sold in 1998 as a cedar wood bungalow,
three bedrooms and bathroom, central heating; freehold.’
‘Thanks for the insult. Please notify ...xxx Council... that our home has
been downgraded to a ‘hut’ and request cancellation of ‘B’ Council Tax.’
Completed.
questionnaires
Ineligible
Nonresponse
TOTAL
Q/NAIRES
ISSUED
Response
rate
(% of
eligible pop.)
Huts on rented sites
A
B
C
E
G
H
I
J
K
L
S
N
48
13
17
8
6
11
7
3
2
10
2
8
3
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
110
34
28
16
16
5
8
12
13
3
10
3
124
161
47
46
25
23
16
15
15
15
13
12
11
30%
28%
38%
33%
27%
69%
47%
20%
13%
77%
17%
73%
O
P
U
V
R
TOTAL
4
3
4
2
1
149
0
0
0
0
1
7
Huts and plots individually owned
D
1
4%
F
13
0
M
3
0
Q
0
1
T
2
1
W
1
0
X
3
0
Y
1
0
Z
1
0
AA
2
0
AB
1
0
TOTAL
28
3
ALL SITES
177
10
7
8
3
5
4
285
11
11
7
7
6
441
36%
27%
57%
29%
20%
34%
1
26
28
10
10
8
5
4
1
3
2
0
0
69
23
13
9
8
5
4
4
3
2
1
100
57%
23%
0%
29%
20%
75%
25%
33%
100%
100%
29%
354
541
33%
B.20 At the other end of the response scale, between 50 and 80 percent of questionnaires were
completed and returned from a number of sites, including both conventional sites and those
now in individual ownership and across the broad size groupings, though on one ‘site’ which
proved to be holiday homes converted from other uses, our error in targeting these owners was
pointed out.....
‘I have filled in this questionnaire out of courtesy but do not think it
concerns us in any way and is quite an intrusion of our privacy.’
......but at least in this instance the questionnaire was completed and helped to clarify the
position.
B.21 Another important factor increasing the general robustness of the response is that data quality
was good with significant amounts of valuable and informative comment in responses to open
questions. Being in the occupiers’ own words, the latter are of particular benefit in fleshing out
the numerical bones of the survey results.
B.22 Finally, while higher response rates are always hoped for - often higher than is realistic - it
confirms the wisdom of having targeted the whole population of hutters for whom names and
addresses were known rather than trying to sample and approach by other means.
125
APPENDIX 3C – HUTTER OCCUPATIONS
C.1
This appendix provides a fuller listing of occupiers’ jobs or former jobs. Direct duplications
have been removed but the list gives an indication of the variety within each of the
employment status categories.
C.2
Rented sites - Already retired
Broadly engineering/technical....
Metal inspector, British Alcan, Falkirk, for 36 years (m) (>60)
Welder (m) (>60)
Civil engineer (m) (>60)
Electrical engineer (presumably husband of respondent) (f) (>60)
Hospital maintenance engineer (m) (>60)
Planning engineer in oil-related work last 10 yrs; previously construction site
manager; wife - telephonist (m) (>60)
Quality engineer - GEC (m) (>60)
Telephone engineer (m) (>60)
Faults/ clear emergency with Scottish Power (m) (51-60)
Jobs associated with the building industry....
Foreman plumber (m) (51-60)
Electrician (m) (>60)
Electrician (m) (>60)
Joiner (m) (>60)
Chief clerk of works (building) [public sector] (m) (>60)
Broadly professional/managerial jobs....
Retired C of E clergyman (m) (>60)
Shipmaster, then operation manager (marine) (m) (>60)
Superintendent [paper factory] (m) (>60)
Was employed as an accountant; now own/run property company (m) (51-60)
Education....
Teacher (f) (>60)
Teacher of technical subjects (principal) (m) (>60)
University Research Fellow; Retired GP (f) (>60)
Transport....
British Rail locomotive driver (m) (51-60)
Bus driver (m) (>60)
Railway fireman/ Insurance agent/Post Office driver (m) (>60)
Driver (m) (51-60)
Medical....
Consultant physician (retired) (m) (>60)
Nursing auxiliary with [x] Region; my husband was a bus driver with [x] (f) (>60)
Miscellaneous former occupations....
126
BT Traffic Officer (f) (>60)
Clerical worker in publishers 1955-1962 (f) (51-60)
Fork lift truck driver (m) (51-60)
Fish market porter (m) (>60)
Road man (m) (>60)
School crossing guide and university catering assistant (f) (>60)
Counter assistant, Asda, Dyce, Aberdeen (f) (>60)
Sheltered housing warden (f) (>60)
Copy reader (m) (>60)
C.3
Rented sites - full-time employment
Broadly building trades.....
Painter and decorator (m) (31-40)
Painter/decorator (m) (31-40)
Skilled tradesman (engineer) (m) (31-40)
Electrician (m) (41-50)
Maintenance engineer (m) (>60)
UPVC Double glazing fabricator (m) (41-50)
Forms of industrial or manufacturing work.....
Engineering (m) (31-40)
Engineer (m) (41-50)
Moulder (m) (41-50)
Toolmaker (m) (51-60)
Plant operator (m) (51-60)
Quality control inspector (f) (31-40)
Professional/managerial jobs......
Company administrator (f) (31-40)
Manager (m) (31-40)
Systems Analyst (m) (31-40)
Social work manager (m) (51-60)
Transport manager (m) (51-60)
Local authority community worker - social work dept (m) (31-40)
Social worker (partner also) (f) (41-50)
Education....
Special needs trainer (m) (41-50)
Teacher (f) (41-50)
University administrator (f) (31-40)
Medical/nursing sector....
Nurse (f) (31-40)
Nurse (f) (41-50)
Trainee audiologist; aerobic instructor (f) (31-40)
Diverse but probably fairly lowly paid jobs.......
Labourer (m) (31-40)
Boiler man (m) (41-50)
127
Husband landfill attendant; wife domestic assistant in hospital (m),(f) (51-60)
School janitor (m) (51-60)
Packer driver (m) (31-40)
Driver (m) (51-60)
Clerical worker (f) (41-50)
Cashier (m) (51-60)
C.4
Rented sites - part-time employment
I teach at my son’s school and work occasionally as an arts specialist in schools and
for various arts organisations (f) (31-40)
Teacher (f) (31-40)
Arts - writer (m) (41-50)
Bar person (f) (41-50)
Painter (artist) (m) (41-50)
Receptionist (f) (41-50)
School-bus driver employed by the local council (m) (41-50)
C.5
Rented sites - self-employment
The building trades....
Property maintenance (m) (<30)
Painter and decorator (m) (51-60)
Joiner (m) (41-50)
Miscellaneous jobs....
Taxi operator (m) (31-40)
Jewellery manufacturer (f) (41-50)
Own an engineering business (f) (41-50)
Project planner (m) (41-50)
Newsagent (f) (51-60)
Taxi driver (m) (51-60)
Tour operator (m) (51-60)
C.6
Rented sites - the unwaged....
Project worker (social welfare) (f) (41-50)
(Joiner) (m) (51-60)
Housewife (f) (51-60)
Not employed in the meantime (m) (51-60)
Unemployed housewife (f) (51-60)
C.7
Owned sites
The professions - retired occupiers....
Medical practitioner (f) (>60)
Chemist (m) (51-60)
Teacher in special education
Schoolteacher (m) (>60)
College lecturer (f) (>60)
Electronics engineer (m) (>60)
Civil engineer (m) (>60)
Managing secretary - Co-op
Fish merchant (m) (>60)
(m),(f) (51-60)
(m) (>60)
128
Sales assistant - part time; mother full time (f) (>60)
....and those in full/part-time employment....
Finance director (m) (51-60)
NHS consultant (m) (51-60)
Superintendent radiographer/sonographer (f) (41-50)
Clerk (f) (51-60)
Play-leader; husband joiner (f) (31-40)
Secretary (f) (51-60)
The self employed....
Funeral directors (f) (41-50)
Architect (m) (51-60)
Fisherman (m) (51-60)
Welding engineer (m) (51-60)
Engine reconditioners for 30 years in business (m) (>60)
129
PART 4
THE LANDOWNER PERSPECTIVE
130
‘HUTS AND HUTTERS’
STAGE 2 - SITE OWNERS
Huts, hut use and hutters through the
eyes of the site owners
Report on the owner element of Stage 2 of a study
undertaken for
The Scottish Executive Central Research Unit
on behalf of
Housing Division 2
of
The Scottish Executive Development Department
Research Consultancy Services
131
December 1999
132
CONTENTS
4.1
INTRODUCTION
The scope of the study as a whole
The structure of the report
4.2
THE APPROACH TO THE SITE OWNER ELEMENT
Abstract
The approach
The scale
4.3
SITE ORIGINS AND HISTORY
Abstract
How and why sites started
Present day owners
4.4
SITE SIZE AND CHANGE OVER TIME
Abstract
Area
4.5
SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Abstract
Site settings and forms
Hut forms
Access
Services
Water
Waste
Lighting, cooking and heating
Rubbish disposal
Centralised facilities
Site maintenance
Changes in the state of sites over time
4.6
USE AND USERS
Abstract
The users
Patterns of use of huts and change over the years
4.7
LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURES
I - AGREEMENTS BETWEEN OWNER AND OCCUPIER
Abstract
The basic agreements
Respective rights and responsibilities
Site owner powers
4.8
LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURES
II - RENTALS AND OTHER FORMS OF CHARGE
Abstract
Rentals
Other costs
4.9
LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURES
III - CHANGES TO HUTS AND THE LOCAL AUTHORITY ROLE
133
Abstract
Changes
The local authority role
4.10
LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURES
IV - CHANGING OWNERSHIP OF HUTS
Abstract
4.11
SITE OWNER ATTITUDES AND PHILOSOPHY
4.12
AN OVERVIEW
The context
Origins and growth
Static and changing ownerships
Inputs and outputs
Roles and responsibilities
Implications for the future
4.APPENDICES
4A
4B
Site descriptions
Illustrations of typical huts and sites
134
4.1
INTRODUCTION
The scope of the study as a whole
4.1.1
Early in 1999, Research Consultancy Services [RCS] was invited to undertake a study of
‘Huts and Hutters in Scotland. This work was commissioned by the Scottish Executive’s
Central Research Unit [CRU] on behalf of Housing Division 2 [H2] of The Scottish
Executive Development Department [SEDD].
4.1.2
The study as whole comprised a number of elements. A first stage, undertaken in the early
spring of 1999, assessed the scale and distribution of hut sites throughout Scotland and
created a detailed inventory of sites. This part of the study drew on a number of sources,
primarily local planning authorities, large-scale-map searches and Assessors’ Valuation Rolls.
The report on this element was completed in April 1999, identifying a total of approximately
700 huts, spread over 35 sites of two or more huts, together with a further 27 individual huts.
However, it was recognised that data was missing for some areas and that eventually there
might be some modification of these totals.
4.1.3
An important additional purpose in Stage 1 was to examine the potential for and practicalities
of a second stage which would examine the issue of Huts and Hutters in more depth and, in
particular, provide information about two broad aspects:
4.1.4
(a)
the historical and current administrative arrangements applicable to each site and
to the tenants/licensees; and
(b)
the characteristics of occupiers and their use of their huts/plots.
In the light of the outcome of Stage 1 it was deemed practicable to mount the second stage,
commissioned in June 1999. Here, two separate but related elements were involved: first a
series of discussions with owners of the larger sites (defined as those with ten or more huts)
and, second, a postal survey of a large number of owners/occupiers of the huts themselves.
The structure of the report
4.1.5
This report brings together the information from the element dealing with huts and their sites
as seen from the perspective of the owners of the sites and is structured in the following way:
This introductory Chapter sets out the context for and aims of the study;
Chapter 2 summarises the scale of the site owner element and the methods used;
Chapter 3 looks at the site origins and subsequent history, including the people who
started them off and those who now own them;
Chapter 4 is concerned with site size, in terms of area and of hut numbers and the
changes in these over time;
Chapter 5 deals with a number of other characteristics of sites, including site forms
and settings, access, services, and changes in the general state of the sites over the
years;
Chapter 6 looks at the nature of the occupiers of huts and the catchments from which
they are drawn ands assesses levels and patterns of hut use on the site ;
135
Four chapters address a number of different aspects of the ways in which the sites
operate in legal and administrative terms. The first of these, Chapter 7 covers forms
of agreement between site owner and occupier in terms of basic forms of agreement,
the respective rights and responsibilities and some of the site owners’ powers in the
event of problems;
Chapter 8 assesses rents and collection methods for rents - and the success in getting
these - together with other forms of charge which occupiers may have to pay;
Chapter 9 deals with restrictions on what occupiers may do to maintain or develop
their huts and the role of the local authorities in respect of sites in general;
Lastly in this administrative group Chapter 10 looks at transfers of hut ownership in
terms of the methods by which huts change hands, any restrictions on doing so and
the frequency with which this takes place;
Chapter 11 attempts to summarise site owner attitudes to their sites and to the
occupiers on them;
Finally, Chapter 12 provides an overview in the light of the findings of the survey
and looks at the implications of these for the future.
136
2
THE APPROACH TO THE SITE OWNER ELEMENT
Abstract
X
The site owner element is based on semi-structured interviews with the owners of sites having
ten or more huts as identified in the Stage 1 inventory.
X
Potentially some 20 site owners were identified for interview. A number of sites proved not to
be practicable for inclusion but one or two replacements emerged.
X
A total of 19 possible owners was approached seeking interviews and 15 interviews were
obtained. The participating owners provided a cross section of sizes locations and types of
site and of types of ownership and may be regarded as including all the main issues to do
with huts and their sites.
X
Visits to the individual sites were incorporated as part of the interview programme and it was
also possible to view a number of other sizes and types of huts to build up a full picture.
The approach
4.2.1
The main source of information for this element was a series of semi-structured interviews
with the owners of hut sites. The target population for this was the owners of all sites
identified in the Stage 1 inventory as having ten or more huts.
The scale
4.2.2
At the outset some 20 sites were identified as potential sources for interview. It proved
impossible to identify owners for four sites which would otherwise have fallen within the
target group, respectively in Stirling, Dumfries and Galloway, Perth and Kinross and South
Ayrshire. However, one or two additional potential sources emerged in the light of additional
Valuation Roll data.
4.2.3
Letters seeking an interview were sent to 19 possible contacts setting out the purpose of the
study, the issues to be covered and some of the definitional background.
4.2.4
Apart from those sites for which owners could not be found, initial approaches proved
unsuccessful in a small number of cases:
One site proved to have been inaccurately identified in the Stage 1 planning authority
returns - this was confirmed, both by the site owners and in a passing visit, to be a
large caravan site of which the small section suggested as a hut site by the planning
authority proved to be long standing static caravans. It is likely that this was a problem
of definition within the range of options suggested in the Stage 1 questionnaire;
another small site proved to be effectively ‘dead’. Here the address given for the
owner was a ‘c/o’ address of a development company through which it was indicated
that there had been no contact with the site owner for a few years, that the proposals
for developing the site for other purposes had fallen through and the site was thought
to be - and confirmed by a site visit - in a derelict state;
one site was eventually written off after a number of unsuccessful attempts had been
made to arrange an interview with an unwilling owner. In practice a passing inspection
137
of this site suggested that it fits very much within general patterns subsequently
revealed by other sites.
finally, a large Dumfries and Galloway site proved to have been sold off to individual
owners within the past few years and it was not possible to make contact with the
former estate owner.
4.2.5
A total of 15 interviews was obtained. These cover the full spectrum of site sizes within the
given range. In one or two cases additional information emerged in the course of the
interviews about other sites or what proved to be more than one site effectively on a single
location.
4.2.6
The range of owners was very varied. Settings for ‘interviews’ ranged from formal offices
through comfortable sitting rooms or a kitchen to standing in farmyards. In the light of this
the forms of communication evolved into a much looser set of informal conversations with
owners in which, as far as possible, they were steered through a range of subject areas but
much of the information came through at different points in the conversation. Inevitably,
given the nature of the owners themselves, the length of time they have had the sites and what
generally turned out to be a surprising lack of hard, paper-based records, much of this
material inevitably is based on recall and tends to be impressionistic. Nevertheless the
benefits of this approach were that a great deal of additional information emerged
incidentally, not just about the pre-defined parameters of the interview but about site change
over time, about the hut occupiers and about the site owners themselves and their philosophy
towards their sites and, often, what they often regarded as ‘their hutters’.
4.2.7
Wherever possible the interviews were supplemented by a visit to the site itself, either in the
company of the owner or independently. While initially seen as a by-product, these proved
particularly valuable in building up an understanding of the subject.
4.2.8
In the course of the programme of interviews opportunity was also taken to visit some of the
other sites which had been identified in the course of Stage 1 or which had been located
subsequently. Some of these were sites for which owners could not be identified or on which
the individual plots had been sold off to the hut owners in recent years. Other were outwith
the target size range but were due to be included in the ‘occupier’ element with its larger
catchment.
4.2.9
At various points in this report information is also drawn from the site inventory in the Stage
1 report to clarify particular points about which owners themselves were rather vague.
4.2.10 Through this combination of sources a much richer picture of hut sites than perhaps was
originally envisaged emerges from this study.
4.2.11 Throughout, the term ‘huts’ is used, though these dwellings are variously referred to by site
owners and in other sources as huts, living huts, holiday huts and chalets. On one site the
owner firmly emphasised that she and all the owners of dwellings on the site preferred to refer
to them as ‘chalets’. Similarly, for consistency with the other element of Stage 2, the term
‘occupiers’ is used, rather than ‘hutters’ in view of the some of the sensibilities highlighted at
the beginning at report.
4.2.12 Although the survey allows a number of generalisations about common elements among all
the sites, of necessity much of the information in this report tends to be site specific. In order
as far as possible to preserve the confidence of individual site owners, site are not referred to
by name but by letters, though these are not related to reference systems in the Stage 1 report.
138
4.3
SITE ORIGINS AND HISTORY
Abstract
X
Only two of the site covered in the survey started as early as the 1920s
X
Most sites appear to have started during the 1930s, with one or two just after the war.
X
Except in one isolated instance sites were not deliberately ‘set up’ by landowners but initially
rather grew in response to requests from isolated individuals to be allowed to put some form of
structure on the land for summer holiday and weekend use.
X
In a few sites, this also evolved from a patter of summer holiday camping on the same or nearby
land by fairly large groups during Glasgow Fair and similar trades holidays in other cities.
X
Sites which grew up within large estates are mostly still in the hands of the estate but may be
managed directly by a descendant of the original owner or through as estate Factor.
X
Some of the sites which grew up on private agricultural land are still owned by descendants of
the original owner, but others have been bought by outsiders within the past twenty or so years,
either looking for land for another kind of business or even just as an investment but in the
knowledge that there was a functioning site which they have been content to retain.
X
One former estate site is known to have had the plots sold to individual owners within the past
few years.
X
One site has been acquired as a complete entity through a trust which the occupiers established
in order to preserve the site for their mutual benefit.
X
One or two sites have decayed completely and others may be on the road to a similar end.
How and why sites started
4.3.1
The Stage 1 report indicated that, with a few exceptions, Planning departments had little or no
knowledge about when hut sites were originally established. Received wisdom, or perhaps
myth, about these sites was that they had been deliberately established by well-meaning
landlords in the 1920s, particularly to benefit men returning from the first world war and also
for families from deprived inner city areas.
4.3.2
In practice the interviews indicated that only two of the sites, A and K, started as early as that,
and then not really for those reasons. The first huts at A appear to have been built in 1919 and
those at K in 1925. Most of the sites already covered in the interviews started up in the 1930s
with a few in the early post-war period. Nothing appears to have started after the late 1940s or
very early 1950s.
4.3.3
In part the growth of hut sites in the 1930s may coincide with a more general growth of
interest among urban dwellers in getting out into the countryside, ideas of healthy living and,
as proved to be the case with a couple of sites, the development of cycling clubs who looked
for a base a convenient distance from the city which could be used for overnight stays at
weekends. Access to rural areas may also have begun to improve at that time with an
increasing network of rural bus services, while reference was also made in one or two
interviews to families sometimes coming out on a motorcycle combination. In some instances
people had been coming for some years, at the time of summer trades holidays, to localities
where hut sites subsequently developed, but until then had been camping in fields on or near
139
the sites. In particular reference was made to this in respect of sites near the Ayrshire and
Angus coasts.
4.3.4
Although in the discussions we asked about ‘dates of establishment’ it becomes increasingly
clear that this is an inaccurate term since quoted dates refer to the earliest appearance of a hut
on the land. In reality most sites started off with one or two huts and then gradually acquired
more over the years although information on rates of growth is vague and anecdotal, given
that the early owners are now long gone from the scene.
4.3.5
Except in rare cases, sites were not consciously established by individual landowners. It
seems rather that they were the people who happened to be the owners of the land at the time
and initially responded to an individual request to be allowed to erect on, or perhaps bring to,
his/her land some form of weekend or holiday dwelling. Much of this kind of outside interest
came from people living in industrial cities such as Glasgow, Aberdeen and Dundee, and
from parts of Edinburgh, though also in some cases demand also came from smaller local
towns.
4.3.6
Of the sites included in the interviews, the earliest to emerge is A, where the first huts are
thought to have been put up in 1919. Here the original owner had no plans to set up a site as
such. However, for some time there had been health and hygiene problems associated with
summer camping which he had allowed on part of the land. Approaches were made to him by
one or two of the campers for permission to put up huts. After initially refusing these requests
he eventually allowed the first two huts to go ahead, charging a nominal rent for the spaces.
4.3.7
The next oldest site for which information is available is K. Here campers started to use the
small strip of land along the coast about the end of WW1, initially in tents and then more
permanent ‘structures’, the first of these being a WW1 ambulance conversion. With the
exception of the war-time years, when the coastal stretch including the site was out of bounds
to civilians, it has remained in use ever since. The first ‘hutter’ and occupier of the converted
ambulance used the hut every summer until here death at the age of 91 in 1992, again apart
from the war-time gap. It emerged through the discussions that in practice there are two
groups of dwellings immediately adjacent to one another at this point on the coast, the main
site covered within this survey and a privately owned area of land with the owner’s cottage
and a few caravans and huts which is a completely separate entity, about which there is little
or no information.
4.3.8
Two of the sites are thought to have started in the early 1930s. The first of these, I, in practice
proved to be two separate sites, one now small but still quite active and the other, adjacent to
it, only the remnants of a former larger site, which is running down as the owner is elderly
and now very frail. Both started in response to holiday makers coming down from Glasgow
during Glasgow Fair and occasionally at other weekends, camping in a field belonging to a
local joiner (the father of the one of the present owners). Here again there were one or two
initial requests to have a more solid form of holiday dwelling and the first huts were allowed
to be erected, The neighbour of the first owner who occupied the smithy similarly began to
allow one or two huts in a field at the back of his house. The other early ’30s site was J, again
starting in the same way with a request for a corner of land, but in this case from the local
laird who owned a large estate extending up into the hills, part of which was fairly rough
land. According to the current owner, his great grandfather used to sit in a local hotel at times
and was occasionally approached about a potential hut space, particularly after the one or two
had been built It was totally flexible and informal, probably seen more as a ‘clan’ type of
relationship between landowners and the wider community rather than a particularly
paternalistic response.
4.3.9
Two other east coast sites, B and G, seems to have been set up in the mid-1930s as, according
to the current owner of one site one of its occupiers, still on the site, remembers her parents
building their hut in 1937 and their plot was already No. 7 on the site. As with the west coast
140
sites, these one grew up to serve people from Dundee, the then owner having a poultry farm
on the land. The site eventually was sparked off by people who had been camping in tents
during the summer for a number of years. They were then allowed to build huts which
became more popular This site passed through two or three hands before the current owners
bought it nearly 20 years ago. The second site was started on land owned by a local man who
ran both a dairy and a pig farm. Again this was seen as meeting the needs of city dwellers,
once more people who had been camping in a nearby field, dangerously close to a small river
but here, unlike G, which served Dundee, this appears to have attracted people from
Aberdeen (NB - this site was thought by the current owners to have been started just after the
war but the planning department gives it a pre-war dating, contemporary with the other site).
4.3.10 A more unusual start for a site, and perhaps the closest to a conscious ‘development’ was F. A
small farm on which there may already have been a few huts was sold to the local council in
the 1930s. Initially intended as a site for houses the council then allowed individual plots to
be rented out and for huts to be built, in part seen as encouraging tourism and particularly
serving people from mining communities in Edinburgh and Midlothian, and as well as early
hut structures one or two former railway carriages appeared on the site and were converted.
4.3.11 Other small sites began to develop along the now apparently conventional lines in the late
1930s. These include one north of Glasgow (O), one to the south of Edinburgh (E) and a
small one to the south west of Glasgow (N). In all these cases there seem to have been
requests to a local farmer from city dwellers and in most cases there were corners of poor land
on the farm which the owner was prepared to let people use in return for minimal, or even no
rent. The site at O, where the first hut was built by a relation of a local man, seems to have
been only one of a number of similar sites which developed in that locality, but which
disappeared in the post war years. It seems likely that many of these grew up in the light of
the expanding Carbeth site(s), serving people from the Clydeside conurbation. The first
people on the site south of Glasgow (N) seem to have been members of a Govan cycling club
who needed some form of over-night base for weekend trips. Here some of the cyclists
already had a temporary hut elsewhere in the vicinity and approached the father of the then
landowner about building a longer term hut. The owner had had no thought of setting up a
site but eventually agreed more as a favour to a friend. Reference was similarly made at (O)
to cyclists from Glasgow having been early builders of huts on the site. It was suggested that
a number of the other sites in this area north of Glasgow had been closed by the local
authority as they were being used as a means of queue jumping towards local authority
housing, something which was also referred to in other areas.
4.3.12 A rather more conscious decision to provide a site was at L, where, during the war, the then
landowner specifically provided land and materials for huts to meet the needs of a small
number of families who were affected by the Clydeside blitz, in particular people from
Clydebank.
4.3.13 Two sites in the Borders, C and D, both started off just after the war, again mainly in
response to requests to a farmer for a place to come out to at weekends. In the early days new
arrivals built huts out of a variety of materials or occasionally brought former bus bodies subsequently replaced by, or transformed into huts on the orders of the local planning
authority - and, in one case, a railway carriage which is still in situ. One site had the
advantage of easy rail access from Edinburgh with the then Borders line running along the
foot of the site and the station only a short walk away.
4.3.14 What seems to the be the latest of the sites to start up, perhaps in the early 1950s., although
here there is less background information, is one of the Solway coast sites, M, but once again
it is though to have followed the usual patter of development, but perhaps with demand
coming from a rather different group of people since it was part of an already established
wider holiday area.
141
4.3.15 Finally among the sites included in the survey is one which is perhaps most intriguing since
even now very little seems to be known about it, even by the site owners. Here, perhaps ‘site’
is a misnomer since H is just a cluster of huts, virtually on foreshore. While the factor for the
estate on whose land these huts are located has been aware of the presence of the site for
some thirty years he knows little of its origin other than it was probably just after the war.
There is no formal arrangement between estate and hut occupiers, no rent and little
involvement on the part of the local authority departments. Basically it just appear to be
‘there’ and is accepted, though there may be occasional contact with it on the part of the
factor. It should also be noted that there are one or two other individual huts at other points on
the estate’s land along the coast, together with one which was demolished in recent years.
Present day owners
4.3.16 The people who now own the sites are varied. In a few instances they have inherited the site
from previous generations of the same family. In one instance the site started just after the
war on the farm owned by the father of the current joint owners of the farm, themselves now
elderly. In another the current owner’s father started the small site just before the war but died
more than 40 years ago. His daughter inherited the small farm and the site, which more or less
ran itself, but she in turn became elderly and in poor health and the farm and site are now the
responsibility of her son.
4.3.17 Four sites are still part of the same larger estates on which they started. The site, or rather
group of sites at A, itself little more than the size of a small farm, is still in the hands of the
same family, albeit now into the third generation and is directly managed by a member of the
family. The site at J where the site started around 1930 is now run by the great grandson of
the then laird, while the third, L, also still remains in the same family’s hands where overall
responsibility is lies with the estate factor but where day to day site matters are handled via a
tenant with a small farm whose lease includes the job of managing the site and who receives
the rental income from it. The fourth site in this category is the one at Inverkip, referred to
above.
4.3.18 Some of the current owners have acquired their sites more recently, within the past 15 or 20
years. One or two farmers have bought them as going concerns which also happened to have
a hut site on them. In one case the new owner bought the land as an extension to his farm
about 20 years ago. The land itself had been owned by the Forestry Commission but they
would not clear it for agricultural use. Here the owner was reluctant to take the site on being
uncertain about its future, about the attitude of the local planning department and the
possibility that it was in danger of becoming a dump both in people and material terms. In this
instance the planning authority was prepared to allow huts that were already there to stay though some caravans had to be removed - so long as there were no complaints locally about
the site but that no others could be added. Similarly the Solway coast site was bought as a
farm which happened to have huts on part of it and the new owner was content to let them
stay but in a more controlled manner.
4.3.19 Other newer owners were looking for a piece of land for other purposes and again acquired it
in the knowledge that it included a hut site. Both B and G had been in the hands of a number
of owners between the original and current ones, but in both cases the latter have now owned
the site for some time and in the latter had even longer links as a hut occupier. In the first
instance exact ownership of the site had been uncertain for a while following the death of the
then owner and while the house itself was empty for about two years the site continued to
operate more or less on its own. Eventually the present owners managed to trace the
ownership and bought the 30 acres of land. Here there were reservations about taking on the
site itself but it was there and the occupiers persuaded the new owner of its importance to
them - perhaps by a process of inertia it was allowed to continue and has now ‘grown’ on the
new owners. On the other site the present owners bought it about 15 years ago. They had
142
formerly lived in West Lothian and had a summer caravan at a nearby coastal resort which
they used for a fortnight each summer. They got to know the ‘chalet’ site and eventually
found that there was one available which they bought, and still own and use. When the
previous owner died they bought the site and mother and son now run the huts in conjunction
with caravan storage which increasingly has occupied the site.
4.3.20 On another site, E, the present owner acquired the huts and adjoining land from a
neighbouring farm in order to set up an agriculture-related business, subsequently building a
house on what had been a hut plot.
4.3.20 The newest of the owners, acquiring site C as recently as seven or eight years ago, was when
the farmer who started the site was getting too old and wanted to sell the land which was then
bought by a local town-dweller, albeit at the time with rather uncertain knowledge of the site
and what was entailed in its ownership. Here, while the part of the site on which the huts are
located is ‘managed ’ by the new owner, the rest of the agricultural land is let to a another
local farmer for grazing which, in turn has implications for the site occupiers in terms of
needing to keep farm gates closed and not disturbing stock.
4.3.21 The most unusual of the present day owners is the very recent change at site K. As already
noted this was initially used for camping in tents and then huts began to be introduced. The
main site has been occupied largely by its original group of campers - who then became
hutters - and their immediate descendants for the past 80 years, with the continuity broken
only when the area was out of bounds to the public during the war years. In the late 1990s
there were possible threats tot the site’s future from outside developers and the group of
occupiers set about investigating ways of preventing this change. On various occasions over
the years there was some debate about the ownership of the land itself and although the
occupiers had paid rates to the local council they had never paid any rent. Some assumed that
the land was on ‘ foreshore’ - possibly a provision which may also have applied in the case of
H above - while others asserted that there had been a ‘gentleman’s agreement’ with the
owner of the neighbouring farm, even though the land on which the site is located had never
been capable of cultivation. In the light of this the eleven occupiers decided unanimously to
for a Trust to try to protect their common interests and to explore the ownership of the land at
both local and national levels. It was established fairly quickly that the neighbouring farm did
indeed own all but a tiny portion of the land and was willing to sell provided it was done
quickly. Ownership of the other small area was subsequently resolved and by late 1998 the
whole area of the site was owned jointly by the eleven existing occupiers who formed a
limited company. In practice was not necessarily an easy process as some occupiers were less
willing than others to be as committed to the Trust but these issues were eventually resolved
and as a result the whole community has become much more cohesive.
143
4.4
SITE SIZE AND CHANGE OVER TIME
Abstract
X
The extent to which hut sites have changed in size and plot numbers since they started is very
variable.
X
Sites grew in a haphazard fashion is responses to local demand and according to the
willingness of the landowner to take any more huts.
X
A small number of sites became very large, but in on case there was a major increase during
W.W.II wen the owner was required to provide land for huts as accommodation for people
bombed out of their homes during the Clydeside blitz.
X
With the exception of the very large site, or group of sites, at Carbeth, most sites probably
reached their maximum size fairly quickly and then remained static for many years.
X
More recently a number have decreased in hut numbers significantly but the owners say that
this is as a result of declining interest on the part of individual occupiers and consequent
decay of huts rather than a positive policy of the owners’ part
X
Only one incoming owner is known to have deliberately reduced the numbers of huts on the
site but this was in response to a number of social problems on the site and increasing decay
of some huts.
X
While no hut sizes appear to be growing in numbers, a few are fairly stable and one or two
see potential for a certain amount of growth.
Area
4.4.1
Site sizes vary widely. Indeed size is often difficult to define as the huts occupy indeterminate
areas of land in a valley bottom or on slopes on the side of a valley with no clear boundaries.
This very much reflects the nature of their origin, as discussed in the previous section, where
there was no initial ‘site’ but just one or two huts ‘on land’ which then grew in numbers. For
example ‘site’ A probably started with two plots each of about 50’ x 30’. Two of the largest
sites probably started with better definition, being on flat sandy land and occupying a number
of existing fields. However, it is these two which have most clearly diminished in size, in part
as some of the earlier huts fell into disuse and disrepair and were eventually cleared by the
new owners some 20 years ago.
4.4.2
The pattern of huts within sites is therefore also fairly uncertain as many just grew on the
patch of land that took the fancy of each occupier within the broad area of land available. One
or two of the larger sites are perhaps more ‘planned’ in that once it was accepted that there
were going to be huts the plots were allocated in a linear fashion. or in specific groups,
though the third large site again has an organic layout related to its land setting.
4.4.3
Site areas in most case grew as there were more requests to be allowed to put up huts so
overall area was a direct response to demand, particularly where the nature of the land was
not clearly defined and where it might be seen to be a source of at least some income from
land of little use for other purposes.
4.4.4
The site at A grew fairly slowly with probably less than half a dozen huts by the late 1920s
increasing to 40-50 in the ’30s. There was a sudden increase in the early 1940s when the site
owner was required by the local authorities to provide space for people bombed out of their
144
homes in the Clydeside blitz. The site was seen by the authorities as suitable for this purpose
because of its proximity to Clydebank, but also its rurality and hence presumably safety
together with the fact that there were a number of natural water springs. Soon there were well
over 200 huts, situated in clusters spread through the estate. Although initially many of these
were allowed to be used on a long term basis, after the war the huts were only allowed to be
used for holiday purposes. Since the 1960s, as huts became older and through lack of
maintenance and renewal by the occupiers, the number of active huts steadily declined from
about 200 in the late 1950s to around 130 a decade ago. Though rather uncertain, it seems
likely that the huts on two parts of the wider site were among the earliest, with other groups
developing later. In 1994, the current landowner purchased an additional adjacent area of land
which already existed as a hut site (effectively a look-alike of the earlier site) with space for
about 42 huts although there are now only 25 huts in the section. The total area of land
supporting huts in all the individual sections is now estimated to be of the order of 55 acres or
18 percent of the whole estate land. A total of 151 huts were said to be in use in later 1999,
though this is less than the 191 given in the 1999 Valuation Roll for the area. The owner was
unable to estimate the proportion of huts of different ages throughout the site, though he felt
that few of those still in use date from before 1960, while about ten have been built within the
past five years
4.4.5
Among the other fairly large sites, B is only part of a larger holding of some 30 acres of
which at its peak, the huts occupied some five acres though it is now only about two or three.
The rest of the site is now used as a static caravan site and for caravan storage with the
remainder as grass and waste ground. The hut site has probably halved in size over the past 20
years but when the current owners took it over there were 99 huts and, according to the local
planning department it had been even bigger with up to 150 huts in the late 1960s. About 40
huts are now theoretically occupied though in practice some are not used a great deal. Within
the overall holding, the eastern half of the part then occupied by huts was gradually cleared
by the new owners as huts fell into disuse and became derelict as former occupiers lost
interest in them and the hut area is now much more concentrated. A substantial area of what
was huts is now grass, mown for hay for a nearby riding school. According to the current
owners the decline in numbers has not been part of a deliberate policy of reduction on their
part but rather a decline in use and interest by some of the former population. This would
seem to be borne out by the fact that while there are other uses within the overall holding,
these do not appear to have taken over the vacant former hut area.
4.4.6
The site at G, though rather smaller - originally some 7 acres - seems to have had the same
pattern of growth and decline as its near neighbour and, indeed, a similar if not higher level of
caravan storage as the alternative use. When the current owners acquired it there were 32 huts
in use - though it was said that there had been as many as a hundred at one time - but it has
since reduced to the current figure of 22. The hut area originally fronted the road but a
number of those plots were subsequently redeveloped for conventional housing, one house
even being built around a pre-existing hut, described as ‘a main hut with a separate wee
cooking hut’, which was then demolished once the house was complete. Here the storage
element grew out of a number of caravans which had been left on the site by the previous
owners without any planning permission. The necessary permission was then obtained and
the storage became principal use of the land with the hut element remaining as an adjunct to
it.
4.4.7
The total area of land involved in site C is nearly 70ha but the huts themselves occupy only a
fairly small part of this. While, like the other sites which started slowly and expanded in
response to demand there was obviously an increasing area of land devoted to huts, this site
seem to have grown to its maximum size fairly quickly and then remained fairly static. When
the new owner took over there were 47 huts though once has since been demolished in a gale.
The same seems to have applied to site D where the sloping 4-acre field initially made
available for hut use has remained as the whole site area and the number of huts has been
static at around 25 for many years, though the owner suggested that not all these are in use to
145
any great extent and some occupiers were thought not to have been near their huts for a long
time.
4.4.8
The original area E is uncertain but at the time the current owner took over, about ten years
ago, huts were spread very loosely over about 20 acres with over 30 huts. Since then the site
has reduced to about half that number, partly, as with B and G, because the owners no longer
appeared to want them or pay rent for the plot and they had fallen into disrepair. However, at
an early stage the new deliberately filtered out a number of former occupiers who had been
the source of a variety of problems on the site which in turn were seen as damaging to the
new business for which the whole land holding had been acquired.
4.4.9
The area of the one council owned site, F, has remained static since the 1930s, with its
original 25 plots each roughly 10-14m square, but is constrained by surrounding uses. All but
two of the plots are currently in use. Initially a number of the plots were occupied by old
coaches and some caravans but there was a transition from these to ‘huts’ over the period
from the 1940s to 1960s. The site was affected by the establishment of a coastal park in 1968
and around that time its continuation was under threat with proposals by the council to
incorporate it into the adjacent golf course but local community support for its preservation
apparently was strong and it was allowed to continue, and its infrastructure improved.
4.4.10 Both the two small adjoining sites at I still occupy the same fields that they started off in,
though the small one has remained fairly full at around the dozen huts it was originally
intended to take. The other site which formerly was larger has now declined due to the
increasing age and declining health of its owner and only a few huts remain. If these do not
continue in active use and maintenance they will probably just be allowed to die away as the
owner has little interest in or ability to continue with the site..
4.4.11 There is no information about the size of site, number of huts or change over time in the case
of site H, other than that revealed in the Stage 1 inventory but, as indicated in par.. 3.15 this
site is something of an oddity.
4.4.12 Site J, on a large estate is just a valley slope in a glen, a piece of rough scrubby bracken and
heather covered ground and was never defined in any way as a site. Even the individual plots
are not delineated. There was no planned number and extra huts were allowed as seemed
appropriate at the time. Currently there are 13 huts still in use and according to the owner, the
numbers have not changed in the past 40 or so years. In the very early years there was thought
also to have been some kind of ‘scout hut’ on the same area of land but this ceased to function
many years ago.
4.4.13 Site K now has eleven tenants a figure which has remained fairly steady for a long period. In
practice what was thought to be a single site is apparently two, the other part of it,
immediately adjacent across an small stream consisting of an old cottage which also has one
or two huts, probably dating from around the same period as the main site, together with a
number of caravans. The two sites have no administrative links with each other
4.4.14 The small L site is another one which has not changed to any extent in size or hut numbers
over the years. However, it is more clearly defined in its boundaries than some being
constrained by woodland, a functioning farm field and the farm steading. Currently there are
12 plots in use.
4.4.15 Physical constraints also bound site M, with water on three sides plus flat and rather marshy
ground on the fourth. Huts were only allowed to develop on the west side of the peninsula,
with the proviso that none should be visible from the nearby village. The planning permission
for the site is for 18 chalets though there are only 14 there at present. The huts, which have no
individual plot boundaries, were fairly well established by the time the present owner
acquired it about 20 years ago but he thought that the site probably ‘took off’ in terms of
146
improvements to the huts themselves after that time. He himself built a hut and still uses it for
his own family and for visitors even though his farmhouse is only about a quarter of a mile
distant.
4.4.16 The small site south of Glasgow, N, still has the same boundaries (given as 0.5ha by the
planning department) although the number of huts has declined. It is a difficult site in which
to place huts and much of it would never have been practicable, being rough and boggy grass
in a very steep, deep valley. Once again this started off with a single hut but has never been a
large site. There were thought to have been between 15 and 20 huts at one time but the
numbers have dropped to about nine and a number of these are not used to any extent now.
However, this reflects the owner’s lack of involvement with or perhaps even interest in the
site since there is no rent and no obligations on either side.
4.4.17 Site O has also declined in numbers of huts in the 20 years of its current ownership. At that
time there were 23 huts but this has dropped to 15 now in use and, as on some of the other
sites where there has been a reduction, this is not a planned process but just declining use and
care leading to huts falling down. Four have been deliberately knocked down for these
reasons over that period and while other have just rotted away. One had burned down shortly
before he took over. There seem to be two quite separate groups on this site, those in the
valley and those on the slope and, even though there is little distance between them and no
direct animosity, it is rather a case of ‘never the twain shall meet’.
147
4.5
SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Abstract
X
The origins of hut sites mean that there is no common pattern to their type of location or their
layout. A few are fairly orderly in layout, others are very scattered.
X
Sites range from coastal locations, through farm land to scrubby woodland and foothill
country.
X
Though the huts themselves are mostly fairly small, they are vary varied in type, having been
built by individuals out of whatever materials were available.
X
Many huts are fairly constantly changing in some way as their owners rebuild, modify or, in
some cases extend, though in most cases extension is officially not allowed.
X
Many hutters put a great deal of effort into their huts and their immediate surroundings,
sometimes creating quite elaborate patios and gardens, but others may neglect them to a
stage where they eventually decay and either fall or need to be knocked down.
X
Access to huts sites is also variable. Some are beside or close to minor roads, other can only
be reached by farm roads or tracks. Within sites there is rarely any formal system of access to
individual huts and occupiers just walk or drive across unmade ground, though some improve
their own access in various ways.
X
Services provided to sites by the landowners are minimal. On only two of the sites in the
survey are individual huts connected to mains services.
X
Generally the only service available is water supply and even this is variable. One or more
standpipes at points within the site is the most common form of provision but some sites have
to rely on water from a spring or sometimes even a stream or occupiers may just collect and
store rainwater.
X
Apart from standpipe water, that from other site sources is mostly used for washing, while
drinking water is brought in in containers for each visit.
X
Occupiers make their own provision for lighting, cooking and heating using a variety of
sources including bottled gas, oil lamps or candles, or else have fitted their huts with electric
lighting using small generators or heavy duty batteries.
X
Cooking is mainly by bottled gas though some huts may still use a solid fuel stove for cooking
as well as heating.
X
Mostly huts have some form of toilet provision, mostly using dry or chemical closets but only
a few site owners make any provision for emptying these.
X
Communal toilet facilities are very rare.
X
Although in rare cases there have been other forms of communal provision on site these have
now disappeared.
X
The general condition of sites has been changeable over the years, depending on the nature
of expansion or decline, the level of interest/active involvement in the site on the part of the
landowner and the interest and effort of individual occupiers. There is no common pattern.
148
Site settings and forms
4.5.1
Sites are located in very diverse settings. Some are on flat land and laid out in a fairly orderly
way. Others are more scattered amongst scrub or woodland, sometimes in quite hilly and
possibly remote locations. A few are on the edge of the coast, sometimes clinging to a
shoreline. Some site descriptions from the local planning authority survey were given in the
report on Stage 1 of the study but these can give only a limited impression of the nature of the
sites. The visits to sites which were made in conjunction with the interviews enable a much
better picture of the actuality of sites to be built up. Brief description of the individual sites
included in this survey and their settings are given in Appendix D. and a number of
illustrations of a cross section of sites included in the survey are in Appendix E.
Hut forms
4.5.2
Huts are a complete medley of styles and sizes though, with a few exceptions, they are fairly
small. Some are very old, with a few dating back to their original state from the 1930s, others
are almost completely new. The nature of individual huts is a reflection of the preferences,
abilities, financial resources and practical abilities of their original occupier. Materials range
from various types of timber, through tarred felt, corrugated metal and other materials. Much
of the original raw materilas were probably recycled from other purposes and acquired second
hand. In a number of cases prefabricated panels or even complete prefabricated huts are now
appearing. Many huts clearly have some form of solid fuel stove, judging by the presence of
chimneys or flues. The former may be substantial, of brick or stone, the latter now often
stainless steel flue pipes. The variety makes simple description of a cross section difficult and
a better impression will be obtained from the photographs in Appendix E drawn from many
of the sites included in the survey.
4.5.3
Huts were never intende to be used for long term occupation and are essentially for summer
holidays and occasional weekends. As has been seen a number of sites developed out of a
previous tradition of camping by the same people on the same or nearby ground.
Consequently huts started off as a form of ‘solid camping’ rather than ‘second homing’.
Nevertheless over the years their occupiers have improved them in terms of their comfort and
facilities, providing comfortable sitting rooms and perhaps a number of bedrooms fully fitted
with double beds or sometimes with bunk beds for children. Kitchen extensions have been
divided off from the main living room or added as an extension. In this incremenetal way the
‘solid camping’ has turned into somethin much more comfortable, though in practice it is still
more appropriate to summer or half-way season than winter use.
4.5.4
Outside their huts, many owners have created quite elaborate sitting areas with paved patios,
garden furniture and hanging flower baskets. Gardens have also developed, sometimes quite
productive for their owners. As will be seen below those occupiers most active in this kind of
development have probably also improved the direct acces to their hut or perhaps provided a
parking space for their car.
4.5.5
The two preceding paragraphs provide the better picture of huts and their surroundings but at
the same time there is another side. A number of huts are nowadays in a very run-down state,
with overgrown weeds and grass surrounding it, possibly enclosed by a tumbledown fence, if
it has not gone altogether. Some of these are in a state where they might be resuscitated, either
with a revival of interest on the part of the existing occupier or else in the hands of a new one.
In general hut occupiers have a responsibility for the upkeep of their huts, both in relation to
their planning permission and the expectations of the site owner, but neither of these may
149
necessarily exert the necessary pressure and some occupiers have either disappeared or are
not easily contactable.
4.5.6
These two contrasting pictures serve to emphasise the individual nature of huts and the
character of their occupiers, where there is perhaps a greater freedom for this kind of
individuality than there is in other forms of housing or even other types of holiday home.
Here so much depends on the amount of time the occupiers wish to spend at their huts and the
purposes for which they use them. It may also be that the current occupier does not have the
necessary skills to even maintain, let alone imrpove the hut. Some perform little more than the
function of a large garden shed, others have become a complete ‘home from home’
Access
4.5.7
The nature of the access to site and to the individual huts within them depends partly on
location and on topography and partly on the site owner. In some cases individual occupiers
have made improvements to the access to their own huts, though this does not always enhance
site appearance.
4.5.8
Only a few sites are directly adjacent to a road, generally fairly minor roads. More have to be
approached via farm or estate tracks of varying length. One or two are fairly inaccessible.
4.5.9
Of those directly on, or close to a road, site F has a fully made up road along its W and N
beach frontages, feeding to a beach car park and turning space at the north end and a spine
road running N-s through the centre of the site. Here all the huts have direct access from their
plots on to these roads. Sites B and G are again on or very close to a road. Given the caravan
storage role of much of the area at site G, security is important and the whole site is well
fenced. In this case access to the site as a whole is by a locked gate beside a site office, with
additional gates protecting the various caravan storage areas and there are set times of day
when these are open for access (9am to 8pm with the exception of Wednesday when they do
not open until 5pm), though occupiers can sometimes get access at other times by
appointment as the owners live in a house on the site. Most individual plots are enclosed with
fences erected by their occupiers. Even closer to a road are the huts on site H which are
immediately in front of the concrete sea wall which also acts as a buttress to the steep bank up
to the trunk road which at this point runs very close to the shore. Although there are strict ‘no
parking’ restrictions, occupiers of this site park their cars along the narrow verge between the
road edge and the steep drop to the huts themselves. One or two have created parking spaces
further into the verge and fenced these at the back while most have made some form of
stairway down to the shore level.
4.5.10 A minor farm road off a close-by trunk road near site I runs up between the two parts of the
site. One part is entered straight off this with occupiers just parking their cars near to their
huts on the grassed central area. The remaining huts on the other part of the site are again
accessed via a gate into the field on the opposite side of the lane.
4.5.11 While the top edge of site D is adjacent to a minor road, dividing the site itself from the farm
owning it, access to the huts is via hard-core farm road from the public road down to the river
and old rail track at the bottom. This is used jointly by the hut occupiers and the farm for
access to their fields. However, within the site itself there are no formal tracks but occupiers
have made tracks across the grass by driving their cars across to their huts which can cause
problems in winter or other wet periods.
4.5.12 Other sites with adjacent road access include N, bounded along its western edge by a minor
road. From there people just have to walk through the grass to reach their huts. Originally
people used to come here by bus (getting off at the [x] turning and walking up) but now they
mostly come by car. One hut had managed to make a pull in for a car but the others appear
150
just to park on the road. Site O is entered by a gate directly off the minor road leading to a
village at the bottom of a dip beside the river. Within the site there are no clear tracks and
people just drive their cars across the grass or leave them near the entrance.
4.5.13 Some parts of site A are adjacent to minor roads but others are less easily accessible. Initially
there was limited access to the site as a whole and occupiers walked across open ground to
reach many, though not all of the areas. In recent years the owners have made a major
investment in improving road and track accesses while this is not yet complete, it has meant
that most occupiers can now reach their sites by car. It is clear that there has been a lot of
effort and resources put into this aspect of the site’s infrastructure. despite a lot of comments
to the contrary by a minority of the occupiers.
4.5.14 Of sites further off the road, C is approached via a farm track from a gate beside the former
farm steading, itself reached by a short length of made-up lane from the main road and then a
track. The track through the site continues up into the hills and is much used by walkers.
While it is rough in places the owner says that it would cost too much to upgrade and surface
with tarmac. However, increasing car use by the occupiers in recent years has led to some
problems with occasional in-filling of draining ditches in order to provide parking space for
their own cars, leading to flooding in the winter. Here the topography of the site means that
apart from a flat area at the lower end where it is possible to park closer to the huts, most
people just have to park at the edge of the track. All the plots are fenced in - albeit sometimes
with fences in poor condition - as the site as a whole is part of farm land which is grazed in
the autumn. The few huts along the crest of the ridge at site E are adjacent to the track leading
up to the owner’s house which itself is the line of the old Roman road. The remaining huts, in
the hollow, are approached via a branch track off the main approach, through a gate and then
the track peters out in the bottom of the hollow. From there people would walk to their huts.
Most of the bottom of the hollow is rather marshy.
4.5.15 Both sites L and M are approached via access roads to the farm, through the farm itself. In the
first instance the open area of the site is immediately adjacent to the farm steading and merely
a large, roughly triangular grass area with the huts arranged along two sides. The third site is
a fence bounding a grazed field. In the case of M there is then a rougher and partially
surfaced track down to the end of the peninsula and the site itself, with some very steep
climbs and dips. The track was originally a great deal rougher but the current owner upgraded
it some time after he took over.
4.5.16 Finally, of the two more remote sites, J is approached by a longer estate farm track running
up into the valley past the site and serving a number of farms. This access route is something
that would be maintained more in the interests of the farms themselves rather than of the site
and, as in the case of provision of facilities to the site, the owner does not feel that there is any
obligation to do more. Finally, site K is approached via a long and narrow track from a minor
road and through a farm, before it terminates in a small parking area near the beach. From
there, pathways run to each of the huts along the inner edge of the shore.
Services
4.5.17 In the discussions we explored the kinds of service which were available to occupiers on the
sites. In practice, on virtually all the sites provision of services is minimal. However,
occupiers are often enterprising in the arrangements they make for coping with their needs.
The nature of what the owners perceive as ‘services’ appears to vary from site to site, but
most are fairly minimal.
4.5.18 At the top end of the scale there are only two sites, F and L, which are fully serviced. All the
huts on the former are now fully serviced with water, electricity and drainage to each, though
water was originally obtained from a communal well on the site and occupiers had access to
151
the public toilet block at the SW corner of the site. On the second there was no water
connection until about 10 years ago and now all are also connected to a drainage system
running to two modern cess-pits within the site, a facility which again was only introduced in
recent years. Judging by the number of aerials, most of the huts on this site are equipped with
conventional televisions. and most are said to have telephone connections. In addition to these
two sites, one small section within site A has electricity and mains water/sewerage where
topography and the nearness of water mains and electricity supply has made this possible.
4.5.19 On most of the rest of the sites, where site owners provide services of any kind they are
mostly of limited to very basic forms of water supply.
Water
4.5.20 In most cases there is some form of communal water supply, generally via one or more
standpipes somewhere in the site. However occupiers supplement these supplies in various
ways and have equipped their kitchens and possibly a toilet or washing area with fairly
primitive shower systems. On a number of sites huts have water butts or storage tanks of
some kind which are used to store water and, in some cases, to feed it into plumbed sinks and
washbasins. These may be filled by means of a hose from the site’s standpipe supply,
particularly when they are to be used for drinking water. Alternatively they are fed by
rainwater collected from the roof, but this is mainly just used for washing purposes.
4.5.21 On site A throughout most of the parts of the site water is provided via a large number of
standpipes, introduced about 1964, Site B has three standpipes for all the huts. A standpipe
with cold water feeds into an outdoor sink at the top of the field on the larger of the two
groups of huts on site I, with another standpipe serving the three remaining huts on the small
adjacent part of the site. The site owners have provided three standpipes running off the
farm’s own supply at site D (not a public supply) and here most people were said to have
connected their individual huts to these supplies. A slightly more advanced system is found at
site M, where the owner installed a central water storage tank fed from the farm supply in
1985 in conjunction with wider drainage and water work on the farm and from that water is
supplied to three standpipes within the site, but this is a site licensed only for six-month use
so the water supply is turned off in winter to prevent freezes and bursts. Occupiers on site O
have access to a standpipe for drinking water, but some use the stream along the edge of the
site for water for other purposes. However, on this site huts are in two groups, albeit in fairly
close proximity, with little interaction between the two sets of occupiers and generally it is
those in the lower part of the site who used the standpipe and the stream, while those higher
ground rarely use the standpipe and prefer to get their water in a nearby small town.
4.5.22 Not all sites rely on standpipes for their main source of water. For example, C, has a water
supply via from a spring on the hill to the east which feeds a pipe with an outlet on the site.
While this generally seems to provide an adequate supply it may be insufficient in
particularly dry summers but under such circumstances there is also a standpipe at the
steading at the foot of the site. Here the also has a stream running through the middle which is
used for washing water, though there are thought to be some possible contamination problems
and it is not generally used from drinking. However, clearly it serves other functions as at the
time of a site visit, one hut was using this as a form of refrigerator for bottles by leaving them
in a beer or milk crate suspended in the stream.
4.5.23 Some sites have no standpipe supply or other clear alternative and site E is an example of
this. Here, water for washing is collected in rain barrels but drinking water either has to be
obtained from the farm or, perhaps more often, brought in bottles from home or some other
source. Site K similarly has a communal spring feeding into a water tank with a tap at one end
of the site, looked after by one of the occupiers, while here again one or two people have
water butts to collect rainwater. On site J, drinkable water is obtained from a burn flowing
152
through the site as it is on site N, although there may be less certainty about its suitability in
this case.
Waste
4.5.24 Waste water from washing and cooking mostly just seems to go into soakaways which
occupiers create within their plots and, given the levels of use of sites these usually are
adequate to cope with the volumes of water. On most sites, owners say that huts have some
form of toilet provision, sometimes within the hut itself or else in a small separate adjacent
building. However, in most cases they seem to know little about the nature of it and it is left
to the occupiers to arrange it form themselves. Provision is generally in the form of chemical
or dry closets, but little is done by most site owners to provide methods of disposal of the
waste from these and it seems to be expected that occupiers will remove it from the site
themselves. However, there are more specific expectations on a number of sites. On site A
occupiers have to provide a disposal pit within their plot which conforms to designs laid
down by the site owners, compared with B there is no facility at all for closets to be emptied.
In contrast, on site E, according to the owner all the huts now have individual septic tanks for
drainage which have been put in over the years by each of the occupiers. Nevertheless in a
few cases various forms of provision have been made by the site owners themselves. On site I
is there a communal cess pit in a small building to the rear of one of the huts on the E side of
the site which is emptied once a year at the owner’s expense. On site M, the owner put in
three septic tanks to serve the site as a whole but individual huts are not plumbed in and all
chemical closets are supposed to be emptied into the tanks (described by the owner as ‘bucket
and chuck it’). These tanks had to be emptied this year for the first time since they had been
installed, so the servicing cost is low and the owner has been happy enough to provide it as a
service within the rent. A perhaps unusual variant can be found on site K where the mutual
owners’ agreement stipulates that occupiers should observe traditional rules about disposal of
sewage, i.e. digging pits in the sand of the beach into which waste from chemical toilets is
emptied. This seems to have been a practice for much of the site’s life and has been accepted
as a suitable and hygienic form of disposal. Occupiers are expected to do this at low tide
where possible and restrict it to night or early morning disposal. Here, occupiers are also
expected to make any visitors or guests aware of need to conform to this practice.
Lighting cooking and heating
4.5.25 With almost no sites having any mains electricity, it is left entirely up to occupiers to make
their own arrangements for lighting, cooking and heating. Again there is often a surprising
lack of knowledge on the part of the site owners about what the occupiers do. Most seem to
use a mixture of methods. Sources of lighting vary from oil lamps, and bottled gas to
electricity supplied by means of small generators, either directly or by charging heavy duty
batteries. These are also sometimes used to power portable television sets. Generators are
sometimes seen as a problem, with the noise causing a nuisance to neighbouring occupiers,
though this probably depends on the modernity and efficiency of the generator itself. Where
people do not have their own generators it is usually up to them to make the necessary
arrangements for charging batteries, though in one instance, on site G, the site owners are
prepare to charge them as a favour on behalf of occupiers. On site B referred to a past off
from the then North of Scotland Hydro Board to connect up individual huts to the mains but
this was not taken up. However, the owner is now thinking again about pursuing this for those
occupiers who want it. One other source of electricity which was referred to on a few sites
was that of wind powered generators, again probably to feed storage batteries. The first
reference to these was on site B but here is had only been one occupier and the generator
itself was home made and rather ‘Heath-Robinson’ in nature. Another more modern version
was seen running at great speed on site M on a windy day and similarly one or two appear to
be installed on huts at site K, which is perhaps an ideal location, fully exposed to east coast
gales.
153
4.5.26 Bottled gas is the most common form of cooking, though site owners do not make any
arrangements to supply containers to occupiers. At the same time there were occasional
references to the use of primus stoves. Bottled gas is also seen as a fairly common form of
heating, but, judging by the presence of various kinds of chimney, some brick or stone and
others metal flues, many huts have solid fuelled stoves using wood or coal. One site owner
waxed lyrical about the joys of the simple life in a hut and appears to crave one of her own
but emphasised that it had to have a ‘proper wee stove’ and oil lamps. Against this must be set
the fact that the nature of most hut materials is highly combustible and the fuels used
potentially hazardous, particularly in the case of oil lamps and even candles and it is perhaps
surprising that there are not more fires, though there have been one or two instances quoted,
for example where the insulation under a stove had rotted away and the heat of the stove set
fire to the underneath of the hut and destroyed it.
Rubbish disposal
4.5.27 Removal of rubbish is again something which most site owners do not see as their
responsibility, though one or two make some arrangements. Site A emphasises that one of the
‘services’ it provides is ‘the removal of rubbish (partly but not wholly undertaken by the
local authorities) and the general upkeep of the amenities’, while on site L rubbish is
collected centrally for the site as a whole. Site C provides a hut at the entry point to the site
from the access lane into which refuse sacks are intended to be put, ready for collection by the
local council in the usual way. However, while the council provides occupiers with plastic
rubbish sacks, it only provides six-months-worth of sacks each year, compared to the normal
domestic 2x6 months, possibly to encourage them occupiers not to use the huts for too great a
part of the year. Similarly, on site I, itself very small and compact, a corner of the site is set
aside for storing rubbish bags and here the owner is very strict about rubbish being properly
bagged and put in the right place. Here, bags used to be collected by the council but when
‘wheelie bins’ were first introduced they refused to provide them for the site or to take
rubbish other than from bins. Eventually this was sorted out and the bin-men now take the
bags during the summer months.
4.5.28 Conditions seem less god at site D where the owners have provided a metal mesh rubbish
container at the entrance to the access track through the site and occupiers are expected to
leave their rubbish there. But in this instance, according to occupiers, the council provides no
rubbish sacks, a source of complaint on the part of the occupiers since they are paying rates
and, as they see it, getting absolutely no services from the council itself - certainly in this
instance there was a great deal of exposed refuse on the site at the time of a visit. In contrast,
on site E the owner provides no central rubbish collection facility and it is made clear to
occupiers within their annual letter setting out the year’s rent that they will be responsible for
taking all their rubbish away with them at the end of any visit. A similar stipulation is made in
the case of site K, now in communal ownership, where the occupiers’ mutual agreement
emphasises that they must ensure that domestic and garden rubbish does not accumulate on
their plot and is promptly burned or disposed of in the local authority skip at [x}. Here it also
emphasised that owners are expected to store hazardous substances in a safe manner and
avoid the creation of hazards - examples might be gas, batteries and glass.
Centralised facilities
4.5.29 Some references had been made in earlier statements about some sites that they occasional
had communal facilities and the possible present or past existence of these was also explored
in the discussions. In practice, they seemed to have been very rare and virtually non-existent
now. On two sites, B and G, there were communal toilet facilities of the kind which might be
found on holiday or static caravan sites. In the latter case these were provided for the users of
154
the huts, with 4 female and 2 male toilets provided near the centre of the site, close to the site
office and the standpipe for water supply. In contrast, in the former these facilities were
provided solely for the use of the static caravans which were on another part of the owners’
land and were not available to the hut occupiers. Reference was also made to there having at
one time been a small shop on site M, but this had disappeared well before the present owner
took the site over. Only on site A did there appear to have been any significant level of
communal facilities. The principal one was a former swimming pond at the extreme eastern
edge of the site which was apparently much used at one time, but it has been disused for
many years and has now virtually disappeared. Nevertheless, at the present day the owner
emphasises that tenants have access and his agreement to use local areas for barbecues and
other social gatherings, something which seems to take place in an informal way on a number
of sites and really can hardly be classed as a ‘facility’. Reference was also made on this same
site to ‘The Fellowship Camp’ consisting of raised platforms in one section of the site which
were used as a place for tents prior to the mid-1960s. Here a communal hall existed for
dances, meetings etc., but this was subject to a lot of vandalism and eventually discontinued
and little other information is now available about this.
Site maintenance
4.5.30 There is no common pattern about the maintenance of sites themselves as opposed to the
individual plots. As far as the latter are concerned this is seen entirely to be the responsibility
of individual occupiers and is either written into any form of agreement or else is a verbal
understanding. Inevitably the extent to which it is adhered to is very variable in the same way
as hut upkeep can be meticulous or virtually non-existent. Some huts have well developed
and maintained gardens around them, other have scrappy bits of bare ground. The
maintenance of the rest of the site depends in part on its topography and in part on the interest
on the part of the owner in doing anything about it. Some sites which are just part of a
farmer’s field have nothing done to them and the owner just regards it as the responsibility of
the occupiers to cut grass, D and I being examples of this though in the first instance the
owner takes little interest in this aspect, whereas in the second it is made fairly clear, quite
amicably, to the small group of occupiers at the beginning of the summer season that they had
better do something about it and indeed here it would be essential as the central grass area
would otherwise become impassable. The two sites at B and G are on flat, basically sandy
ground, the first with a broad band of grass through the middle of the sites which also
provides access to individual huts. Here, the site owner periodically cuts this. Similarly the
owner cuts the grass on the other site but in part this is done in the context of the caravan
storage element of the rest of the ground. In other cases, such as C or B, very little site owner
maintenance would be practicable given in one case the steep valley in which most of the huts
are situated and in the other the rough scrub and uneven nature of the site.
4.5.31 Two very contrasting approaches can be seen in sites K and A. The first now has its land
under the communal ownership of all its occupiers and they in turn have communal
responsibility for the upkeep of the site as a whole, both in terms of input of effort but also,
where necessary in contributing to upkeep costs. In the latter instance the site owner
apparently takes a very proactive approach to the maintenance of roads and thinning or
planting of trees but this is seen in the context of a long term programme of development for
the benefit both of the occupiers of the huts and the estate as a whole. However, at the same
time it is emphasised that the estate is not in a position to undertake all this work from its own
resources and that it can only come from a realistic rent structure for the occupiers.
4.5.32 In overall service terms, at the bottom end of the scale is site N. Here nothing of any kind is
provided and the owner has no interest in, nor intention of doing so. At the same time this is
perhaps not surprising since no rent has ever been charged and the owner is just content to let
those people who are there stay provided they cause him no trouble and he does not have to
be involved other than in the most casual of contacts.
155
Changes in the state of sites over time
4.5.33 It has already been seen that hut sites have both grown and, in some cases declined in area
and plot numbers over the years. As well as these aspects, we also asked the site owners about
the general change in the state of their site over this time. Where sites and huts are in good
condition it is a reflection both of the interest of the individual occupiers in maintaining and
developing their individual huts and plots and of the site owners themselves in being involved
with the site and taking and interest in it and in the occupiers. Some times the latter is a result
of a change of ownership and positive attempts to enhance the site and its image, though it
has been seen that this can also create difficulties since it is likely to lead to additional costs
for the occupiers. It is difficult to generalise about many of the sites since each has had its
periods of growth or decline and the state of individual huts and plots can vary widely.
4.5.34 On site A, many huts were said to have been becoming increasingly dilapidated in the 1970s
and 1980s. In the early 1990s a major programme of improvements to roads and accesses by
the current landowner made it easier for tenants to renew and repair their huts and the
numbers started to increase. The purchase of an adjacent land with a functioning group of
huts increased still further the number of huts, though it is this area which appears to have
been the cause of much of the subsequent difficulties on the site as a whole. The maintenance
of plots and huts is the responsibility of each tenant. In the main the boundaries of individual
plots are clearly identified by fencing, though in some sections a number of plots are not
enclosed. The owner provides a range of services and will respond to specific requests to
contribute to the general well being of the plots and the site as a whole.
4.5.35 Site conditions at B have varied over time. Soon after the new owners took over a substantial
part of the hut area was cleared of dilapidated and unwanted huts. This then reverted to
grassed field, but apart form this the rest of the site has stayed more or less in its original
format with a wide grassed area running up through the middle of the flat site, periodically
mowed by the owners. Individual huts vary in standards of maintenance both of the hut itself
and the ‘garden’ plots reflecting the varying interest, resources and preference of the owners.
Some have just a grassed area inside their fences, other have made gardens, others are left
neglected.
5.36
In the current owner’s eyes, the most significant change at C is probably the increasing
number of cars now and their effect on the access road, with occupiers’ attempts to make offroad parking spaces by filling in the drainage ditches leading to occasional flooding. On the
whole most huts seem to be kept in a fairly good state of repair. If it is felt that they are being
neglected and under-used the owner generally writes to the occupiers to suggest that it is in
their interest to maintain the hut but that if they now feel they no longer have any use for it or
it is too much for them to maintain (particularly for elderly occupiers), perhaps they might
consider selling, given fairly steady demand from other people wanting a hut.
4.5.37 Over the years site D has probably improved it appearance. This site started off with a lot of
old bus bodies but the planning department insisted that these go, probably in the 1950s and
that only huts would be allowed. More recently, one owner brought in a mobile home/trailer
van but this had to be converted into a more conventional hut. At the same time there are a
number of little used and rather neglected huts, while others have had substantial time and
effort put in to make them more comfortable.
4.5.38 According to one of the occupiers the first old bus body went on to site E in about 1934 and
followed later by a number of others, together with some caravans. The caravans were put off
the site in 1986 on instructions from the Council and bit by bit the old buses also disappeared.
With the arrival of a new owner some years ago the site is now regarded as being in a good
state after having become rather run down. At the time the rent is due the owner writes to
156
each occupier emphasising the need to keep the huts repaired and the plots tidy and here the
owner is conscious of the effect that the huts might otherwise have on the mainly business of
the land holding. However, parts of this site are very exposed to the weather leading to one or
two being destroyed in last winter’s gales
4.5.39 The owners’ view is that with the exception of one or two people at present, a great deal of
pride is taken in the individual chalets and their gardens on site F, but this may partly reflect
the stipulations of the lease and the also the fact that the site is close to other housing and golf
course with a perceived need to maintain standards.
4.5.40 One occupier on site G left their hut empty for about ten years without using it. He/she was
then asked to do something about repairing it or else leave and opted for the latter course.
Over the past 15 years about 5 or 6 huts have been taken down because they were unoccupied
and falling into disrepair, but the owners feel that on balance the current occupiers look after
their huts very well. Apart from the general reduction in numbers over the years both the site
and the huts are all in fairly good condition and some are still being improved. The owners
feel that at present the huts are probably in the best state that they have been in for quite a
while.
4.5.41 Huts on site H are thought to get added to or repaired from time to time but the nature of the
site topography means that there is little scope for ‘landscaping’ and no open area, so there is
little to maintain. However, occupiers have encroached on the verge in order to allow them to
park cars off the very busy main road which runs just above the site and this leads to some
fairly makeshift fencing and surfacing.
4.5.42 Site conditions over the years seem to have been variable at site I, but the owner keeps a close
eye on the site and tells people if their huts are getting too dilapidated. Generally the site is
tidy in the summer though it is much more overgrown and less attractive looking in the winter
when it is not in use and the grass of the central area has not been cut.
4.5.43 Over the years there seems to have been little change at site J. There has not been any
significant deterioration in the state of the huts as a whole, though some occupiers do more
than others to their huts and immediate surroundings - e.g. one or two have cut back bracken
and heather in the vicinity of their huts to give a better grassy space for sitting out. On this
site there are no recognised boundaries to individual plots, most of which are not fenced in
any way. It is accepted on both sides that the occupiers have a moral responsibility to
maintain their huts in at least a reasonable state of repair if they intend to stay in them. If a hut
shows signs of getting into a rather run down state through lack of maintenance the site owner
would merely makes a quick phone calls to say that ‘it looks as though such and such could
do with a bit of attention’ but in practice this has very rarely proved necessary.
4.5.44 The site at K has probably changed little over the years. Within four or five years of the first
hut, virtually all those that are there today were in place, though two huts have been
demolished and completely rebuilt in that time and others have been modified. One indeed
was a former railway carriage - though it is difficult to envisage how it reached the site. There
are no formal individual plot boundaries though there has been a degree of demarcation over
the years in some cases. In the late 1940s there was a great deal of wartime debris, such as
pillboxes and anti-tank devices, which was littering the beach and the area of and around the
site but bit by bit this was cleared away. There has been a constant need for maintenance, not
just of the site and its huts but also of the shoreline itself since all are very exposed to easterly
gales. Both this site and its immediately neighbouring group of caravans and one or two huts
have put a lot of effort into “coastline defences’ with stone gabions along the low sandy cliff
at the back of the beach. There has also be a substantial degree of redevelopment of some of
the huts, though with some resistance from the local planning authority. However, the new
ownership arrangements discussed earlier may make this site more acceptable to it. It also
places a significant mutual responsibility on the owner-occupiers to maintain the site, not just
157
in their own interests but in those of the local area as a whole. There are some problems of
occasional flooding of parts of the site from farm field drains but this is now being worked
on communally
4.5.45 The site at L appears always to have been fairly well maintained. While in part this is reflects
the nature of the users and their interest in their huts and in the site as a whole it was
suggested by the estate factor that it was also because the ‘owner’ (i.e. the tenant
farmer/manager) is resident and is regularly on and around the site, something which is also
seen a discouraging vandalism which can be a problem on more remote and less occupied
sites.
4.5.46 The owner does not undertake any maintenance of the site at M apart from having provided
additional services some time ago. The individual occupiers generally maintain their huts well
and the owner regards the site as ‘a dream’ from a landlord’s point of view.
4.5.47 As noted earlier in the context of services, site N has never been organised or ‘managed’ in
any significant way but this has been the owner’s policy given the nature of its origin. While
a few occupiers still maintain their huts to some extent there are no clearly defined plot
boundaries except where one or two people have put up a rough fence to enclose their own bit
of the field and the site seems gradually to be running down, though the owner has refused
offers to buy the land.
4.5.48 Two further examples of changes which have occurred on sites, even though details about the
sites themselves were not obtainable in the survey include one which has completely died and
now consists of little more than a rough grass field with one or two empty and derelict huts,
apart from one apparently still kept by the owner as a store. Here it was suggested that there
had been a proposed development venture to improve the site, possibly turning it into more
conventional holiday cabins, but this had never progressed. On the other the site was formerly
part of a large estate but on the death of the then owner the estate sold off the individual plots
to their occupiers. Here the huts and their surroundings still look very similar to those on the
owned sites, though perhaps there is a greater degree of interest in their maintenance and
upkeep since the occupiers now have greater security for their investment.
158
4.6
USERS AND USAGE
Abstract
X
Hut occupiers predominantly are from the older age bands, i.e. 45s-50s and older. Some very
elderly people still occupy huts which they have had for many years and may even have known
as a child when the huts was first built in the 1930s.
X
Given this age pattern, children are less common on most sites, though in some cases young
children two generations on come and spend time with their grandparents.
X
Most occupiers come from lower income backgrounds and may have been in some form of
practical trade, thus giving them the basic building and upkeep skills necessary for hut
ownership.
X
A number of the site owners appear to have very little knowledge of their occupiers and feel it is
not necessary to do so.
X
The catchments from which the occupiers are drawn seem to have remained virtually
unchanged over the years for each of the sites. This reflects the ways in which huts change
hands discussed elsewhere in the report. Only in one case has there been a change and this is
thought to have occurred a long time ago.
X
Hut usage is primarily at weekends and for longer breaks in the summer, but with an
substantially retired population weekends may be extendible.
X
Some site owners restrict the seasons at which huts may be occupied though they may be
flexible about occasional visits outwith these times for hut maintenance.
X
Levels of usage vary within sites. Some occupiers may used their huts very regularly through
the season while others may not visit their huts for a year or two at a time.
The users
4.6.1
In discussion with the site owners we tried to get a feeling both for the areas from which each
site’s occupiers were drawn and also for the kind of people that they were. Here it was
difficult in terms of the appropriateness of the labels which might be used but in practice
owners recognised the constraints and could give usable descriptions.
4.6.2
In the main hut owners appear to be older people, mostly now retired. Even the ‘younger’
owners are seen as mostly in the 40-50 age bracket. Some of the owners are now very elderly
and may have started coming to the hut as children when it was first built in the 1930s,
subsequently inheriting it from their parents.
4.6.3
The original owners almost all came from modest, lower income backgrounds, many of them
tradesmen in the kinds of jobs which would make the construction of a hut reasonably easy,
i.e. joiners, plumbers. Even where more recent generations have taken over the ownership
many of these trades appear to remain, although it was recognised by some site owners that
perhaps their occupiers had moved up the income/social scale, but the numbers coming from
professional groups still seem to be small and perhaps concentrated on particular sites.
4.6.4
The profile at A was said to suggest an average age of 40+, mostly married or with an
established partner and mostly C3/D1/E1. (NB comments during discussions indicated
presence of children or grandchildren in a number of cases). The catchment for this site is
159
mainly from Glasgow and Clydebank with a limited number from Stirlingshire and a few
from other parts of Scotland. There was said to have been little change in the catchment
pattern over the years.
4.6.5
Sites B and G both started around the same time, the first initially mainly for people from
Dundee. However, its catchment is now primarily people from west and central Scotland,
with only a few Dundee and East coast addresses, though the owner was not clear when and
how this transition took place. The owner described most of the occupiers as ‘nice middleaged people’, though it was recognised that there are occasional difficult ones. Some families
have rather older children and a few older families now bring their grandchildren. Again they
are said generally come from lower income groups and are often people with some form of
trade and useful skills in building or maintaining their huts. In contrast the catchment for the
latter site has been predominantly from Aberdeen, together with one or two from Dundee,
Edinburgh and Glasgow but this catchments has remained much same over many years. The
owner of this site G again suggested a predominance of lower middle class and working class
people many of whom do a lot of their own maintenance and so have some DIY skills.
Predominant age group is 40/50+ but there is a couple of couples with smallish children.
There are four or five older women who need to use walking sticks while the road outside the
site has no proper pavements at this point and for this reason the owners may offer to do some
shopping on their behalf.
4.6.6
At C, again occupiers were seen to be mainly from lower income households although here
there were also said to be one or two ‘trendies’ from [city] but in practice these did not seem
to stay for long. On the whole they tend to be middle-aged to older families, though there are
some with younger families. At the time the current owner took over the site occupiers were
mostly second generation of the original owners though subsequently there have been more
people buying and coming in as completely new owners. Most of the people on the site come
from Glasgow or Motherwell or Lanark, though with one or two from Edinburgh and some
from the immediate locality and there is not though to have been any significant change in
catchment. Where huts are sold, probably it is mainly to people who already know about them
from friends or neighbours.
4.6.7
Occupiers at D initially mostly came from Edinburgh and most still do, although there is the
odd couple from further afield. Here the owner could not give any particular picture of the
type of occupier but conversation with one, a joiner, much in favour of the site - and the site
owner - suggested that here again there was a patter of people with some form of trade or
practical background. Site F likewise grew up serving people from the mining communities
of Midlothian and Edinburgh tenement dwellers, with a few from Glasgow and here again
there has been little change in catchment over the years.
4.6.8
Occupiers at I were said to generally to be on modest incomes, often trades people and
mostly from the Glasgow area. Those whose hut was visited in the course of the survey came
from Nitshill so their journey was very quick and easy by car and, being retired they use their
huts for quite long periods in the summer. It was also emphasised by the site owner that a
number of people on the site are related to one another and indeed it was a relative of this
couple who was currently refurbishing a derelict hut for use by him and a young family.
4.6.9
Two of the current occupiers at J have been there more or less since the site started in the
1930s. Most are in older age bands ranging between one couple in their 70s and one perhaps
in their late 30s. The current owner suspects that initially probably all the hut owners were
related in some way. Here the catchment is largely local, i.e. from the nearest small town and
surrounds, rather than from further afield (though the Valuation Roll notes a couple from
longer distances).
4.6.10 Site K is a rather special case in terms of its original catchment and current patterns. Most of
its original occupiers were from the broadly local area, though diverse in themselves.
160
However, all the huts have remained in the hands of their original owners or their
descendants, with no ‘outsiders’ coming in, though some of the owners now live further
away. While it was said that the original occupiers probably came from lower income
backgrounds, those at the present day have moved into different fields, including a variety of
occupation and professions.
4.6.11 Catchment on site L is very largely Clydebank people Most of the current owners are the
second generation of the original wartime occupiers. On the whole they are therefore already
people in a mid to older age bracket, a number being retired and able to spend longer periods
there. However, there is already the presence of a third generation in some case as a number
of the families now have their own children and bring them to the site, some of them being
quite young. There can be up to ten or a dozen children around at weekends.
4.6.12 Most of the occupiers at M are of retirement age or close to it. This site has the benefit of its
access to water and some people bring boats with them. Most of the people on the site know
each other. They include a variety of types of people, e.g. at present there are: the widow of
joiner; a retired minister; children of a retired doctor; a retired man from [town]; doctor from
[city]; a farmer’s wife who uses it as a base for painting; etc. etc. Some have grandchildren
who visit the site with them, but in general there are not many children. There appears to be
no specific or clearly identifiable catchment for the site. Those currently occupying huts
mostly come from south-west Scotland or just over the border and while enquiries about
possible vacancies come from all over they are usually from people who have had some kind
of link with the site in the past rather than by chance.
4.6.13 The few remaining occupiers at site N are probably mostly now in their 40s or 50s rather than
having young families. It was this site that initially started with interest from a Govan cycling
club and most of the occupiers are thought still to be from that area, together with some who
may since have moved to other parts of the Glasgow area.
4.6.14 Most of the occupiers at O are in their 50s or older though they sometimes bring younger
family out with them. As with site N, one hut was formerly used by members of a Glasgow
cycling club and two adjacent huts were then built by other members. Most are of the current
occupiers are trades people, often plumbers and joiners, but at one time one was owned by
two nurses and another by a policeman. The catchment of this site varies now, drawing
mostly from Cumbernauld, Clydebank and Glasgow. In the early days of the site most of the
occupiers either came by but as far as the turning off the main road to the nearby village and
then walked the rest of the way to the site. Others came by motorcycle and side-car.
4.6.15 The least information about occupiers is those on site H, though they are thought mostly to be
from Gourock, only a short distance away. It is also thought that occupiers tend to be older
people - i.e. adults - rather than younger people with children. and with a predominance of
men rather than couples or families.
Patterns of use of huts and change over the years
4.6.16 Huts use is variable both between and within sites. Some huts may be used only rarely,
sometimes not being visited for a year or two at a time, whereas others are very heavily used
through much of the year. Perhaps predictably, use of huts is mainly in the summer months,
either from Easter to late September or starting around the period of the summer trade
holidays, a relic of the original purpose of the huts. Outwith this period it is mainly limited to
occasional days visits by occupiers to carry out maintenance or check that the hut is all right.
In some case the site owner theoretically limits the period of use - or it may be limited by the
planning permission - though, like many other aspects of hut sites, there is a fairly laid-back
attitude to brief day visits at other times. In any case, despite their stoves and improved
alternative forms of heating, few huts would be suitable for any length of stay in the winter
161
months. Huts are mostly used at the weekends, sometimes with occupiers coming to them for
every weekend through the summer months. Given that many occupiers are now retired this
also allows for some mid-week use though this is less common. Some also stay for longer
periods of perhaps a week or two in the summer either just on their own or bringing children
or grandchildren to stay.
4.6.17 At site A it was estimated that 90% of the huts are used regularly, mostly at weekends or with
some longer periods. Older tenants tend to spend rather more time being able to extend their
weekends and there is not a great deal in the way of single day or evening use. The huts are
thought to be used less now than they were in, say, the 1960s and 1970s.
4.6.18 Usage at B is again mainly at weekends though some may come during the week and others
may stay for a week or more during the summer but at the same time some huts get very little
use. There is no ban on winter use though hardly anyone uses their huts then apart from
coming for the day to do odd bits of maintenance. Overall, apart from the decline in numbers
the huts that are still in occupation have probably not changed much in their level of use over
the years.
4.6.19 Usage is still fairly steady at C, and though one or two of the huts may be used only
occasionally generally there is fairly regular use from Easter onwards and throughout the
summer. There is little winter use apart from the odd day to do some repairs. Use is said to be
mainly at weekends with some people staying for longer periods during the summer holidays
- at the time of a midweek site a number of huts were in fairly actively in use.
4.6.20 Although the site is very close to the farm itself, the owner at D rarely goes down to it and is
not really aware of what goes on or how much it is used Some occupiers are thought to be out
most weekends during the summer and some may stay for a week or more during the summer
holiday period, while other huts are rarely used. In the past people used to come out for the
full weekend or even longer, though now they tend rather more to come out for days. They
used to come up to the farm and buy milk and eggs but rarely do so nowadays as they bring
everything by car. Sometimes, where the hut is owned by a family, the mother and children
will stay for much of the school holidays, with the father going back to work during the week.
Observation of the site midweek during the summer shows that at least some huts are used in
the middle of the week or for extended weekends and according to one occupier spoken to
then (a joiner by trade) it is very well and regularly used and he spends a lot of time there
though use of individual huts is variable.
4.6.21 Use of huts at E again seems to be concentrated just at weekends or possibly extended
weekends and mostly in the summer and few if any are there for longer periods. However, in
contrast to the site above most of the present owners appear to use the site very regularly.
Some are older and retired people who have owned their huts and been coming to them for a
long time. One occupier has been coming every weekend since 1961, when he built his hut
and his weekends seem to be extending. According to the owner there is a great deal of
demand for huts on the site if any become available, though this is rare.
4.6.22 Mostly the huts at site F are used for short periods but there are certain restrictions on use in
the lease. Huts again are used a lot at weekends but also during the week in the summer
months when occupiers may stay down for a few weeks at a time during the main holiday
periods.
4.6.23 Most people just use the huts at G at weekends, often coming straight from work in [city].
During the week the site is fairly quiet and there are few people staying overnight. Probably
now a greater proportion of older people some of these are able to, and do, stay for longer in
summer. Usage is said to have declined to some extent with families who brought their
children up using the huts. On the other hand it seems than in some instances there is now a
next generation of families coming on and also bringing their children
162
4.6.24 Although very little is known about the site at H, it seems that the huts are used quite a lot,
both during the week and at weekends. When passing up and down the main road the Factor
is aware of cars being parked and of stoves alight in huts and on both occasions when the site
was visited in passing during the survey there appeared to be a fair amount of activity. While
there was uncertainty about changing levels of usage over time it was though that it may have
increased.
4.6.25 Use of the I is mainly at the weekends, though some older people may stay for longer, even
for a few weeks or months. On this site the owner limits use to the period from 1 April to 30
September but though quite strict about the huts not being occupied outwith this period there
seem to be little objection to people coming down during the autumn and winter to do
maintenance jobs on their huts. The huts continue to be fairly steadily used. The owner also
emphasised that the original camp site from which the hut site grew was very busy during the
Glasgow Fair periods, so there has been a long tradition of activity.
4.6.26 Use of the huts at J is very variable. Some owners come regularly at weekends and some,
perhaps the older people, might stay for longer periods, for example a week, in the summer.
One occupier tends also to come mid-week. However, use depends to some extent on the age
of the owners and hence their ability to choose the times at which they use the hut. Nobody
stays for any significant length of time, for example for the whole of the summer.
4.6.27 Site K appears to be very regularly used during the summer, not just at weekends but for
longer periods with family and friends of occupiers also using the huts at different times. One
or two huts are in almost constant use during the summer. While initially the occupiers appear
to have functioned as individual with not a great deal of interaction, the changed ownership
structure appears to have brought people together much more.
4.6.28 Most of the use at L is at weekends in the summer though there are no restrictions on the huts
being used at particular times of the year. Some of the owners, particularly the older retired
people may stay longer, perhaps for a few weeks at a time, but in part this may be a function
of the great levels of comfort in the huts on this site, which a better services than most.
4.6.29 The site at M is only rated for six-month use in the year and the water supply is turned off in
winter months. Here, most of the occupiers use it for the occasional weekend and perhaps two
weeks in the summer, a pattern which has been typical over the years
4.6.30 According to the owner the site at N is much less used than in the past as people now look for
other forms of holiday. In its earlier days is was quite heavily used, but a number of huts are
now empty or derelict and only one or two use it to any extent now. One family now comes
every weekend and another periodically but nobody seems to come for longer than a weekend
now, though they used to stay for longer periods. Nevertheless there was some activity at one
very run down hut at the time of a midweek visit with two teenage boys using it as a form of
play area, the hut belonging to the father of one of them and also adjacent to an older hut
which had belonged to the grandfather who had died about nine years ago and had not been
used since.
4.6.31 The huts at O are said to be nowhere near as heavily used as they were 20 or 30 years ago. At
that time some families might stay out in their hut for the whole of the school holidays.
However, one retired couple still spend most of the summer there and otherwise it is mostly
weekend use.
163
4.7
LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURES
I - AGREEMENTS BETWEEN OWNER AND OCCUPIER
Abstract
X
The most consistent feature to emerge form the survey is the remarkable absence of
structured formal agreements between landowners and hut occupiers
X
Only two sites had formal leases or missives of let, though the were very contrasting in their
nature. A third site had a form of lease but it appeared to be very simple.
X
In most cases there is no written agreement though the site owner may send out a letter each
year stating what the rent will be for the coming year and asking for it to be paid by a due
date.
X
One or two owners have tried rather more formal arrangements in the past but these then fell
into disuse and there is only a verbal agreement.
X
Only the sites with formal lease./missive have clearly specified rules and regulations about
what occupiers may do with their huts and plots.
X
Elsewhere there are generally understood responsibilities on either side though they may not
be regarded as ‘rights’ for the occupiers.
X
Constraints on occupiers mostly related to the times at which they can use the huts, the
purposes for which they can use them and the people who may stay in the huts overnight.
They are also likely to constrain the degree of change to the hut either from the point of view
of the site owner’s interest or the planning permission.
X
Expectations usually relate to the maintenance of huts and plots in a reasonable state ,
together, in the case of rural sites, appropriate respect for adjoining land uses, particularly in
terms of closing gates, not disturbing stock and not damaging trees or fences.
X
Most site owners are very uncertain about what powers they have to remove occupiers from
the site, but in practice it is something that they have very rarely if ever had to do. Some feel
that they might be able to issue Notice to Quit, but are concerned that they would then be left
with the costs of demolishing and clearing a hut.
X
The possible need to take action of some kind against an occupier is mostly seen in the
content of continued failure to pay rent but at the very low levels of rent involved in some
cases, owners feel that it would not be cost effective to try to pursue it through the courts.
The basic agreements
4.7.1
With two exceptions among the sites included in the survey, the basic agreement that exists
between a site owner and a hut occupier is that the former owns the land and is prepared to
allow the latter to keep their hut on an area of the land for a period of one year, in return for
the payment of some form of ‘rent’. The exceptions are the council-owned site where tenants
have a long lease, discussed further below, and the site in which the occupiers have
established themselves as a Trust which has acquired the land for the mutual benefit of the
occupiers, both of which place them in a different category to the other sites.
4.7.2
The most consistent feature to emerge from the discussions with the site owners is the almost
complete absence of formal agreements between site owners and occupiers. One owner asks
the occupiers to sign an annual lease at the time rent is requested but this was said to be in
164
order to prevent the site from becoming too developed, the argument being that if there was
only a guarantee of a year at a time, any investment in individual huts was likely to be fairly
modest, as opposed to a lease of say five or ten years which might encourage major
rebuilding or expansion which would change the character of the individual huts and of the
site as a whole.
4.7.3
Though rarely written down, in most cases there are certain understandings between site
owner and occupiers over maintenance, discussed further below, restrictions on subletting and
sometimes on the periods of the year when the huts can be occupied. In most cases the last of
these is largely a practical matter of the suitability of huts for use in the winter rather than any
particularly restrictive attitudes on the part of the site owner. Even then there is usually no
objection to them visiting in the winter months in order to carry out maintenance.
4.7.4
Only two of the sites covered in the survey, A and F, had formal missives of let but these
were varied in character. On the latter, each plot holder has a full lease which runs until 14
May 2012. If a hut changes hands the new occupiers are given a lease starting with their date
of entry but again terminating on the above date. The assumption at present is that, barring
any problems at that time everyone will then be given a new lease starting on 15/5/2012. The
nature of this lease also reflects the fact that this site has a more highly developed
infrastructure than other sites and generally has more sophisticated huts. At A, the lease
agreement is for the let of the ground for location of a hut. Lease runs from the tenancy
commencement date to the following term of Whitsunday and then on a yearly term to
Whitsunday and so on unless terminated by the proprietors for any breach of the conditions of
lease or in terms of a clause which provides that either party, i.e. the proprietors or the tenant,
to terminate the lease at the term of Whitsunday upon the one giving to the other not less than
40 days prior written notice. Some tenants have occupied sites at Carbeth for very many
years, Indeed the daughter of one former tenant still occupies a plot which her father took on
in 1943. (NB - not all the huts on the site are owned by the individual occupiers - out of the
current 169 huts, 19 belong to the estate.) The provisions of the leases currently in force were
established in the very early 1960s, with minor and inconsequential changes in 1987 and 1993
but these did not alter in any way any of the clauses of the leases.
4.7.5
On one other site, M, there is a written lease, sent out by the owner each year though it seems
to be a fairly basic document prepared by the owner himself. Again it relates to the right to
have the hut ‘there’ for the specified period though individual plots are not delineated. In this
instance the period has been deliberately restricted to one year largely because it does not tie
the owner down, allows a degree of control over the site in the event of difficulties. However,
it is also seen as a way of preserving the character of the site with relatively unsophisticated
dwellings whereas occupiers with a long lease might be tempted to invest heavily in
developing their huts and surroundings, turning them into fully fledged second homes. The
lease also emphasises the planning constraint that use is limited to only six months of the
year.
4.7.6
On almost all the others the paperwork is limited to some form of written request to the
occupiers to pay their rent for the following year, occasionally with comments about the
owner’s expectations of their behaviour and responsibilities but it is hardly a conventional
form of agreement. Examples of this occur at the sites at B, C, G, and J, but with variations in
their approach.
4.7.7
Although in discussion it initially was said that there was no written agreement of site G, in
practice there seems to be at some form of written ‘contract’ which is just about paying the
rent and keeping the place tidy and setting out the opening hours for the site, these being
governed by the need for security of stored caravans.
4.7.8
Two of the newer owners (C and E) were concerned about the lack of any formal agreement
but, when querying the advisability of regularising the arrangements were advised by their
165
lawyers that not to embark on contracts which could prove to be disadvantageous to them as
owners. In each case the ‘agreements’ are limited to the letter setting out the ‘rent’ for the
forthcoming year and noting the things which they should or should not do on the site. While
these arrangements are very laid back they appear to work - one owner’s letter in January
emphasises that occupation of the huts and land should be in a sense of fairness and cooperation, in return for which few conditions on site use are imposed on occupiers. The
other’s similar style of letter goes out in May before the rent is due at the end of the month
and the occupiers are supposed to sign this and return it with the rent. By doing so the owner
regards the occupiers as having agreed to both rent and conditions - and thus it probably
constitutes a form of ‘contract’ though the letter itself was careful not to mention the word
‘tenancy’ - but it is an attempt to keep arrangements fairly informal. Similarly the owner of a
very long standing site on an estate expressed the view that the occupiers do not have any
rights over the land other than the right to place and maintain their hut on it and as far as the
owner is aware they probably do not even have any formal right of access to the site but, once
again, it has never been an issue. Again in this case there is no paperwork or lease other than
the annual letter asking for the rent.
4.7.9
A variant on this emerged on the part of one farmer (O). At the time of acquiring the site he
was assured by his lawyer that he had full title to the land on which the huts were situated. At
an early stage he was advised that there should be a formal missive of let and for a while this
was issued each year with the request for the next year’s rent. However, later a number of the
newer in-comers felt this too formal an arrangement and eventually it was done away with
and he reverted to a word of mouth agreement, which generally appears to work. He now has
no written agreement with them but sees the whole issue of any title or rights for the
occupiers as very anomalous, mainly in the context of the problems that have been emerging
on sites elsewhere.
4.7.10 On one or two sites the paperwork is little more than vestigial. Here the owner merely keeps a
record of the names, addresses and telephone numbers of the occupiers, partly in case it is
necessary to chase up missing rent and also because it is necessary to make an annual return
of this information to the Valuation Assessors. In each case the owner’s view is that they have
full rights over the land, while the occupiers have full ownership of their huts which are
allowed to stay on the land in return for the annual rent, in all cases payable - theoretically in advance, thus giving the site owner a degree of security for the year.
4.7.11 At the lowest end of the formality scale there is no form of agreement, nor even contact,
between the site owner and occupiers on two sites. On one, H, though it must be emphasised
that this was only surmise on the factor’s part that under Scot’s law, given the particular
nature of this location and the length of time it had been in place, the hut owners might even
now own their individual bits of foreshore since the huts are now on a firmly founded base,
i.e. a concerted foundation and under Scots law there therefore have acquired a right to the
land. It is not within the scope of this study to express a view one way or the other. On the
other site the position was that no rent had ever been charged and no written agreement
entered into with any of the occupiers since the site started. While the site owner knew the
names and ’phone number of the few remaining occupiers this was largely so that he had
some idea of who was around but also because there was an informal understanding that
sometimes an occupier might give him a hand with some work on his small farm, such as
slating or painting as a goodwill gesture in return for use of the land. In this instance he had
been approached a year or two ago by someone wishing to buy the piece of land on which his,
and possibly other huts, were located but this offer was turned down as it would have
jeopardised the integrity of the already small sized land holding.
Respective rights and responsibilities
166
4.7.12 Although as already noted the arrangements between site owner and hut owner are most
extremely informal there is an expectation on the part of the site owner that huts will be kept
in reasonably good condition. What constitutes ‘good condition’ clearly varies from site to
site but on the whole both sides appear to have an interest in maintenance. Much depends on
how much individual huts are used. Those in fairly regular use are mostly better maintained,
though other may remain untouched and unused for a year or more and then come back into
use. At the same time most site owners make certain stipulations about what occupiers may or
may not do. Some of these relate to transfers or hut ownership and are discussed separately
below. Others are about changes which can be made to huts or plots and again are discussed
separately. A third group relate to the time at and ways in which huts may be used. Finally
some deal with general aspects of site use, particularly in respect of associated or
neighbouring land uses. The extent to which all the aspects are detailed covers a wide range.
At one extreme there is the very detailed missive of let for occupiers on site A, together with
an ‘information pack which provides guidance about what is and is not allowed on the site..
At the other extreme is a small site where rights and responsibilities have never arisen as an
issue. As there is no rent and the site owner does nothing at all to maintain the site he feels
there are no obligations on either side. This is perhaps reflected in the general state of the site
which, while still in use, has the most run-down appearance of all the sites covered by the
survey.
4.7.13 One owner of another large site prepared a list of rules some years ago and sent this out to all
the hut owners at the time she asked for the rent but after a while she ceased to bother. On
another site no formal constraints are imposed but hut owners are asked to maintain their
properties and plots, not to take stones from dry-stone dykes, not to knock or cut down trees
on the site an to remember that the land is part of a working farm so all gates should be kept
closed. In this instance the owner’s philosophy is that it is in the occupiers own interest to
maintain their own property but also to respect hers.
4.7.14 There is no set limit to the number of days/nights in the year on which huts on A can be
occupier, nor to the times of year. There is no restriction to visitors except those staying
overnight. The lease agreements individually specify the names of those allowed to stay
overnight, the total of which is limited to a maximum number of 6 people. The Rules and
Conditions to which the missives of let refer specify that ‘the subjects are let to the Tenant for
use by him for his holidays only. Use of the subjects as main residence is prohibited’. The
missives also provide that only those specified (up to 6 in total) on the missives of let are
allowed to stay overnight in the hut. The local authority also has a rule that the huts can only
be used for holidays or weekend use and not for temporary or permanent occupation.
4.7.15 No formal constraints are imposed at site C. Occupiers are asked to maintain their properties
and plots; not to take stone from the drystone dykes; not to knock down or cut down trees on
the site; to remember to close all gates since this is still a working farm (the land being let out
for grazing in the autumn). The owner sees it as in the occupiers own interests to maintain
what is their own property, but also to respect hers. Although there is no formal written
agreement between landowner and hut owner, at D the latter likewise are supposed to keep
their huts and plots in good repair, though this is more a condition laid down by the Planning
department than by one the site owner. Occupiers are not allowed to sublet. Also being part of
a working farm dogs are not allowed on this site. No other specific constraints are put on what
the occupiers may do on the site, though huts are supposed to be used for only limited periods
and not residentially. On a third site with associated agricultural use, when the owner of site E
sends out the letter asking for the next year’s rent it also contains comments about
maintaining of the huts and plots, taking all rubbish home, keeping clear of the open parts of
the site which are in agricultural use and keeping the gate shut (as the field is also used for
stock).
4.7.16 The lease for site F specifies use only at certain times of the year (seven days per week
between 1 March and 30 November of any one year, at weekends, including Friday night and
167
Sunday morning between 1 and 23 December and seven days per week between 24 December
of the immediately following year). Huts may only be used as holiday accommodation, with a
maximum of 28 days stay at any one time and use for any business purpose is forbidden.
Officially no subletting is allowed (i.e. any formal arrangement) but in practice there is no
objection to the huts being ‘lent’ to friends/family.
4.7.17 On site G there are few if any formal restrictions on how occupiers use their huts. There is no
‘closed season’ and some occupiers may occasional pop in even during the winter, perhaps to
do some maintenance work, or just if it is a nice day or weekend.
4.7.18 Occupiers at H are not allowed to sublet their huts, though there does not seem to be any
problems over lending to a friend or family for the odd weekend.
4.7.19 At J, there is more of a general expectation about what occupiers will do, in terms of nothing
that will damage the future of the site or bring it into disrepute. Basically the owner’s main
interest is in ensuring that what is there is maintained in a way that will keep his land as he
would like to have it, but otherwise he does not see the need to impose constraints.
4.7.20 On site M occupiers are entitled to the enjoyment of their huts as holiday homes for up to six
months of the year. Over an above this there are no particular constraints on what people can
do with their huts, though the lease says that they must tell the owner if they are intending to
make changes to the huts.
4.7.21 Occupiers on site O can use their huts more or less any time they want provided there is no
damage, though here the owner finds that a particular problem about winter use is people
coming out with four-wheel drive vehicles which churn up the ground where there is no
underlying hard-core.
Site owner powers
4.7.22 Site owners were asked what powers they had - or were aware of - to terminate occupancy of
a plot it they wished to do so. Few had much if any idea. All were conscious that they owned
the land and that the occupiers only owned their huts. While one or two felt that they might be
able to get an eviction order through the courts, there was also an underlying concern that
occupiers might have acquired some form of rights through having been there for many years.
However, the absence of any clear view on this potential problem largely stems from the fact
that it is not an issue which has ever really arisen. Where there have been difficulties, either
they have been sorted out by direct comment from owner to occupier, or in some cases by an
older generation ‘ticking off’ the offending offspring. Alternatively, the amounts of money
involved in failure to pay the rent have been so low that owners feel it would not be cost
effective to institute proceedings but on the whole they do not appear to have been taken too
much advantage of.
4.7.23 Owners at site A would terminate a lease if there had been a major and material breach of the
lease such as excessive disturbance other tenants, though this happens very rarely. A tenancy
will also be terminated if after repeated request a tenant fails to pay the site charge. While the
missive of let entitles either party to terminate the tenancy at the term of Whitsunday
provided 40 days prior written notice has been given this has only been used by the owners
on approximately five occasions within the past 40 years to remove tenants. Similarly only if
they are in breach of the terms of their lease would tenants be given notice on site F, but here
there is a rather different kind of lease and the issue does not appear to have arisen in the
recallable past.
4.7.24 At an early stage after taking over one site, the new owners consulted their solicitor who said
that the occupiers had no rights and could be put off. Now the owner is concerned that one or
168
two are saying that they may have acquired tenancy rights over time and feels this ought to be
looked into this again but this probably reflects the publicity over the disputes at Carbeth.
However, it has never actually be necessary to take legal action to get rid of anyone and on
the one or two occasions there have been difficulties these have been sorted out, sometimes
through the intervention of a member of the older generation of the occupier’s family - as
with one or two recent problems on the site. Again this issue of removal has never arisen at
another site but the owner’s lawyer’s view was that as owner of the land she could remove
people if she wished. However, a potential problem was identified in this context in that in
practice there could be difficulties if a hut owner was made to leave and refused to clear the
hut itself, since the owner would be left with the costs of doing so which could amount to
£500-£1000 to demolish and clear - a figure quoted in the context of recent storm damage to a
hut which the occupier then decided not to rebuild.
4.7.25 The owner of one farm site had no idea what the position would be, though it has never arisen
as significant other than as a potential issue in the context of a perpetually non-payer of rent.
In the past on one or two occasions, if there has been a really bad payer over a long period
they have sold on the hut - together with the arrears - to someone else. There is perhaps a
resignation on the part of this owner that in practice there is little which can be done to
recover the rent under such circumstances and as it is not a large enough amount to allow it to
be taken to the small claims court it is left to go by default.
4.7.26 Again this issue does not really arise in another case as nowadays there is said to be a good
group of people on the site. The fact that the rent is paid in advance means that they are seen
as more likely to ‘behave’ over the year. Otherwise the owner feels that there is little that can
be done other than issue formal Notice to Quit. This was in fact done successfully at the time
the numbers on the site were reduced in 1989/90 because of what were seen as ‘undesirable
element’ (said to involve various forms of crime) but as well as issuing the notices the owner
offered to buy the huts which she then demolished if they were very run down or else found
new owners for. The matter has been raised again subsequently with the owner’s lawyer but
the advice was that there were more advantages in keeping the present fairly informal
arrangement since establishing a formal tenancy agreement could be as problematic for site
owner as for occupiers. However, it may have to be examined again, particularly in the
context of the Carbeth situation as referred to at site B.
4.7.27 The owners of site G are also very uncertain about their position should they need to remove
anyone from the site but again it is not something that has arisen on their site. In one case
where a couple who owned a chalet let it to their daughter who then caused problems
including bursting the main gate locks to get in or out. the owners notified their lawyer about
the incident and eventually it was resolved, possibly with the intervention of the parents.
4.7.28 A slightly more unusual variant was highlighted at H, and here, as far as the Factor knew
there were no legal arrangements in these circumstances. Again it was felt that Notices to Quit
might be used but as noted earlier it is possible the occupiers might have acquired a right to
the land by nature of the buildings’ foundations. Attempts to remove the occupiers would be a
lengthy and costly exercise and not really worth it, plus the fact that the estate would then be
left with costs of removing the huts. In practice the occupiers cause few problems and are
virtually invisible . The only problem experienced is that by chance on one occasion one or
two occupiers were found cutting down wood for their stoves on the estate’s land across the
road from the site. Here the Factor just told them that while they were welcome to take fallen
wood, they should not damage live trees, a point which appeared to be accepted, and no
recurrence of the problem has been noticed.
4.7.29 Again on a site that is owned by an estate, its Factor recognised that the estate itself could
probably remove people if necessary, though the exact mechanisms were uncertain. But in
this instance day to day management of the site rests with the tenant farmer who would be the
first person to raise any question of removal. Once more the need to do so has never arisen.
169
Similarly a third estate owner (J) has no idea how he might get a occupier out if he
wished/needed to do so but in practice there has not been any need in his lifetime.
4.7.30 Removal of a tenant has only ever been necessary on one occasion one site M, when there
was a tenant who consistently had not paid the rent and the hut was falling down. In this
instance the owner evicted the tenant by means of a solicitor’s letter, took the hut over and
gave it to someone else. There had been one earlier problem, before the current owner
acquired the site, with one occupier who terrorised the rest of the occupants on the site. He
was got rid off but the details are unclear. However, he noted that at the time he was
negotiating to buy the farm and site all the occupiers have been served Notice to Quit since a
new owner might be constrained in buying the farm and site with sitting tenants, so he was
able to start from scratch by issuing the first of his new annual leases.
4.7.31 The owner of site O has never had to put anyone off. Although occasionally there have been
words with an occupier about the state of maintenance of a hut, this has provided a solution
and either the occupier has tidied the hut and its surroundings up or else has decided to leave
his/her own accord. The owner of site N had no idea but once again it had never been seen as
an issue since with no written agreement and no rent and no services of any kind provided
there no obligations were seen on either side.
170
4.8
LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURES
II - RENTALS AND OTHER FORMS OF CHARGE
Abstract
X
There is a wide range of annual rentals across the sites. The highest is £800 and the lowest is
nil.
X
The highest rent has to be seen in the context of the site being fully serviced and the tenants
having long leases on their plots
X
The other high rental is justified by the owner as necessary for the survival of the site as a
whole in order to pay for a substantial programme of access improvements after a long
period in which rent levels were very low.
X
Medium levels of rent are around £150 to £200 and there is rarely difficulty in eventually
getting this paid though it may be slow in coming.
X
A number of sites charge only around £40-£60 a year and some even less than this.
X
On two sites no rent has ever been charged, but in turn there is no provision of any type of
service and no form of agreement between the two sides.
X
The only other costs which occupiers have to pay are rates which it is their own responsibility
to pay direct to the local council.
X
Rateable values of huts are low and non-domestic rates similarly low so they should not be a
significant burden on individual occupiers.
X
Rates are seen as a source for complaint by many occupiers because they have to pay them
but get absolutely no services in return.
Rentals
4.8.12 Rentals charged on hut sites range cover a wide range. Of those included in this survey the
highest charge is £800 pa but this is in the context of a long lease on a fully serviced site. At
the other extreme two small sites have never charged any rent at all. Other examples of
current rental range between £25 and £400.
4.8.13 In virtually all the above instances these are the only charges made by the site owner.
However, huts are rated by the local valuation authority and rates are paid direct to them.
Most owners appear to have to complete a form for the Assessor’s department each year
listing the names and address of the hut owners on their sites. This is not always easy as
people sometimes disappear for a year or two or a hut may change hands without the site
owner having been told. This means that the accuracy of the return can be doubtful (this may
be a factor in the low response rate to the postal survey of occupiers in which a number of
questionnaires were ‘returned to sender’).
4.8.14 Where rents are charged they seem to have increased over time in fairly haphazard ways. One
or two owners referred to increases of a few pounds each year. Occasionally when a
complete outsider has taken a site over there have been more substantial increases. In one of
these instances the rent was still £10 at the time the site changed hands in 1988 - though it
was said that few of the occupiers ever paid - but it was then increased almost immediately to
£50 and then in 1994 to £100 before going to its present figure of £200 in 1997, with a likely
171
further increase next year. Another site had rents of £12.50 up to about 20 years ago but the
new owners doubled it and later further increased it fairly gradually to £100 where it stayed
for a good many years before increasing to its present figure of £120. At the lower extreme,
under the present owner’s father for a long period rent was only £1. It then rose to £15 a few
years ago and then to £25. The owner here expects to increase it to £30 at some time within
the next couple of years.
4.8.15 Rent levels, methods and timing of rent collection - and indeed of success in obtaining it - are
variable. On site A each tenant is required to pay a ground rent termed a ‘site charge’ in
advance of each year’s tenancy term (this includes an element of ‘service charge’ which is
discussed below. For the year commencing 28/5/99, the site charge was £785 but if paid by
30/4/99 the tenant qualified for an ‘Early Payment Rebate’ of £79, thus reducing the net
annual charge to £706. On this site tenants are allowed to pay their rent in 12 equal monthly
instalments, though this is more expensive with instalments of £68, giving a total of £816. In
1997 a total of six plots within the site as a whole were designated as ‘premium plots’ due to
their location and the costs of infrastructure associated with them On these the ground rent
was raised by £36 p.a. Although done following professional advice and apparent demand for
these plots concern was expressed by the occupiers and the policy was abandoned in 1998. In
general rent levels on this site had historically been very low - reference was made to rents of
around £9-£10 in the 1950s - with the result that the future of the huts throughout the site was
seen to be at risk with estate assets falling into terminal decay. Perhaps inevitably, given a
very substantial increase suddenly being imposed a year or two ago after this long period with
little or no change, there was initial resistance on the part of occupiers, leading to the creation
of a cause célèbre, the great majority now appear ready to pay the increased rents, though
significant problems still remain with a minority. In the owner’s view, provided the number
of huts increases to what it used to be then the future of the huts should be secured. The
owner believes that the amount of the site charge is now set at realistic levels and apart from
gradual and minor increases in keeping with inflation no other significant changes are
planned.
4.8.16 Among the higher rent levels, on the one council-owned site the rent of £800 p.a. is payable
in two six-monthly instalments by means of a Standing Order and without any demand from
the Council. This rent level has been in force for about three years but it is thought only to
have increased from £750 at that time. The lease indicates that rent shall be reviewed every
three years but the planned review in May 1999 is still pending.
4.8.17 One of the other higher rentals is L where it is £400, a figure which has increased gradually
over the years with no significant jumps. Here the higher levels of rent are justified by the
owners on the grounds that mains services are available to all or most of the huts but, while
the location on its own could merit much higher levels if compared with static holiday
caravan sites in the locality, the history of the site, the amount of effort put in by the
individual occupiers and the wish to keep it in the spirit of its original inception makes it
more appropriate to keep to the lower level.
4.8.18 Moving down the scale, site M rent is currently £250 p.a. and has been rising over the past
few years at a rate roughly in line with inflation, i.e. c5% p.a. but this site has a relatively
formal lease and there do not appear to be difficulties in getting rents paid. Site G is now
£200p.a., an increase from £180 in 1998 and a letter goes out to occupiers at the beginning of
June each year. Rent is due on 1st July and there are no problems in getting it - usually all
rents are paid at least by the end of July. On this site the former owner used to go round the
site collecting rents in cash. The rent covers the use of the ground for the hut plot, the cost of
the metered water to the standpipe and the periodic emptying of the septic tank for the toilet
block There was some difficulty with one or two tenants about 12 or 13 years ago when the
owners initially tried to put up the rent, not long after buying the site. There were some
complaints at the time and a few occupiers - a rather difficult group of people on the site at
the time including two brothers who nobody liked but who thought they knew the law - said
172
that they owned the ground too because they had been there a long time. These approached
their MP for support. The site owners approached their own solicitor who in turn said that the
occupiers had no rights over the land. In practice the whole difficulty was resolved fairly
quickly, those occupiers left and there has been no animosity from those who remain and
overall there is a good relationship between site owner and occupiers.
4.8.19 At a lower level, on B, the rent is now £120 p.a. and the owner likes to get people to pay at
the beginning of the holiday period when they start using the huts again. She used to put
letters out in the winter to tell people that the rent was due but then stopped doing this and
just reminded people when she saw them. However, she accepts that there are some bad
payers and occasionally has quite a lot of difficulty in getting people to pay up before the next
year. This is particularly so for those people who rarely use their huts. The previous owner of
the site used to ride round the site on a horse collecting the rent in a bag like an bus
conductor’s. At that time if hut occupiers had visitors who stayed overnight he charged an
extra shilling per person, per night. Rental is at a similar level on site C and theoretically is
payable in January but in practice people tend not to pay until they start using the huts,
generally around Easter. Some slower payers may not send their rent until September but in
most cases it does finally arrive and none has ever been left completely unpaid. On this site
the rent has gone up by a few pounds each year since the new owner took over but with no
particular pattern of increase.
4.8.20 At the low end of the rent spectrum that at I is now £60pa having increased after a long
period at £50. People are supposed to pay on 1st April for the year ahead but although most
pay around this time a few only do so at Glasgow Fair where they start to use to their huts.
There are always one or two slow payers and occasionally rent does not come until the
following year. However, the owner seems fairly relaxed about this provided there is no
trouble on the site.
4.8.21 For a long time the rent on D was £40 p.a. though it went up to £50 in 1999. In this case the
rent also included the cost of the farm’s metered water, which also feeds the standpipes on the
site. Rents are supposed to be paid in July, historically linked to the timing of the local trade
holidays when the main period of hut use starts. Over a longer period of years there has been
a very slow increase in rentals but not in any structured way. At a similar level the rent at O
was £40 p.a. for a long period though it increased to £55 in 1998. As with I it used to be paid
annually at Glasgow Fair but now payment is due on November 1st each year. Rents used to
be paid around the due date but now are getting more uneven. Generally the owner eventually
gets the rent although there is the odd slow payer every year. One or two deliberately try it on
but eventually pay up. Occasionally people disappear for a year or two and then suddenly reappear but while the owner will try to get the missed rent back but he does not push it beyond
a certain point if the occupier seems to be moving back on a fairly regular basis.
4.8.22 The lowest current rent is £25 p.a. at J. On this site the owner sends out a letter at the
beginning of May each year asking for the next year’s rent and in practice the occupiers are
very good at paying, mostly by return and there have never been any problems. In the present
owner’s father’s time the rent was £1 for a very long period. It rose to £15 a few years ago
and then to £25 while there a likely further increase to £30 pa at some time over the next
couple of years.
4.8.23 As noted above on two sites no rent at all is charged, but in each case (H and N) there is little
or no contact between owner and occupiers and no form of agreement.
Other costs
4.8.24 As far as is known all the huts on the sites are individually rated, though in a number of
instances they could not be traced within the Valuation records. It is the responsibility of the
173
individual occupiers to pay these non-domestic rates direct to the local council. The only
involvement of the site owner in this process is periodically to provide the Valuation
Assessors with a list of the occupied huts and the names and home addresses of their owners.
This can be a difficult task in some cases, particularly where an occupier may not visit his/her
hut for a number of years. It also raises problems where a hut changes hands without the
knowledge of the site owner, something which, though officially not allowed in most of the
agreements, however informal, does occur. It is this, principally, which most owners say is
the justification for insisting on being informed of a change in advance and of having the
details of the new occupier.
4.8.25 The Stage 1 report included an analysis of the rateable values, and hence of rates, for all the
huts for which data was available at that time. The picture shows no significant changes now.
Most huts have very low rateable values and it is only a few of the better serviced ones or the
more substantially built structures on which the levels increase. Consequently for most
occupiers the level of rates each year should not be a significant factor in their overall hut
costs. However, they appear to be a common source of complaint, largely because occupiers
feel that they get little, if anything, in return for these payments. This is seen particularly in
the context of refuse collection. As seen earlier under the section on services, owners
sometimes make some provision for bagged refuse to be taken to a central point or may
themselves provide ‘wheelie-bins’, but occupiers say that the council does not even provide
them with rubbish sacks.
4.8.26 On one site where the individual huts are mostly connected to mains electricity the occupiers
are responsible for their own separately metered costs, but in this instance water is included
with their rates
4.8.27 The only specific instance record of a ‘service charge’ occurs at site A. Here, the ground rent
is stated to cover both the site rent and service charge, something which, in 1992 the Inland
Revenue recommended In practice the split was and is 50:50 and the owner emphasises that
‘the actual ratio bears no relevance for the tenants whatsoever because at the end of the day
they are required to pay the total site charge (the sum of the site rent and the service charge)’.
4.8.28 None of the other owners make reference to any other kinds of charge on the occupiers, even
insurance, since this is seen as being up to the individual occupier to arrange though in the
case of site A individual occupiers are advised that they may insure their huts using the Estate
as an agent for its own insurers, providing they have an insurable interest in the hut.
4.8.29 There is one site where there is another form of cost to individual occupiers. This is the site
which has become and chartiable trust in which each occupier owns an equal share of the land
which is vested in the trust, but with provision for a buy back of the share if the trust is wound
up. Here there is an obligation on each occupier to contribute to the running costs of the trust
and to the general maintenace of the site.
174
4.9
LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURES
III - CHANGES TO HUTS AND THE LOCAL AUTHORITY ROLE
Abstract
X
Work goes on on many huts fairly constantly. In some case this is basic maintenance, in
others it is modifications and improvements or maybe even virtual rebuilding.
X
Most site owners are fairly relaxed about what occupiers do with their huts, though they
prefer, and in some cases insist, on being given details in advance and approving these. In
practice this often does not happen.
X
It is seen to be the individual occupier’s responsibility to obtain any planning permission for
change.
X
Planning departments generally do not allow any extending of a hut and in some cases
specify that only one wall can be rebuilt at a time in order to prevent a hut being effective
rebuilt as a new structure. Despite this a number of virtually new huts have appear on a
number of sites.
X
Planning regulations also generally cover the colours in which huts may be painted in order
that they will fit in with the mostly rural settings.
X
The is a feeling on the part of many site owners - and occupiers - that in the eyes of the
planning authorities the huts sites are only grudgingly tolerated and it is hoped that they will
wither and die as soon as possible.
X
On one two sites there has been past involvement with other departments in the local
authority, mainly in the context of occupiers trying to acquire huts as a way of jumping house
waiting lists. Otherwise there is little or no other local authority interest in the sites.
Changes
4.9.1
In practice many occupiers are frequently doing things to their huts, renewing this or painting
that. However, much of the work may not be readily visible when concentrated on the hut
interior, on which substantial amounts of care and attention may be lavished. Possibly one of
the features of hut ownership is that it is based on a d-i-y philosophy, with always something
to be done, rather in the same way as other people may ‘tinker’ with cars or ‘mess around’
with boats. Huts therefore change over time, some in subtle ways, others less so. In general
there seems to be no difficulty about occupiers making minor modifications and repairs,
though extensions are not normally allowed or are at least discouraged. Planning regulations
themselves seem to vary. In one instance it was said that occupiers could rebuild one wall at a
time but not completely demolish and rebuild. On one Borders site the planning authority has
stipulated that all huts have to be painted green or brown and be kept in repair, though here
again the effects are variable and changes do take place.
4.9.2
On site A, little is known about early specifications for huts other than the fact that the local
Sanitary Inspector was involved in waste arrangements, the huts had to be painted a certain
green colour and the structures had to be approved by the then landowner. Nowadays
extensions require the owner’s written approval following submission of detailed plans. Here
it was said that the various external restrictions are usually adhered to, though comments by
the owner and visual inspection as part of a visit to the site suggest that there are significant
breaches of this in practice in terms of structures ending up very different to the agreed plans
as in the case of a number of recent reconstructions.
175
4.9.3
At one time the owner of site B prepared a list of rules for the site but this also went into
disuse over the years. Plots were originally laid out in such a way as to provide space round
each hut and therefore between buildings, primarily as a safety measure. Any extensions are
supposed to be cleared both with the owner and with the Planning department but in practice
people tended just to go ahead anyway. This does cause occasional problems of
encroachment, not just up to but even into a neighbouring plot. One hut has recently been
substantially extended sideways in this way - albeit quite well and carefully built. Another hut
owner has recently also extended significantly, but in this case upwards to provide a two
storey hut, apparently without the owner being aware of what was being done until after the
event (see photograph in Appendix B). This is a hut which has had a great deal of care
lavished on it and has a carefully tended garden and ornamental pond but here, and in other
instances the owner made it clear to the occupier that any problems over unauthorised
extensions are between the occupier and the planning authority and she takes no
responsibility for their failure to do so.
4.9.4
While the owner of C owns the land she recognises that the huts are owned by their occupiers
and therefore regards any restrictions on changes as a matter between them and the Planning
department since all huts have to have planning permission. Where people do want to make
changes she tries to help with advice insofar as she can. In this locality the planning stance on
changes appears to be that rebuilding can only be done one wall at a time and occupiers are
not allowed to demolish and rebuild from scratch. In practice there have been a number of
changes in the recent past which are quite substantial and have probably been done without
permission, something which was noted in the site inventory in the Stage 1 report. There were
some recent problems with one owner who wished to rebuild and was refused permission and
appealed, apparently with no known outcome. The occupier in this case showed the owner a
letter from the Carbeth Hutters Association stating that he could do what he liked on his plot.
This leaves the owner concerned at the possible implications of the current problems of which
she is aware through the press and she now feels caught in the middle between the Planning
department on one hand and the hut owner on the other since she cannot control what is done
to the huts themselves.
4.9.5
Huts on site D vary in size but while planning permission is required, some huts have been
substantially renovated if not rebuilt. In one instance a mobile home was brought on to the
site but was eventually allowed to remain provided in effect it was turned into a ‘hut’. As with
most sites, the local planning department stipulates that huts have to be green or brown and
that huts have to be kept in repair, though the effects of this seem to be variable.
4.9.6
Extensions are not now allowed on E and occupiers are expected to keep their properties in
good condition, which most do. Anything else they want to do they are supposed to ask the
owner in advance but in recent years there have been few difficulties over this.
4.9.7
Any alterations at F must have planning permission and huts can only be painted in certain
specified colours. Tenants on this site must comply with all statutory provisions. Owners
have a responsibility to maintain both their huts and gardens. In the event of any major
disaster with the building itself, owners have six months (or to the end of the rental year,
whichever is longer) in which they are expected to rebuild. On this site tenants have to give
three months notice if they wish to terminate their lease (see the lease for arrangements in the
event of failure to remove the hut from the plot).
4.9.8
Occupiers on G can repair or renew their huts without seeking permission from the owner but
now - presumably under planning controls - cannot extend them though this seemed to be
possible under the previous site owner.
4.9.9
People on I seem to be allowed to repair huts as they wish, though again they are supposed to
ask permission for any visible changes. There have been some extensions or encroachments
176
in the past but these are now rare. One small hut in the centre of the site had been taken over
in early 1999 in a very run down state and at the time of the site visit was being substantially
upgraded with new timber lining and kitchen units.
4.9.10 Occupiers at J are not allowed to extend the size of their huts, but are both allowed and
encouraged to maintain them on an incremental basis. They are all painted brown or green,
but it is unclear whether this reflects a stipulation by the original site owner, or by the
planning authority or just a general acceptance of that as the right sorts of colour for the
setting.
4.9.11 Over the years there have been extensions at L, some significant, to a number of the huts and
one had to be completely rebuilt. There was one caravan on the site for a while but on the
instructions of the planning authority this had to be removed. Any alterations or modifications
in recent years have had to have planning permission. In practice, on this site there is only
very limited space in which huts can expand as the plots are fairly narrow and there is a
common frontage line for both plots and, broadly, for huts. There has been some lateral
expansion and a little to the rear. More change has been in terms of significant upgrading of
some of the buildings. One interior seen during a site visit had been upgraded to something
closer to a conventional very small bungalow with a comfortable sitting room, kitchen, two
double and one single bedrooms and a fully equipped shower/WC room. Outside
improvements to this hut included a paved parking area together with paved and grassed
sitting areas to font and side.
4.9.12 There does not appear to have been any planning involvement with site N and it seems
unlikely that the huts themselves have ever had planning permission, but again this is a small
and somewhat unusual site.
4.9.13 Officially extending huts on site O is not allowed but in practice it has happened in the past.
Occasionally now all or some of the hut falls down and is generally replaced. Some huts are
quite elaborate inside and others fairly basic.
The local authority role
4.9.14 Owners were asked about the extent to which the local authorities in their area were involved
with their sites. In most cases this is limited to the need for changes to huts to have planning
permission as discussed above and restrictions on the amount of rebuilding or extension, or
even just standard colours laid down for the painting of huts. Most hut sites started their life
well before and form of planning controls, not just in the overall location and layout but also
in the control of individual structures. Very little of what is now on the ground would
probably have been there now had the kinds of control which now exist been there at the
time. As a result there is a feeling on the part of some site owners and occupiers that while
sites are tolerated, it is little more than that and there is an unspoken wish that they would
disappear. For example, with a change of ownership at site O, some twenty years ago, the
prospective owner approached the planning department to see what the position would be
with the huts. In this instance permission was given for those already on the site to stay
provided they did not cause any problems, it was fairly clear that they hoped that use would
decline and the site would gradually wither away. Certainly there was a feeling on the part of
the owner that the department was not really in favour of the site.
4.9.15
While the principal involvement has been in the context of planning on occasion other
departments have also had a part to play as instanced below..
4.9.16 Site A has was said to have little dealings with environmental health but what there had been
in the past had in the past have been with the very closest co-operation.
177
4.9.17 Both the planning and environmental health departments have now eased up on their interest
in the site at B compared to what it was when the new owners first took over. One of the early
problems was with people who basically were homeless, or possibly evictees, trying to buy
huts and using this as a way of jumping queue for housing allocations. It may be that this and
the similar close interest also taken in site G, again mainly in the context of people trying to
buy and use a hut as a means of jumping the queue for council houses were in the context of
new owners taking over existing sites and being seen as a suitable route. Since then there has
been little or no involvement of any of the departments.
4.9.18 In the fairly early days the ‘the sanitary inspectors’ (now environmental health) used to call
fairly regularly at site I, though they do not seem to bother nowadays.
178
4.10
LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURES
IV - CHANGING OWNERSHIP OF HUTS
Abstract
X
On most sites, the owners see the majority of huts changing hands by some form of
inheritance within a family structure, though on a few sales have become more common.
Some groups of huts have remained in the same small number of families for a number of
generations.
X
Even where there are sales the new occupier has usually heard about the hut via word of
mouth and hence is often from the same locality as the previous one.
X
Site owners say that they should be consulted in advance when a hut is to change hands.
Reasons for this are mainly to ensure that the new occupier will be a suitable tenant, will
pay the rent and respect the site, but also because site owners have to maintain a list of the
names and addresses of occupiers for submission to the local Valuation Authority in order
that rates demands can be sent to occupiers’ home addresses.
X
Prospective new occupiers are rarely refused by site owners.
X
There appears to be significant demand for huts on sites as and when they become available,
and owners may get a number of telephone calls asking about vacancies.
X
Most owners do not get directly involved in transactions, though they may direct callers to
the occupiers of potentially available huts.
X
Some owners may note instance where an occupier is neglecting a hut or getting too old to
be able to use it much and suggest that they might wish to find as new occupier rather than
let the hut fall down.
X
On one site the site owner is prepared to help someone to sell their huts via a number of
alternative mechanisms. Another will not permit direct sale by an occupier but will buy the
hut and then find a new occupier.
4.10.1
According to the site owners, the majority of the huts appear to change hands by inheritance
which is contrary to the finding of the occupier survey. Theoretically this is within a direct
family line but in practice there is more flexibility. On some sites increasing numbers are
being sold, though both types of change on the whole seem to be fairly rare. A lot of the
current owners have had their huts for years and may only be the second generation of a
family living in them and a small number are still the original owners, having been there for
50 or 60 years.
4.10.2
Site owners usually stipulate that they should know in advance if a hut is going to change
hands and know who the person is who is going to take it over. The argument for this is that
they need to know that that person is going to be able to pay the rent or is not likely to be a
disruptive influence on the site, together with the fact, as discussed earlier that they have to
provide periodic return to the local Valuation Assessors to ensure that rates are paid by the
occupiers. In practice where there are changes the owner may not find out about it until well
after the event. Even in the case of the local authority-owned site there seems to be a fairly
relaxed view about transfers.
179
4.10.3
Altogether turnover is low. On one site of about 18 huts only six or seven are thought to
have changed hands within the past three years. Another large site in the Borders has
probably had four or five changes a year - though this is close to 10% of the total. Both these
instances are probably towards the h higher end of the range.
4.10.4
Although there is this low turnover, this does not mean that there is a lack of interest. On a
number of sites owners indicated that they get a number of telephone calls asking if any huts
are becoming vacant - one small site north of Glasgow is increasingly getting enquiries from
people currently on Carbeth because they cannot cope with the major increases in rent.
4.10.5
Each occupier on site A can sell their hut to another person provided that other person is
approved by the owner as a suitable tenant. Prospective purchasers are hardly ever turned
down. However, tenants cannot assign their leases and if a hut is to change hands a
completely new tenancy is given, even when the transfer is via inheritance from a parent or
close relative. On this site it is up to each occupier to decide method of transfer. He/she may
(a) advertise privately; (b) ask the owners to place details of the hut on the estate’s price list
(no charge is made for this); or (c) may ask the owners to act as agents and secure a sale for
which a service charge is made charge, though before this service is undertaken the owners
require to obtain the vendor’s signed agreement. On average the number of changes varies
from around 20-40 per annum (equivalent to 13-26% of the current stated total of huts, much
higher than on many sites). A very rough estimate, based on 30 transactions a year would be
27 by sale on the open market and 3 by sales within an immediate family (i.e. 90%:10%),
proportions which are said to have been fairly consistent over the recent years. The owners
of this site have been conscious of strong demand for huts in recent years. If a hut owner on
this site wishes to leave the site they have four options. (a) he/she may give 40 days prior
notice at a term of Whitsunday by providing at least 40 days prior written notice. In practice
this happens very seldom; (b) he/she may find a willing buyer or indeed may ask the estate
to find a willing buyer in which case the hut is sold to a third party and the original lease is
brought to an end. This happens in approximately 95% of cases to everyones’ satisfaction;
(c) he/she may offer to sell the hut to the estate whereupon if the estate wishes to purchase
the hut at a mutually agreed price the tenancy is brought to an end by mutual agreement.
This has happened on only a very few occasions; (d) he/she may sign a special form with the
agreement of the proprietors whereupon all the tenant’s obligations with regard to the
payment of site charges, rates etc. are brought to an end. The proprietors then agree to try to
sell the hut for the best possible price and will account to the previous tenant for the
proceeds of the sale after deductions of sums previously due. This happens to the mutual
satisfaction of both the previous hut owner and the proprietors.
4.10.6
Most huts at B are passed on through the family, parent to child or possibly a less direct
family member, though some occasionally change through sale. Any huts which are intended
to change hands are supposed to be done through the owners - with a view to preventing
potential bad tenants or getting a recurrence of homeless family problems which were a
problem in the early days of their ownership. Nowadays transfers of any kind are infrequent,
indeed some occupiers have had their huts for a very long time (e.g. 40-50 years). A change
by inheritance which has caused some recent problems is the first of this kind for some time.
4.10.7
On C most of the huts were changing hands by inheritance within a family up to the time the
new owner took over the site but the number now changing hands by sale is increasing. In
this case the owner asks people to let her know in advance if they propose to do this, partly
in order to make sure that she keeps the records straight for her own needs and for the
returns she has to make each year to the Valuation Assessor. In practice people do not
always tell her which causes some problems, but the numbers involved are very few. Some
of the older people are allowed to sell their huts to outsiders if they are getting too old to
maintain the hut or appear to be losing interest in coming and under these circumstances the
owner may contact them and suggest that they get rid of the hut to someone else rather than
let it deteriorate. Turnover on this site is said to be low, possibly 4-5 a year (though in
180
practice this represents c10% of the total number). At the same time there is clear demand
for huts and the owner gets quite a number of phone calls asking if there are any huts
available. While no sales are handled directly on behalf of occupiers the owner might refer
enquiries to a hut owner if that person is known to be wanting to sell.
4.10.8
Ownership at site D varies. Hut owners are free to pass on their hut and the plot to someone
else within their family or to sell to someone quite separate if they wish. One person has
been coming to the site for 40 years. Some huts are handed down through a family but quite
a lot are sold, though this owner has no idea where they are advertised. At E one or two
people have passed on the hut by inheritance to other members of the family but the owner
does not encourage this. Occupiers are not allowed to transfer their tenancy to other people
by other means but the owner is prepared to consider a new tenancy if someone wishes to
sell a hut and has a suitable buyer.
4.10.9
Predominantly transfer at F is within a family, usually by inheritance. In these circumstance
the owners would want to know whether the person to whom it is being transferred is
appropriate and going to be able to pay the rent and meet the terms of the lease. If people
wish to sell, they are allowed to provided they inform the owners in advance - though in
practice they rarely seem to do so and the owners seem to take a fairly relaxed view about it.
There is a lot of interest in this site but while many people ‘phone to ask whether there are
any vacant plots/huts. the site owners do not keep any form of waiting list because people
looking for huts are supposed to contact the occupiers direct. Turnover on this site has been
fairly low, possibly only 3-4 a year.
4.10.10 Most transfers of ownership on site G are by sale, but even these are mostly word of mouth,
often through friends and in practice they happen very rarely - it can be 10 or 15 years before
one changes hands. The owner can recollect only one change by inheritance. However, there
are quite a number of people on the site who are related to one another in some way. If there
is to be a transfer the seller should first of all approach the site owner to ask whether it is OK
to go through with the transfer.
4.10.11 Where there is change at I it is mostly by inheritance, though the owner accepts that some
money may change hands. People are supposed to tell her in advance if they are going to
transfer their hut to someone else but this does not always happen. Again the reason given
for this stipulation is mainly because of the need to provide a list of people to the Valuation
Board each year. Transfer on this site again are very rare and though two changed hands in
May this year this is probably the first change for a few years. However, here too there
appears to be quite a lot of potential demand for huts as the owner gets phone calls or
visitors asking if land is available or if huts are available for let or sale.
4.10.12 In theory huts at J are only allowed to be passed on vertically within a family, but in practice
it is rather more flexible since they may move laterally or diagonally within a wider family
structure. In practice there has been very little change of ownership within the memory of
the owner and some current owners go back a long way. Within the past five years only one
person has said he was getting too old to get proper use of and maintain the hut and asked if
he could pass it on to his nephew, which was done with no difficulty. Unlike some of the
above sites, there is little passing traffic which might see the site and be tempted since it is
well of the road in a quiet rural setting so the owner is not faced with demand for places - not
that he has any wish to extend or change it. Occupiers are not allowed to sell their huts but
there is little or no demand for change of ownership. Similarly all the huts at K and all but
two at L have been passed on to the next generation within immediate or slightly wider
family links and only a couple have changed hands by sale within the past 25 years.
4.10.13 In contrast most people at M have bought huts rather than inherited them from older
generations. The owner wants to at least vet who is coming in when there is to be a sale,
though he has never stopped one. If there is a vacancy coming up he tells the sellers that
181
there are people interested in a hut and he can put them in touch but he has no direct
involvement in the transfer. Again occupancy of the site is virtually static with perhaps one
hut changing hands every couple of years. In all perhaps 8 or 9 have changed hands since
1978. One hut is due to become vacant in the near future and is likely to go to a relative of
one of the other chalet owners.
410.14 Almost all huts at N change hands by inheritance if at all though this is a site where the
owner has little day to day involvement with it. It was thought that one had recently changed
hands by sale but the owner had no details and did not even know who the current owner is.
Once more this is a site on which transfer are very rare, but on the other hand a year or two
ago two or three people asked if they could buy bits of ground within the site but the owner
was not prepared to sell any of the original farmland.
4.10.15 When the new owner took over, the tenants at O were told they could not sub-let nor sell
their huts. Nevertheless in practice one or two particular huts seem continually to change
hands and one or two have passed from parent to child by inheritance.
182
4.11
SITE OWNER ATTITUDES AND PHILOSOPHY
4.11.1
The attitudes of site owners to their sites and to their occupiers depends on a variety of
factors. These include the ways in which they have become involved with the site; the
attitudes of the occupiers themselves both to the site and their huts and, indeed to the site
owner; the effort which they are prepared to put into the site and the economic return which
they get from it, both of which act in conjunction to provide what might be termed the
‘hassle factor’.
4.11.2
None of the owners in this survey had overall negative attitudes to their sites. Some were
fairly enthusiastic, others ambivalent and a few had a number of uncertainties, particularly in
respect of the future which may have resulted from the adverse publicity about site owners
created in the context of the Carbeth site. On the other hand with one exception the site plays
a very minor part in their lives, mostly just because it has been there by default for many
years or else is an adjunct to their main form of activity.
4.11.3
There are two contrasting extremes of involvement within the range of owners. at the top
end, having inherited a small estate with large numbers of huts, the owner has deliberately
entered into the full-time business of running a large and often complex site with a difficult
history site, partly in order to preserve and develop the huts and their role to a greater extent
than had been done formerly and partly because it had become an essential element within
the long term presentation of the estate itself and it was necessary to at least make the site
pay its way in return for investment in it.
4.11.4
At the other end we have an owner who has inherited the running of a very small site started
in an involuntary way by his grandfather. Here it would appear that there has never been any
positive involvement in the site which was on land virtually useless for any other purpose.
No rent had been charged from the beginning but in return over the years the owners never
saw themselves as having any responsibility towards the occupiers particularly in terms of
providing any form of service. This is not to say that there was not a perfectly amicable
relationship between the two sides for the most part and in some cases occupiers would
make some kind of return to the owner in kinds, perhaps by assisting him with odd jobs on
his farm when needed.
4.11.5
Two other contrasting approaches both come from small sites on large estates which have
been in the same ownership for a long time. On one there seems to be little knowledge about
and even less involvement with the site. No legal link ever seems to have been established
between site owner and occupiers and no rent has ever been charged. On the other hand,
form the most part the site is out of site if not totally out of mind. Apart from the odd
problem of growing wood being taken from estate land rather than fallen wood, about which
the estate does not seem to be bothered, occupiers do not cause difficulties either to the
estate or to the local authorities, have been there for years and were perhaps even thought to
have acquired some form of rights over the ground - foreshore - on which their huts were
situated. The second estate example is that of a rural farming and hill land estate where the
local ‘laird’ initially allowed the odd huts to be built on his land mostly, though perhaps not
entirely, on one site which grew in size over the years. Rentals were very low but in turn
minimal services were provided, but almost all the people who acquired huts were known to
the then owner, coming from a nearby small town and the surrounding area, rather than the
large urban areas generally perceived to the home of ‘occupiers’. Here the original owner’s
attitude seems to have been not so much a paternalistic and hence perhaps patronising one as
part of a more traditional mutual caring and respect ‘clan’ system, to quote the view of the
present owner. The site has been handed down through two or three generations and
remains virtually unchanged form the early 1930s. Rents are still absolutely minimal and
have dropped considerably in real terms over those years and while there has been the odd
increase and the present owner is ‘thinking’ about a modest increase over the next year or so,
183
the site has never been seen as any form of business. There are unwritten but if, not verbal, at
least assumed mutual obligations between owner and occupiers mainly on the basis that
occupiers will use the site in a way which is in keeping with the area and the role of the
estate and at the same time the owner will not disturb the status quo. Here too, even the local
council, which is aware of the site has apparently never taken any action to change or control
the site and it just seems to be seen as part of the local scenery which is doing no-one harm
and providing a valuable function for its occupiers.
4.11.6
The last of the ‘estate’ examples shows yet another type of approach. In this instance the
origins of the small site were rather different with a conscious decision to make both space
and materials available in response to a wartime need and one with which the then estate
owner was said to have an affinity. At the same time the location for the site was
immediately adjacent to a small farm, also part of the estate. A logical arrangement
developed whereby the tenant of the farm would take on the management of the site on
behalf of the estate, though it was still there as an administrative back-stop, in return for
which he would receive the rents from the huts to supplement the income from a farm which
was really too small to be viable. Even though yet again there was no written agreement
between the site owner and occupier the process has appeared to work to the benefit of all.
While the estate could almost certainly charge much higher rents for the plots than it does,
given the location and the other forms of leisure accommodation in the vicinity, respect for
the original ideals of the first estate owner are seen as important, particularly since most of
the occupiers are the second generation of the original occupiers.
4.11.7
A rather different example of the inherited site is again a farm, now run by two brothers and
a sister on which their father was the original instigator of the site. With the site well
established before they inherited it, the current generation of owners accept its presence but,
apart from providing water supply and, in the past selling occupiers milk and eggs, they have
little to do with the running of the site. Even the member of the family who takes on
responsibility for keeping minimal records of the occupiers and sending out requests for rent
rarely goes down to the site, even though it is only a hundred yards or so from her house and
seems to have little knowledge of what goes on or who the occupiers are and would have
even less direct contact with them. Once again this is not a site which can be said to pay its
way. Rent levels are still very low and while in general they eventually are paid, the owners
are resigned to the odd one failing to pay and that there is little that they could do to recover
it without cost which would be out of all proportion to the amount recovered. This would
appear to be a site on which the hassle factor is low. Nevertheless, this can still be a caring,
even if laissez faire approach to running a site and chance conversation with one occupier
indicated that the site was well used by many of his neighbours and he was loud in praise of
the site owners.
4.11.8
Among some of the small privately owned sites which have been inherited the ones which
seem to work well are where the owner lives immediately adjacent to the site and keeps a
‘motherly eye’, albeit often quite a strict one on what is happening on the site. Where this is
small and occupied by people have been there long time, some of whom may be related to
one another there is the scope for close relationships to build up between the two sides which
at the same time can encourage mutual respect. While in the example to which this refers the
owner quite firm about standards and about the seasonal restrictions on site use there is
sufficient flexibility to make the site work amicably. Once more the financial return to the
owner is small though acceptable in this example and there seems to be no particular to urge
to change it significantly. This is an example of a now older generation owner whose father
started up the site. In conversation she admitted that in many ways she could not now care
whether the site is there or not but it is part of her inheritance having been born in the house
and always lived there . She has always lived with the presence of the site from childhood
but even so, while she might meet some of the hut children, though there was not a great deal
of coming and going between them, perhaps an unspoken ‘us and them’ situation at the time
but one which has relaxed into forms of neighbourliness over the years.
184
4.11.9
Another small but relatively recent acquired site with a slightly different slant in attitudes is
that of a farmer who acquired extra land which included an existing site. While initially not
very keen to continue it and also uncertain as to its legal and planning status it eventually
continued. Although there were some early attempts to regularise its position in terms of
written agreements, these were fairly quickly abandoned. Once more the approach has
remained essentially low key, more so than in the example above, though in this case the site
is not so immediately adjacent. The owner does not have much contact with the occupiers,
though he probably knows most of them to some degree. Where maintenance of a hut is
suffering a private word with the occupier generally seems to suffice. Again this is an
example of low return but low hassle management.
4.11.10 Different values sometimes apply when outsiders come in and acquire an on-going site and
the survey identified a number of examples. In one case when the new owners acquired the
site they knew that the huts were on it but intended gradually to clear them. Here the
husband definitely did not want to keep them but his wife was more ambivalent. Shortly
after they moved in, one of the occupiers came to his wife and welcomed her to the site as
the new owner and said ‘he was so pleased to hear that she was keeping the huts on’ and,
further, that ‘no doubt she would be putting the rent up, although that would be all right as it
was so good to know that they could stay’. When asked what rent she would be charging and
getting the reply that it would be doubled (to £25pa) the occupier said that would be fine.
The wife was then saddled with keeping the huts and it was agreed between her and her
husband that the hut part of the site would become hers, as would the responsibility for
running it, though in practice he subsequently became quite heavily involved in it. Over the
years quite close relationship has built up between owner and occupiers. Even though there
are occasional problem occupiers, nothing ever seems to come to crisis point, largely
because of the owners’ generally laid-back attitude. Broadly similar approaches to
ownership were seen on another site where incoming owners were involved, though in this
instance they already had links with the site having owned a hut on it for a number of years
and decided to acquire the whole site when it became available. Although the hut side of the
site declined in scale compared to what was seen as its main raison d’être there was still a
commitment to it and close involvement with many of the remaining long-standing
occupiers, including participation in their barbecues and other social gatherings. Again the
relationships were easy with little or no paperwork and few imposed conditions and
constraints and even a readiness on the part of the owners to undertake shopping for some of
the less mobile occupiers when going into town. Both these sites still exist of fairly modest
rentals and so are not major sources of income.
4.11.11 A slightly more hard-nosed attitude can emerge among younger new owners of sites, where
the site is seen as something with which they have to live and are prepared to accept but
possibly would be prepared to be without. Here much depends on the nature of the site and
its occupants at the time of acquisition and where there are problems sometimes a short-term
firm hand is felt to be necessary to ensure a better longer term for both owner and other
occupiers.
4.11.12 Perhaps the main feature of most of these apparently beneficial attitudes is that of interest
and the building up of a degree of mutual toleration and, even better, respect. Where this
happens there seem to be few management problems as evidenced by the absence of
knowledge about quite what an owner could do to remove a difficult tenant, largely because
it had never arisen.
4.11.13 On nearly all these sites the rent levels have been fairly low and, perhaps more important,
there have rarely been significant changes in the way the site has operated of major jumps in
rent. On the few sites that have increased rent significantly there has generally been an initial
negative reaction form a minority of occupiers, largely because they may have ‘had it too
good’ for too long and have built up unrealistic expectations. Despite this it has proved
185
possible to make increases and for them eventually to be accepted provided the occupiers are
aware of why they are necessary and what the longer term benefits are to them.
4.11.14 Overall, good relationships between the two sides and fairly uncomplicated management
arrangements seem to be a key, but at the same time they can leave both sides with a degree
of vulnerability in the event that things go wrong. Some of the implication of this are
discussed in the following final chapter.
186
4.12
AN OVERVIEW
The context
4.12.1
This report has looked at a number of aspects of hutting in Scotland, essentially through the
eyes of the site owners, complementing the occupier perspective which is the subject of a
separate report. There is now a degree of uncertainty about the future of hutting, mostly
raised in the context of recent disputes, primarily about rents on the site at Carbeth in
Stirlingshire but in turn involving other issues about rights and responsibilities. It is therefore
appropriate in this final chapter to try to draw together the main features of huts and hutters
as they have been, are now, and possibly might become in the future. While it can touch on
tenure and other legal issues it was never intended, nor would it have been practicable for
this study to examine these in detail since that is a matter for the lawyers and the policy
makers.
4.12.2
Huts and huts sites have now been a feature of the landscape of parts of Scotland for around
80 years. Some are visible to the passer by, others much more hidden among woodland, in
hill valleys or on coastal fringes. Some are large, others small. Some sites are owned by
individuals, fewer by larger estates. Some are are in decline, others fairly static.
Origins and growth
4.12.3
There was a degree of received wisdom, or perhaps more accurately myth, about the ways in
which hut sites developed, probably because most of the information was in the context of
one site about which there has been substantial publicity over the past few years, much of it
adverse and of doubtful accuracy. Little if anything was known about the extent to which
there were other similar sites and, if there were about their owners, occupiers and methods of
operation. It was the purpose of the two stages of this study to try to build up a better picture.
4.12.4
The supposed idea that sites were deliberately ‘developed’ by benevolent landowners in the
1920s has been disproved. Only in one instance has something approaching this scenario
been found and that is in particular circumstances and also a product of W.W.II. Irrespective
of who the original landowners were, the sites seem to have started with one individual
approaching an owner, possibly one with whom there had been some kind of prior contact
and asking whether there was a small corner of land which he could use to put some kind of
‘dwelling’ on for use during the summer holidays and possibly at weekends. Most of the
people making this approach were ‘townies’ generally from lower income groups and often
said to be from fairly cramped tenements or similar housing. In some cases they may have
had a link with the area because groups of people came there camping during summer trade
holidays. In most cases the landowners were fairly amenable to the idea particularly as they
had land which was of little use for other purposes, they were happy enough to let people be
there and they might even get a little rent for otherwise valueless ground.
4.12.5
The sites in this survey, and probably more widely, mainly seem to have started in the 1930s.
Only two were traced back to just after W.W. I. The 1930s seems to have been a time when
this kind of out of town escape was being sought by greater numbers of people, possibly in
the context of increasing access to rural areas with local bus networks but also a growth of
‘country’ activities and ideas of healthy outdoor life. One aspect of this seem to have been
the growth of cycling clubs and at least two of the sites in this survey either were sparked off
or had some early occupiers from members of Glasgow clubs who had had or were looking
for some kind of overnight base for their weekend trips. W.W.II provided a boost to at least
one site, that at Carbeth where the proximity of its location and the availability of land with
spring water supplies and some tradition of huts was seen by the authorities as an ideal place
for temporary homes for people bombed-out in the Clydeside blitz. Accordingly they
187
required the landowner to make space available, though after the war these huts reverted to
the more traditional pattern of holiday and weekend use. Another site grew up for similar
reasons but in this case via an estate owner, with particular links with or interest in
Clydebank and families of servicemen, who not only made a small area of land available but
also provided materials and support for huts to be built. Here, though role of the site has
changed in the intervening years, it is still mostly descendants of the original occupiers who
are there and the estate still maintains rents at levels lower than it might get on the open
market because of the site’s origins. One or two sites appear to have grown up just after
W.W.II but again the ways in and purposes for which they started were very similar to their
1930s precursors.
4.12.6
The pace at which individual sites grew was variable but essentially was demand responsive.
It seems that once the first occupier had been allowed some space and built a hut he probably
told his friends and relatives about it and they decided they wanted one too. This accounts
for the tendency for each site to have drawn from particular areas, rather than a haphazard
spread. In this way there are ‘Glasgow’ sites, ‘Dundee’ sites, ‘Aberdeen’ sites and even
‘Edinburgh’ sites, though in the last of these they tended initially to come from Edinburgh’s
mining fringes. The size to which a site grew was probably only bounded by the area of land
that a particular owner had available for this kind of purpose and his willingness to let it
grow beyond what he saw as manageable bounds. Conversation with site owners and, in
some cases, occupiers suggest that there were a number of other sites in particular areas,
such as parts of west Stirlingshire and the northern Borders where there were a number of
other sites which have now disappeared completely. Where they have closed in part this
seems to have been lack of interest and hence hut decay but also a number seem to have been
deliberately closed down in the post war years by local authorities since they were seen as an
abuse of the council house waiting list system, with people buying a hut and then claiming
themselves as homeless or in inappropriate accommodation. Even a couple of owners of sites
still in existence said that they had had dealings with their local authorities about this issue.
4.12.7
A few sites grew very large, up to 200 in one case (though this was just the total of what in
effect were a number of virtually separate sites under common ownership) and between 1200 in two others, but these are exception to the general rule. The largest other sites did not
rise above 50 and many are quite small, as revealed in the Stage 1 inventory. With one or
two exceptions they seem to have reached their maximum size within a relatively small
number of years from their start date and then mostly stayed at that level until perhaps 10 or
20 years ago. Since then there have been varying degrees of decline in numbers and,
sometimes, in general condition. Owners rarely say that they have deliberately reduced
numbers, though in one instance there was a degree of ‘clearing out’ of problem occupiers
shortly after a new owner acquire the site some years ago. Reduction is attributed more to a
loss of interest on the part of individual occupiers, sometimes because of age or other
circumstances leading to huts becoming less and less used and more and more run down
until either the site owner tells them they must improve it or leave, in which case they often
choose the latter course, or else they just say they are not coming any more and not paying
any more rent. In both circumstances the value of the hut has usually declined so much that
the occupier can cut his or her losses with no qualms.
4.12.8
Some of the medium and small sized sites have stayed very much at the same level of hut
numbers for many years and show little sign of reduction, but no sites have grown for many
years. Nevertheless the owner of the largest site sees potential for the number to increase
back to what they were a few years ago which, if combined with realistic rent levels would
make the site more viable in the longer term. One other site, the one which has been turned
into a communal ownership trust, sees the potential for a minor degree of expansion but
would be very wary of attracting any substantial increase.
Static and changing ownerships
188
4.12.9
The original landowners on which sites developed were a mix of small farmers, or people
running small agriculture related businesses such as poultry or pig farms, and a few owners
of larger estates, though even the estate on which the largest site is located is little more than
a small farm in acreage. The land which they were prepared to make available was generally
fairly scrappy, sometimes a sloping field of very rough pasture, occasionally an odd corner
of flatter ground near the house or farm steading, or rougher foothill country in the glens.
One or two sites are coastal and here either the land on which the huts sit was on a
promontory or rough ground or, in two or three cases, virtually on the foreshore, the last of
these raising some uncertainties over ownership rights.
4.12.10 Given the age of sites it is inevitable that ownership has changed in some way, though
overall there is a strong degree of continuity. Sites on estates generally remain in their hands
though management structures within the estate itself may have changed. For example in one
case the estate owner is involved virtually full time in running and trying to redevelop the
estate while another two have anything to do with the site organised via the estate factor and
a fourth just keeps a fairly paternal eye on the site but neither he nor his estate manager have
much direct involvement with the site. Some other small sites have been passed on within
the same family and continue to operate but with varying degrees of interest and
involvement of the current generation. In a number of cases new owners have come on to the
scene. This may have happened where a farmer has added to his land holding and the new
area of land has happened to have a site on it. Alternatively new owners may have wanted to
buy the site as part of a larger are of land for other purposes but have been content to let the
part of it that had huts on it continue in that use, not necessarily particularly keen on it at the
outset but then finding it grew on them. In one instance someone who had known of the site
for some time and had then bought a hut on it herself found that it was coming on the
market and decided to buy it as a going concern. Only on in instance has a completely new
owner with no particular awareness of huts bought some land, just as an investment, and
found herself responsible for a site, albeit with a degree of uncertainty about the future.
Inputs and outputs
4.12.11 What site owners put into their sites in terms of resources is very variable. Only in one
instance is there a strong proactive approach but here is has been seen to be necessary in
order to prevent an estate as a whole from going into serious decline and taking the huts with
it. More commonly owners, both original and new seem to have put more or less the
minimum of effort and resources. We have seen that few if any services are provided apart
from the most basic of water supplies. Mains electricity is virtually non-existent and
provision any kind of facility for disposal of chemical toilet waste is rare. Even the access to
sites is mostly whatever was there before the huts arrived, generally in the form of a farm
track or simple access. Only on the largest site, itself scattered across a number of separate
areas, has there been a conscious attempt to upgrade access tracks to make them suitable for
motor vehicles. At the opposite end of the spectrum an owner may do absolutely nothing
with the ‘site’, it is there, they can stay on it free, so be it!
4.12.12 Although on one hand there is this minimum degree of resource input, on the other we must
bear in mind that in general there is also fairly minimal output from the site to the landowner
in terms of any financial return. In present day terms most rents are extraordinarily low and,
in a couple of instances totally non-existent. Most sites for which information is available
currently have rents equivalent to £5 a week or less, so few of their owners will get rich from
them. In each of the few instances of higher rents the level is probably justified by what the
occupiers get in return. This may be in terms of being on a small but fully serviced site with
the manager living adjacent and keeping an eye on the huts in the occupiers’ absence, added
to which the site is in a major holiday locality with access to water and boating facilities.
Indeed, in this instance much higher rent could probably be obtained for the huts but the
189
estate feels this would be out of keeping with the site’s original aims. Alternatively the
occupiers are getting not just a fully serviced site but also a very long lease, unlike that on
any other hut site. In all these cases rent levels have risen very slowly over the years,
generally at rates which means that they have been declining in real terms. One or two
owners may increase them very roughly in line with inflation but others suddenly realise
there has not been an increase for some time and put the rent up a bit. Perhaps in
proportional terms such increases might appear substantial but, given the very low base
level, even a 20 percent increase which takes a rent from £40 to £50 a year is hardly grounds
for complaint. Even in the one instance where there has been one substantial increase in
recent years, leading to occupier protest, this has to be seen in a context of a long period of
low and therefore actually declining rent and the need for substantial resource input to the
site’s infrastructure.
Roles and responsibilities
4.12.13 Owner input is not just in resource provision but also in interest and involvement, something
discussed in greater detail in the preceding chapter. Some owners are involved with their
sites but most are not and the sites are largely left to run themselves, provided they do not
generate problems for the owner. This is more a personality thing than a management need
and also reflects the degree, and nature, of any relationship between the site owner and the
occupiers. The more involved owners are quite proprietorial about ‘their’ occupiers and
clearly in some cases there has been a level of social interaction with barbecues and other
forms of summer get-togethers.
4.12.14 Perhaps the most surprising finding of the study and the one with most implications for the
future, is the extremely informal way in which most sites operate. Formal tenancy
agreements between owner and occupier are rare and in many case case there is little more
than a verbal agreem or possibly just a letter once a year asking for the rent. On a number of
cases owners have again sought the advice of their lawyers and been recommended to
maintain this kind of arrangement rather than enter into formal structures. Formal rules and
regulations again are rare, though there may be assumptions about what should and should
not be done, sometimes also incorporated into the rent letters.
4.12.15 While it is possible to make some generalisations about hut occupiers in terms of their age,
household structures and the types of occupation from they come, now and in the past, they
clearly are very individual in terms of their involvement with their individual huts. This
means that most sites contain varying proportions of modernised and well maintained huts
and of old and run down huts. In the same way their occupiers may use the huts very
regularly, coming to them every weekend and for longer periods in the summer, or
alternatively they may be increasingly absent, for whatever reason. Most sites seem able to
cope with both these mixtures and continue to exist if not necessarily flourish. On the whole
the ways in which most sites operate means that sanctions on occupiers are weak in practice.
While there is a supposed responsibility to maintain a hut in a reasonable condition, there is
no obligation to use it regularly. Many occupiers seem quite able to enjoy their own hut and
its plot even when the one next door is in poor shape. It is when the absent occupiers and the
run down huts begin to be in the majority that the sites are likely to go into serious decline.
4.12.16 We have seen that there is a significant degree of continuity among occupiers of huts both in
the ways in which tend to come from the same general areas as their predecessors on that
site, and the extent to which transfers of ownership are often either within wider families or
friends. This in turn can contribute to the preservation of a site over time.
Implications for the future
190
4.12.17 At present the future of hut sites is in a state of flux. This study has highlighted a number of
the issues and also a number of ways in which things might move in the future., though there
is no clear picture of what is likely to happen to huts and hut sites in the future. They grew
up before the days of regulation of land and various forms of planning, both control and
forward development. In some instance it seems that planning departments in the past have
tried to find ways to close them down, largely without success, though we do no know how
many other sites there were in Scotland 20 or 30 years ago. Huts sites are not ‘tidy’, neither
in terms of their layout nor the appearance of the individual huts. Even huts that have had a
great deal of time, effort and resources put into them are rarely structures which would
delight a planner’s eye. Most static holiday caravan sites are far more orderly but at the same
time they are rigid and soulless compared to most hut sites. Huts are a reflection of personal
individuality and the product of ingenuity and manual skills, not just on the part of their
original builders but of successive occupiers and perhaps the most important factor
throughout has been that their occupiers by and large have been allowed to do as they like
with them and modify to meet changing needs and preferences to an extent that they were
unlikely to be allowed to do in their day to day homes. In many cases they may not have had
all the necessary permissions but they have not worried and blind eyes seem to have been
turned.
4.12.18 At present the majority of huts still seem to be used on a fairly regular basis, with the
patterns of usage which have changed little over the years. Where huts become vacant there
is demand for them and sometimes enquiries to site owners in the hope that something will
come up. Those occupiers who do make regular use of their huts appear to value them
greatly and, as already noted, put in considerable effort to make them comfortable and
bright. This suggests a positive prospect.
4.12.19 At the same time it has to be accepted that, broadly, hutters are an ageing population and a
number of people have now given up their huts. When they were younger their children,
while small, enjoyed them but were said later to tire of them as alternative holidays became
possible. Such a scenario, if continued would imply potential decline in usage in the next
few years and eventual disappearance of sites. However, as the second generation have had
children in some cases their interest has revived in the context of their own children - and
hence the parents’ grandchildren - both leading to greater use and providing some necessary
support on hut maintenance. Under such circumstances there may be prospects of continuity
of use.
4.12.20 There are also both good and bad prospects for the future in terms of the site owners. Again
many of them are now older. As long as the site does not require too great and input they
seem likely to carry it on, even though it provides little return, but increasing age and
sometimes declining health, coupled with the prospects of heightened ‘hassle factor’,
particularly in the event of changes to tenure arrangements may discourage them. On the
other hand where younger generation owners take on sites this is mostly because they are
there at the time of acquisition rather than because they are committed hut site ownermanagers. They bring in different ideas, may be running some form of business on the rest
of their land holding and, having made investments in this, feel that it needs to be run in a
businesslike way with impl;ications for the hut site.
4.12.21 We have seen the very informal ways in which most sites have operated, both owner to
occupier and vice versa. The issue of the extent to which occupiers have any security of
tenure has only been raised in very recent years. The common view on the part of the site
owners, and probably also on the part of most occupiers, is that they own the land and
occupiers are allowed to keep huts on it in return for an annual rent. This is something on
which a number of owners have consulted their lawyers and been confirmed in this view.
Other obligations on each side are minimal. In the past this does not seem to have been seen
as a matter of concern on either side. It is the recent events at Carbeth which have brought
the issue to the fore, which could have serious implications for the future of many hut sites
191
and which are now raising doubts in the minds of a number of site owners, both the older
established ones and the newcomers.
4.12.22 One or two possible scenarios for the future of hut sites emerge from the study. The first is to
maintain the status quo. Under this, if there is no change in security of tenure and rights over
land, many of the sites will probably continue to ‘tick over’ as they have done for a long
time. However, at the same time, given the age structure of both owners and occupiers they
are likely gradually to decline. There is unlikely to be significant investment in most sites
since this would require both the resources and the will on the part of the owner. Many
occupiers may be content to live with this and still put time and effort into their huts as they
do now, even though there is no guarantee of a secure future.
4.12.23 Alternatively, as new generations of both occupiers and owners come into play the picture is
likely to change. Expectations are likely to increase on both sides. From the occupiers’ point
of view these may involve seeking greater security of tenure and perhaps higher standards of
service provision. In turn owners may expect greater control and certainly higher levels of
return from the hutters, at least to the extent that the sites pay their way, and preferably,
bring in a degree of profit. A potential benefit from changes of this kind might be that the
more run down and little used huts might disappear from sites thus raising the average
standard. At the same time the sites might be subject to a great degree of active planning
control. Either way it seems likely that huts sites as they exist now would disappear and be
replaced by more orderly, even if low key holiday chalet sites, perhaps with a different kind
of occupier.
4.12.24 One approach is what has already happened to a medium sized site formerly under single
estate ownership. Following the then owner’s death individual plots appear to have been
offered for sale to and bought by their occupiers. The older established huts on the site
appear to have changed little in character but are now adjoined by a large standardised
‘coastal chalet’ development, though it is not known whether these are rented or individually
owned. Clearly it is too soon to say whether this is successful and information about it is
limited. While it may be a viable way of transferring responsibility for individual plots to
their owners and relieving former owners of management of the site a successful future
depends on willingness of individual owners to maintain their plots and respect the needs of
their neighbours in a system which may have few controls.
4.12.25 An alternative which is yet in its early days but may be applicable in other situations is
where all the occupiers of a site working as a group have been able to acquire the land which
is now vested in a Trust of which they are all members. This was done when a long
established site was seen to be vulnerable to speculative development from outside.
Following the formation of the Trust the best way to protect the individual interests of the
occupiers was seen to be to set themselves up as a company limited by guarantee, rather than
just as a loose association of members, with the objectives of securing the future for the
hutters on the land, protecting the area from speculators and developers and conservation of
the coastal path for the long term use and enjoyment of the public. Eventually all the land
was acquired and the Trust applied for and acquired charitable status. An Owners’
Agreement define the rights, obligation and responsibilities of each individual owner in
relation to the Trust as a whole. While some of the individual occupiers had reservation in
the early stages these were eventually overcome and the new organisation has had the effect
of bringing the occupiers together as a much more cohesive group. Such a scenario is not
necessarily suitable for all sites. Its success depends partly on the nature of the site, on the
willingness of a landowner to sell the land, a readiness of each of the occupiers to contribute
both financially and in interest and effort and, finally, awareness of the most appropriate
channels through which to work and skills within the occupiers themselves to utilise these to
best effect.
4.12.26 Huts sites may now be an anachronism at the end of the century. It was said by one owner
that ‘they came in the 20th century and went in the 20th century’, though in practice most are
192
making it into the new millennium. Can they survive? Do people want them to survive. If
left undisturbed they probably can survive in the short term. If disturbed, they are unlikely to
survive in their present form and though something is likely to take their place it will be
different and more formal. Whether people want them to survive depends on the viewpoint.
Officialdom, certainly at local level, probably does not want them to. They do ‘not conform’
and even if they cannot formally get rid of them, they might be happier to see them slowly
wither on the vine. On the other hand there is still a substantial body of occupiers who love
their huts, devote time and resources to them and for whom they are an important part of
their lives.
193
PART 4 APPENDICES
194
APPENDIX 4A – SITE DESCRIPTIONS
The following are very brief pen pictures of each of the sites covered in the discussions with site
owners
Site A is the largest of the sites in Scotland, currently with around 150 huts. In practice this ‘site’ is
more a collection of a number of small sites under a single ownership and management. Huts are in
groups in hilly woodland, the groups ranging in size from six to 35 huts some in more or less linear
pattern others in blocks. A network of access roads exists and within the past year or two there has
been significant upgrading of most of these and at least one completely new road constructed.
Services are limited to a number of water standpipes. A number of huts are completely new, largely as
a result of rebuilding after fire and other forms of damage. Others are much older though most are
thought to date from the 1960s onwards.
Another formerly large site, B has now reduced in size and shares the land with other uses. Around 40
huts still remain in use. The site is flat on sandy land not far from the coast and near a road, from
which the main hut area is reached by a surfaced track about 100m long, after which access is just
across the grass, which is mown periodically by the site owner. Huts are arranged in broadly linear
fashion on either side of a wide grassed area. The hut area formerly extended further the east but this
area is now just grass. One or two of the original huts remain from the late 1930s. Others have been
rebuilt much more recently, some with substantial extensions, even encroaching on to the plots of
neighbouring but unused huts. Services are limited to a standpipe supply but many huts have a variety
of storage facilities either for water from the standpipe or from collected rainwater. Huts are of varied
construction and condition and a number of examples are shown in the photographs in Appendix E.
Some huts have quite elaborate garden plots while others are very basic. Parts of this site are now
used for caravan storage and others for a small but expanding static caravan site, while there is also a
fair amount of other land some of which is open grass and some rough scrub. The owners have a
house on the land, close to the hut area.
Site C is in the Borders and is still a fairly large site with approaching 50 huts. It has changed little in
size or pattern over a number of years. Huts are dispersed over a substantial area and are accessed
from the main road by a few hundred metres of surfaced lane becoming a rougher track before the site
is entered by a farm gate. There is then a farm road leading up the valley into the hills which is used
both for farm access and for walkers . The huts themselves are on the west facing slope of a deep
valley, some of them in the valley bottom beside the small stream which runs through the site. All the
huts are in use and vary from very old huts, including a former railway carriage up to very recent
structures. After a flat area at the beginning of the site with huts of the far side of the stream, reached
by small bridges, the access track climbs the right slope and access to individual huts is by means of
paths and steps. Many of the huts have small garden plots with facilities for sitting out (See
illustrations at Appendix E). The site is about 1km from the edge of a town and has good access to
local facilities.
One of the medium sized sites, now with about 25 huts is site D, again in the Borders. This has also
stayed at its present size for many years. Huts are arranged on the southern part of a large steeply
sloping open field, some across the slope, others a right angles to it. The site is fairly exposed to the
East. Access is by a rutted and steep farm track leading from a minor road down to the valley bottom
which is used by both farm and hut occupiers. There is a mix of huts, one or two very run down and
one or two into which a great deal of recent effort has been put. Water supply is again from a number
of standpipes. The site is about 1km from the nearest village and main road.
Site E is about 1km from a hamlet in the Borders, approached by a 400m track leading to a farm. The
site is in two parts with a few huts on an exposed ridge, the route of an old Roman road, these being
the remnants of a formerly more extensive area of huts. The remainder are grouped around the edges
of a bowl with rough and rather marshy ground in the bottom . This area is part of a glacial melt water
channel and a site of special scientific interest. The ground rise steeply to hills on the north side. The
195
huts have reduced in numbers in recent years and now has only around 15, fairly scattered within the
wider are of the site. No services are provided on this site.
Site F, a council owned site, is closely bounded by other uses, on flat land on the edge of a small town
by the coast. It has fully made up internal roads and large plots with substantially built huts. In
practice this is more akin to a coastal chalet development, of the kind found in one or two places on
the Ayrshire coast, than to the general run of hut sites. All the huts on this site are fully serviced.
Site G is similar in many of its features to site B above and again has declined in numbers in recent
years. Also close to a road and to other housing this is dry flat sandy land, bounded by fences and the
huts share the space with stored caravans. The remaining huts are in two area, one at the south east
corner of the site, adjacent to the boundary fence and the other a small group in the middle of the
western part of the site. Services are provided in the form of a communal toilet block which also
provides a water standpipe. Huts are again varied in size and style, some with quite elaborate garden
or patio areas but others with little organised outside space.
One of two coastal sites covered is K on the Clyde coast is rather anomalous within the general
pattern of sites included in the survey. Here a small group of huts is built virtually into the retaining
wall below a steep bank leading up to a busy main road. The huts themselves are virtually on the
foreshore. About a dozen huts are distributed along a stretch of about 200m, more tightly clustered in
the centre. In a number of cases the occupiers have created small parking areas from the road verge at
the top of the bank together with access steps down to the lower level. Some of the huts appear to be
virtually built into the foreshore rocks and other on concrete sea wall. A few old slipways lead down
across the rocky shore to the water and some of the huts may even have started their life as fishing
huts. The site is very exposed to the elements on the water frontage. Huts seem solidly built, some out
of corrugated iron, mostly with chimneys for stoves. It is about two or three km from the nearest
town. There do not appear to be any services on this site.
What had been thought to be a single small site, L, in Ayrshire proved in practice to be two small
groups in fairly flat fields on either side of a short farm road but close to a Trunk road and
immediately adjacent to the owners’ dwellings. One group remains at about the same size and number
of huts as it has been for the past 60 years, whereas the other is only the small remnant of a formerly
much larger group covering much of a large field. In both cases the huts are fairly small but those that
are there are occupied and used. The large group are close together round three sides of a small field,
with a couple of huts in the centre. One or two of the huts have been elaborately provided with garden
space and the huts themselves well maintained a bright and cheerful inside. While water is only
available via a standpipe there is provision for disposal of chemical toilet waste into a cess pit in a
building at one corner of the site.
Site J is a very small site in the Angus Glens with about a dozen huts scattered amongst rough
bracken and heather covered hillside in a small valley and beside a small stream. Huts are mostly old
but reasonably maintained but do not have clearly delineated plots. Water supply comes from the
stream. A farm access road provides access both to the site and to other dwellings and farm land
further up the glen. The site is fairly sheltered by its topography.
The other coastal site in the survey , K, is a small group of huts at the southern corner of a long
stretch of beach, some 3-4 km from the nearest village. It is approached by a farm road and then a
long and narrow track which terminates in a small parking area at the beach. Adjacent to the site is
another small group consisting of a cottage, one or two old huts and a few caravans but this is a
separate entity and apart from this there are no other dwellings in the vicinity. The group of eleven
huts is just above the shoreline in linear fashion on low sand dunes with rising ground behind to the
south west. Huts vary in age, one or two very old, others new and in one case fairly large and modern
in design. Water comes from a spring into a storage tank. Individual plots are not officially delineated
though there are one or two small fences. The site is exposed to the east coast gales, though with a
degree of protection from the higher ground behind it.
196
Site L was not identified in the Stage 1 surveys but emerged in subsequent information. This is a
small flat site with about a dozen huts situated behind a farm steading close to Loch Lomond. The site
is open to the north but protected by trees to east and south and by the farm to the west. The huts are
along two sides of a roughly triangular area with the third side being a rough pasture field. Huts are
close together, mostly with fenced plots and all are now provided with mains electricity and water
and with septic tank drainage. Access is from a farm road leading off a trunk road.
A Solway Coast site, M occupies the end of a small peninsula, bounded on three side by water and to
the north by low lying and rather marshy rough farmland. The site itself is hummocky and covered by
tress and thick scrub. The 15 huts are scattered in no apparent order on the west and southern part of
the site with one on the north. None of the plots are formally delineated though occasional fences
have been erected. Some of the huts are on quite steep slopes and most are protected from the weather
either by the ground formation or by the vegetation. The site is about 2-3 km from the nearest village,
approached initially via a surfaced farm road and then a rough track, the final part of it very rough.
Site N is a very small, and very rough site, now little more than the remnants of a slightly larger site
occupying part of a very deep valley south of Glasgow. Only a few huts remain and most of these are
in a run down state. Although there is a minor road along the edge of the site , occupiers just have to
make their way through rough grass to their huts, though one has created a small pull-in area for a car.
The final site , O, occupies the edge of a rough field, bounded by a small stream, with a few scrubby
trees. Huts are in a row, some with fenced plots and in varying condition. A few other huts are located
further off the road and higher on the slope among scattered trees. The site is surrounded by rough
grazing farmland.
197
APPENDIX 4B – ILLUSTRATIONS OF TYPICAL HUTS AND SITES
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205