It costs more to rent a beach hut from expensive beach hut locations such as Mudeford, Whitstable, Sandbanks, Southwold and Bournemouth, than the average rent for properties in England, data from lettings platform Howsy has shown.
On average, it costs some £1,486 a month to rent a beach hut in these areas, 42% higher than the national average rent for all properties in England, let alone a room. This is higher than the average rental cost for Ealing, South Bucks, Newham, Guildford and Hounslow.
Calum Brannan, founder and chief executive of Howsy, said: “Whether you’re looking to rent or buy, beach hut premiums can be quite outrageous and the sums of money that can be involved for a single hut could secure you an actual rental property in many parts of the UK.
“This is all part and parcel of the supply and demand rental dynamic and whether it’s a beach hut, parking space or actual property, if you have the prime asset and location, there will always be someone willing to pay way over the odds to rent it from you. Personally, I’d prefer a deck chair on the beach.”
The most expensive place to rent a beach hut is Mudeford, where the average cost is £3,816. This is more than the average monthly rent in Kensington and Chelsea, Westminster, Camden, the City of London and Hammersmith and Fulham.
At an average monthly cost of £1,184, a beach hut in Whitstable costs the same to rent as a house in Winchester, Reigate and Banstead, Spelthorne, Brentwood home of TOWIE and the Vale of Whitehorse and is only marginally lower than Barking and Dagenham.
Sandbanks in Poole is home to the likes of Harry Redknapp and with a beach hut setting you back an average of £920 a month, you could afford to rent in Aylesbury Value and you’re not far off renting in nearby Christchurch.
Finally, the monthly beach hut rental cost of £788 in Southwold would sit between Southampton and Medway in the national rental market.
Meanwhile a Bournemouth beach hut (£720) sits between Northampton and Mid Suffolk.