Meeting Details

Apologies for absence were received from Cllr Paul Ashton and Cllr Tim Wilson.

Councillor Beavan stated that Mr David Gledhill had retired from the committee to take up a role with the Trade Facilitation Committee and thanked him for his work.

The Strategic Director confirmed that a public advertisement would be placed for this position and asked whether the committee would like make any specific requirements for this role. Councillor Beavan stated he would like to see a more general recruitment to allow as many people as possible to apply. The Chair of the Stakeholder Advisory Group stated he would like the Town Council to have great representation on the Committee. Mr MacFarlane stated that there was a requirement in the Port Marine Safety Code that the role was advertised to all without prejudice. Councillor Beavan stated he appreciated this, and if a general advert was placed then a Town Councillor could apply. Mr Pickles stated he would like to see people with a more local knowledge of the harbour on the Committee.

By a unanimous vote it was 

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meeting held on the 12 June be agreed and signed as a correct record. 

The Committee considered report  ES/2158 which related to the appointment of Mr Justin Ladd to the Stakeholder Advisory Group as a representative for Charter Boat Associations in the harbour.

By a unanimous vote it was 

RESOLVED

That Mr Justin Ladd be appointed the representative for Charter Boat Associations in the harbour, including both dive and fishing charters on the Stakeholder Advisory Group, with immediate effect

The Southwold Harbour and Caravan Site Manager updated the Committee on operations in the harbour. Visitor numbers were back to pre-covid levels. There was an increase in survey vessels over the winter related to Sizewell C and offshore grid connections. There had been no incidents in the harbour since the last meeting.

The touring site had been fully booked through the summer period and was booked up for the next summer period. The site would be closing on 30 November but there were a few groups booked in until the closing date. A new boiler and shower system would be installed in the main block on the touring site to match the system on the static site. Central heating would also be installed in the blocks which would be more cost effective than the previous heating system. Drainage works would take place on the touring site to help keep the site dry after issues in 2023. A pond would also be dug out and turned into more of a feature on the site. 

There had been lower occupancy this year on the static site and one person was leaving the site this winter. Winter works would include general landscaping and repair of flower beds. A greenhouse would also be built so plants could be grown on site. General decorative work would also be carried out on the utility blocks on site. Owners were invited to send any comments in if they felt there was additional work that needed to be done.

In the harbour additional infrastructure had been installed by a stage owner to enable them to safely access their stage over some sunken land on the Walberswick side. This had been done in accordance with the harbours statutory duties, but the Walberswick Common Lands Charity had objected as they asserted they owned this piece of land. This was now being dealt with by the legal department. Notices had been issued to stage owners where appropriate to remind them to do health and safety works. It was believed that some of this issues had arisen with one stage not being repaired due to issues with planning applications, but it was not clear whether the application related to work on the stage or not. Mapping around the harbour was being looked at to confirm ownership of the land here, and to confirm lease demises. 

A large section of the fender around the north pier had broken away and collapsed into the harbour mouth. The fender had been bending backwards toward the rocks and it was believed it had broken at sea bed level. It had been surveyed as soon at it was safe to do so and the structure was sitting outside of the navigable channel. Notices had been issued and divers had marked the structure, however the buoy had been disappeared in subsequent poor weather. Divers would be surveying the remaining structure again at the end of November and would hopefully be pulling the structure out of the channel. A comprehensive review of the remaining structure would be presented to the HMC when divers had completed their surveys. Coastal Partnership East were also looking at the previous work that had been done to see if there had been any omissions or faults. 

Mr Pickles stated there was no reason to have a fender on this part of the pier, it was however needed further down on the north wall. Mr MacFarlane stated that as there had been fendering here, there would need to be a very clear reason and assessments for not replacing it. Councillor Beavan agreed that it might not be necessary but there needed to be evidence to back this up. 

There had been issues with visitor moorings, a temporary fix had been made and the moorings would be replaced with a pontoon mooring in the longer term. Mr MacFarlane stated this would be very expensive and would require Marine Management Organisation licences but it was essential that it was done. 

A letter would be sent out shortly to remind people to keep access to stages clear. The fishermen’s compound had been tidied and was much improved from a health and safety perspective. 

The Committee received report ES-2155. The Interim Estates Manager stated that total income for the harbour exceeded the annual budget by approximately £100,000 due to additional back rent and increased car parking fees.  Operational costs, including back pay and overtime, contributed to a higher expenditure than budgeted. The net outturn position for the Harbour was a surplus of around £103,000. 

On the caravan and campsite income was over budget by approximately £125,000, benefitting from two Easter periods in 2023/24. Expenditure was higher due to utilities and additional maintenance, but the net position shows a surplus of around £234,000. It was noted that the figure had been incorrectly reported in the attached report as £125,000. 

Mr Ogden asked how transfers to reserves would roll forward. The Interim Estates Manager stated that the harbour was required to maintain reserves for future works, this would be rolled over and could be accessed in future years.

Mr MacFarlane asked if capital spend came from reserves or if it was borrowed. The Strategic Director stated this depended on the scale of spend required. When funding was required the finance team would first look at the reserves to see if costs could be covered, then they would consider loan options, but the Council was limited on what it could borrow at present.  Reserves were ringfenced for harbour use. The Southwold Harbour and Caravan Site Owner confirmed there was currently £435,000 in reserves at present, but £2.2million of spending was required. 

By a unanimous vote it was

RESOLVED

That the Harbour Management Committee:

1. Reviewed the Draft Outturn Report for the financial year 2023/24.

2. Approved of the transfer of the surplus from the Harbour and Caravan Park operations into reserves.

3. Noted the increased pressures due to rising utility costs and maintenance and directs future budget considerations to account for these.

The Committee received report ES-2156. The Interim Estates Manager stated that total income for the harbour was £129,862, exceeding the budget of £125,080 by £4,782. Strong performance in mooring fees and other charges has contributed positively. Total expenditure was £145,890, significantly above the budgeted £82,778 due to overspends on supplies and services (£76,513 actual vs. £21,730 budgeted). There was a net deficit of £16,028, which was better than the expected deficit of £42,302. 

For the caravan and campsite income was £566,680, slightly below the budget of £591,102, mainly due to lower than expected static caravan fees. Total expenditure was £246,746 which was an underspend against the budget of £280,129. There was a total surplus of £319,934, exceeding the budgeted surplus by £8,961. 

Combined total income was £696,542, trailing the budget by £19,640. Total expenditure was £392,636, with a £29,729 overspend. The combined net surplus is £303,906 which was £49,369 behind the budgeted figure of £353,275.

Mr MacFarlane asked what the service spend related to. The Harbour and Campsite Manager stated this was due to general higher costs. Some work had also been bought forward from later in the budget. Bookings for next year were accounted for immediately and not accrued so figures would start to balance out. 

The Chair of the Stakeholder Advisory Group stated that the overspend in the harbour had been concerning on the harbour side and asked what this was for exactly. The Interim Estates Manager confirmed he would send out more detail on this. Councillor Beavan asked if more detail could be provided on this in future.

The Chair of the Stakeholder Advisory Group stated that if the thirty empty plots on the static caravan site had been filled then there would have been higher revenues for the past seven or so years. The Chair of the Southwold Caravan Owners Association stated she believed there would be an extra £250,000 earned from this. The caravan site was losing money, when it should be earning money.

By a unanimous vote it was 

RESOLVED

That the Harbour Management Committee:

1. Noted the financial performance of Southwold Harbour and the Caravan and Campsite up to 30th August 2024.

2. Approved the forecast year-end financial position for 2024/25.

3. Considered any necessary actions to mitigate variances or improve financial performance.

4. Reported the financial outcome to the Cabinet.

The Committee received report ES-2155. The Interim Estates Manager stated that there had been a great deal of fluctuation in CPI for the last three years, for the 2021-22 it was 6.4%, rising to 7.4% in 2022-23 and decreasing to 1.9% in 23-24, the overall total for the past three years was 15.8%. The proposed changes for fees and charges was for an increase of up to 5% for most charges, with some higher percentage increases for smaller individual fees. A detailed list of all the fees and charges had been provided with the agenda. 

Mr Ogden asked if these increases were purely based on CPI or if they had been benchmarked against similar facilities in the region. The Southwold Harbour and Campsite Manager stated that when he had looked at fees up and down the coast prices were relatively high considering the lack of facilities, but people were still paying to come to the area, suggesting that fees were not yet too high. 

The Interim Estates Manager stated that operational costs would be going up and there needed to be some headroom in the fees and charges to allow for these increases.

Mr Pickles stated there had been increasing traffic from boats associated with Sizewell and other major infrastructure projects. Normally there was a discount for winter mooring to encourage fishermen, Mr Pickles stated this should not be offered to survey vessels. Mr MacFarlane stated that we should be benchmarking with Lowestoft who would also be getting this traffic. The Southwold Harbour and Campsite Manager would confirm with the harbourmaster whether any discount was being applied to the survey boats, but he did not think this was the case.

Mr Pickles stated these vessels also required land space to load equipment to and from boats, and asked whether they were charged for this. Officers confirmed they were. Councillor Beavan agreed we options for maximising income from these vessels should be looked at. The Strategic Director asked if there were any other commercial vessels we could maximise income from. Mr Pickles stated that landing facilities, parking and shower blocks were needed first.

The Chair of the Stakeholder Advisory Group stated that businesses that operated out of the harbour were also operating under the same inflationary pressures as the Council, and the increase in fees was adding to this. Footfall in town was down by 30% and there were comments about the high camping costs at the harbour. Existing businesses should not be forgotten. Councillor Beavan agreed but stated that Council was not exempt from these pressures and could not absorb them all.

By a unanimous vote it was 



RESOLVED



That the Harbour Management Committee:

1. Reviewed and approved the proposed fee increase of up to five percent (5%) for the specified visitor services and holidaymaker fees, to be implemented from April 1, 2025.

2. Recommended these increases to the East Suffolk Council Cabinet for final approval.

Councillor Beavan stated that the strategic group was slowly moving forward and a strategy and business for the harbour would be coming forward shortly to add more detail to the Harbour Vision that had been presented previously. Discussions were also ongoing with economic development to help add a monetary value to the harbour to help inform the bigger picture. The Interim Estates Manager stated he was aware that timing was important and this needed to get going. Councillor Beavan stated as far as he was concerned work should start to happen in 2025 as the current state of affairs was no longer tenable. 

The Interim Estates Manager asked if there were any existing facilities in the harbour. Mr Pickles stated there had been a proposal to split costs fifty/fifty with the sailing club to develop better facilities there. Councillor Beavan stated the sailing club was planning to upgrade their facilities at the moment, he would speak with them about this about this option. 

Regarding South Pier works, Councillor Beavan stated work still needed to be done to establish exactly why the harbour had not silted up. The Strategic Director stated that a design had been proposed by Royal Haskoning but it was still not agreed whether something of this scale needed to be done. 

Mr MacFarlane stated that the compliance working group had raised query about whether Anglian Water could be required to inform the public when they were discharging into the harbour. It was believed they would be legally required to do this from1 January.

A new Port Marine Safety Code would be coming out at the end of the year and the harbour would be audited on this in 2025. 

There was a lack of preparedness for oil spills, Mr MacFarlane suggested approaching ABP and asking them to for them to cover this. Mr Pickles stated Harbour Marine could also be trained to provide this capacity. The Interim Estates Manager stated he would look into this. 

The Compliance Group also raised concerns around succession planning for the harbour, and the Interim Estates Manager confirmed this was an issue he was looking into. There was no reason why there could not be an apprentice in the harbour, but this would take a lot of staff time which might not be available. A report on this would be received at a future meeting. 

Councillor Candy stated that the caravan site working group had met in October and SCOA members were invited to join the working group. Caravan owners were invited to present any issues they had with the site or feedback for maintenance.

The Chair of the Stakeholder Advisory Group had raised the issue of increasing costs which were impacting businesses in the harbour. Advisory group members had also raised issue of lease negotiations and had asked for more consistency in how leases and agreements were dealt with. The Interim Estates Manager had discussed this with advisory group members and he was also meeting with asset management. Mr MacFarlane raised the issue of finding comparables for leases in the harbour, and suggested they should all be based on RPI or CPI. The Interim Estates Manager stated this did depend on what was agreed in the lease originally whether RPI or CPI could be taken into account, but he would push for this where appropriate. 

The Chair of the Stakeholder Advisory Group asked if there was any update on the Harbour Revision Order. The Strategic Director confirmed it was still in the pipeline with the Department for Transport and the Marine Management Organisation, and this would take months. Councillor Beavan asked if the specific questions put to Ashfords during the consultation could be responded to. 

Councillor Beavan asked if the sewage connection in the harbour could be considered at a future meeting.

Mr Pickles raised the danger of boat moving in the harbour in light of a recent issue in Cambridgeshire.