Meeting Details

The Committee received an update from the Harbour and Caravan Site Manager on operations.

There had been a visit by Cabinet, the Duty Holder, to the harbour on the 3 February. The Port Marine Safety Code Audit had been conducted on the 20 February and the result was 'green' and the harbour was compliant. The new PMSC would come out in March or April, and some additional work would be needed for this. There had been no incidents in the harbour.

The winter works programme had been completed on the touring site. New windows and heaters had been installed in the heating block which reduced the electrical consumption. Drainage works had been carried out including clearing of ditches. The pond on site had also been cleared to encourage wildlife. 

Winter works are nearly complete on the static site, there had been some delays in fixing flower beds due to works needed in the harbour. Four owners had handed in notice to leave the site at the end of the season and a number of owners had indicated this would be their last season. 

Work continued to install new visitor pontoon in the harbour and ensuring the structure was safe and up to standard. 

Divers had surveyed the missing piece of fender from the north pier. It was still in the same location but had silted up and boulders had started to move on top of it. Divers would return and mark it before lifting it out. There was a very tight window to carry out works so this would take some time. 

LionLink had indicated the proposed landing site will be the Walberswick side of the harbour and this would cut across the landing site of the harbour. Officers were engaging to discuss the impact this would have on visitors and fishing, as information became available it would be shared. 

The Committee received report ES/2318 which presented the Annual Report for 2023/24.

The Interim Estates Manager summarised the report and noted this was the first annual report received in two years, it would be delivered annually going forward.

One significant incident regarding a yacht being used for people smuggling was recorded in this period. 811 vessels had visited the harbour, and 3,060 radio calls had been logged. 12,791 pitches were booked on the touring site, with around 5000 visitors in peak season. On the static caravan site 30 plots were vacant in this period.

Total expenditure for the year was £605,000. Major costs were employees, premises costs, supplies and services and depreciation and repayment of capital investment. Total profit for the year was £30,000.

Other issues in the year included a fire in May 2023 which had highlighted issues in building management. Water quality and sewage management had been a concern, with Anglian Water discharging near the harbour causing issues for harbour users and potentially impacting the beaches blue flag status. 

The Chair invited questions.

Councillor Candy asked if the car parking fee was accurate as it was higher than mooring income. The Interim Estates Manager confirmed car parking fees did bring in more income than mooring fees, the exact figures were being double confirm they were accurate. 

Mr Ogden asked how the options and the recommendations in the report tied together. Cabinet needed to be aware that there was a requirement to keep the harbour open, and they needed to be aware of the legal and financial risks. The Chair agreed that this was an issue and needed to be kept in mind moving forward and flagged to Cabinet, especially as external funding was harder to come by. Mr McFarlane agreed this was an issue and there was no money in the sector. 

Mr Flunder agreed with the point made by Mr Ogden. The risks and challenges needed to be clearly identified, the Council had a statutory duty to keep the harbour open regardless of other commitments. 

Councillor Candy stated that the wider Cabinet may not be aware of the full issues around the harbour and asked that more information was put to them to this. Councillor Candy asked if officers could attend an informal cabinet meeting to have a fuller discussion about this.

Councillor Ashton stated that as the Cabinet Member responsible for the harbour he was well aware of the issues, however people needed to be clear that the Council could not raise the funds to do all the work implied by the Royal Haskoning reports without going bankrupt. The harbour strategy aimed to achieve the best income stream, but external funding was needed.

Mr McFarlane stated we had to focus on what the harbour could afford to operate safely, and people across East Suffolk would not want their rates going up to pay for the harbour. Mr Flunder stated that a balance was needed, but it was not just to keep the harbour open but to help the wider tourism industry in Southwold.

The Interim Estates Manager noted this was a report for the 23-24 year. The 24-25 year might reflect more of this issue. 

A member of the public asked how much discretionary spending there was in the councils budget. The Chair stated that the Council operated a number of discretionary services and asked officer to confirm the exact statutory obligations in the harbour and the wider Council. Councillor Ashton stated that even if the Council cancelled all discretionary spending  it would not be able to fund the harbour. The harbour, the fact was that the costs of the harbour would bankrupt the whole Council. 

Mr McFarlane confirmed they were required to keep the harbour open. In his experience the only option if this could not be done was to get a harbour revision order to close the harbour and to pay compensation. 

Councillor Ashton stated the scenario did not necessarily have to be as stark as this as not all work had to be done at once. The Chair agreed and stated that the harbour needed to stay open for as long as possible. 

By a unanimous vote it was

RESOLVED

That the Harbour Management Committee: 

 1. Noted the contents of the Southwold Harbour Annual Report 

 2. Recommended that Cabinet: 

1. Proceed with the Southwold Harbour Investment Plan to enhance infrastructure resilience. 
2. Introduce updated lease agreements with stricter compliance measures. 
3. Improve waste management systems to align with environmental standards. 
4. Engage stakeholders in structured consultations regarding fee adjustments and operational changes. 

The Committee received report ES/2317 which outlined the approach to the improvement of Southwold Caravan site and next steps. 

The Interim Estates Manager outlined the current position. The site was a mix of static and touring, with static plots let out annually for between £2,325-2,520 per year. Stock was ageing and there was a historic lack of investment. The Static Caravans ranged in size, age and condition. The site currently had limited services to the plots, with a shared shower and toilet block, an the layout was inefficient. Net income was approximately £150,000.

Three options had been explored. The first was to modernise the existing site, moving to ten year licences with the ability to end and the requirement for cyclical unit modernisation. The number of pitches would be reduced. This would require a capital cost of between £2.3 and £2.6m, net income would be between £900,000 and £1.2m per year. This option was the lowest capital cost and potentially lowest risk. The existing touring site would be maintained. 

The second option was to transition to 49 rental lodges with a weekly rent of £950 (averaged) per week. The capital cost was £12.5m over six years, projected net income would be £805,000 per year. This option required much higher capital and was higher risk generally. 

Option three was for a phased and flexible model and was the recommended option. The development would be phased across a number of years allowing the site to flex to the market which was moving away from static caravans. The mix would be around 74 static plots and 26 to 28 lodges. The required capital was £4.5m to £6.5m over five years, with a net income of approximately £800,000. This approach was deemed to be lower risk as it was more market lead. Capital figures would likely be lower as a phased approach would include rentals and sales during the borrowing period. £1.5m was already allocated in the capital programme to install services and optimise the layout of the site.

 The next steps would be appoint consultants and designers and begin surveying the site and consulting on the layout. The initial mix would need to be confirmed to determine the initial spend. Sustainability of the site would also need to be looked at as part of the procurement process. There would also need to be full stakeholder engagement. 

The Chair made it clear that the figures were models not detailed business plans and included a number of assumptions. The proposed new agreements would be based on the template from the caravan owners association which had a ten year term.

Ms Perry-Yates stated that she was grateful for there to be some information, but it was still lacking in detail, and recent news about caravan suppliers going into administration highlighted the fragility of the industry. The Strategic Director stated this uncertainty was why it had taken the working group to arrive at a decision, the reason the hybrid model was suggested was that it gave the Council the ability to make smaller investments to see what works and make changes without having made a huge investment. 

Ms Perry-Yates stated that owners could not get insurance and asked if investment in this area was wise. The Chair stated this was why they needed to look at different ways of providing accommodation rather that static caravans which sat on metal basis and would rust. This is why more sustainable options were being investigated and a flexible approach was needed.

Ms Perry-Yates asked when current owners would be told about when they needed to be moved and where would they be moved to. Councillor Ashton stated this plan would be worked out as part of the business plan and consultations. A draft plan would be prepared following the committees recommendation. 

Ms Perry-Yates stated that owners needed to understand what was happening so they know what decisions they could make. Councillor Ashton stated that regardless of the option selected everything would have to be cleared off the site over winter to install services. 

Ms Perry-Yates stated that owners were signed up until November, so conditions would need amending. The Strategic Director stated that as the exact date was confirmed clear owners would be informed and changes made to leases and payments as necessary. 

The Chair confirmed that the detail would be discussed with owners as part of the development process. 

A member of the public asked if people on the waitlist had been communicated with. The Interim Estates manager confirmed that the list was updated in mid-2024, they did not want to contact people again without further information but recognised this could be a way to test the market. 

The Interim Estates Manager stated that the recommendations today gave officers permission to build up the preferred option and to plan out the layout, infrastructure and timings.

The Caravan and Harbour Manager stated that there had been a variety of queries about purchase or rental of statics, glamping and lodges on the site. The hybrid solution gave the site the ability to meet these markets. People on the waiting list had been made aware that they would have to come on the site with a newer caravan. It had been a challenged to reach a solution but officers were hopeful this flexible solution would work.

The Chair stated that in terms of ages of static caravans, the intention was to use MOT type check to ensure they were safe rather than having a strict age cut off. Any caravans in good condition should be able to be moved off an on to the site. The Chair had raised a concern about how the statics could be recycled as they had a very short life, and this is why he wanted to look at more sustainable options.

Councillor Candy agreed that condition should be considered above age, and getting rid of caravans solely because of age was not desired. The key issue was whether they could be moved on and off safely. 

The Strategic Director stated that the priority was not only environmental sustainability but commercial sustainability, and the HMC and the Council would need to navigate the path between the current set up and the more commercial route. Councillor Candy stated it might be necessary to differentiate between the arrangement for current owners and new owners, so that current owners had a slightly more relaxed set of terms in recognition of their commitment to the site. 

Mr Flunder asked what the timeline for the development plan was. The Strategic Director stated he would discuss this and bring the timelines back to the HMC for their information.

The Chair stated that as much income and possible needed to be generated from the site and the harbour more widely to keep the harbour open.

By a unanimous vote it was

 RESOLVED

That the Harbour Management Committee recommended that Cabinet: 
1. Adopt the flexible, blended approach to redevelopment recommended by Rural Solutions in their February 2025 report 
2. Subject to legal advice, move to a ten year annual license model for the Southwold caravan site in future. 
3. Raise the annual pitch fee to £4,500pa subject to the necessary improvements. 
4. Commission master-planners, designers and appropriate consultancy support to design: 
a. necessary site surveys 
b. a detailed approach to services and infrastructure 
c. a phased approach to development 
d. a clear and detailed project plan 
e. the optimal mix to work towards on the site 
5. Consider the sustainability and environmental opportunities during the design process. 
6. Develop a plan for engagement with relevant stakeholders concerning the above 
7. Review the organisational arrangements and costs of the management of the Caravan site

The Chair invited updates from the Committee's working groups. 

Mr McFarlane, Chair of the compliance working group congratulated the harbour  on passing the PMSC audit, and Southwold was now one of the few small ports that were compliant. 

The Chair of the Advisory Group asked that communication be as clear as possible with all stakeholders.

The group had raised the issue of leases and it was hoped this was moving in a positive direction. The condition of the Harbour Road condition had also been discussed.

The group had also discussed the responses received to their submissions in the HRO consultations. The response from Ashfords was generally accepted, but there was still a need for clarity on the involvement of the Marine Management Organisation. The Interim Estates Manager stated he had received a response from Ashffords on this. The 1933 Order does not, in itself, mean that the Council, as Statutory Harbour Authority for Southwold Harbour, was exempt from the MMO marine licensing regime. Instead, in each case the exemptions under the MMO marine licensing regime must be considered.  In so far as the provisions of local harbour legislation are relevant to the marine licensing exemption regime the proposed HRO improves the position over the 1933 Order, for example by simplifying the dredging provision and setting out the harbour limits (including flexible harbour premises) in modern form. Ashfords had not specifically answered questions in relation to the Southwold Harbour Order 1933 because the 1933 Order is not directly relevant to the MMO marine licensing regime, it sits separately to it. Explanations have been given at previous meetings of where Southwold Harbour’s local legislation (both the existing legislation and the proposed HRO) is relevant, in terms of ascertaining the existing boundaries of works being maintained, and the provision for dredging.