7
The Committee received report ES/1993 which related to the revitalisation of Southwold Harbour and Caravan site.
The Head of Operations summarised the report. All received responses had been included as appendices for the Committee. The majority of responses had been received online through the survey, but some had also been received in the form of letters and other written responses.
A total of 276 people had responded online, 60% of these were caravan owners, the rest were a mix of business owners and harbour users. The Head of Operations summarised the common themes that had been raised in the face to face feedback sessions:
- Concerns about flooding
- Concerns about length of leases and terms and conditions
- Need for more detail on caravan site terms in future discussions
- Need for clarity on what level of investment the harbour needed
- Need for more detail in the vision
- Desire for environmental and sustainable practises
- How amenities and infrastructure could be improved whilst keeping the feel of the harbour
The Head of Operations summarised the response to the four options that had been set out for the caravan park. Option one was the most popular with just over 30% of respondents supporting this. The other options had slightly less support, with just under 30% supporting option two, around 25% supporting option three and only around 15% supporting option four.
The Head of Operations stated that based on feedback, there was clear support for sub-letting and more flexible leases, but there were concerns around flood risk and any requirements around the buying and age of caravans. The current terms and conditions stated that caravans should be no older than ten years but this was not adhered to. There had been suggestions from users that a higher age might be acceptable, or whether there could be a check on caravans to ensure they were safe. Written responses received outside of the survey had a strong focus on the need to maintain the community on the caravan site.
The Head of Operations summarised the recommendations in the report. The first was that the vision was finalised an updated based on feedback from the consultation. The second was that in depth discussions are had with caravan owners on heads of terms, and then all caravan owners be transitioned from an annual licence to a long term lease. The third recommendations was that a business plan is drawn up to fully explore how the Council could retain and operate thirty plots. The fourth recommendation was that co-design workshops, facilitated by an external company, be held so the Council and key stakeholders to discuss what the caravan site should look like. The last two recommendations were that a comprehensive programme plan be developed and a question and answer document written to provide clarity on key issues and provide a timeline.
The Chair asked what would happen if someone wanted to give up a longer lease part way through the term. The Head of Operations stated this did happen with beach huts, typically the Council would facilitate the sale of part of a lease at the owners request.
Mr Ogden expressed concern that not many businesses had responded. The Vice Chair of the Advisory Group agreed and stated that this was perhaps because the vision was more ‘woolly’ and there was not much for people to respond to. Once this was worked up it might be that there was more feedback.
Ms Perry-Yates stated that she felt the consultation lacked clarity. Not everyone who responded did respond to the question on their preferred option. Options two, three and four had been combined but as number four was a very different option this could not be grouped in.
Ms Perry-Yates asked why leases were being suggested not licences. The Head of Operations stated that annual licences gave no certainty to people beyond the year and there was not significant security of tenure to allow caravan owners to make any long term decisions. A longer term lease would not commit people to a lease for this length of time, and they could be sold. The driving factor for going to leases was to provide people with security.
Ms Perry-Yates stated that a lot of people would not be able to make a decision until heads of terms were available as this would often contain the detail.
The Vice Chair of the Advisory Group stated that the caravan industry did use long term licencing as a standard and this might be more appropriate, as leases were more complicated and expensive for people. The Head of Operations stated that this could be considered, there did need to be a move to a long term agreement with caravan owners.
The Strategic Director stated that the next step had to be an understanding of what the changes would be from the existing licence, for example length of term, ability to sublet or requirements for caravan age and condition. At the end of this process this might be that leases were used, or it might be long term licences.
Councillor Ashton stated that the consultation had been non-specific to allow people to provide all the feedback they wanted to. He agreed that it was premature for this report to decide on one arrangement of lease and licence. He asked that the second recommendation be changed so that it did not refer to just a lease.
Mr MacFarlane agreed and asked that the council access the standard long term licence for caravans and use this as a basis for discussions.
The Chair asked if anyone in the public gallery had a question on this subject.
A member of the public asked if payment would be for the whole lease up front. The Head of Operations stated that they would be paid annually. If sold people would be buying the right to have the plot for the balance of the term.
A member of the public asked whether there would be a cost to the leaseholder if they had to give up a lease before the end of its term. The Head of Operations stated that there would be an administrative charge, this would need to be worked through. In the case of the Council's beach huts, this was often a percentage of the sale. The right to assign a lease to a family member could be included as a term, this was done with beach huts.
A member of the public asked that if 60% of owners wished to stay as they are, should they not be engaged individually. The Head of Operations confirmed that 60% of total survey respondents were caravan owners, of these 30% wanted option one.
A member of the public asked why was there a recommendation for transfer to leasehold when the committee had not be certain on this. The Chair confirmed that this was now being discussed.
The Chair invited the Committee to debate the recommendations.
On the proposal of Councillor Ashton, seconded by Councillor Candy and by a unanimous vote it was
RESOLVED
That recommendation two be changed to state "Bring an option for long term tenure to the next meeting"
Councillor Candy asked who would do the detailed business case on this. The Head of Operations stated that an external firm would do this as the Asset Management team did not have these specific skills. Councillor Candy asked how this would include feedback on environment and community, and it was important that any firm understood this.
Mr MacFarlane stated that a firm had done some work on options for the caravan site who had local links with Southwold, so there were specialists with this knowledge. The Head of Operation stated that this is why co-design workshops were also included, so that the design was not just done by an external company but that people who were invested in the design would be involved.
Councillor Ashton thanked officers for their work, and everyone who responded to the consultation. The next step was to work with people to work up more detail.
Mr Gledhill stated that it had taken a very long time to get to this point, and he hoped that this could be sped up. The slow process was both difficult for caravan owners and it meant that the Harbour Management Committee was failing in its responsibility to maximise income from the caravan site.
The Head of Operations confirmed that a programme plan would be bought to the next HMC and information on who would be doing each piece of work, and a timeline for work.
A member of the public stated that the whole harbour should be looked at together and there needed to be a clear objective for the whole area so decisions could trickle down from this. A member of the public also agreed that this uncertainty was not helpful for people on the site.
The Head of Operations confirmed that the Council had not and would not engage with any companies that would come and run the site, and this had not been discussed for a number of years.
The Strategic Director summarised what a co-design workshop would include. There would be a series of workshops, the first would be ideas, then the second with some worked up ideas, then the last to develop some principals for the site. These workshops would include caravan owners. The Chair stated that these were worth doing, but it would take some time.
A member of the public asked if there was an option to upgrade the site but keep things as they are. The Chair stated this had not been included as any upgrade would have to be paid for.
On the proposal of Councillor Ashton, seconded by Councillor Candy and by a unanimous vote it was
That the Harbour Management Committee:
1. Review and Finalise Vision and Strategy
Task the HMC Task and Finish Committee with reviewing and finalising the updated vision, priorities and strategic plan reflecting all of the feedback received from this consultation regarding the wider harbour vision.
2. Bring an option for long term tenure to the next meeting
3. Commission a Business Case for Council-Operated Plots
Commission a detailed business case to explore retaining 30 plots for council-operated year-round rental accommodation, considering various accommodation types to enhance revenue and diversify usage.
4. Facilitate Co-Design Workshops
Conduct co-design workshops facilitated with key stakeholders help shape the future site layout to best accommodate and integrate the proposed new system, managed rental plots, wider amenities, and environment.
5. Develop a Programme Plan
Prepare a comprehensive programme plan if recommendations 1-4 are accepted for proposal at the next HMC meeting in July, and to support a report to be considered by the Council’s Cabinet later in year.
6. Develop a Comprehensive Q&A Document
Support the creation of a comprehensive Questions & Answers (Q&A) document. This document should address the broader issues and common queries that have arisen throughout the consultation process with stakeholders.