Decision Details

That Cabinet:

1. Approved the adoption of the flexible, blended redevelopment approach set out in the Southwold Caravan Site Forward Strategy reported to the Southwold Harbour Management Committee in March 2025 involving a combination of static caravans, lodges and touring pitches.

2. Approved progression to a ten-year rolling licence model for static caravan plots, to replace the informal seasonal licences currently in place, subject to legal review and advice.

3. Endorsed  the phased procurement strategy covering design consultancy, site infrastructure works, and the sourcing of caravan and lodge units via market engagement and competitive procedures.

4. Authorised the immediate procurement of a Design Manager through a compliant framework call-off process, within current delegated financial authority.

5. Noted the continuing stakeholder engagement programme with static pitch holders and local consultees, alongside the application of a structured plot allocation framework.

6. Approved continued development and implementation of the Phase 1 mobilisation programme, with a targeted delivery window from December 2026 to April 2027.

7. Approved up to £250,000 for design management costs, set out in paragraph 4.3 to be funded by harbour reserves. 

Delivered a credible, phased strategy aligned to the Council’s funding, capacity and risk appetite.

Provided a clear roadmap for modernising the site while protecting income and ensuring commercial control.

Build on Member-led engagement, third-party advice and local knowledge to create a flexible and resilient model.

Option 1: Approve the phased blended redevelopment and procurement plan.

Recommended. Enables early delivery, spreads investment, aligns with market trends and increases income predictability.

 Option 2: Defer implementation until full planning and capital are secured.

 Not recommended. Would risk programme stagnation, delay procurement, increase cost exposure and weaken the Council’s ability to demonstrate delivery progress.

 Option 3: Pursue a single-stage full redevelopment model.

 Not viable. Requires full capital commitment, reduces flexibility, and increases programme and reputational risk.

Option 4: Do nothing – maintain the current licence model and site layout.

Not recommended. The site’s infrastructure is degrading, service levels are poor and current income is unsustainable in the medium term. Without intervention, the condition and appeal of the site will decline, resulting in lower occupancy, reduced income and eventually a net cost to the Council through rising maintenance obligations and reduced tenant demand. This would undermine the Council’s ambitions for financial sustainability, tourism growth and responsible asset stewardship.