Meeting Details

There were no announcements from the Chair or Cabinet Members. 

On the proposition of Councillor Langdon-Morris, seconded by Councillor Candy it was unanimously 

RESOLVED

 
That the minutes of the meeting held on 2 December 2025, be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

Councillor Langdon-Morris, Cabinet Member with responsibility for resources and value for money introduced report ES-2666 which related to the Fees and charges for the financial year 2026/27.

Councillor Langdon-Morris outlined that income from fees and charges was an integral part of the financial planning process, to inform the Medium-Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) and acted as a key element of the annual budget setting process. Forecasting the generation of essential funding for the Council helped minimise the impacts of Council Tax increases and/or service changes.

In light of continuing financial pressures for the authority and the current cost of living crisis impacting the local residents, the Council aimed to ensure that the review of the fees and charges factors key assumptions, such as, local demand, reflecting changes in the cost of delivering the services and includes any required service improvements to ensure the Council continues to reflect value for money.

The overall annual income to the General Fund generated from fees and charges was in the region of £33 million per annum, including the Port Health.

Appendix A of the report set out the proposed Discretionary and Statutory Fees and Charges for 2026/27.  Discretionary fee areas to highlight were set out in Paragraph 3.7 to 3.48 of the covering report. It included further details for areas such as Environmental Health, Beach Huts & Chalets, Cemeteries, Planning and Building Control and Housing Services.

The Statutory Charges were for noting and were also set out in Appendix A.  These are set by Government statute and councils usually have no control over service pricing. For some statutory fees there are no set review dates and some areas such as licences, have not been increased for a number of years. Where review dates are known these are provided in the relevant sections of the schedule.

The date for implementation for all charges detailed at East Suffolk Council is 1st April, unless otherwise stated, and following approval will be published onto the Council’s website.

Councillor Langdon-Morris read out the recommendations.

 Councillor Daly queried the increased costs to zoo premises and the effect on the viability of their businesses.

The Chief Finance Officer responded that section 3.8 of the report explained why the zoo license reflected the full cost of the service, due to extensive report writing following inspections, travel, and cost of staff certificates. Benchmarking has also been undertaken to bring these more in line with other authorities. When reviewing the fees and charges the demand and impact was considered. The increase was to recover the costs.

Council Noble noted the licenses for primates had increased.

 Councillor Candy added that all licensing is on a cost recovery basis. There was also a large increase on skin piercing due to the requirement for a site visit and it could be similar reasoning for why zoo ones had increased.

Councillor Langdon-Morris commented on the statutory fees that were set and the Chief Executive had discussed the point around statutory charges with the Ministry of Housing Communities Local Government and they said they would go away and take a look at them. The Chief Executive added that government were undertaking a review of fees and charges and the Council had identified that some that we would like them to specifically look at - because of the length of time it's been since any change in the level of those fees.

Councillor Whitelock was pleased that fees for recreational and leisure activities had not changed. 

Councillor Ashdown queried if Pets Corner in Oulton Broad came under the zoo licence criteria. Councillor Langdon-Morris responded that he would provide an answer outside of the meeting.

Councillor Langdon-Morris thanked the finance team for their work.

On the proposition of Councillor Langdon-Morris seconded by Councillor Beavan it was unanimously

RESOLVED

That Cabinet:

 1. Approved the discretionary Fees and Charges for 2026/27, included within Appendix A to this report.

 2. Noted the statutory Fees and Charges for 2026/27, included within Appendix A to this report

 3. Granted the Head of Environmental Services and Port Health delegated authority, in consultation with the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Community Health, to determine the Port Health discretionary charges for 2026/27, once regulatory information is made available.

Councillor Ashton, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Corporate Services introduced report ES-2647 which related to the proposed fees and charges for Beach Huts for 2026/27.

Councillor Ashton explained that the report was dominated by the beach huts the Council make available for casual hire. This was a small percentage of all of our beach huts. The majority were under licence. He explained that the increases across the board were in line with the CPI.  Some beach huts had been made available for short term hire last year to explore demand. It has provided some information but not enough to determine every aspect of short term beach hut hires so more work will be done this year. 

Councillor Ashton read the recommendations.

There were no questions from Cabinet Members.

Councillor Ashdown queried how many more beach huts were going to be put up for sale. Councillor Ashton advised that all of the beach huts that the Council hires out are available for long term lease. This year they would take stock and would look to sell on long term leases. It was hoped that there would be a big demand for short term hire and we won’t make anymore available for long term lease but just be used for short term hire. It will be driven by demand. It cost more to do short term hire but in time it might prove that there is demand for more beach huts.

Councillor Byatt queried if there were thoughts about offering day hire/weekend/mid-week hires. Councillor Ashton responded that they would be offering daily hires and there were lots of ideas being discussed to increase occupancy. The chalets that have room for tables and chairs could be used as meeting rooms so they were looking at ways to increase occupancy outside of the summer season. He congratulated the Coastal Property Manager on her promotion and hoped that this time next year they would be talking about all the successes they were having with beach huts.

On the proposition of Councillor Ashton, seconded by Councillor Langdon-Morris it was unanimously 

RESOLVED

That Cabinet:

1. Approved the proposed fee increases based on the Office for National Statistics (ONS) CPI rates, to be implemented from 1 April 2026 based upon the September 2025 CPI which is 3.8% 

2. Granted delegated authority to the Strategic Director, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Corporate Services, to increase fees and charges each year in April, in line with the preceding September’s CPI rate.

3. Granted delegated authority to the Strategic Director, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Corporate Services, to draft and approve a revised pricing structure to provide more uniform options across the area for the hire of beach huts.

Councillor Tim Wilson, Cabinet Member with responsibility for Economic Development and Transport introduced report ES-2666 which related to Proposed Fees and Charges for Parking Services - 2026/27.

Councillor Wilson outlined that the report proposed an increase to all tariff points of the off-street parking Fees and Charges equivalent to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) rates, as published by the Office for National Statistics (ONS). The rate used will be the annual CPI rate as published in September 2025 (3.8%), with all tariff points to be rounded up to the nearest ten pence interval for practicality purposes. In monetary terms, a 3.8% increase to all tariff points was estimated to be worth an additional £200k in off-street parking fee income for 2026/27.

In addition, it was proposed that an inflationary-based review should be undertaken on an annual basis, with authority delegated to the relevant Strategic Director, in consultation with the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Economic Development and Transport to implement an amendment to parking tariffs up to the published CPI rate in September of each year (to the nearest ten pence) without the need to return to Cabinet. Such an amendment will take effect from April the following year.

The proposal was intended to address continually rising operational costs, while protecting the Council’s ability to continue investing in crucial local facilities and services. Approaching changes to parking fees in this manner will avoid the need to implement sharp increases in the future, as the financial viability of the service will be better protected. The off-street parking increases inflationary based review would be done on an annual basis in consultation with the Strategic Director and Cabinet member.

Councillor Wilson read out the recommendations.

 Councillor Packard was concerned with the increase in parking charges and asked what the surplus or loss is estimated by the end of this financial year.

Councillor Wilson said these were projections and the total extra cost they faced this year was £393,000, so the proposed increases do not cover the overall increased costs. 

Councillor Packard wanted to know what the surplus was for the financial year. The Data and Development Team Lead responded it was approximately £1.4m. 

Councillor Ashton added that it was only parking fees and charges being considered. There were elements of additional infrastructure around car parking which required funding, such as maintenance and repair of public conveniences. 

Councillor Packard accepted that where improvements had been made, such as the toilets at Woodbridge, then charges should increase. However he questioned the increase in locations where improvements had not been made. 

Councillor Wilson responded there was a wider programme of work concerning grounds maintenance, cleaning and environmental work, along with upgrades to EV charging points and signage. This work formed a multi-year programme of activity across the whole district, and every car park would have had some improvements over the year.

Councillor Packard queried why there was a need to increase charges when there was a surplus of nearly £1.8m at the end of the year. Councillor Wilson responded that the enforcement department ran at a deficit of £1m last year. Parking was part of a wider closely related ecosystem. The Head of Property and Place confirmed that the £1.8m was the surplus for car parking income but against that were £1m of costs for on street parking enforcement.

Councillor Ashton pointed out that the annual cost of maintaining toilets at car parks was £2.7m.

Councillor Packard felt it was not explained clearly in the report.

 Councillor Noble highlighted the frequent incidents of vandalism which impacts the costs for refurbishments and maintenance.

Councillor Daly added that parking fees were looked at exhaustively. He believed another 10 - 20p increase to help regulate and enforce on street parking was reasonable. Councillor Daly pointed out that East Suffolk’s parking charges were much lower than other areas such as Ipswich and he was happy to support the recommendations.

Councillor Candy could see the need for an annual increase to avoid the challenges experienced the previous year. Councillor Candy wanted to see the modernisation of toilets which included signage that stated the improvements had been facilitated by the additional parking charges.

Councillor Beavan commented that his ward experienced a higher number of tourists and visitors who used the car parks. He felt it was fair to have them impacted by the increased charges, rather than just residents. 

Councillor Ashdown said there were very few toilets in car parks in Lowestoft and the seasonal charges penalised residents. Councillor Ashton recognised the challenging situation regarding public toilets in Lowestoft. The Assets team were working hard to get toilets at the Britten centre operational, they have been opened and repeatedly vandalised in the last few months. Councillor Ashton pointed out that there were non-public toilets available in the town, but recognised the situation could be better. 

Councillor Wilson understood the concerns regarding seasonal charges. The report on the year broadly showed that they had not affected car parks usage. There was a slight decrease, but it was the same in Great Yarmouth which did not have have seasonal surcharges. There were car parks without seasonal surcharges for Lowestoft residents to utilise. The seasonal surcharges would mostly impact visitors to the town.

Councillor Ashdown commented on the impact on disabled people who may not be able to walk from the lower cost option to the sea front.

Councillor Whitelock was supportive of the recommendations and people paying to park at a reasonable rate and car parks being kept in good order. 

Councillor Byatt queried if all car parks could have the 30 minutes free parking option and if roaming tickets could be reconsidered. 

Councillor Wilson responded that the 30 mins was applied where convenience was recognised. Roaming tickets had been looked at and there were technical and contractual limitations however he would discuss it again with the team and come back with accurate costings. 

Councillor Langdon-Morris thanked the parking team and Councillor Wilson. He felt it was well managed and proportionate with CPI. Income was earmarked for staying in the parking space. Councillor Langdon-Morris recognised that significant investment was taking place and he was glad it was happening on an annual basis going forward.

On the proposition of Councillor Wilson, seconded by Councillor Langdon-Morris it was unanimously 

RESOLVED

That Cabinet:

1. Approved the proposed off-street parking tariffs, representing inflationary increases of 3.8% (rounded up to the next ten pence interval), to be implemented from 1 April 2026.

 2. Delegated authority to the Strategic Director, in consultation with the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Economic Development and Transport, to review and implement an amendment to parking tariffs up to the ONS published CPI rate for September of each year (to the nearest ten pence) without the need to return to Cabinet. Such an amendment to take effect from the 1st of April of the following financial year.

Councillor Tim Wilson, Cabinet Member with responsibility for Economic Development and Transport introduced report ES-2648 which related to the National Parking Platform – Ongoing Participation.

To update Cabinet on the status of the National Parking Platform, which Cabinet approved East Suffolk Council to join the pilot stage of in December 2023 and, in consideration of the revised arrangements for the operation of the Platform; to seek Cabinet approval for East Suffolk Council’s continuing participation under these new arrangements.

To date, participation has delivered a range of benefits to East Suffolk Council, with cashless parking apps continuing to be a popular payment option for car park customers. Offering five separate apps for the customer to choose from has smoothed the customer journey when parking in an East Suffolk Council car park; over 30 different parking apps are currently used throughout the UK, with many offering a range of different customer convenience features, so the ability for the customer to choose an app  that works for them in as many locations as possible is a drastic improvement.

This customer convenience supports the viability of East Suffolk as a destination; well managed parking is central to the visitor experience when coming to East Suffolk, with the car park often being one of the first impressions of the district that a visitor will get. 

Reducing the time a visitor needs to spend downloading and registering new parking apps when coming to the area contributes to providing a seamless overall experience. The importance of this is highlighted by the higher-than-average uptake of cashless parking payment in car parks close to tourist attractors.

Participation in the National Parking Platform also supports digital inclusion, allowing less tech-confident customers to use a preferred familiar app far more regularly. Cashless parking apps overall support accessibility, reducing the need for less mobile customers to navigate the car park to use a payment machine. Furthermore, there are sustainability benefits to any reduction in the usage of cash to pay for parking; cash collection is undertaken using a diesel van, so reduced cash collections result in emissions savings.

Finally, joining the National Parking Platform in 2024 generated estimated savings of £250k per annum through ceasing the subsidy of the service fees associated with cashless parking, passing these fees to the customer as required by the pilot scheme. The convenience offered by the Platform has offset these fees from a customer perspective, evidenced by the continued growth of cashless parking in East Suffolk despite the slight increase in cost for the customer. This saving supports ongoing investment in local amenities and services across East Suffolk.

Considering the benefits noted, the recommendation is for Cabinet to approve East Suffolk Council’s continued participation in the National Parking Platform as part of the new National Parking Platform Ltd consortium, ensuring parking remains as simple as possible for residents and visitors of East Suffolk alike.

There were no questions from Cabinet members. 

Councillor Ashdown supported the idea for car parking apps and enquired if Councillors could have instructions for the other apps available. Councillor Wilson confirmed that Members could use all of the apps available and they could be downloaded from the app store. All car parks should have the signage with the apps available for choice. 

Councillor Byatt supported the recommendations and recognised there were lots of people who did not have smart phones and would need to have the option for cash or card payment.

On the proposition of Councillor Wilson, seconded by Councillor Langdon-Morris it was unanimously 

RESOLVED

That Cabinet:

1. Approved East Suffolk Council’s continued participation in the National Parking Platform under the new consortium arrangement to continue offering multiple cashless parking app options.

2. Delegated authority to the relevant Strategic Director, in consultation with the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Economic Development and Transport, to take the necessary actions to implement this direction until such a time it is withdrawn, including entering the contract referenced in this report.

Councillor Beavan Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Housing introduced report ES-2645 which related to the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) Rent and Service Charge setting 2026/27.

The report set out the proposed rent and service charge levels for East Suffolk Council's housing stock for the forthcoming financial year. It outlined the statutory requirements, policy considerations, and financial implications associated with rent setting, ensuring compliance with government guidance and the council's housing revenue account business plan. The recommendations aim to balance affordability for tenants with the need to maintain and invest in high quality housing services supporting the council's strategic objectives and long-term sustainability.

Councillor Beavan read out the recommendations.

 Councillor Daly understood the reasons for the 4.8% rental increase above inflation, however recognised the impact it could have on community members.

Councillor Beavan responded that the social rents the Council charges were approximately 50% of market rates, which equated to around £100 a week for a flat. That was incredibly low compared to what you would see in the private sector. Council rents were also capped at local housing allowance (LHA). This would mean those on Universal Credit would be covered. Councillor Beavan added that income was needed in order to invest in retrofitting and building new houses. Councillor Beavan recognised that it would be a higher cost for those who are above the social rent. Regarding convergence from between approximately 2015 to 2018, while prices were going down, costs of building were going up and the rents went down. This activity made the HRA unsustainable which left a hole in the HRA, Councillor Beavan concluded that they must have the rents to have the investment and the Council would continue to keep them as low as possible.

Councillor Candy queried where the plus 1% came from. Councillor Beavan responded that social rents have been kept back, which felt like an easy win for the government who could state they were reducing social rents. But the people that would be paying for it would the Housing Revenue Account and the next people who want new housing.

Councillor Beavan outlined that there were some rents which had not kept up with inflation and the modern level and where historic low rents had been charged. The Finance Business Partner for the HRA stated that the CPI plus 1% was the government rent setting standard on top of CPI that the Council followed. It was the September CPI that was applied for rent setting. The rent convergence was something that should be introduced for the following year. The final announcement from government was anticipated to be made by the end of January. The intention would bring tenants on historic lower rents up to the same level as others across the housing provision. This would also generate additional income to housing services to invest in current stock and delivering additional properties. 

Councillor Byatt queried the if the outstanding payments for the overpayments had been concluded. Councillor Byatt also queried if the cost of arrears was within normal range and if the Council was chasing tenants who owe rent. Councillor Beavan advised the overpayment work was almost complete. All the corrections been done and corrections applied to tenant accounts. Regarding former tenants, they would have had their credits returned to them. Councillor Beavan stated there were one or two more tenants that needed to be located.

Regarding the arrears question, the Finance Business Partner- HRA advised that East Suffolk was doing better in comparison to some other councils. The Finance Business Partner- HRA referred members to: table B, section 2.36 of the report, comparing week 37 in both financial years and that is where it shows that the current tenant arears had worsened in position. However where the beginning of the financial year falls there is one week's additional rent that has been applied in this current year before the direct debits that come out, which is approximately a £400,000 charge.  It was a comparable table for the same period in a year, however there was always an alignment issue when direct debits were collected and when charges were applied. As a result the table could look a bit worse than at the final position at the end of the year.

Councillor Ewart queried if the Council could support in the resolution of case work issues with other housing providers. Councillor Beavan responded that we were unable to intervene with other providers as the Council had no jurisdiction to.

On the proposition of Councillor Bevan, seconded by Councillor Langdon-Morris

RESOLVED 

 That Cabinet recommend to Full Council that it approves the following:

 1. Proposed rent increase of 4.8% in line with the Rent Standard September 2025 CPI of 3.8% plus 1%, plus rent convergence at the maximum level, that is due to be announced in January 2026.

 2. Service charges and associated fees for 2026/27 at Appendix A

 3. Rent and Service Charges to be charged over a 50-week period unless being used for Temporary Accommodation when a 52-week period will be applied.

Councillor Beavan, Cabinet Member with responsibility for Housing introduced report ES-2662 which related to a number of Housing Policies which required approval.

The report sought Cabinet approval for three key housing policies and a strategy that together strengthened East Suffolk Council’s housing policy framework. It outlined the statutory context, strategic rationale, and operational implications of the proposed Tenancy Strategy, Tenancy Policy, Council Housing Adaptations Policy, and Mobility Vehicle Policy.

The documents have been developed to address identified gaps, ensure compliance with current legal and regulatory requirements, and support consistent, transparent service delivery. The recommendations aimed to provide clarity for tenants, officers, and partners, while supporting safe, sustainable communities and the Council’s wider strategic objectives.

Councillor Beavan read out the recommendations.

 There were no questions from Cabinet Members.

Councillor Daly was happy to support the recommendations and highlighted point 3.2 in the report which discussed tenancy management and set expectations for housing providers operating in the district. The Councillor stated security of tenure was very important and the inclusion was to be applied.

Councillor Beavan stated that tenancy engagement was very important which included the security of tenure. Councillor Beavan mentioned an upcoming conference at Riverside which was for landlords to discuss the Renters Rights Act.

On the proposition of Councillor Beavan, seconded by Councillor Daly it was unanimously 

RESOLVED

That Cabinet:

1. Approved all four documents (Appendices A to D) and agrees that these are published on the Council’s website and shared with relevant stakeholders as part of the wider housing service improvement plan.

2. Approved the fees and charges listed in the Mobility Vehicle Policy and ensures they are added to the ESC Fees and Charges book.

3. Gave delegated authority to the Head of Housing, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Housing, to make amendments and update the documents as required in response to changes in legislation, operational feedback, or best practice.

Councillor Langdon-Morris, Cabinet Member with responsibility for resources and value for money introduced report ES-2650 which related to the Capital Programme 2025/26 to 2029/30.

Councillor Langdon-Morris outlined that as part of the annual budget setting process, the Council was required to agree a programme of capital expenditure for the coming four years and any revisions to the current financial year.

The timeline for the report was:

13 January - Cabinet review and approves the report to be considered by the Overview & Scrutiny Committee at its meeting on the 29th January.

29 January - Overview & Scrutiny Committee meeting

3 February – Cabinet to review any recommendations from the Overview & Scrutiny Committee

25 February - Full Council for overall approval of the programme

The report set out the General Fund Capital Programme and the Housing Revenue Account Capital Programme separately in appendices along with a brief description of each project.

The capital programme had been compiled taking account of the following main principles, to:

- maintain an affordable four-year rolling capital programme. 
- maximise available resources by actively seeking external funding and disposal of surplus assets. 
- not to anticipate receipts from disposals until they are realised. 

- To focus on the deliverability of the current projects within the programme; and 
- Minimise the impact of capital charges to the general fund revenue budget.

The updated capital programme was reviewed by the Corporate Project Programme Board in November and CLT in December prior to being presented to Cabinet this evening.

Financial Summary: 

The General Fund Capital Programme for 2025/26 through to 2029/30 has a total financing requirement of £106.87m. It would be financed by £46.21m (43%) of external grants and contributions, the use of £4.27m (4%) of reserves and a borrowing requirement of £56.39m (53%).

 The HRA Capital Programme for 2025/26 through to 2029/30 had a total budget requirement of £84.14m. It would be financed by £8.79m (10%) of external grants and contributions, the use of £50.02m (60%) of capital reserves & direct revenue financing (HRA), £14.13m (17%) of capital receipts and £11.20m (13%) of borrowing.

 Councillor Langdon-Morris read out the recommendations.

 There were no questions or debate from Cabinet Members.

Councillor Byatt thanked the Finance Team for their ongoing work.

Councillor Whitelock added that it was hugely complicated and recognised the work of the finance team.

On the proposition of Councillor Langdon-Morris, seconded by Councillor Whitelock it was unanimously 

RESOLVED

That Cabinet approved:

1. The General Fund Capital Programme for 2026/27 to 2029/30 including revisions to2025/26 as shown in Appendix B to be reviewed and considered by the Overview &Scrutiny Committee as part of the budget process.

 2. The Housing Revenue Account Capital Programme for 2026/27 to 2029/30 including revisions to 2025/26 as shown in Appendix H to be reviewed and considered by the Overview & Scrutiny Committee as part of the budget process.

Councillor Langdon-Morris, Cabinet Member with responsibility for resources and value for money introduced report ES-2667 which related to the General Fund Budget 2026/27 and Medium-Term Financial Strategy (MTFS).

The report presented an update on the MTFS and the draft budget for 2026/27. It brought together relevant information to enable Cabinet to review, consider and comment upon the Council’s General Fund budget before making recommendations to Council on 25 February.

Councillor Langdon-Morris was pleased to confirm that a balanced budget for 2026/27 was being presented.  It had been achieved by using £2.272 million from the Business Rate Equalisation Reserve. 
The team were proposing a Band D Council Tax of £197.82, an increase of £5.67 or 2.95%, which was the maximum permit under the referendum limit. It was noted that the Government assumes that councils will apply the maximum permitted Council Tax increase when determining funding to local authorities.

To strengthen financial resilience, the General Fund Balance will increase from £6 million to £8 million in 2026/27, representing around 4% of gross expenditure (circ. £190 million). It was the first increase to the General Fund balance since East Suffolk was formed in 2019 and reflected the importance of maintaining adequate reserves and balances to manage risk.

Turning to the wider context, the Government’s new multi-year funding settlement for 2026/27 to 2028/29 was the first in a decade and introduced major changes to the funding formula. These changes include a stronger link to deprivation, removal of sparsity and remoteness adjustments, abolition of the New Homes Bonus, and consolidation of smaller grants into the main settlement. While it aimed to create a fairer system, it significantly disadvantages councils like East Suffolk that have historically benefited under the current business rates system and have maintained healthy reserve balances.

To manage the transition, East Suffolk will receive transitional protection, but at a reduced level compared to most councils. Council funding was protected at 95% of current levels until 2028/29, rather than 100%, because the current share of funding was more than 15% above the new target allocation. This means that while most councils will see increases, East Suffolk faces a funding cliff edge in 2029/30 when the current proposed transitional support ends.  Over the three-year settlement, East Suffolk will receive £16.8 million in transitional funding, which represents 73% of the total transitional support provided to all Suffolk authorities. However, it was temporary and did not remove the need for prudent financial planning over the multi-settlement period.

Importantly, the budget would deliver and support the administration’s strategic ambitions, including environmental sustainability, housing, community wellbeing, and economic growth across East Suffolk.
Future budget gaps remain challenging: £8.6 million in 2027/28, £10.4m in 2028/29 and our strategy remains focused on efficiency, maximising income, and careful use of reserves.

Councillor Langdon-Morris discussed the next step which was that Overview and Scrutiny would review the budget on 29 January, and the final Local Government Finance Settlement is expected in early February, with the final budget being considered by Full Council on 25 February.

Councillor Langdon-Morris concluded that a huge amount of work had gone into preparing the budgets and it had been a pleasure working with all Officers involved. Thanks was further echoed to the Finance Team by the Cabinet Member.

Councillor Langdon-Morris read out the recommendations.

 Councillor Whitelock queried the increase in Council Tax of 2.95% in context of the ability for County Council's maximum increase. The Chief Finance Officer responded that a shire county can add an additional 2% on top of the district threshold which was up to 2.99%. Due to the formula for calculation the final total available was a 2.95% increase.

Councillor Ewart requested that information regarding the precept was included in any press release information. The Head of Communications and Marketing confirmed information would be included in press releases.

Councillor Langdon-Morris concluded that there was quite a lot of change in the general fund budget especially the Revenue Support Grant which replaced the transition fund. The funds had been allocated across budget lines well. The Councillor stated he would be following up on the reduction of coastal management funding.

Councillor Langdon-Morris thanked the finance team for their ongoing work.

On the proposition of Councillor Langdon-Morris, seconded by Councillor Beavan it was unanimously 

RESOLVED

That Cabinet:

1. Approved the draft Medium Term Financial Strategy detailed in Section 2, and supporting appendices, for review and consideration by the Overview & Scrutiny Committee as part of the budget process.

2. Approved an initial proposed Band D Council Tax for East Suffolk Council of £197.82 for 2026/27, an increase of £5.67 (2.95%).

Councillor Beavan, Cabinet Member with responsibility for Housing introduced report ES-2660 Housing Revenue Account (HRA) Budget Report 2026/27 to 2029/30.

The report brought together the Housing Revenue Account Budget for the period 2026/27 to 2029/30, with a projected outturn for 2025/26 and a summary of its reserves and balances.

The HRA budgets for Revenue and Capital make use of all available financing resources, however additional borrowing of £11.2 million was required across 2025/26 and 2026/27 to balance the budget. If any underspends or other financing opportunities arise, it would be reduced where possible.

The budget proposals gave a forecasted HRA working balance that remained at the 10% minimum acceptable level over the Medium-Term Financial Strategy. The balance is predicted to be £2.848 million as at 31.03.30.

Councillor Beavan read out the recommendations.

 There were no questions or debate

On the proposition of Councillor Beavan seconded by Councillor Langdon-Morris

RESOLVED

That Cabinet approves the following for review and consideration by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee as part of the budget process:

1. The draft HRA budget for 2026/27, and the indicative figures for 2027/28 to 2029/30;

2. Movements in HRA Reserves and Balances.

Noted the following:

3. Projected outturn position for 2025/26;

4. Changes affecting public and private sector housing and welfare.

Councillor Paul Ashton, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member with responsibility for Corporate Services - Digital, Customer Services, HR and Assets introduced report ES-2661 which related to Southwold Harbour Landlord and Tenant Arrangements.

Councillor Ashton updated that the team had been doing lots of work to catch up regarding Landlord and Tenant matters which has historically not been effectively managed. The team were aiming to have up to 90% complete by March 2026 and the rest by June 2026. There would be 6-year leases for new occupants of landing stages, which would provide additional security of tenure. There were options to extend leases.

Councillor Ashton added that some tenants had historic agreements in place and these would be honoured. All funds raised would stay within the harbour lands. The proposal had been to the Harbour Management Committee where there was a lot of discussion and clarification was sought on meaning. 

Councillor Candy added that it had been a long time coming and it had been a complex process.

Councillor Beavan said it was important to get the balance right in helping landing stage owners with investment and improving their security. The overarching aim was to keep the harbour going as long as possible. The changes were not being imposed and there had been negotiations with stakeholders.  There was a strong stakeholder group and committee in place. Councillor Ashton thanked the team for their work.

On the proposition of Councillor Ashton, seconded by Councillor Beavan it was unanimously

RESOLVED

That Cabinet:

1. Noted the content of this report.

2. Agreed that the assignment or renewal of landing stage agreements be reviewed on an individual basis and where a legal protection exists, that protection will be respected.

3. Agreed that where landing stages are held under a simple licence, a six-year lease will be the default position, although longer leases may be negotiated.

Councillor Paul Ashton, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member with responsibility for Corporate Services - Digital, Customer Services, HR and Assets introduced report ES-2613 which related to Southwold Harbour Mid-Year Budget Monitoring Report.

Councillor Ashton outlined the financial position of the harbour area:

Southwold Harbour:

The total income was £180,135, exceeding the budget of £133,474 by £46,661. The total expenditure of £130,789 was slightly above the budgeted figure of £126,800 by £3,989.  An overspend on supplies and services was the main factor for being above budget.  It had covered a PMSC Audit and Consultant and Legal fees. There was a surplus of £49,346 against a budgeted surplus of £6,674, which represents a healthy surplus for this 6-month period.  The variance being a surplus of £42,672.

Southwold Caravan and Campsite 

Static Caravan Income to date was £258,871 against budget of £265,000 which represented a half year deficit of £6,128. The Touring Pitch income of £450,256 against budget £350,000 which represented a half year surplus of £100,256.  A significant surplus had been achieved, reflective of the past summer weather and the dedication of the site staff to provide clean, safe and welcoming facilities to the guests. Other Fees and Charges income was £9,254 against a budget of £6,100 which represented a half year surplus of £3,154. The combined income figures currently presented a surplus of £97,282.
Total expenditure was £290,645, underspending against the budget of £382,550, resulting in a £91,905 surplus.  The significant underspend is mainly attributable to much lower employee costs as more control has been placed on overtime working.

There was a current surplus of £427,737, which exceeded the estimated budget surplus of £238,550 by £189,187.  It had been principally achieved with the higher touring income and savings on staff costs.

Combined Sites: 

There was a total Income of £898,517, exceeding the budget of £754,574 by £143,943.

There was total Expenditure – £421,434, against a budget of £509,350 producing an £87,916 positive variance.

The Net Position – the combined surplus is £477,083, which was £231,859 ahead the budgeted figure of £245,224.

Councillor Ashton concluded that the harbour area was in a good position and recognised that the harbour required significant investment and improved income was a positive step.

There was no debate from Cabinet members.

Councillor Beavan was happy to support the recommendation and had a one-million-pound income target.

On the proposition of Councillor Ashton, seconded by Councillor Beavan it was unanimously 

RESOLVED

That Cabinet:

 1. Noted and reviewed the mid-year financial data and the projected year-end forecasts

On the proposition of Councillor Langdon-Morris, seconded by Councillor Beavan it was recommended that under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended) the public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act.