Meeting Details

The Station Manager gave an overview on operations at the harbour.

There had been a total of 674 visiting vessels up to the end of October and an income of £111,000 from moorings, harbour dues and sundry sales. The navigation light into the harbour had been repaired replaced. Trinity House had been kept up to date on this issue from the identification of the fault to completion of the works. Electrics had been serviced and remedial work was being undertaken on the public moorings (W10) and fisherman's quay. Compliance checks had been completed and updated in all areas.

Income to date on the static site was £259,000 and £450,000 on the touring site. A new pest control programme and full site weed control programme were being put into place, starting this week. Existing empty static bases were being tidied and prepared for new customer usage.  Two plots had already been taken up and owners would be moving in at the beginning of 2026 season. Full site compliance checks had been completed and remedial works actioned. A new waste management plan had also been put into place.

The broken piece of the North Pier Fender had been recovered.  A survey of the remaining fendering was being conducted and preparation of site for resulting works was in progress. Any good wood recovered from the broken fender would be kept for re use.

The harbour team to continue with maintenance of the Harbour Road whilst further design alternatives investigated, drainage would be required for any road built to prevent washaway and pooling.

A survey was being undertaken on the public moorings and the harbourmasters office for future planning and development, the Lands Maintenance and Buildings Teams were assisting.

Mr Pickles asked whether the lack of anodes on the harbour wall would be addressed. The Station Manager confirmed he would look at this and report back with an update

The Committee received report ES/2484 which provided an update on the caravan and campsite redevelopment.

The Head of Property and Place introduced the report and stated that procurement of a design management consultancy had started in July but the first three companies that had been approached had declined the contract. As a result the overall timeline had been amended slightly, although the end date was the same. It was noted this would change again as work progressed. The Strategic Director also noted that the budget was relatively small for design management, this would include a number of surveys such as highways, water, sewage etc.  and as this type of work was in high demand it was not unexpected that some companies had turned down this contract. The consultation that would be completed by this company would look at what the site layout would be, not on whether or not the redevelopment should happen. 

Councillor Candy stated this had been a slow process but it was now a lot clearer on what needed to happen with the site and this was a big step forward. 

Mr Pickles asked what return on investment there would be. The Head of Property and Place confirmed the income could not be forecast until the design was completed. The rural solutions report that had been done a number of years ago was one indicative model but this was not necessarily the model that would be adopted. Part of this work would be to determine the optimum layout to go forward into a planning application. 

There was some discussion on what the consultation should include. The Head of Property and Place noted there had been consultation on the rural solutions report, but new consultation would be done with caravan owners and other stakeholders on the new detailed design of the site. This would be the first step for the design team. Consultation would not be one and done, it would continue as designs was developed. The Strategic Director stated that consultation was not just with current owners, it would also include potential customers and the wider community. 

The Chair confirmed that the consultation would start as soon as possible and would be done online if owners were not on site. There had been no decision on the number of plots on the site, or the mix of statics and tourist plots.

Councillor Candy stated she understood the concerns about the future from owners and asked if a line could be added to the gantt chart after the line on concept and site layout development for feedback to the caravan owners about what the next step would be. 

It was agreed that the stakeholders should include SCOA and the current caravan owners, other local businesses, the stakeholder advisory group, future customers and general tourist market engagement. 

It was by a majority vote

RESOLVED

That Southwold Harbour Management Committee:
1. Noted the contents of the report.
2. Provided a list of stakeholders to be consulted.

The Committee received report ES-2584 which related to the revision of agreements for landing stages and gave an overview on the progress of rent reviews and lease renewals.

The Property Management Lead stated that most landing stages are held under historic arrangements and have been transferred between individuals at a premium. These arrangements were subject to a six-month break clause, and premiums have been paid by buyers with full knowledge and acceptance of that clause. Following discussion with the Crown Estate it was agreed that the previous informal arrangements could be formalised through new leases. It was proposed that new agreements be granted to provide six-year leases, giving tenants and prospective buyers greater confidence to invest in upgrading their stages. Break clauses would remain in place to cover major flood events and/or planned works.

Mr MacFarlane asked for clarification on the legal position with floating moorings - do users pay for right of access or do they also pay for the ability to the float within the harbour. The Property Management Lead confirmed they paid for the use of the land over which the pontoon sits. Mr MacFarlane confirmed that users could technically be charged additional dues on this. The Property Management Lead stated he was aware of this issue, but there was no proposal for extra charges.

The Acting Vice Chair of the Stakeholder Advisory Group (SAG) gave feedback from the group who were concerned that the stages had been continuously occupied and people had the right to transfer lands for the last few decades. There were concerns that if this was stopped there would be calls for compensation for the loss of security of tenure which would devalue stages and leases. It was noted that there was a break clause at the moment, but this had never been used. The Property Management Lead stated there were different agreements across the harbour, some tenants had long term security and this was accepted by the Council. Whether or not the break clause had been used this had always been there and the landlord had always had the right to use it, nothing had changed in this regard. It was down to purchasers to consider what risks they were taking.

The Acting Vice Chair of the SAG stated that if stageholders did not feel they had security of tenure they would not invest in their stages and this would impact the wider harbour. The Property Management Lead confirmed if owners had a statutory protection currently this would be protected. Mr MacFarlane agreed that if there was a six year tenure without the right to renew going forward then people would not invest. 

Councillor Candy asked where the six year figure had come from and why it could not be longer. The Property Management Lead confirmed that the agreements had always been year on year, even if they had just rolled forward. Longer leases were possible but they would have to be registered with the Land Registry, which would increase costs and legal complications.

Mr Pickles stated that in practice a leaseholder that did not maintain their stage was told to do so by the harbour master and there had been occasions when they had been roped off until they were fixed, the next step would be that someone was in breach of their lease. Mr Pickles stated he agreed that a six year term did reduce the incentive to upgrade. The Property Management Lead stated that the Council would be willing to discuss longer leases.

Mr MacFarlane stated that there had always been annual licence, but it was custom and practise that made people invest for a longer period. The Property Management Lead stated that for those that had the statutory periodic tenancy the Council were willing to negotiate something longer. Mr MacFarlane stated a six year lease was better than a one year lease, even if the custom was that these one year lease had been rolled forward for years. The Chair confirmed this would be done on a case-by-case basis and people could negotiate a longer lease.

Mr Walker stated that because of the length of tenure of some of the leases which had been transferred and sold, people had a legitimate expectation that people could buy and sell the tenancies and the Council had facilitated this. The Chair stated that there was no bar on buying and selling, there had been an attempted sale which had fallen through as the Council had only offered an annual lease as an interim measure but this would not be done going forward as a six year lease would be standard. The Estates Manager stated this had been offered as an interim measure until the situation could be regularised. He accepted this was an issue but this was not the intention, there were a number of different interpretations as to whether the historic agreements were licences or leases which needed to be sorted out. The Head of Property and Place confirmed that peoples rights would be protected, and those that did have a protected tenancy could discuss this with the Council. Anyone who wanted a six year protected lease could do this in discussion with the Council. The Chair stated that a six year lease was the default, if people wanted something else this could be negotiated. The harbour did need to standardise leases. 

Mr MacFarlane asked if this tenancy would be protected under the Landlord and Tenant Act. The Property Management Lead confirmed it was if people had a statutory periodic tenancy. 

Councillor Ashton stated that the intention of the Council was to improve the security of tenure. For new tenants and those that wished to move across to a new agreement this would be more secure. The Head of Property and Place confirmed that anyone with a personal licence would move across to the new lease. Anyone who had an historic lease with legal protections, regardless of what it was referred to, would stay on this. 

Mr Pickles stated that a lot of the concerns came down to a communication issue and this needed to be resolved.

The Acting Vice Chair of the SAG stated she still had concerns that people would not want to invest in their private stages if after six years they would lose their lease or if at the end of the lease they would have to pay a premium. The Head of Property and Place confirmed that a new lease would last for six year, at the end of six year they could roll onto a new six year lease but the cost was not likely to be the same. 

Councillor Candy asked how many current tenants would not need to go onto a new lease. The Head of Property and Place confirmed each agreement would have to be looked at individually. If current users had a licence that has through the passage of time become through practice a lease and therefore acquired protection and the right to a new lease, then this would be respected. Anyone who currently had a genuine short-term licence they would, by agreement, go onto a more secure six year lease. 

The Committee felt the the recommendation needed to be adjusted to recognise that current protections needed to be respected and that longer leases could be negotiated. 

It was by a unanimous vote 

RESOLVED

That Southwold Harbour Management Committee:

1. Noted the contents of the report 

2. That the assignment or renewal of agreements be reviewed on an individual basis and where a legal protection exists , that protection will be respected. Where held under a simple licence a six year lease will be the default position , although longer leases may be negotiated.

The Committee received report ES/2485 which related to the proposed Fees and Charges for Southwold Harbour and Caravan and Campsite for 2026/27. The Estates Manager stated there was a proposed increase of up to 5% in fees and charges for visitor mooring fees, stage use and storage ashore. Due to the proposed redevelopment of the Southwold Caravan and Campsite the site fees 
for the static caravans would remain at their existing level with 5% applied to the touring pitches and other services provided.

The Head of Property and Place stated this proposal had been discussed with the advisory group and they had sent through information on comparable charges with other harbours who generally charged per meter for visitor moorings.  

The Acting Vice Chair of the SAG noted that the structure of the moorings in Southwold was different to other local harbours which calculated costs per meter and as a result Southwold was more expensive than other harbours which had more facilities. Anecdotally this did impact on the amount of business the harbour received. The Stakeholder Advisory Group felt that the fee structure for visitors should be changed. 

The Chair agreed that we should look at introducing this type of fee structure for visitor moorings. The Finance Business Partner agreed that a minimum charge as other places charged would be beneficial as this would ensure cost recovery. 

In relation to the fees for static caravan pitches, the Estate Manager confirmed that owners would only be charge per month they were on site. 

The Acting Vice Chair of the SAG stated that the group felt an inflation rise would be more appropriate than a 5% increase due to the lack of progress and the missed opportunity to gain revenue which was being clawed back from current users. It was felt that there could be more targeted increases for example - stages could increase by inflation but the campsite could have a 5% increase as it was performing well.

The Head of Property and Place stated that the harbour was losing money and the campsite was making this up. While CPI may be 3.8% increases in other areas such as fuels, utilities etc were more than this. The 5% increase would be from April and costs could potentially increase between now and then. Mr MacFarlane stated that there had been times when charges had been put up by less than RPI in recognition of the stress that this had put on users, but this could not always be the case.

Councillor Ashton stated that the harbour should cover its own costs, the campsite should pay for strategic changes not general operation. Mr Pickles stated that harbour had always lost money, until there were facilities there would be no visitors and no income. Facilities had to be improved before charges could go up which would enable the harbour to pay for itself. 

Mr Pickles asked if any of the consultancy fees on the fendering could be reclaimed as the work had not been good enough. The Strategic Director stated there had been a discussion with the contractor, and a summary of this could be sent round. 

It was by a unanimous vote

RESOLVED

That the Harbour Management Committee (HMC):
1. Reviewed and approved the proposed fee increases of up to 5%, to be implemented from 1 April 2026.
2. Recommended these increases to East Suffolk Council (ESC) Cabinet for final approval

The Committee received report ES/2586 which provided the Mid-Year Budget Monitoring Report for 2025/26.

In the harbour the total income was £180,135, exceeding the budget of £133,474 by £46,661. In the caravan and campsite income to date was £258,871 against budget of £265,000 which 
represents a half year deficit of £6,128. Touring Pitch income was £450,256 against a budgeted £350,000 which represents a half year surplus of £100,256. The combined income figures showed a surplus of £97,282 on the caravan and campsite.

In the harbour total expenditure was £130,789, above the budgeted figure of £126,800 by £3,989. This was due to overspend on supplies and services including a PMSC Audit and Consultant and Legal fees. In the caravan and campsite total expenditure was £290,645, an underspend against the budget of £382,550, resulting in a £91,905 surplus. This was due to much lower employee costs as more control has been placed on overtime working.

The net position for both sites was a surplus is £477,083, which is £231,859 ahead the budgeted figure of £245,224.

The Station Manager confirmed he was looking to fill vacant static sites and two new users would be coming on for next year. They would have the option to come back after the redevelopment. 

A table showing the budgeted support charges for 24/25 and 25/26 was shared with the committee, split between the harbour and caravan and campsite.

It was by a unanimous vote

RESOLVED 

That the Harbour Management Committee:
1. Reviewed the financial performance of Southwold Harbour and the Caravan and Campsite up to 30 September 2025.
2. Considered any necessary actions to mitigate variances or improve financial performance.
3. Reported the financial outcome to the East Suffolk Council’s (ESC) Cabinet

The committee received report ES/2585 which provided the draft outturn report for 2024/25. The Finance Business Partner confirmed the reserves were ringfenced and the internal name of them had been changed to reflect this. 

By a unanimous vote it was

RESOLVED

That the Harbour Management Committee:
1. Reviewed the Draft Outturn Report for the financial year 2024/25
2. Agreed to recommend to Cabinet the transfer of the surplus from the Harbour and Caravan and Campsite operations into the reserves

The Acting Vice Chair of the Stakeholder Advisory Group gave an update on the groups recent meeting. The group had raised the issue of the South Training Arm and had asked if there could be an update on the current status of the work. The issue of the north dock wall had been raised, the Station Manager confirmed this would be surveyed by the divers in the harbour and he would also review the surveys of the harbour.

 Concerns had been raised about the mess and smell in the fishermen's compound. The Station Manager stated that there would be a deep clean once the current load had been collected and the drains were being cleaned. 

 The Acting Vice Chair of the SAG stated she was disappointed by comments in their meeting that the harbour could be closed. The Chair confirmed this could not be done as it would require an act of parliament and this was not practicable. The Strategic Director agreed the committee needed to make decisions about the future of the harbour and ensure its longevity. Even if there was a mechanism to close the harbour it was not realistic.