Meeting Details

On the proposal of Councillor Jan Candy, seconded by Mr Ogden it was 

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meeting held on 26 November 2025 be signed as a correct record. 

The Marine Services Manager gave an update on Operations in the Harbour and Caravan/Campsite. There had been 676 visiting boats in the year to 31/12/2025, with 153 cancellations mainly due to weather or mechanical reasons. Zero health and safety incidents had been reported in the year to 31/12/2025.

Surveys had been completed on North Wall Fendering and the west section will be stabilised and strengthening jackets fitted to the piles. Costing is being confirmed for a replacement section, the fendering being favoured as it breaks up the wave action better than the rocks, therefore offering more protection to the North Wall. The visitor moorings have also been surveyed.

Harbour staff were working on the Port Marine Safety Code and an audit will shortly be carried out by ABP Mer.

Winter works are ongoing on the caravan and camping site, this includes a major clean-up, weeding and re-landscaping. A pest control programme is also now in place and remedial works and servicing have been carried out on the electric and gas. Six new owners have taken on pitches, three potential customers currently looking at pitches and a further ten have been in contact.

The Chair invited questions.

Mr Ogden referred to the LionLink project and asked if there was an update on where the cables would land. The Chair and Councillor Ashton had met with LionLink about bringing the cable along the south wall and through the harbour, but they were uninterested in doing this. There may still be opportunities for some funding from this project toward harbour repairs. 

The Chair of the Stakeholder Advisory Group asked what the nil return on health and safety incidents covered. The Marine Services Manager confirmed this was any reports the Harbourmaster would have to make, including staff and members of the public. The Chair of the Stakeholder Advisory Group stated he was aware of some incidents, but these obviously not been reported. The Marine Services Manager would confirm the exact criteria for reporting and see if there were any gaps that needed to be filled. The Strategic Director added that the health and safety reporting system had been raised in the previous PMSC audit, work had been done on this.

The Estates Manager stated that there were a dozen outstanding leases in the harbour, one would shortly be completed and nine were with solicitors. The target of having 90% completed by March should be met. 

In response to a comment from a member of the public on licences in the harbour and the newly formed Stageholders Association, the Chair confirmed that at the last meeting they had resolved:

"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 next step was for a report to go to Cabinet to approve the process. 

The Chair of the Stakeholder Advisory Group asked if receipt of this report by Cabinet could be delayed due to the legal issues that had been raised. The Chair stated that Cabinets approval would not prevent any discussions taking place with the Stageholders Association and so this did not need to be withdrawn. The Estates Manager confirmed a template lease was being drafted and would be shared, this would then be adjusted with each lease owner depending on their current lease. 

The Committee received report ES/2658 which related to the Quarter 3 Budget Monitoring Report for 2025/26.

The Estates Manager introduced the report and noted there was a typo in Appendix 1 in the label of the first column which stated April to September, this should be April to December. 

The Estates Manager stated the harbour total income was £191,434, exceeding the budget by £33,272 largely due to strong performance in lettings. There was also a higher than budgeted income for Mooring fees/Harbour Dues. Total expenditure was £220,072 and this was over budget by £33,922 largely due to overspend on supplies, services and premises expenses. This expenditure did cover the PMSC Audit, Surveyors fees and specialist divers for work on the North Wall fender. Overall there was deficit of £28,638 against a budgeted deficit of £27,988.

On the Southwold Caravan and Campsite income from static pitches to date was £279,601, exceeding the budget by £14,601. Touring Pitch income was £506,839 which exceeded the budget by £156,839. This was a significant surplus, mainly due to past summer weather and the dedication of the site staff to provide clean, safe and welcoming facilities to the guests. The combined income figures currently present a surplus of £172,650. Total expenditure was £382,302, an underspend of £546,300, resulting in a £163,998 surplus. This was mainly attributable to lower employee costs as more control has been placed on overtime working. 

Across the two sites there was a surplus of £336,648, exceeding the estimated budget surplus by £258,798. This had been principally achieved with the higher touring income and savings on staff costs.

Mr Jarvis asked where the surpluses sat, the Chair confirmed they were in separate ringfenced accounts. Mr Jarvis asked why the reserves shown in the accounts on the website only showed assets. The Finance Business Parnter confirmed the amount currently in reserves was £528,000. This was a statutory reserve any surplus was put into the reserve at year end. The accounts were audited and sent to the Department for Transport. Mr Jarvis stated that it was not clear on the website what accounts were confirmed and not and asked for the previous years accounts (2024/25) and the current years accounts to be presented to the Committee. The Chair asked that this be added to the agenda for the next meeting.

Mr Ogden stated the touring site had done very well, and asked if this was a general trend and if it should be reflected in the redevelopment of the caravan site to allow more room for touring pitches. The Chair confirmed this was something that had to be considered in the redevelopment. The Chair of the Southwold Caravan Owners Association stated the static site balanced out the variable nature of the touring site and provided consistent income throughout the year which was not dependent on the weather. A number of commitments had also been made to the static caravan owners about retaining their space. The Chair agreed that the mix needed to be looked at but the site would never be wholly touring. Councillor Ashton stated that the harbour would never be hugely profitable, especially considering the amount of money that needed to be invested, so the caravan and campsite needed to be as flexible as possible. 

On the proposal of Councillor Ashton, seconded by Councillor Candy it was 

RESOLVED

That the Harbour Management Committee:

1. Reviewed the financial performance of Southwold Harbour and the Caravan and Campsite up to 15th December 2025.

2. Considered any necessary actions to mitigate variances or improve financial performance.

3. Reports the financial outcome to the East Suffolk Council’s (ESC) Cabinet.

The Committee received report ES/2569 which related to the 2026/27 budget.

The Estates Manager introduced the report and stated that the total income budgeted for the 2026/27 year was £284,200. This was an increase on the 2025/26 budgeted income to better reflect the greater income that the Harbour has received, principally in Mooring Fees and Other Fees & Charges. It was still under the projected 2025/26 income, but this allows for some variance. Any increases achieved in commercial rental income would not be reflected in this budget until formally completed. The budgeted expenditure for the 2026/27 year was been estimated at £273,900. This reflected an increase in employee expenses to cover higher National Insurance and pension contributions following recent central government changes. An allowance was built into these employee expenses for the recruitment of an apprentice to assist with succession planning for the harbourmasters. Premises expenses have also been increased. The budget figures for 2026/27 produced a deficit position of £34,100. These final figures also reflect ‘support recharges’ for work provided by ESC Officers. 

 On the caravan and campsite the budgeted income for the year 2026/27 was forecast at £767,200. This mainly reflects the increase seen in touring income over the past few years, bringing the budget more in line with anticipated receipts. However, this figure is still below actual receipts to allow for any unpredictable events such as bad weather. The budgeted expenditure for the year 2026/27 was forecast at £794,700. This was an increase on the actual to date costs for 2025/26 and includes £150,000 for consultancy fees for the site redevelopment. The employee expenses for the site also show a budgeted increase due to the increase in National Insurance and pension contributions. It was noted that £100,000 had been removed from this budget line reflecting a reduction on the reliance of agency workers, but an additional amount had been included to reflect the ambition to employ four seasonal workers directly. There was a further vacant post within this budget for a receptionist manager role. The forecast position for 2026/27 predicted a £118,900 deficit, when support recharges were factored in. The expenditure on consultant fees in relation to the site redevelopment pushes the forecast into deficit territory, but the margins were fine even without these costs.

 The combined budget income figures for 2026/27 were forecast at £1,051,400. The total budgeted expenditure for both sites is forecast at £1,068,600. This would produce an anticipated deficit of £153,000 for the 2026/27 budget year. This was a large swing from the current position reported in the quarter three budget report paper which highlights a £335,999 forecast surplus. The income was broadly the same as reported in the quarter three paper, however, the expenditure across both sites is anticipated to rise. Therefore, both sites are forecast to record budget deficits for the next financial year, exacerbated by the Consultants fees required for the site redevelopment and higher employee costs.

The Chair invited questions.

Mr MacFarlane asked if the consultancy fees could be capitalised towards the project. The Finance Business Partner stated consultancy fees could not be capitalised in accordance with the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) code of good practise for local authorities. 

The Estates Officer confirmed the figures took into account the campsite closing slightly earlier in the season.

The Finance Business Partner confirmed the forecast for the touring site assumed an ‘average’ year even though the past years had been good. It was confirmed that the reserves were £529,800. Mr MacFarlane stated if things continued in this fashion there would be no reserves. The Strategic Director stated that councils were required to be very prudent in their accounts and could not account for anything that had not been agreed. There were definite pressures, but there were also opportunities. 

Mr Jarvis stated that a balance sheet was needed before there could be a full discussion. There also needed to be a plan for years two and three if year one required dipping into reserves. There was an obligation to balance the budget, and this could be done with a slightly more optimistic point of view. 

The Strategic Director stated that the appointment of the design consultant had taken longer than planned, but the overall timeline should remain the same. The two/three year projection on the income and expenditure of the redeveloped site should be clearer. 

Mr Jarvis stated he did not think this could be approved without the balance sheet and an overview of the next two to three years. 

Councillor Ashton stated the £150k for consultancy costs would enable the future projection to be worked out. The future position could not be calculated without this spend. Councillor Ashton agreed he would rather see a more optimistic budget as this was easier to look at, but the Council was limited by the CIPFA rules rules about what could and could not be accounted for. 

The Finance Business Partner stated that the actual income was only £20k less than what had been achieved in the past few years. The budget had been pushed as far as possible, and if this income was not achieved it would have to be recovered from other areas of the council. 

The Strategic Director stated that expenditure felt realistic, income was harder to predict. Costs were being better managed as was the programme of work. The consultancy costs were high, but this did need to be done. 

On the proposal of Councillor Ashton, seconded by Councillor Candy it was

RESOLVED

That the Harbour Management Committee:

1. Reviewed the proposed Budget for 2026/27.

2. Recommended to ESC’s Cabinet the adoption of this proposed budget.

The Chair of the Stakeholder Advisory Group stated the group had shared disappointment about the pessimism of the budget. They had also discussed whether the programme for redevelopment was still accurate. The Advisory Group asked to be involved as early as possible in the process for works such as replacement of the visitor moorings to ensure they were appropriate. They also asked whether the chair of the newly formed Southwold Harbour Stage Owners Association could sit on the advisory group. 

The HMC agreed that the terms of reference of the Advisory Group could be revised to include the Southwold Harbour Stage Owners Association in the membership.

The Chair of the Stakeholder Advisory Group asked if there could be an open meeting with stakeholders to give an update and ensure good communication. The Chair agreed and suggested that this be done when the design consultants had been appointed.