Meeting Details

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

RESOLVED

 
That the minutes of the meeting held on 8 January 2026 be signed as a correct record.

The Marine Services Manager gave an update on Operations in the Harbour and Caravan/Campsite.

Winter works had been completed on the caravan and campsite, including gas and electric servicing, drainage upgrades, road repairs and deep cleaning. Three new static caravans had also been sited. The site opened on the 27 February for the Southwold Half Marathon and all available pitches had been booked. 

In the harbour a PMSC stakeholder meeting was held in January as part of the development and updating of the MARNIS system. The PMSC and Trinity House audits had been completed. In the Trinity House Audit there had been a target of 97% and the harbour had achieved a 98.4% score.

A galvanic test had been carried out on the Fisherman’s Quay, initial information was positive with a recommendation for another test to be completed in 2 years to understand how piles were thinning. 

A dive survey was also being carried out on the South Training Arm to give a true account of the current position, so we can plan any works we need using up to date information.

The Head of Property and Place stated that there were some additional costs which had not been shown in the Q3 monitoring report recieved at the last meeting.

• Lease over land charges £28,992.28.  Southwold Harbour was not charged for leasing of access land to a number of stages, the cost includes back dated lease charge and charge to date. A robust system has been put in place whereby this will not occur again.
• Fender removal £17,250. Disposal of timbers £7,000.
• Ecoli testing £3,500, the Chair stated there were issues with waste in the harbour and Anglian Water were being challenged over this. 

These costs would be shown in the year end/Q4 report. 

Mr Pickles asked if there could be a summary of costs of work done on the North Wall Fender to date. The Marine Services Manager confirmed the final work on this would be done when the weather cleared. The Strategic Director stated there had been discussions between the coastal team and contractor as to whether there was a claim, but this had been unsuccessful. The Chair asked if there could be an agenda item for the next meeting on what would replace the structure. 

The Committee received report ES/2735 which related to the Southwold Harbour Annual Report for 2024/25. The Finance Business Partner confirmed this report was delayed in coming before the committee. The 2025/26 report would come to the committee in September and there were regular quarterly updates. 

The Chair invited questions.

Mr Jarvis stated he had discussed the report with the Finance Business Partner and asked for some changes to how the reserves were displayed so they were clearer to the general public. Mr Jarvis stated that the credit shown on the balance sheet was owed to ESC by the Harbour, and asked whether the details and terms of this could be made clearer. 

Mr Jarvis also asked if the reserve position could be made clearer and separated into a fully separate account rather than ringfenced within the Council's account. Councillor Ashton stated that not fully separating the accounts did benefit the harbour as it was undercharged for the cost of services. Fully separating the accounts would end up costing the harbour more and this should be left as was. 

The Finance Business Partner stated that she had researched how other harbour authorities displayed their accounts and would be changing how our accounts were presented, this would resolve many of the issues discussed. 

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

 RESOLVED

That the Harbour Management Committee: 
1. Notes the contents of the Southwold Harbour Annual Report 
2. Recommends that Cabinet approves the report

The Committee received report ES/2736 which related to the Ports & Marine Facilities Safety Code Compliance Exercise. 

The Designated Person gave a presentation summarising the results of the audit. It was noted that as the deadline for confirming compliance was the 31 March 2026, Cabinet had already received this report.

The Designated Person confirmed the only non-compliance was that the published marine safety plan was not in date. It had been updated but was not published on the website at the time of the audit.  The areas for improvement mainly related to updates to existing plans and documentation, and issues following the collapse of the fendering. 

The Chair invited questions. 

Mr Pickles stated that Lowestoft harbour had a light system to indicate whether it was safe to enter the harbour, and asked if Southwold should consider a way of informing visitors to stay away in dangerous conditions. The Designated Person stated that Southwold had no ability to close the port as it was an open harbour. It may be inadvisable for a vessel to enter and the current process was to discuss this with the harbour master. Mr Pickles stated that there was an issue with this as the harbour was not always staffed. The Designated Person agreed, but if a traffic management system was put in place that would have to be staffed 24/7 and so the onus should stay on the pilot of incoming vessels. It was important to ensure clear guidance and pilot information was available. 

The Marine Services Manager stated he would discuss options and costs for navigation marks and a clear map, including virtual marks, with Trinity House. 

Mr Walker asked whether there was a flood emergency plan for the harbour in the event of a tidal surge. The Designated Person stated that the emergency plan would deal with vessels breaking away or coming adrift. The Council would have plans for flooding in the area. 

Mr Walker stated he thought there had been more health and safety issues in the harbour than shown. The Designated Person confirmed any incidents in the harbour would be logged in the MARNIS system, anything on the land side would be reported on the councils internal system. The Designated Person confirmed the audit had checked the system was being used, and there was evidence of this, but this did rely on people reporting them.

On the proposition of Mr Jarvis, seconded by Mr Ogden it was

RESOLVED

The Chair of the Stakeholder Advisory Group stated that the group had discussed the Harbour Revision Order and were concerned about the inability to work on the banks upstream of the bailey bridge as investment was needed here. The Chair confirmed this was not harbour lands, although change here did affect the harbour. Discussions were ongoing with the landowners, and work needed to be done but it was very costly. The Strategic Director stated it could be put forward to the Mayoral Combined Authority to fund, but it would be up against much larger projects.

The advisory group had also raised the possibility of a public stakeholder meeting. Concerns had also been raised about the South Training Arm. The Chair stated that regarding a stakeholder meeting there would be engagement with stakeholders through the caravan site development. Regarding the South Training Arm, money had to be raised before anything was done on this. There were no grants to fund this work, and the Council did not have the funds.

The Chair of the Stakeholder Advisory Group asked what the plans were for filling the vacancy on the HMC as this did create a gap in technical knowledge. The Strategic Director stated he had met with someone about taking on this role, and they would be looking for a replacement committee member that had a strong marine background. 

There was a discussion about the need to improve facilities in the harbour in general.