Meeting Details

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

RESOLVED 

 
That the minutes of the meeting held on 12 March 2026 be signed as a correct record. 

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

On the caravan and campsite two new receptionists have been directly employed by East Suffolk Council and this would reduce staff costs from the previous years when agency staff had been employed. 

The start of the season had been wet, but the team had managed to get seven pitches and some other areas returfed plus all wheel marks filled and seeded and ready for use for the May bank holiday. The hedge and grass cutting was underway and all flower beds being prepared for planting.

The first stakeholder meeting was held with SCOA on Wednesday 13th May and have a second one was planned for later in the month. 

In the harbour water quality testing was under way at three points, the Environment Agency outlet, Harbour Inn outlet and finally seaward side of the yacht club. Top marks had been repainted.

Another two fishing boats had joined the harbour fleet, so the fishing fleet at Southwold was now larger than Lowestoft and Great Yarmouth combined. New safety procedures using sound and marine radio and signage are being implemented. This has been added to the marine assessments by the designated person. As of the 6th May there have been 54 boat night visitors and 18 cancellations due to weather or mechanical issue. 

Mr Ogden asked if there were any comparative information on campsite figures across the years. The Marine Services Manager confirmed he would find out this information. Regarding the three options for the replacement of the fendering, full costings could not be drawn up until the full structure was recovered. 

Ms Osbourn asked if there was adequate freezer space for the larger fishing fleet. The Marine Services Manager confirmed confirmed this was being looked at. 

Mr Pickles stated there had been a map of the best route in and out of the harbour which was now outdated and asked if this could be redone. The Marine Services Manager confirmed a refreshed one was being worked on. Mr Walker stated there were concerns about the safety of the north wall with the missing section and people becoming trapped on the rocks. 

The Committee received report ES/2797 which related to the Term of Office of Co-opted Member Rhys Jarvis. 

Councillor Candy asked if the application form could be shared with the committee so members could understand each others experience. The Democratic Services Officer confirmed the application was shared with the Chair and Vice Chair of the Committee as part of the recruitment process, but it could be reshared. 

Mr Ogden asked if there could be an update on the recruitment for the vacancy on the committee. 

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

RESOLVED

That it be recommended to the Leader of the Council that Rhys Jarvis be Co-opted for a further 3 year Term of Office onto the Southwold Harbour Management Committee, starting on the 1 July 2026 

The committee received report ES/2793 which related to an update on Landlord and Tenant Arrangements.

Councillor Candy asked what the status was of the eight leases that were with legal and what costs there were for these. The Property Management Lead managed negotiations up to the stage where heads of terms were prepared, this would then be passed to legal who would draw up a contract and get this signed. The aim was for leases to be as consistent, fair and transparent while respecting historical changes. The legal process was taking more time than people might like but there were no major blocks. The Property Management Lead stated that costs were picked up by the respective sides. 

Mr Pickles asked what was being done about new buildings, change of use of buildings or land encroachment. The Property Management Lead stated there this was being looked as part of the lease renewal process and current users had the right permissions. There were some grey areas around the fishing huts and when these became beach huts for example, the Property Management Lead stated if there were any issues people felt needed to be raised then these could be sent to him directly.

Mr Pickles asked if the additional income from the revised leases could be identified. It was also important to ensure people were being accurately charged for the land they were using and being discouraged from leaving rubbish or unused property in the harbour. 

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

 RESOLVED

 That Southwold Harbour Management Committee note the contents of the report. 

The committee received report ES/2796. The Estates Manager stated that both the harbour and caravan and campsite had recorded a surplus of income during the year, the caravan and campsite also recorded a surplus of expenditure. The combined income figures for the year totalled £1,173,336 against a budgeted figure of £891,400, producing a surplus of £281,936. All income streams in both areas produced a surplus, with the touring income especially ahead of budget. The total expenditure for both sites was £871,519 against a budget figure of £1,013,500, resulting in a surplus of £141,981. The majority of this surplus was a result of savings in employee expenses. It was noted that support charges had yet to be factored in, but it was expected these would be the same as last year. 

The Estates Manager stated that the Chief Finance Officer had provided guidance on how the final accounts would be produced. The Final Accounts for 2025/26 will be presented as usual as part of the Annual Report. Following consideration of the Ports Good Governance for Local Authorities and active discussions with Members, the Council aims to make suitable amendments to the format of the Harbour Accounts, to aid the reader and to further align the documents with the current outturn report, considering the disparities of Local Authority Accounting and the Private Sector. Amendments will include revising the Profit and Loss table to reflect the format of the outturn report, to clearly detail ring fenced reserves currently being held to support further objectives, and the balance sheet will be removed due to asset and liability balances being consolidated within the wider East Suffolk Council Statements.

The Finance Business Partner stated that some authorities presented accounts as if they were a small company, but as the Council ran the harbour and it was a service area within the Council, it could not be accurately separated out. The ringfenced reserve would be made clear and shown separately. 

Mr Pickles asked whether the vacant posts which had contributed to the surplus would be filled. The Head of Property and Place stated that vacancies did provide some of the surplus, but as agency staff had been employed last year this had also increased employment costs. These costs would be reduced  PA noted that while it may have worked for one year, it did not mean it would work every year especially with the redevelopment requiring extra work. 

Mr Pickles stated that the harbour accounts needed to be as transparent as possible due to the past mistrust.

Mr Walker stated that accounts without a balance sheet ware meaningless and there was a need to understand what a reserve was made up of. Harbours should submit annual accounts to the Department for Transport and local authority owned harbours still had to submit their accounts in the same way as business accounts which could not be done without a balance sheet. The Finance Business Partner stated she had discussed this with the Chief Finance Officers and they had done some comparison with other harbour authorities. The service reserve did not have a separate balance sheet, it was covered as part of the whole Council balance sheet.

Councillor Ashton stated that the liabilities of the harbour assets dwarfed the value of the assets. The caravan site needed to be optimised so it could provide as much income as necessary to maintain the harbour. The assets were not in a condition that they could be stripped, they were a liability. 

The Finance Business Partner stated that Department for Transport wanted to see open accounts that everyone could understand and it was hoped that the format of these would provide this transparency. The finance team were happy to speak to anyone who had any questions.

Councillor Ashton accepted that some of this may be difficult for stakeholders who were not as involved to understand the accounts, but the accounts were being produced in line with the way councils across the country produced them. 

Councillor Candy asked how many fishing boats were in the harbour and how much income they provided. Mr Pickles stated there were around 12, the harbour had the space for more boats but did not have the infrastructure for loading and unloading and frozen storage. The amount of boats also depended on what was selling. There was also the risk that work could be done to make more space but if the fishing stock was down it would not be worth it. 

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

RESOLVED

That the Harbour Management Committee: 
1. Reviewed and noted the Draft Outturn Report for the financial year 2025/26.

The Committee received report ES-2801. The Senior Coastal Advisor and Coastal Adaptation Programme Officer gave a presentation on the Resilient Coasts project. 

This area was covered by shoreline management plan 7, which covered Hopton to Felixstowe. Responsibility for the coast was split between the Environment Agency and the Council. These plans had come into action in around 2012, and were split into three epochs which ran up until 2105. 

The Senior Coastal Advisor summarised the work that was being done in Southwold and the management approaches along the coast, starting with the Eastern Bavents and going down to the Harbour. The management approach for the harbour was to hold the line until 2105, and this was largely done by the asset management team with support for specific projects. 

The Resilient Coasts programme was focussed on testing new and innovative management and providing evidence to DEFRA on what needed to change. The key points of the business case had focussed on lack of ability to access funding, lack of insurance cover for coastal erosion compared to flooding and lack of emergency planning for coastal erosion. 

There was some discussion of how sediment moved along the coast. Mr Pickles stated that sediment from Southwold went north, and the Walberswick beach had moved back as a result. The Senior Coastal Advisor stated that there had been modelling on this, and often sediment would move one way and then move the other. Because this coastline was so soft erosion happened very rapidly and so the models needed to be updated. The team had been reviewing historic records to look at beach depths.

Councillor Beavan stated that the immediate problems were north of the pier and this was the area that needed looking at urgently. Generally in this area sediment moved with the fetch, but the pier and wall structures interrupted the movement and this is what was happening in the harbour. The Coastal Adaptation Programme Officer stated this was what was being monitored as it was constantly moving and changing. A recent study was to examine sandbank movements along the frontage as there was little understanding of the interactions with the offshore sandbanks. This would enable future decisions to be made in the right way. 

Mr Walker asked what the impact of different structures collapsing or moving would be, for example the harbour wall. Coastal Adaptation Programme Officer stated the harbour wall was not classed as a sea defence and so were not considered by the programme.

Councillor Candy asked about erosion risks and how funding could be achieved. The Senior Coastal Advisor stated they were trying to get funding away from focussing on the number of properties but also on how much value an area had and the income it generated from tourism, business etc. which went beyond property prices. Being able to monitor changes locally gave a much stronger base of evidence to go to Westminster for changes. The aim was to create plans that would be enacted before an emergency arose. 

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

RESOLVED

That the Southwold Harbour Committee note the report and presentation and support the 
work that the Resilient Coasts project is delivering.

The Chair of the Stakeholder Advisory Group stated that most of the points they had raised had been discussed under previous items.

The Stakeholder Advisory group had raised concerns about the harbour toilets being shut during half term. Councillor Ashton stated this was part of a district wide programme of works and he would discuss timings with officers.

The Chair of the Southwold Caravan Owners Association stated that they had met with the Marine Services Manager, Investment Development Manager and Joe Perkins from the external design management team. The meeting had been very helpful and another one had been scheduled in. A number of questions had been raised about when the caravans would be coming off site, and whether the timetable could be updated. The Head of Operations noted that the timetable was indicative, an updated timetable was being worked on based on the proposed design. The Chair of SCOA stated that October was getting closer and caravan owners had important decisions to make about whether they needed to update their caravans or find new plots, the sooner they could know the better. The Investment Development Manager stated that a lot of decisions needed to be made. An updated timeline was being worked on and would dictate when work could start and when people could move off. 

Councillor Ashton stated this was a difficult process and there was a lot of potential for dates to shift and move around. The committee and officers did not want to give a hard date before a thorough plan had been prepared as this would set the process up to fail. There needed to be good communication rather than hard reliance on specific dates. The Head of Property and Place stated there were meetings coming up to discuss this and it would become clear from this what the date would be. The Chair of SCOA agreed that this would move and work needed to be done, but a lot was hinged on the October date being confirmed. Councillor Ashton agreed that there was a need to provide an updated date and plan as quickly as possible, but owners needed to accept that work needed to be done first to ensure this was thorough. As soon as information became available it would be shared. 

The Chair of the Stakeholder Advisory Group asked how local government reorganisation would impact the harbour and redevelopment. The Head of Property and Place stated that once any funding for a project was approved it would be ringfenced as a project, although there was the potential for other priorities to overtake it. Councillor Ashton confirmed the new unitary council would inherit the responsibilities for the harbour. The transition would be fairly gradual rather than a sudden change.