North Yorkshire Council

 

Corporate & Partnerships Overview and Scrutiny Committee

 

11 August 2025

 

Call in of Executive decision - Harbours Infrastructure - West Pier Inner Sheet Pile Strengthening Award of Contract

 

 

1.0       PURPOSE OF REPORT

 

1.1         To enable the Committee to consider the Executive decision relating to : the proposal to carry out repair works to a section of the inner West Pier piles, approve a capital budget of £1,804k and award a contract to Neom Engineering Limited to carry out the works; and to determine whether or not the Committee would wish to refer the decision back to the Executive for reconsideration or to the full Council and, if so, the nature of its concerns about the decision.

 

 

2.0       DECISION OF THE EXECUTIVE

 

2.1       On 15 July 2025 the following Executive decision was taken:

           

            Resolved (unanimously):

 

1)         That Executive approve progressing with the scheme and approves entering the second stage of the contract with Neom Engineering Limited under NEC4 ECC Option A to conduct the works to the inner West Pier in Scarborough.

 

2)         That Executive approve a capital budget of £1,840k to carry out the repair works and agree that use of the contingency budget over £100k will be following approval by the Corporate Director Environment in consultation with the Corporate Director Resources and the Executive Member for Finance and Resources.

 

 

2.2       A full copy of the Executive Report (Appendix 1) is attached to this report, together with an extract from the Minutes of the Executive meeting held on 15 July 2025 (Appendix 2).

 

3.0       BACKGROUND

 

3.1       On 24 July 2025 written notice was received from more than six Members that they wished the Executive decision to be called in. The notice was made by Cllr. Janet Jefferson, with support from Councillors: Stuart Parsons, Phillip Barrett, Michelle Donohue-Moncrieff, John McCartney and Andy Solloway.

 

3.2       The reasons given for the call in were stated as:

 

i.      I do not believe that North Yorkshire Executive were made aware within the Legacy Harbour Project of the alternative option of replacing sheet piling and extending life from 10 to 50 years.

 

ii.     The report states that the Harbour Account is in deficit, is the decision to move ring fenced legacy reserves from Scarborough Harbour into general reserves open to challenge in the light of the Whitby Harbour ruling?

 

iii.    The report states that Scarborough Harbour has limited opportunities for revenue generation.  I would question the Councils proposals to appropriate building one from Scarborough Harbour to general funds which would remove income generation from the Harbour.

 

iv.   Can the Council also confirm it is progressing new opportunities for income generation and sustainability of the Harbour such as offshore wind energy and the introduction of a Boat Hoist

 

3.3       The Council’s rules in relation to the call in of an executive decision are set out in paragraph 16 of the Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rule in the constitution here

 

4.0       THE ROLE OF THE OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE

 

4.1       It is for the Committee to consider the decision which has been subject to call in and then to decide whether, or not, it wishes to refer it back to the executive decision-making body for reconsideration, setting out in writing the nature of its concerns, or whether, or not, it wishes to refer the matter to full Council.

 

4.2       If the Committee does not refer the matter back to the decision taker, or refer it to the Council, the decision will take effect on the date of this Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting. The relevant parts of the Council's Overview and Scrutiny Committee Procedure Rules are set out below.

 

5.0       CALL IN

 

5.1       Note: Powers of call in apply only to functions which are the responsibility of the Executive.

 

(d)     If, having considered the decision, the Overview and Scrutiny Committee wishes to do so, then it may refer it back to the decision-making person or body for reconsideration, setting out in writing the nature of its concerns, or refer the matter to full Council. If referred to the decision maker they shall then consider the matter, amending the decision or not, before adopting a final decision.

 

(e)     If following an objection to the decision, the Overview and Scrutiny Committee does not refer the matter back to the decision-making person or body, the decision shall take effect on the date of the Overview and Scrutiny meeting.

 

(f)      Where the matter has been referred to full Council, but the Executive decides that the matter must be determined prior to the next Council meeting, they OFFICIALLY may proceed to determine the matter, and shall report the matter to the next Council meeting.

 

(g)     Subject to (f) above, if the matter was referred to full Council and the Council does not object to a decision which has been made, then no further action is necessary, and the decision will be effective in accordance with the provision below. However, if the Council does object, (note: it has no locus to make decisions in respect of an executive decision unless it is contrary to the Policy Framework, or contrary to or not wholly consistent with the Budget) the Council will refer any decision to which it objects back to the decision-making person or body, together with the Council's views on the decision. That decision making body or person shall choose whether to amend the decision or not before reaching a final decision and implementing it.

 

6.0       FACTUAL INFORMATION RELATED TO THE REASONS FOR CALL IN

 

i.        I do not believe that North Yorkshire Executive were made aware within the Legacy Harbour Project of the alternative option of replacing sheet piling and extending life from 10 to 50 years.

 

       This was dealt with at paragraph 6.1 of the report to the North Yorkshire Council where it was stated:

 

       “6.1 At the outset of the project, Scarborough Borough Council considered the replacement of the piles with new piles, but this was rejected on cost grounds, and because the structure was not yet at the end of its serviceable life and could be repaired.”

 

       The Executive was therefore aware that the option to replace with new piles had been considered.

 

       In the current construction market, the cost of replacing the piles would be expected to be of the order of £5m.

 

ii.      The report states that the Harbour Account is in deficit, is the decision to move ring fenced legacy reserves from Scarborough Harbour into general reserves open to challenge in the light of the Whitby Harbour ruling?

 

The Executive have not made a decision to move ring fenced legacy reserves from Scarborough Harbour into general reserves.

 

       The Scarborough Harbour account does not have sufficient funds to pay for the works and therefore it is being credited with funding from the general reserves to pay for the works. The loan will be interest free and is repayable when there are sufficient funds in the Scarborough Harbour account.

 

       Local legislation enables the Council to provide a loan to the Harbour Authority for the purposes of the harbour undertaking with money being repaid by way of annual instalments.

 

iii.     The report states that Scarborough Harbour has limited opportunities for revenue generation.  I would question the Councils proposals to appropriate building one from Scarborough Harbour to general funds which would remove income generation from the Harbour.

 

       This reason for call-in does not relate to the decision taken by the Executive.  However, the Council no longer requires the appropriation of building one for the purposes of a restaurant. 

 

       The Whitby Court case concluded that ancillary uses such as restaurants could operate on harbour land so there is no need for any appropriation. The effect of this is that the rental income from any such use will be applied to the ring-fenced harbour account.

 

iv.     Can the Council also confirm it is progressing new opportunities for income generation and sustainability of the Harbour such as offshore wind energy and the introduction of a Boat Hoist

 

       This reason for call-in does not relate to the decision taken by the Executive.  However, the Council has confirmed on numerous occasions that it is pursuing new opportunities for income generation and sustainability of the Harbour.

 

7.0       FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

7.1       There are no financial implications arising from this report on the call in process.

 

8.0       LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

 

8.1       The process for dealing with call ins is set out in the Council Constitution.

 

9.0       EQUALITIES IMPLICATIONS

 

9.1       There are no equalities implications arising from this report on the call in process.

 

10.0     CLIMATE CHANGE IMPLICATIONS

 

10.1     There are no climate change implications arising from this report on the call in process.

 

11.0

RECOMMENDATION

 

 

i)    That the Committee considers the decision taken and called in and determines whether, or not, it wishes to refer the decision back to the Executive for reconsideration or to the full Council and, if so, the nature of its concerns about the decision.

 

 

 

APPENDICES:

 

Appendix 1:     Report and Appendices : Harbours Infrastructure - West Pier Inner Sheet Pile Strengthening Award of Contract

Appendix 2 :    Minutes Extract of the meeting of the Executive held on 15 July 2025

 

 

Barry Khan

Assistant Chief Executive – Legal and Democratic Services

County Hall

Northallerton

1 August 2025

 

Report Author – Chris Bourne, Head of Harbours and Coastal Infrastructure

 

 

Members are invited to contact the author in advance of the meeting with any detailed queries or questions.