Agenda and draft minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Aldred, Bastiman, Brown, Foster and Grogan.  Substitutes were also noted as follows:

·       Councillor Alyson Baker (for Councillor Grogan)

·       Councillor Goodrick (for Councillor Bastiman)

·       Councillor Nigel Knapton (Councillor Brown)

·       Councillor Rich Maw (for Councillor Foster).

The Chair asked at this stage in proceedings whether Members had any queries regarding the confidential paper at Item 6, Appendix 2, as this would require retiring into closed session.  No Members identified that they would like to discuss the confidential material.

All Members are invited to declare at this point any interests they have in items appearing on this agenda, including the nature of those interests.

There were no declarations of interest.

Members of the public may ask questions or make statements at this meeting if they have given notice to Melanie Carr of Democratic and Scrutiny Services and supplied the text (contact details below) by midday on Monday 23 March 2026, three working days before the day of the meeting.  Each speaker should limit themselves to 3 minutes on any item.  Members of the public who have given notice will be invited to speak:

·         at this point in the meeting if their questions/statements relate to matters which are not otherwise on the Agenda (subject to an overall time limit of 30 minutes);

·         when the relevant Agenda item is being considered if they wish to speak on a matter which is on the Agenda for this meeting.

If you are exercising your right to speak at this meeting, but do not wish to be recorded, please inform the Chair who will instruct anyone who may be taking a recording to cease while you speak.

Two public questions/statements had been received in advance of the meeting and agreed through the Chair; from Councillors Thomas Murray and Sarah Mason of Scarborough Town Council.  The Chair agreed that in Councillor Murray’s absence, Councillor Mason could put both questions to the committee.

1)    Councillor Thomas Murray

As Town Mayor of Scarborough and Chair of Scarborough Town Council, I speak not just on a technical point, but on something far more fundamental to our town. Our Town Hall, opened in 1903, is a jewel of Scarborough — the civic heart of our tradition, our history, and our democratic life. It should remain the centre of Scarborough’s civic life, not simply another asset within a wider property portfolio.

Within the Executive report, however, the Town Hall is treated as part of a wider “Town Hall site”, with proposals including potential vacating, redevelopment, or disposal. And given Scarborough’s history of promised redevelopment too often resulting in sites being boarded up and left to decline, that path is simply not good enough for our beautiful Grade II listed Victorian masterpiece.

At the same time, assurances have been given that the historic Town Hall will be retained for civic and democratic use and appropriately maintained. However, those assurances were given after the fuss and do not appear anywhere in the formal documentation. There is no clear distinction between the historic Town Hall and the wider site, no formal recognition of its civic status, and no explicit safeguarding of its continued democratic function. As it stands, it is being treated as part of a broader development opportunity.

Given its historic, civic, and symbolic role - and its future as a community-focused civic building - the Town Hall is not comparable to the surrounding estate and should not be treated as a standard development asset.

As Scarborough’s civic voice, I ask that this committee ensures that the historic Town Hall is formally defined as a separate entity from the wider Town Hall site, recognised as a civic asset, and that its maintenance and continued democratic use - including by Scarborough Town Council - are explicitly protected within the Council’s plans and reflected in the report.

2)    Councillor Sarah Mason

For clarity, my statement and question is based on the statement read out by Gary Fielding at the Executive Committee.

I want to raise concerns about accuracy and transparency of information regarding Scarborough Town Hall, which is repeatedly described as a single building, but in reality, it comprises of four structures: York House, 1960s extension, Customer First, and the original Grade II listed Town Hall, which includes the historic debating chamber installed in 1908.

The buildings differ in age, condition, and purpose, yet figures have been presented as a combined total.

The annual running cost of £474,000 covers the entire estate, including areas occupied by NYC staff and other tenants who pay rent.

The same applies to the £19 million refurbishment estimate. A substantial portion of that figure is likely attributable to the 1960s extension, which  ...  view the full minutes text for item 102.

Members are recommended to exclude the public from the meeting during consideration of each of the items of business listed in Column 1 of the following table on the grounds that they each involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in the paragraph(s) specified in column 2 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 as amended by the Local Government (Access to information)(Variation) Order 2006:-

Resolved

As agreed under Item 1, that the committee reserves the right to move into closed session during the meeting if required to discuss material provided in the confidential paperwork at Item 6, Appendix 2.

The Chair outlined the process to be followed at the meeting in order to consider the Call In.  The proposer of the Call In (Councillor Maw) would be invited to speak to provide his rationale, followed by Councillors Donohue-Moncrieff and Jefferson as signatories to the Call In.  The Corporate Director will then be afforded opportunity to respond to issues raised and the Executive Member will also be able to address issues raised.  Finally, the meeting will proceed to wider discussion and debate among the committee members.

Considered

The decision of the Executive relating to the acquisition of Resolution House in Scarborough, drawing on the reports provided and officer responses.

The Chair invited Councillor Maw to speak to his rationale for requesting the Call In.  Councillor Maw outlined his reasons for initiating the Call In, seeking to ensure the council had adequate evidence before committing to significant capital expenditure and relocating staff.  He highlighted concerns about potential gaps in the Executive report, including reliance on an outdated EPC rating, the absence of detailed costings for adaptations to Resolution House and other buildings in the estate review and uncertainties regarding staff numbers and operational suitability.  He also questioned whether the urgency of the proposed purchase was justified and sought assurances that wider impacts - particularly on Scarborough Town Hall’s heritage, town centre vitality and economic activity - had been fully assessed.  Clarity was given that the concern was around completeness of information.

Councillors Donohue‑Moncrieff and Jefferson subsequently put a range of questions

and concerns to the committee as signatories to the Call In.  These included

concerns about the lack of early consultation, the speed of the process, and the

economic risks to Scarborough of removing staff from the town centre, in addition to

the accessibility of Resolution House and a desire to retain use of the Town Hall for

civic purposes.

Gary Fielding (Corporate Director, Resources) addressed a number of the issues raised by response, including reference to the fact that Align Property Partners had provided independent professional input and Resolution House was judged to be in excellent condition with superior energy performance.  Gary also highlighted that the site offered substantially better parking provision than the Town Hall as well as lift access.  Anglo American had indicated that some of their staff had routinely walked to the office from Seamer station so it was presumed that access via public transport was feasible.  It was affirmed that customer access in Scarborough town centre would continue through Castle House.

The Chair sought clarity on the further action to be proposed through the Call In.  Councillor Maw formally proposed that the matter be referred to full Council and was seconded in this by Councillor Jefferson.

The Executive Member sought to provide responses on certain points raised thus far including noting that an economic impact assessment for Scarborough was not deemed necessary when North Yorkshire House was closed and that Seamer station, based on Google mapping, is 0.6 miles from Resolution House (13-minute walk).

The Chair invited the Corporate Director to respond to the Member questions/concerns and the following additional points were highlighted:

·       the Town Hall is no longer fit for purpose for staff - evidential photographs of the significant deterioration of the site were displayed for the committee

·       the condition of the building has in itself led to dwindling staff occupancy

·       the choice for Members is either to spend £19m to bring the Town Hall up to an acceptable condition or spend £4.5m to purchase Resolution House.

·       Estimates suggest that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 105.