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.
Minutes:
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 NYC had to vacate due to statutory compliance issues.
It is unclear how much of this relates to the Grade II listed Town Hall itself, which has served Scarborough for over a century and remains a valued civic asset.
There is reference to the Town Hall being “underutilised,” citing 33 democratic meetings in the past year. A civic building should not be judged solely on the number of meetings held per month. It is Scarborough’s heritage, identity, and democratic anchor.
I am also concerned by the suggestion that democratic meetings could be held in external venues.
These venues were not designed for democratic governance, and do not offer the same history for civic participation within our democratic process as the Town Hall. It is also suggested that older listed buildings limit the ability to provide modern digital access. Yet the Town Hall Chamber already has video and audio equipment installed, and additional technology could be added. So it is unclear how external venues, would provide a better solution. Never mind the related cost.
Given the significance of this asset to Scarborough’s heritage and democratic life, I believe the “vision” for the Grade II listed Town Hall should include and continue to remain in democratic use by both STC and NYC, alongside the wider community and third‑party use.
Can the committee be provided with a full building‑by‑building breakdown of both the annual running costs and the refurbishment estimates for York House, 1960s extension, Customer First, and the Grade II listed Town Hall?
Gary Fielding responded to both questions as follows:
The statement presented at the Executive Committee, along with the written response to the issues raised in the Call In, acknowledges that the Town Hall site comprises four distinct buildings: the Grade II listed Town Hall, the 1950s/1960s extension, York House, and the Customer Services building. It is recognised that each of these buildings presents different options and opportunities, particularly given the listed status of the historic Town Hall.
We fully accept that the value of the listed Town Hall building cannot be measured solely by the number of meetings it hosts each month. A range of qualitative and functional factors must also be taken into account. However, as a public organisation, we have a clear duty to ensure that public funds are used in a manner that delivers economy, efficiency and effectiveness. Cost and affordability will therefore remain core considerations in all decision-making.
In response to the request for a building by building breakdown of refurbishment estimates, the following figures are provided:
|
|
Low £’000 |
High £’000 |
|
Town Hall listed |
6,000 |
7,000 |
|
1950/60’s extension |
5,500 |
6,500 |
|
York House offices |
1,500 |
2,500 |
|
Customer First building |
2,000 |
3,000 |
|
|
15,000 |
19,000 |
Annual running costs cannot be provided at an individual building level because costs are monitored for the site as a whole (eg. utilities have single, site-wide meters). If allocated on a floor area basis, the estimated net annual running costs are:
|
|
Net Costs £’000 |
|
Town Hall listed |
166 |
|
1950/60’s extension |
166 |
|
York House offices |
81 |
|
Customer First building |
61 |
|
TOTAL |
474 |
Refurbishing the listed Town Hall alone would not address the wider challenges around staff accommodation. Furthermore, the estimated one-off cost of £6-7 million, plus annual running costs of around £166k, is not affordable for the Council - particularly where the primary outcome from the investment would solely be the retention of existing civic and democratic use.
Any long term proposal for the Town Hall must be financially sustainable without significant further investment from North Yorkshire Council. Given the scale of refurbishment costs and wider financial pressures the Council faces, alternative options will need to be explored.
We do not oppose the listed Town Hall building being retained for community or civic use, provided this does not place substantial cost on this Council. Our aim is to ensure the building is protected, revitalised and kept in meaningful use for future generations.
While no cast iron guarantee can be given regarding the long term future use of the building, there is no short term requirement for the Town Council to vacate the premises. The building will continue in existing civic and democratic use while options for it, and the wider Town Hall site, are developed.
We are open to discussions with the Town Council and other partners where there is a viable intention for them to take on future responsibility for the listed building. However, any ongoing or capital costs would need to be met from sources other than North Yorkshire Council.
In the meantime – while future options are developed - assurances remain in place that the Town Hall will continue in civic and democratic use, will be kept in reasonable repair, and Scarborough Town Council will be a stakeholder in shaping future proposals.
The Chair thanked Gary for his responses. Hard copies of the detailed figures quoted were circulated to committee members.