Decision details

1.

Title of Item/Report

Yarm Levelling Up Fund (LUF)

2.

Record of the Decision

Consideration was given to a report on Yarm Levelling Up Fund (LUF).

The report enabled Cabinet to reconsider its decision relating to the Yarm Levelling Up Fund (LUF) public realm proposals following a call in and subsequent consideration by the Executive Scrutiny Committee.

The call in forms part of the Council’s constitutional arrangements for scrutiny of executive decision making and enables an executive decision to be paused and reconsidered where concerns were raised about the decision making process.

On 22 April 2026, the Executive Scrutiny Committee considered the call in and resolved to refer the decision back to Cabinet for reconsideration, having identified matters relating to the clarity and presentation of the decision making process that Cabinet was asked to have regard to.

The original Cabinet report and decision record were attached to the report.

At its meeting on 12 March 2026, Cabinet considered a report relating to the Yarm Levelling Up Fund (LUF) public realm proposals. The report set out the outcome of a public engagement exercise in relation to the proposed High Street scheme, the wider financial context, and a range of options for the future use of the remaining funding.

Following consideration, Cabinet resolved to note the outcome of the public engagement, not to proceed with the scheme as originally proposed, and to reallocate the remaining funding. This included retaining a proportion of funding for locally focused schemes, with further development delegated accordingly.

The decision was subsequently called in in accordance with the Council’s Constitution. The call in raised concerns relating to the presentation and interpretation of the engagement exercise, the extent to which its outcomes were reflected in the decision, and the clarity with which options and alternative approaches were presented.

On 22 April 2026, the Executive Scrutiny Committee considered the call in. The Monitoring Officer confirmed that the call in met the constitutional requirements for validity and that the matters raised were capable of scrutiny within the Council’s decision making framework. The Committee then resolved to refer the decision back to Cabinet for reconsideration.

In referring the decision back, the Executive Scrutiny Committee identified matters for Cabinet to have regard to when reconsidering its decision. These matters related to the clarity and explanation of the decision making process.

In summary, they concerned:

•         how clearly the engagement exercise was presented and understood;

•         how the purpose and status of that engagement were communicated;

•         how engagement outcomes were interpreted and taken into account;

•         the clarity with which options and alternative approaches were presented;

•         the articulation of reasons for the decision; and

•         the overall completeness and coherence of the information before Cabinet, including the relationship between engagement outcomes, financial considerations, and the decision taken.

Cabinet thanked Executive Scrutiny Committee for considering the call in and acknowledged scrutiny's legitimate constitutional role.

Cabinet carefully reflected on the matters referred back and gave the following comments:-

-       Residents gave a very clear message that they did not support the specific High Street scheme that was consulted upon.

-       Cabinet had listened to that message and, importantly, the Council was not proceeding with that scheme.

-       This was not a case of Cabinet ignoring consultation feedback. The consultation directly informed the decision not to proceed.

-       It was important to remember the wider context of the original Levelling Up Fund programme.

-       The LUF allocation for what was then the Stockton South constituency was always a broader regeneration package across Yarm; Eaglescliffe and Preston Park and not simply one standalone scheme in Yarm.

-       Significant investment has already been delivered or committed:

·       Yarm Town Hall restoration

·       Preston Park  improvements

·       Transport and connectivity infrastructure

-       Government's revised funding arrangements explicitly allow flexibility and reprioritisation within the programme.

-       Cabinet therefore had to balance:

·       engagement feedback

·       deliverability

·       value for money

·       prudence

·       and the Council’s wider financial position

-       It was entirely reasonable and responsible to avoid borrowing where existing funding flexibility allows projects already within the wider programme to be funded directly.

-       That is the same prudent approach most residents would expect any organisation to take.

-       This did not mean Yarm had lost out. Cabinet deliberated retained funding with Yarm and further engagement would take place regarding local priorities, including such projects as the pontoons.

-       If future proposals come forward where borrowing represents a sensible and economically justified approach, clearly those matters van be considered in the future on their merits.

-       Cabinet must make decisions based on the circumstances before it and on responsible stewardship of public money.

-       It was recognised that some Members and residents would have preferred a different outcome and those views were respected.

Having reconsidered the matter carefully in the light of the issues raised through the scrutiny process, Cabinet remained satisfied that the original decision was balanced, proportionate and in the wider public interest. Therefore, the original Cabinet decision was confirmed.

RESOLVED that the original Cabinet decision was confirmed.

3.

Reasons for the Decision

The decision has been referred back to Cabinet in accordance with the call in procedure set out in the Council’s Constitution.

Cabinet is therefore required to reconsider the decision, having regard to the matters identified by the Executive Scrutiny Committee.

4.

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

None

5.

Declared (Cabinet Member) Conflicts of Interest

None

6.

Details of any Dispensations

None

7.

Date and Time by which Call In must be executed

Not applicable as the original decision had already been called in.