Agenda item

The following question was submitted by Cllr Niall Innes for response by the Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Housing:-

 

“To ask the Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Housing for a progress update on the investment works to Billingham following a recent press statement stating works have been further delayed.”

 

 

The Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Housing responded with:-

 

“I refer Cllr Innes to the July cabinet report  which sets out the significant progress made on the regeneration of Billingham Town Centre .

50. As reported to Cabinet in May 2025’ a signed funding agreement for the £20m Levelling Up Fund grant was received in April 2025.  Since the last update to Cabinet, the final details of legal agreements between the Council and Evolve are being finalised to enact the decisions taken at Cabinet in June 2024 in regard to the acquisition of part of Queensway South, West Precinct and former Library site of the centre and the key principles of relocation of tenants and demolition to enable residential-led redevelopment alongside commercial investment by Evolve.

 

51. The approach presented to Cabinet in June 2024 saw the Council acquire part of Queensway South at vacant possession and then undertake demolition of the building.  As drafting of legal agreements has progressed, the opportunity for Evolve to manage demolition of Queensway South prior to the partial disposal to the Council has been proposed.  This approach will make for a more efficient demolition process as Evolve manage a single contractor on their land, as opposed to the more complex approach of the Council undertaking demolition and requiring access across Evolves land at different points.  

 

52. This approach represents a deviation from the position previously reported to Cabinet and Cabinet are therefore asked to endorse this revised approach and allow for it to be reflected in drafting legal agreements that are already delegated by Cabinet in June 2024.

 

53. Feasibility work is also underway to explore options for repurposing the disused Council office, Wynyard House, as a public sector hub. The feasibility work has been funded through One Public Estate and is expected to conclude in autumn 2025.

 

54. The next stage of the project will be to develop plans for residential development on the cleared site, in line with the principles of the agreed masterplan. Options for securing a development partner for the West Precinct and former library and clinic site will be explored, including exploring the opportunity to broaden a partnership with Evolve to enable wider redevelopment, potentially incorporating, where appropriate Council assets within and adjacent to the town centre as a means of increasing investment, unlocking residential growth and safeguarding existing and traditional town centre uses. Discussion with other stakeholders in the vicinity of the town centre will also take place to explore additional opportunities to increase redevelopment potential in the area.”

 

Cllr Niall Innes asked the following supplementary question:-

 

“The basis for asking that question because it is not just me or the press asking but also residents, this scheme seems to be doing the same course as many other project SBC have been involved in whether it be the Globe going over budget and way over time, issues at Preston Park £1 million extra, Riverside Road, all with a lack of foresight. There seems to be a growing trend of projects for SBC that have problems. The only project that hasn’t had any delays is the Diagnostic Centre and that wasn’t SBC had any responsibility for. Can the Cabinet Member agree with me and with the vast majority of residents in the Borough that this is just the same old from SBC, further delays with public money provided by the previous Conservative government and true to form wasted by Labour incompetence?”

 

The Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Housing responded with:-

 

“The answer is no.”

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following question was submitted Councillor Jason French for response by the Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Housing.

 

“At full Council on the 21st of May 2025 the Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Housing, following a question by a member seeking a comprehensive update regarding the programme of works, about demolition of the Golden Eagle, provided an update on the Golden Eagle at Thornaby, detailing that the demolition work would begin in June. On the 29th of June it was reported in the local media that the demolition process had been delayed until August.

Does the Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Housing think it appropriate for members to discover the further delay for the start of the demolition works to the Golden Eagle via the local media?”

 

Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Housing responded with:-

 

“Apologies to Council that the progress on the demolition of the Golden Eagle has been fast moving and a full update was included in the POF report to Cabinet in July. In May we were still awaiting the tender responses for a demolition contractor. When these were received it became clear that a further cabinet decision was needed, and a report was added to the forward plan. This and a statutory demolition notice meant that the press picked up on the story in advance of the publication of the cabinet report which contains a full explanation. After seeing the tenders from the contractors and finding out the extent of the asbestos and finding out the shocking way that it had been installed it was clear that further funding was required to bring down the Golden Eagle. This has now been approved by Cabinet and the process forward is now to appoint a contractor and handing the site to them. They will then take charge of the site and work will begin to bring the building down.”

 

Councillor Jason French asked the following supplementary question:-

 

“Does the Cabinet Member agree with me that the Labour Group approach briefing the press on key issues before briefing members has been a complete shambles and what action will he take to ensure this doesn’t happen again?”

 

Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Housing responded with:-

 

“There are briefings scheduled on a regular basis, but the Conservative members never turn up.”

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Member Question submitted Councillor Tony Riordan for response by the Cabinet Member for Access, Communities and Community Safety:-

 

“Stockton Borough Council is in receipt of the Asylum Dispersal Grant from Central Government. Can the Leader detail,

 

•           How many Asylum Seekers are presently housed in the Borough of Stockton-on-Tees?

•           How many of the Asylum Seekers are male, and how many are female?

•           What were the numbers of Asylum Seekers housed in the Borough of Stockton-on-Tees for the years, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024?

•           What was the amount of Government grant made payable to Stockton Borough Council, for the years, 2019,2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024 and 2025?

•           Does Stockton Borough Council financially contribute to the support of Asylum Seekers in the Borough, and if so, what is the value, for the years 2019, 2020, 2021. 2022, 2023, 2024 and 2025?

 

The Cabinet Member for Access, Communities and Community Safety responded with:-

 

“Thanks for this question, Cllr Riordan which requires 23 points of technical data. I will therefore provide this in a separate written response rather than reeling off all the detail.

 

However, in summary, I will remind members that the provision of support to asylum seekers is a statutory duty established by the previous government when they introduced the National Dispersal Scheme in 2022. The number of asylum seekers in Stockton has remained pretty static over the last few years and represents approximately 0.55% of our population. The costs of supporting and resettling asylum seekers is entirely covered by government grant.

 

Data not held before 2022 when the The National Dispersal scheme came into being and Government restrictions apply to the release of the gender and location of asylum seekers.

 

I can however give you the costs of the grant that we have received for asylum seekers which is as follows 2022/23 £229,000 23/24 £671,500  24/25 £1,702,870 25/26 £960.200.”

 

Councillor Tony Riordan asked the following supplementary question:-

 

“You used the word static in your response but would you agree that in the year 2022/23 we received £229,000 and then in 24/25 we received over £1,702,870 in grant would indicate a rise rather than static numbers and further prior 2022 what was the Council’s position in supporting asylum seekers? Was it an opt in or opt out?”

 

The Cabinet Member for Access, Communities and Community Safety responded with:-

 

“I would have to check out those figures I can however explain that the rise isn’t in relation to the number of asylum seekers in 2022 the Council received £250 for every asylum seeker that came into the Borough between then and now it has slowly risen, we now receive £1250 for every asylum seeker that comes into the Borough.”

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following question was submitted Councillor Niall Innes for response by the Cabinet Member for Access, Communities and Community Safety:-

 

“Stockton Borough Council has recently sought to recruit 2 x Support and Integration (Migration Support) Officers on a salary range of £31,067 - £32,654 per annum, and 1 x Service Development (Migration Support) Officer on a salary of £37,035 - £39,513 per annum. A Freedom of Information Request, and response, showed that the 3 roles are new.

 

Why does the Leader of the Council deem it necessary to recruit these roles?”

 

The Cabinet Member for Access, Communities and Community Safety responded with:-

 

“As outlined in my response to the previous question, the support of asylum seekers and refugees is a statutory duty and when right to remain has been established this requires resource to effectively support and integrate them into our Borough and the communities to which they now belong. These posts are entirely funded by government grant.”

 

Councillor Niall Innes asked the following supplementary question:-

 

“Isn’t this just a case of SBC using the taxpayers’ funds to fill roles regardless of whether it is grant money, it is still taxpayers money, that are so vague and non-descript it is not clear what role they are supposed to provide? The job descriptions are extremely vague, isn’t this just further proof that this Council’s priorities are so far removed from priorities of the residents of this Borough?”

 

The Cabinet Member for Access, Communities and Community Safety responded with:-

 

“The priorities of this Council are the same priorities of the government. We need to support asylum seekers, we need to move them on after they have had the right to remain, we need to support them in the community, we need to support them into work because once they get the right to remain they have the right to work and they can contribute to the town and the Borough as a whole.”

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following question was submitted by Councillor Jack Miller for response by the Leader of the Council.

 

“At full Council on the 21st May the Council Leader responded to a question regarding a previously resolved motion (That the Leader of the Council engages with local stakeholders and meets with them alongside other Group Leaders to discuss what this Council can do to robustly support and protect young people of this Borough most at risk).

 

Following the publication of the Casey Report, and the humiliating U turn of the Labour Government to now undertake a National Inquiry into Grooming Gangs, will the leader reflect on her previous response and accept that dismissing concerns by members in the manner she did has eroded all confidence she may have had on leading on this most important of matters.”

The Leader of the Council responded with:-

 

“As I explained previously, this Council already engages actively with local stakeholders on issues affecting children and young people, including those most at risk. That engagement takes place regularly through established multi-agency arrangements with our key public sector partners, including police, health, education and the voluntary sector.

 

What was unusual about the motion was its proposal that these engagements should include Group Leaders. There is no formal role for Group Leaders in those safeguarding discussions, and it would not normally be appropriate for political group representatives to attend those operational forums.

 

However, I did say previously—and I will repeat now—that if Group Leaders had particular suggestions in mind as to how such involvement might work, I would be happy to consider them and take that forward where appropriate. No such suggestions have been brought to my attention.

 

I am content that the work I and others are doing with our partners to address the challenges facing vulnerable young people is both serious and ongoing. If you or your Group have a specific issue or proposal in mind, I would encourage you to raise it—either directly with me, through your Group Leader, or with the relevant Cabinet Member.

 

I will reiterate that your Group have received several offers, not just on this subject, but on anything. I meet with Group Leaders on a regular basis. Your Group have always declined the offer. Furthermore, your shadow Cabinet, including yourself have had an offer to meet with Cabinet members. You raise this issue around children and young people and yet you sit here as the shadow cabinet member for children and young people. You may have been better taking up the opportunity of a meeting with the Cabinet member rather than trying to score cheap political points using vulnerable young people to do so.

 

I also do not see the Labour Government changes as either a U turn or humiliating. I always reflect on my responses, thank you. As you well know following the publication of the Casey Report, the government agreed to have a full national inquiry.

 

At the time of the motion to Council, this report wasn’t published. What was published was the Jay report. My comments were based on this. This report was the result of a 7 year investigation ending in 2022 when a conservative government was in power. I’m surprised you dare to ask me this question when at this time your government did not do a single thing to address the 20 proposals made by Alexis Jay.

 

We all have the power to reflect and change our minds.

 

I stand by my comments as Cabinet Member at that time based on the Jay inquiry.

 

Now that the Casey report has been published, more recommendations have come to light and I am confident that the current government will address the recommendations unlike the previous one.”

 

Councillor Jack Miller asked the following supplementary question:-

 

“Baroness Casey concludes her 12 recommendations contained within the report, while there maybe further action arising from this audit the victims of child sexual exploitation in England and Wales deserve nothing less than full implementation of these 12 recommendations. Decisive leadership and a collective determination to fix past failings and build a strong approach to the future. The resolution agreed by this Council was clearly in-line with Baroness Casey’s view but not yours or the Labour Group you lead. Will you do the right thing and step down allowing decisive leadership and a collective determination to fix past failings and build a strong approach for the future?”

 

The Leader of the Council responded with:-

 

“Councillor Miller I would gently suggest that you avoid politicising something so serious to the children. It is important we don’t undermine confidence in our safeguarding partners by suggesting that concerns have been dismissed when in fact significant work is being done behind the scenes every day. If you real intention is to strengthen that work I would encourage you to come forward with constructive ideas. The safety of children should never be political scoring point. You will find if you read the report further which I’m sure you will have done, you will also not that there was a change of mind in that report by Baroness Casey and so we can have a change of mind of this Council and we can have a change of mind of government, I’m happy to reflect on past decisions but on this one I do not accept that I spoke wrongly and I stand by what I said at that time.”

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

The following question was submitted Councillor Lynn Hall for response by the Cabinet Member for Children and Young People:-

 

“Recruiting and retaining social workers is a significant financial challenge for this Labour Led Council. Difficulties in recruitment, coupled with the high costs associated with agency social workers.

 

Can the leader provide an update on the work undertaken with the academy to reduce the number of agency workers employed by Stockton Borough Council and what financial savings have been made because of this work?”

 

The Cabinet Member for Children and Young People responded with:-

 

“At Stockton Borough Council, both Children’s and Adults Services are committed to a sustainable and strategic approach to social work recruitment and retention. A key element of this strategy is the adoption of a “Grow Your Own” model, which has proven highly effective in building a resilient and skilled workforce. This approach encompasses multiple entry routes into the profession, including Apprenticeships, Step Up to Social Work, and traditional university pathways. By diversifying recruitment channels, we are not only broadening access to the profession but also ensuring a steady pipeline of talent aligned with our values and service needs.

 

Adult Services currently maintain minimal social work vacancies, a testament to the effectiveness of our recruitment and retention practices. Any vacancies that do arise are addressed through established recruitment processes, ensuring continuity of care and service delivery. The stability in staffing allows the service to focus on quality improvement, professional development, and innovation in practice.

 

Children’s Services are undergoing a strategic expansion in 2025/26, with a deliberate increase in the intake of social work students and Newly Qualified Social Workers (NQSWs). This proactive measure supports long-term workforce sustainability and aligns with national recommendations from the Independent Review of Children’s Social Care. Recognising the additional support required for early-career professionals, the Learning Academy has significantly strengthened its infrastructure by increasing the number of Senior Practitioners dedicated to mentoring and supervision.

 

Support for NQSWs is comprehensive and multi-faceted, including 1:1

mentoring and supervision, structured group learning sessions, targeted workshops on core practice areas and formal training aligned with the Knowledge and Skills Statements and Post-Qualifying Standards.

This robust support framework ensures that social workers are not only well-prepared for the demands of frontline practice but also feel valued and invested in from the outset.

 

One of the most significant outcomes of this strategy is the reduction in reliance on agency social workers within Children’s Services. By investing in permanent staff and supporting their development, we are projecting a cost saving of nearly £1 million in agency spend for the current financial year compared to 2024/25 which represents a major efficiency gain.

 

Retention of experienced staff remains a priority across both services. We are committed to creating a working environment that supports professional growth, wellbeing, and job satisfaction. Key initiatives include a comprehensive and evolving training offer, high-quality, reflective supervision, access to wellbeing incentives and flexible working arrangements, these measures are designed to foster a culture of support and recognition, ensuring that staff feel empowered and equipped to deliver high-quality service across Stockton.”

 

Councillor Lynn Hall asked the following supplementary question:-

 

“How many vacancies does the Council have and how many of them are agency social workers and how do these figures compare with the wider Tees Valley and can we learn from the wider region who definitely use fewer agency staff?”

 

Cabinet Member for Children and Young People responded with:-

 

“I don’t have those figures to hand but I will get you a written response.”

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Councillor Jason French submitted the following question for response by the Cabinet Member for Environment, Leisure and Culture:-

 

“On the 4th June 2025 Stockton Borough Council’s Planning Committee refused planning permission to demolish a lodge at the entrance to Preston Park and replace it with a steel/alloy sculpture.

 

Can the Leader provide an update as to the cost of bringing the application forward to           the Planning Committee, and what costs were incurred for the design, and fabrication if undertaken, for the steel/alloy sculpture.”

 

The Cabinet Member for Environment, Leisure and Culture responded with:-

 

“The total cost to date on professional fees for the development and submission of the designs for the area of Preston Park within which the South Lodge sits, is estimated to be £36,500.

 

This includes architects, structural design, historic building recording and archaeology, Planning application and listed building consent production/submission. This also includes design for the intended interpretation of the Stockton & Darlington Railway in that location. This expenditure is not wasted as the majority of the material produced will be

used in the revised planning application.

 

No money has been spent on fabrication.”

 

Councillor Jason French asked the following supplementary question:-

 

“That application before the Planning Committee also sought permission for a feature to commemorate the bicentenary of Stockton to Darlington railway. Can Councillor Cooke update Members of the plans going forward for this feature to commemorate the bicentenary of Stockton to Darlington railway in Preston Park? As I’m aware this takes place over September and time is pressing. What are the plans for the funding £320k funding that was provided by the previous government?”

 

The Cabinet Member for Environment, Leisure and Culture responded with:-

 

“Clearly the bicentenary is an event that a lot of people in Stockton will want to celebrate. There are a lot of events planned and there are exhibitions going forward. All of that information is available to Councillors and I believe press releases have gone out to Councillors as well as the public with regard to those events. With regard to the application around South Lodge as I said in my original answer that application wasn’t granted by the Planning Committee and I respect the independence of the Planning Committee. I look forward to a revised application and work will be on-going on that. So we will respect those due processes and see where we are at the end of the process.”