Agenda item

The Head of Democratic Services presented a report setting out the background to the call-in and supporting documents.

 

The decisions taken by Cabinet, taken on 16 October 2025, in relation to outdoor play provision had been subject to a valid call-in. The call in applied to the following decisions:

 

RESOLVED

 

1.         The Strategy for Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council Outdoor Play Provision 2025 be approved.

 

2.         The site-specific recommendations, subject to financial approvals of the additional £150,000 pa contained within the 2026/27 MTFP report to be presented in February 2026 be approved. This would enable 23 Council-owned play areas to be prioritised for retention, development or redevelopment, ensuring high maintenance standards and delivering good play value. A further 9 play areas will also be retained subject to availability of resources, while 11 sites would be subject to phased decommissioning and repurposing.

 

3.         The series of additional cross-cutting actions relating to the development, design and management of play provision be noted.

 

The following Members and officers attended the meeting:

 

·         Councillor Nigel Cooke, Cabinet Member for Environment, Leisure and Culture

·         Ged Morton, Director of Corporate Services (Monitoring Officer)

·         Reuben Kench - Director of Community Services, Environment and Culture

 

In addition, Members who had signed the call-in request had been invited to attend the meeting.

 

The following documents has been included with the agenda for the meeting for consideration by the Executive Scrutiny Committee:

 

·         Call in Form

·         Cabinet Report

·         Cabinet Decision Record

·         Report of the Monitoring Officer

 

On behalf of the Councillors who had submitted the call-in request of the Cabinet decision, Councillor Shakeel Hussain urged the Committee to refer the matters back to Cabinet for reconsideration, explaining the rationale for the call-in, which related to:

 

·         The decision had not been made in accordance with the Council’s decision-making principles

·         No consultation had been carried out with ward Councillors, Parish Councils and families affected

·         The financial rationale was unclear

·         Cabinet’s decision ignored the Select Committee’s recommendation which gave a clear instruction to consult and engage

 

Questions from Committee Members and responses included:

 

1.         Why was there no consultation and engagement prior to Cabinet making the decision?

 

The Cabinet Member commented that the Cabinet Report had been based on the work of the Community Safety Select Committee undertaken during 2024. He felt that there seemed to be some confusion about the process and that the decision was not to close play areas. The proposals would be subject to phased decommissioning. Once a play area was nearing decommissioning, timescales and consultation and engagement would take place. This might result in the play area being transferred to local ownership at that time or being re-purposed. Only one site was scheduled for decommissioning during the next four years. This process met the principles set out in the Cabinet report in July 2025.

 

2.         If a decision had already been made, it didn’t matter if a site was scheduled for decommissioning tomorrow or in five years’ time. Should not consultation and engagement have taken place prior to the decision being made?

 

The Cabinet Member commented that the decisions taken were in line with the Select Committee’s report and reflected fairness and affordability. There was never a presumption that all play areas would remain. There would also be an impact assessment to guide the decisions.

 

3.         Some of the sites were in village locations with no public transport. Should not consultation and engagement have taken place with these communities?

 

The Cabinet Member commented that the Cabinet report contained detailed information about the size of the play areas and the quality and maintenance of equipment and a spread of provision. The strategy also sought to invest in bigger destination parks and there was an expectation that residents would travel to those destination parks. He reminded the Committee that open spaces were valuable for recreation even where there was no play equipment. Significant engagement would take place prior to any planned decommissioning.

 

4.         When did consultation become engagement? The Select Committee report did not identify specific locations. Why are we identifying sites without consultation?

 

The Cabinet Member commented that the Council was investing in sites going forward and reiterated that engagement would take place at the appropriate time. Engaging now would be inadvisable. The decision had been in line with previous reports to Cabinet, a Member Briefing and progress updates to Community Safety Select Committee.

 

5.         Communities deserved play provision on their doorsteps. Should we not prioritise neighbourhood play over expensive town centre schemes? Why was the Council spending £300,000 on the opening of the Waterfront Urban Park in Stockton at the same time cutting local provision?

 

The Monitoring Officer reminded the Committee that discussion needed to be confined to the subject of the call-in and the opening of the Waterfront Urban Park was not part of the Cabinet decision.

 

A Member of the Committee commented that there were options for local communities to retain play areas through transfer and Ward Councillor budgets for example.

 

6.         How did the decommissioning of 11 local play parks correspond with the maintenance costs of the Stockton Waterfront Urban Park? What were the ongoing maintenance costs and why were these not included in the Cabinet report? We have never had a clear answer and have been advised that meetings are ongoing to agree the scope and duration of the maintenance package with Timberplay.

 

The Cabinet Member commented that the strategy was evidence based. Many Councils were closing a significant number of play areas. The strategy agreed by Cabinet was investing in quality provision with destination schemes and, where possible, local sites. It would be impossible to determine future maintenance costs but the well-informed strategy was focusing on retaining quality provision.

 

The Director of Community Services, Environment and Culture advised that the previous budget for play areas had been combined with the cemetery and allotment budgets and had been insufficient. For the first time, a discretionary play area maintenance budget had now been identified in the MTFP. The maintenance set aside for the Waterside Urban Park was for the whole site and not just for the play area.

 

7.         Would there be an advanced timeline for consulting with Town and Parish Councils prior to any decommissioning as their budgets were set well in advance?

 

The Cabinet Member advised that Town and Parish Council were to be emailed with the strategy but this had been put on hold due to the call-in. He confirmed that engagement would take place once timeframes were known.

 

8.         The wording of the strategy between the Cabinet reports in July and October altered from “consultation” to “engagement”. In the Long Newton area there was no provision for miles.

 

The Cabinet Member commented that the Council could not prioritise every local play area but the principles within the strategy would be applied fairly. In the Long Newton area, there was a low number of households and low play need and the current play area would cost thousands to replace. However, there was opportunity for engagement about re-purposing the site.

 

9.         Did Cabinet reject the Select Committee proposals on consultation?

 

The Cabinet Member commented that the Cabinet decisions were within the spirit of the Select Committee report.

 

It was proposed by Councillor Ann McCoy and seconded by Councillor Jim Beall that the decision was taken in accordance with the decision making principles as set out in the Councils Constitution and that no further action be taken.

 

On being put to the vote, the motion was CARRIED (7 Councillors voting in favour and 5 Councillors voting against).

 

AGREED That no further action be taken.