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 the Powering our Future -Transformation Review: Children in our Care -Therapeutic Residential Care for Children Experiencing Mental Health Challenges and Behavioural Distress had been subject to a valid call-in. The call in applied to the following decisions:

RESOLVED 

1.         Inclusion in the Capital Programme be approved of a scheme to deliver two Council-run children’s homes (one solo and one dual) providing three places in total, based on current estimated total capital costs of £1.467 million.

2.         The Council’s match-funding requirement of £733,500 be met from the existing Council Wide Investment Fund approved by Council in February 2025, utilising prudential borrowing already authorised within that approval, with associated borrowing costs to be met from within Children’s Services budgets through reduced reliance on external placements.

3.         The Director of Children’s Services, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Children and Young People, the Director of Regeneration and Inclusive Growth, the Chief Financial Officer, and the Director of Corporate Services be authorised to:

a)    identify and acquire two suitable properties within the approved budget envelope;

b)    procure and let contracts for design, refurbishment, fit-out and equipment; and

c)    take all necessary steps to register and operationalise the homes in line with the grant conditions and regulatory requirements.

The following Members and officers attended the meeting:

·         Councillor Clare Besford, Cabinet Member for Children and Young People

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

·         Majella McCarthy, Director of Children’s Services

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

·         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

·         Expenditure was not proportionate to the issue

·         There were no clear aims or information

·         The options appraisal was weak

Questions from Committee Members and responses included:

1.         How could £1.4m be justified for such a small number of children when there were 25 children in unregulated care?

The Cabinet Member commented the some of the children cost that much in revenue so it was proportionate to provide accommodation in-house with the wide range of services in place.

2.         Could the Cabinet Member confirm that children with complex needs would be served by this proposal and that the expenditure was therefore justified?

The Cabinet Member commented that the proposals were trauma informed and there was place based evidence that we would deliver better outcomes in Stockton. She stressed that there was an aspiration to look after our children in the Borough. However, this was just one part of the puzzle; research also showed that the need for complex care could have been reduced in 20% of cases with earlier intervention.

3.         Why were children being placed in un-regulated residential provision?

The Cabinet Member advised that Councils were forced to use unregulated residential provision as they had a statutory provision to provide care. However, when those provisions were used there were additional monitoring requirements and the Council worked with unregulated providers to get them Ofsted registered. Unregulated providers were not automatically unlawful and were often in adjoining Council areas.

4.         Why would it be two more years before the houses were identified?

The Cabinet Member commented that purchase could be problematic for a number of reasons including finding the right property, obtaining planning permission, building works and registration requirements.

5.         There was no clear business plan and lack of a clear strategy to deal with other children out of Borough.

The Cabinet Member reiterated that there were a range of measures being put in place including other residential provision, edge of care provision and measures to increase fostering capacity. She was confident that there was a clear strategy.

6.         How will the proposals reduce our expenditure?

The Cabinet Member commented that the numbers of children in our care and their particular needs was ever changing. Doing nothing would not be an option and increasing capacity was essential. The Cabinet report did not, however, guarantee savings and the Council was more likely to have to use unregulated provision if they didn’t have their own in-house provision.

7.         It was crucial that there was engagement with Members and communities where homes were being identified. Would there be early engagement?

The Cabinet Member confirmed that there would be early engagement with Ward Councillors if there were plans to purchase a home in their ward.

It was proposed by Councillor Jim Beall and seconded by Councillor Carol Clark 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.