Future of Scarborough Town Hall Hangs in Balance Ahead of Crucial Property Decision

North Yorkshire Council’s executive committee is set to meet on Tuesday to decide on the proposed acquisition of Resolution House, a move that could see the authority vacate its historic building at Scarborough Town Hall. Some local councillors aren't impressed.

While the council’s leadership points to significant financial savings and regeneration opportunities, local councillors have voiced deep concerns over a lack of consultation and the potential economic impact on the town centre.

The proposal involves purchasing Resolution House, a modern office building situated on the A64 in Eastfield. Currently owned by Anglo American, the site was built in 2002 and offers high-specification, energy-efficient workspace with over 150 parking spaces. According to a report by the Corporate Director of Resources, acquiring the site for its £4.5 million guide price represents a "timely opportunity" to rationalise the council’s property portfolio.

However, the speed and secrecy of the proposal have drawn sharp criticism from Eastfield Councillor Tom Seston and Filey Councillor Sam Cross. Both representatives claim they were "blindsided" by the announcement, which they say arrived via a press release late last Monday afternoon.

Concerns Over Heritage and the High Street

Councillor Seston has highlighted the cultural and historical significance of the current Scarborough Town Hall, describing it as the "historic heart" of the community. He expressed dismay at the prospect of leaving the building without a clear plan for its future, fearing it could suffer the same fate as other high-profile sites in the town.

"That town hall is the historic heart of the town. It's been the town hall for over a century. It's got the statue of Queen Victoria outside. Every single room has got these fantastic paintings on the wall that are just steeped in history. The mayor's corridor as you go into the chamber, you've got essentially a small museum on the side of it there.

And while we do have then bolted onto it the extensions that were built in the 1960s which I can see the merit in perhaps vacating or removing. Again, it's that we haven't been told this.

And also as well that the town hall site is actually much larger than what people think cuz you've got obviously the old building at the front. You've got the customer service bit bolted onto that, the 1960s extension, but then behind it you've got again quite a large building and then also what was the brewery next door to that. sort of next door and down the hill from the historic part of the town hall or the council's got that as well.

So it is quite a large site and again it's just that they haven't explained what what's happening with it. They haven't come forward with even the faintest idea.

It's just this will be a regeneration opportunity which is council language for we don't know what we're going to do with it but we hope someone comes along and takes it off our hands".

The economic vitality of Scarborough town centre is also a major point of contention. Councillor Cross, who served for many years on the former Scarborough Borough Council, warned that removing hundreds of council staff—the town centre's largest employer—would be a devastating blow to local businesses.

Councillor Cross remarked:

"I feel it's a bad idea. We've got to look at the whole town centre.

This idea will kill the town centre. And the reason that it will kill it is it because it'll take all the, as I say, the suits and shirts away from the businesses that go and support the businesses.

The town hall is worth a lot of money to the local economy. And we need it at the present time because anybody that goes around Scarborough will see that it's depressed. enough with all the empty shops. And the only way you can fill shops up is with people. And the council is the biggest employer in the town".

Councillor Seston echoed these fears, specifically mentioning the independent businesses on St. Nicholas Street that rely on the footfall generated by the Town Hall.

"The town hall has a number of independent businesses nearby. There's very nice coffee shop just in front of it that I always go in either before or after meetings at the town hall with other councillors. And whenever I go in there, I always see someone from the council.

The council because it brings lots of people coming to the building, residents, people on business. You get that footfall on the shops on St. Nicholas Street. If you remove that, those shops are going to take an absolute hit. It's going to be awful for them".

A Question of Consultation

A recurring theme from both councillors is the perceived lack of transparency from North Yorkshire Council. Councillor Seston argued that even council staff were left in the dark until the news became public on social media.

"It completely came out of left field. I've been told by someone who works for the council at Ryedale House that they received an email notifying them of this after the press release had gone out and it was already on Facebook. So, we didn't even tell our own staff that this was happening before before it happened.

These are people's workplaces. There needs to be some sort of consultation internally within council staff. Where do you want to work? Can someone who works at say Ryedale House in Malton make it to Resolution House in Eastfield? Can someone who lives in Scarborough make it to Eastfield if they don't drive? Again, these are all conversations that really needed to happen before we made this decision".

Councillor Cross was equally critical of the communication with local representative bodies.

"The first that we heard was on Monday night on a press release. They hadn't even had the courtesy to tell the town councils and they definitely not told the parish council uh as well. So there is absolutely total 100% lack of any consultation with councillors or with members of the public".

"I'd like to see proper consultation with the members of the public and I would like to see proper consultation with the shops in the town and the businesses in the town centre to see what effect that will have on their businesses.

The town centre is depressing enough at present time with the number of empty shops. We've got the highest number of empty shops for any town in North Yorkshire. And to do this is going to kill it even more".

The Financial and Operational Case

In contrast to these concerns, the council's report paints a picture of urgent necessity. It states that the overall condition of the Town Hall is "poor," and refurbishing the entire site would require an investment of between £15 million and £19 million. Currently, desk utilisation at the Town Hall is as low as 14% on some days, meaning the building is largely underused.

By moving to Resolution House, the council estimates it could reduce annual running costs by at least £400,000 and avoid over £20 million in maintenance liabilities across its Scarborough and Malton assets. The report also suggests that vacating the Town Hall could unlock it for "quality commercial leisure development," which could reposition the town centre.

However, the councillors remain sceptical, citing past projects that failed to deliver as promised. Councillor Seston pointed to the demolition of the Futurist Theatre as a cautionary tale.

"The council did this with a futurist. They demolished the futurist and they didn't have a concrete plan lined up. Yes, they had soundings from Flamingo Land and there was that proposal, but then nothing happened and here we are 7,8 years on and all we have to show for it is a crazy golf thing and a big wheel.

So there is merit in looking at how the council disposes of some of the buildings that were accrued under Scarborough Borough Council, namely Pavilion House and the old Comet Building. But there's been no consultation or discussion about this at all. It's just this is what's happening. It's happening next week".

Councillor Cross further listed a series of investments he believes have been poorly managed.

"What we've done is we've invested in Alpamare that cost us 15 million and it's now worth 2.3 million. We own the travel lodge which has cost us a fortune and won't be worth what we paid for it. The futurists cost 6 million to knock down. We lost our football ground at Seamer Road and now we've had the mess up with the pitch and Scarborough Athletic have not been able to play there for 12 months and we know the the council generally don't do a job on time or get it done properly. So, we've got to make sure that we don't mess up again in Scarborough".

Looking Ahead

The executive committee will be asked on Tuesday to approve the purchase of Resolution House and grant in-principle approval for £750,000 to establish new customer service points in Scarborough and Malton town centres. The council maintains that this is a "one-off, time limited" opportunity.

Yet, for Councillors Seston and Cross, the rush to decide feels premature.

"There is a lot to think about, but the way it's gone through the executive and the very time-limited nature that they're trying to ram this through, I don't think we have time to think about it.

The council literally announced this at legally the minimum amount of time they can give because legally it has to be on the agenda of the executive meeting when it's released a week in advance of the meeting. And that agenda was released on Monday and then literally at 4 minutes to 5 a press release went out. Here we are. Surprise. We're moving out of Scarborough Town Hall they couldn't have provided us any less time at all to think or for anyone to think. It's just happening".

"People in Scarborough are quite stung because the how previous decisions namely the futurist and Alpamare have been conducted in the past and that was all Scarborough Borough council but here we are with North Yorkshire council it appears we're going down the same road.

We've got an even more massive site now cuz it's going to essentially blend in with the futurist site we have no plan for it and we're leaping before we have chance to look".