In a town so closely split on political lines, arguments across the chamber are a lively and regular feature in Stockton.
So it proved in 2025, with Labour still in minority control of Stockton Council with the support of independents. The Conservatives remain the largest single party, but without power.
It has been a year marked by controversies, and by a few notable policies or proposals which have been halted, changed or paused for further discussion. Some are still unresolved.
‘Difficult choices’ over car parking in Stockton and Yarm (and Preston Park)
Controversy surrounded plans to end the first hour of free car parking in Stockton and Yarm town centres. When it came into force in February, bringing in a £1.50 “modest charge” for three hours instead, it was meant to raise an extra £800,000 a year as part of cost-saving measures to fill financial gaps and make “difficult choices”, and to cover the car parks’ maintenance.
Stockton West Conservative MP Matt Vickers presented a “save Yarm’s free one-hour parking” petition with about 3,400 signatures to the council the following month. And Paddy Morton, chair of Yarm Business Forum, said almost all Yarm High Street’s businesses had signed it, and that the parking charge was “the wrong decision… and needs looking at straight away”.
A Conservative motion recommending the council cabinet reverse its own policy and revert to one hour’s free parking was approved unanimously by councillors.
Council leaders said it had promised to review the charges after a year. In the end it took just five months to get a review underway, both for Stockton and Yarm, with the authority sifting data and leaders saying “we get it” and “all options are on the table”. Then came the welcome announcement that the first hour free would return to both town centres for Christmas, between November 24 and January 31 next year, to support businesses and shoppers.
More than 5,000 people responded to a public consultation, with 93% believing footfall had been harmed, over 60% feeling £1.50 for three hours was too expensive and 72% strongly supporting the reintroduction of one hour free. And in December, the council’s cabinet decided to restore the first hour free for good, with council leader Councillor Lisa Evans saying it was not a U-turn: “This leadership team and cabinet are not afraid to change our minds on things and listen to people. I don’t think that’s necessarily a bad thing.”
Back in August, then new council leader Cllr Evans made an unequivocal statement about another parking controversy, over a proposal to charge for parking at Preston Park nestled in the council’s medium-term financial plan in February 2023. This had sparked calls from the Conservatives to scrap the “appalling” idea at the time.
Cllr Evans announced on social media, in response to a question from Stockton North Labour MP Chris McDonald: “While there is a Labour council at Stockton-on-Tees there will never be car parking charges at Preston Park. I can guarantee that.
“I will never and the Labour council will never introduce car parking charges at Preston Park,” she added, prompting accusations from opponents of backing down or U-turning. Council leaders said it was “never formally considered or put into action”.
The Shambles: ‘taken the floor from under our feet’
A “reimagining” of a 19th-century market hall and shopping centre as a “food and beverage offer” was meant to slot neatly into regeneration proposals and the forthcoming Stockton Waterfront urban park. However it threw the livelihoods of numerous small independent businesses already in The Shambles on Stockton High Street into doubt.
The council said they were “working with existing tenants to explore the relocation of their businesses”. But the tenants themselves sounded far from on board with the idea.
The traders had just received letters saying the food and drink proposals “will require vacant possession” if approved, with the fact “no decisions have been made” offering scant comfort. Some described it as “heartbreaking” and “devastating”, saying “the council have just taken the floor from under our feet”, leaving them “in limbo”, not knowing where the businesses they had spent years building would end up, or whether they could afford to carry on at all.
As the backlash gathered pace, with politicians from both sides calling for proper, meaningful meetings with affected businesses, the council stressed the traders were not being evicted and “we don’t want any businesses to close”. Then leaders decided to hold off on any decision for the time being.
This did little to quell the frustration and turmoil. Traders and members of the public packed out the stormiest cabinet meeting in recent times, with leaders heckled and asked: “How about you show us some respect?”
Then in September, the council dropped the proposals. Announcing the decision on social media, council leader Cllr Lisa Evans said: “Through the conversations we have had so far with the traders in The Shambles we fully understand their immediate concerns and that is why we will not be proposing to repurpose the building and relocate the businesses within it.” Instead, the council plans to upgrade council-owned town centre units for small businesses.
Politicians clashed in a full council meeting days later, with the Conservatives accusing Labour of a “massive U-turn” and branding the affair a “debacle”. Labour leaders denied it was a U-turn, saying they never intended to get rid of The Shambles and they were “showing leadership, listening to people and acting”.
The council ended up united in support for The Shambles as a motion put forward by independent member Cllr Ted Strike, recognising the importance of “maintaining accessible and high-quality facilities” in the building for businesses and visitors, and considering investment in the building and refurbishing its toilets, was passed unanimously.
A similar unity was achieved over Cllr Niall Innes’ motion the same month for flying the Union Flag all year on council offices, praised by the Conservatives as a “tremendous and patriotic motion” and by Labour as a symbol of “democracy, rule of law, liberty, respect and tolerance”, taking care to distance the idea from flags’ “misuse by some”.
Yarm regeneration: ‘We will not do things residents do not want’
A plan to revamp Yarm High Street with levelling up money from the previous government might have seemed less contentious. But it soon attracted criticism and calls for a rethink from the Tories. They said the authority should postpone the scheme instead of “riding roughshod over Yarm”, with a motion ready to debate “the lack of consultation with local businesses and residents”.
Members of the public, meanwhile, expressed a range of views in a library drop-in, from “hideous”, a “disgrace” and “completely out of character” to a “big improvement” and “better than what we’ve got”. And a change.org petition called for a delay in the plans, which it said “threaten to erode the historic essence of the area”, and drew over 1,400 signatures.
Work on the proposed regeneration scheme was due to start on October 20, but a week earlier, Stockton Council’s political leadership announced they would pause it as “we will not do things that residents do not want”. Regeneration cabinet member Cllr Richard Eglington said he “asked officers to do what is needed to pause the proposed scheme to give people another chance to have their say”.
At November’s full council meeting, Cllr Barbara Inman asked for an update on the scheme. Cllr Eglington replied: “Consultation on the proposed works will be undertaken to establish the final position on local views of the scheme.
“This will commence in December and run for one month. Residents will be able to express their views using online papers and in-person consultations. Once complete, the results will be considered by cabinet before any decision is made on delivery.
“I want to confirm that local views will be listened to and I reiterate the commitment made previously that works will not proceed if this is something that the local people do not want.” The consultation has been launched with an online form, and will run until January 12.
Debates over play parks and children’s homes
Two cabinet decisions late in the year provoked swift political challenge. And both ended up being “called in” for specific debates by the council’s executive scrutiny committee.
The first was a new outdoor play strategy which, according to council leaders, put “quality over quantity” as the council maintained it could not afford to upgrade or refurbish all its play areas. It decided to keep 32 play areas and, most controversially, earmark 11 for “phased decommissioning” or gradual closure over the next decade as their play equipment wore out.
The Conservatives again levelled criticisms at the council over consultation, or lack of it, called the decision “baffling” and said it would hurt communities which needed play facilities on their doorstep by putting “a big red target” on the 11 play areas. The council’s Labour leadership maintained the plans kept a fair spread of play areas and made significant investment, stressing that “nothing is closing down tomorrow” and consultation would be done closer to the parks’ slow shutdown, with hopes for the parks to be saved by outside help in the meantime.
The decision was upheld, but more discussion is sure to come on these proposals. Not least a recommendation to spend £150,000 per year on the 32 parks, to be considered next February.
The second policy agreed by council leaders but challenged by Conservative councillors was for the council to buy two houses in the borough for three children in care. Council leaders said buying and refurbishing the homes for children with “mental health challenges and behavioural distress” using £1.5m, half from the council, half from the government, would help it provide specialist in-house care for the most vulnerable children and stop relying on private homes out of town, described as expensive, unregulated and even “unlawful”.
The council’s leadership said this was a “small-scale solution” to a “very broken system”, and a “first step” in a wider bid to provide more places and bring more children home to Stockton rather than use the “last resort” of unregulated places. But the Conservatives argued it did not go far enough and was “not a proportionate response to the scale of the crisis”, saying three children was a “drop in the ocean” and urgent action was needed to take children out of the unregulated homes costing up to £16,000 per week per child.
One Labour member, Cllr Jim Beall, argued “doing nothing is not really an option and every little bit helps”, urging the committee not to “throw the baby out with the bathwater”. His view seemed to carry the day as this decision too was upheld by the committee.
Former Debenhams: part of ‘destination for the future’ plans
With enduring political arguments over the Globe theatre and Hampton by Hilton hotel kept on a low simmer this year, a new political battleground may be emerging in the former Debenhams building on Stockton High Street. The council already owned the back of the building, but decided to buy the front section when it came up for auction in 2023.
It went into “advanced negotiations” with a potential tenant late last year, but the deal did not go through “due to global economic conditions”. Council leaders said they “had to think of other options”, bringing it into plans to make Stockton “a destination for the future”, with options mooted including a digital hub, leisure use and community health facilities, but nothing firm yet.
The High Street building could be part of a forthcoming Pride in Place “trailblazer neighbourhood”, to receive up to £20m over the next decade, and a move to improve healthcare on people’s doorsteps through new neighbourhood teams, councillors were told. Stockton Council is spending £6.5m moving proposals forward for the town centre, including the former Debenhams.
However leaders heard of fears it could become a “money pit” for taxpayers and were asked to hold off on making final decisions on major investment in November’s full council meeting. Cllr Strike said councillors and residents should have “clear, timely information about the financial implications”.
But his motion was defeated. Cllr Eglington said it risked “blurring the lines” of governance and would mean “the management of projects would grind to a halt” and it would “stall any momentum”.
Cllr Eglington said: “When these proposals are fully developed, they will be considered by council. We know the risks of allowing large buildings to fall into the hands of unsuitable and unscrupulous developers. We will not let that happen with Debenhams.”
CLICK HERE TO DONATE TO OUR CROWDFUNDER
HELP US BECOME STRONGER SO THAT WE CAN CONTINUE TO DELIVER POWERFUL CITIZEN JOURNALISM!
