This article summarises what was scheduled to be discussed at the Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Management Board meeting on 8 October 2025. The meeting was scheduled to consider requests to call in two decisions made by the cabinet. These related to the East Durham Community Athletics Track and the 2025-26 Quarter One Forecast Outturn for the Revenue Budget.

East Durham Community Athletics Track

The board was scheduled to consider a request to call in the Cabinet decision from 17 September 2025, which concerned the East Durham Community Athletics Track (EDCAT) and a grant of option. The request for the call-in was proposed by Councillor Amanda Hopgood, Local Member for Framwellgate and Newton Hall, and seconded by Councillor Phil Heaviside, Councillor Rob Crute, Councillor Richard Bell and Councillor Elizabeth Scott.

The call-in was requested because of concerns about factual errors in the report presented to the cabinet. Councillor Hopgood stated that:

The report presented to DCC Cabinet on 17th September contains factual errors. Most notably, which was pointed out at cabinet is that the entity that is initially referred to is wrong. The project is not run by Sedgefield Harriers, but by an independent charity.

She also stated that the report incorrectly said that EDCAT did not have the support of sporting governing bodies, and that the report provided no evidence for a change in position regarding the need for the land at NETPark for employment purposes.

The Cabinet decision that was subject to the call-in requested that the council:

• rescind the decision to grant a two-year option agreement to EDCAT on land at NETPark
• rescind the decision to agree any necessary easements relating to EDCAT's proposed development at NETPark with the Church Commissioners for England
• offer EDCAT an asset transfer of the Shildon Sunnydale Athletics Stadium, in line with the council's Community Asset Transfer policy.

The documentation for the meeting included a report from Paul Darby, Corporate Director of Resources, Tony Hanson, Corporate Director of Regeneration, Economy and Growth, and Councillor Joe Quinn, Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Resources, Investment and Assets, which set out the following options:

• conclude the option agreement
• rescind the previous decision to grant an option agreement
• rescind the previous decision to grant an option agreement and undertake another site search on a wider geographical basis
• rescind the previous decision to grant an option agreement and offer EDCAT an asset transfer of the existing Shildon Sunnydale Athletics Stadium

The report stated that EDCAT was a charitable arm of the local athletics club known as the Sedgefield Harriers. It said that there was no support from Sport England and UK Athletics for the project on a strategic level, as there was adequate track provision within the county. The report also noted that the new administration's priorities included a commitment to strategic employment sites such as NETPark to Attract investment and develop our economic strengths to create more and better jobs for County Durham residents, working with and influencing the Combined Authority where appropriate under the Supercharging our Economy ambition.

The documentation included a copy of EDCAT's business plan from September 2023. This stated that the facility would be managed by volunteers for its thirty-year lifespan, and that it would be located on the North East Technology Park (NETPark). The business plan stated that the aims of the project fell into the categories of sport, community improvement and inclusivity. It identified that the population area covered by the track included ex-coalfield areas and areas of deprivation, and that there was a lack of community facilities in the area. The plan stated that the facility would provide the opportunity for safe participation in sport, and that user groups would be athletics clubs, sports & community groups, schools and businesses. It also noted that there was a shortage of tracks and track time for athletics available in the area and EDCAT would address this gap.

2025-26 Quarter One Forecast Outturn for the Revenue Budget, Capital Budgets, Collection Fund and Treasury Management

The board was also scheduled to consider a request to call in the Cabinet decision from 17 September 2025 regarding the 2025-26 Quarter One Forecast Outturn for the Revenue Budget, Capital Budgets, Collection Fund and Treasury Management. The request for the call-in was proposed by Councillor Mark Wilkes, and seconded by Councillor Richard Bell, Councillor Amanda Hopgood, Councillor Chris Lines and Councillor Elizabeth Scott.

The call-in was requested because of concerns about the decision to stop the solar panels on council buildings project under the Capital Review of decarbonisation schemes. Councillor Wilkes stated that:

Cabinet members are required to make decisions understanding the full financial implications of their decisions however they have been unable to confirm the likely financial implications of scrapping the project in relation to compensation payable to the contractor, and so cannot be said to have made the decision with all required financial information. In addition, the proposed scheme would have made savings for the council.

Councillor Wilkes also stated that cabinet members did not appear to understand the decisions they had made, and that they had not properly considered the content of the report they had made the decision on.

The Cabinet decision that was subject to the call-in related to a report from Paul Darby, Corporate Director of Resources, and Councillor Darren Grimes, Portfolio Holder for Finance, Policy and Communications, which provided:

• the quarter one forecast revenue outturn position for the General Fund for 2025/26
• the quarter one forecast outturn for the Dedicated Schools Grants and School Budgets for 2025/26
• the quarter one forecast capital outturn position for Capital and Treasury Management for 2025/26
• the outcome of a review of the Capital Programme
• the quarter one forecast outturn for the Council Tax and Business Rates collection fund for 2025/26
• the forecast use of and contributions to earmarked and general reserves in 2025/26
• the outcome of the review of all earmarked reserves
• an overview of the achievement of the Medium-Term Financial Plan (MTFP) (15) savings plan targets in 2025/26

The report recommended that the Cabinet note the various financial positions and agree to the budget virements and adjustments that had been actioned in quarter one, including the transfers to and from earmarked reserves, and the realignment of £25.170 million from earmarked reserves to corporate reserves.

The report noted that the new leadership had proposed the full withdrawal of 19 schemes, and the partial reduction in borrowing for 2 schemes - totalling a planned reduction of 21.281 million from the previously agreed capital programme.

A supplementary briefing paper from the Head of Environment, Neighbourhoods and Environment, stated that a business case had been prepared for the previous administration in April 2025, which outlined a project to install solar panels on the council's buildings. The business case was prepared on the basis that the savings from reduced energy costs were aligned with the annual capital financing charges required for the investment to determine the length of the loan required to achieve the payback of the capital investment. The payback periods varied between 8 to 17 years, with opportunities to realise savings in future MTFP periods once the loan costs were recovered. The new administration reviewed the business case and indicated that they did not support the investment, as the financial benefit would not be achieved for between 8 and 17 years. They also raised concern that there was no ongoing maintenance identified for the solar panels, which would further erode any saving. The supplementary briefing paper also stated that while some preliminary work had been undertaken by the contractor in good faith, the contract had not been entered into.