Scrutiny sent the Cityheart developer deal back over five concerns, including a fear that the £1.8m Debenhams and library buildings could fetch £1 each.

Bedford Borough Council’s Executive has agreed to reconsider its own decision to appoint a preferred developer for Mayes Yard, after a scrutiny committee called it in and set out five reasons why it should not stand.

The record of decisions from the Executive meeting of 16 September, published two days later, gives the outcome in a single sentence: that the 15 July decision on the Mayes Yard Development Agreement, “that was subject to the call in by the Budget & Corporate Services Overview & Scrutiny Committee on 3 September 2026, be reconsidered”.

It does not say what the reconsideration concluded, and no further Mayes Yard item appears in the record. The minutes of the meeting are still being drafted. We will report what they say when they are published.

What was decided in July

On 15 July the Executive resolved three things: to appoint Cityheart (Bedford) Limited, a special purpose vehicle of Cityheart Limited, as preferred developer for the Mayes Yard Quarter after a formal procurement process; to enter into a Development Agreement with it; and to authorise the Chief Executive and the Head of Regeneration and Property to finalise and complete that agreement in consultation with the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and three portfolio holders.

Councillor Spice, introducing it, called the project “a significant transformation initiative for Bedford town centre” and said the scheme was funded by private investment and protected the council from undue financial risk so far as possible.

The same meeting agreed in principle to relocate Bedford Central Library and either let the existing building to a third party or make the site available for development as part of Mayes Yard.

The five concerns the committee raised

The Budget and Corporate Services Overview and Scrutiny Call-in Committee met on 3 September and voted 4 to 3 to refer the decision back. Its reference to the Executive lists what it wanted reconsidered, in its own words:

  • no complete, overarching master-plan for the site
  • the phased proposal carries “a significant risk of non-completion of the whole area and potential disjointed development”
  • no identified anchor tenant
  • “the possible poor return on the £1.8m investment in the Debenhams building and potentially the Library Building, with the possibility of a value of only £1 being achieved for each”
  • underestimated risk both of “exposure to financial risk from council intentional default” and of being unable to achieve a compulsory purchase order without an overall vision and planning document

It also said there should be public consultation on the proposals.

The Mayes Yard call-in step by step: the Executive appointed Cityheart on 15 July, scrutiny referred the decision back 4 to 3 on 3 September, and the Executive agreed on 16 September that it be reconsidered

By the same 4 to 3 margin, the committee recorded two further concerns: that getting to this point had cost £400,000 more than estimated, and that “inaccurate public statements made by the Mayor” risked “jeopardising the developer’s confidence in the project”. The office of elected mayor is held by Tom Wootton. The council’s published record of the 16 September meeting does not respond to that point, and we have seen no published reply to it.

A fourth recommendation passed unanimously, and it is about process rather than Mayes Yard: the committee called on the Chief Executive to ensure future reports comply with legal and constitutional requirements, “particularly future inclusion of a list of background papers and consultation with the Finance Portfolio Holder”.

What a call-in actually does

This is worth being precise about, because it is often reported as though a scheme has been stopped. It has not been.

Under the council’s constitution, an overview and scrutiny committee can refer an Executive decision back to the decision maker for reconsideration. It cannot overturn it. The Executive can reconsider and reach the same conclusion.

What the committee did buy is time and a published record. The five concerns are now on the council’s website in the committee’s own words, and they are specific enough to be checked against whatever comes next: a master-plan, an anchor tenant, a consultation, or the eventual value realised for the Debenhams and library buildings.

What it means for you

Nothing has been built or sold yet. The Development Agreement was authorised in July but the Executive has now agreed that decision be reconsidered. Anyone expecting work to start in the Mayes Yard Quarter should not read the July decision as settled.

The 16 September decisions can themselves be called in until Tuesday 23 September 2026. The record of decisions states the deadline and the mechanism: any four or more councillors may call in a decision by giving written notice to the Chief Executive, specifying reasons. Decisions not called in are implemented after that date.

The library is a separate question, and it is not decided. The July resolution agreed relocation in principle only, kept refurbishment in place as an option, and said the final decision would come back to a future Executive meeting after public consultation. That consultation has not happened yet.

Papers for both committees are on the council’s democracy portal. Our coverage of the council’s wider finances is in the story on its forecast £3.647m overspend, and planning decisions across the borough are tracked on our Bedford planning page.

Sources