Teesworks Through

the Looking Glass

Government inaction enables

business as usual

at controversial regeneration site

Tees Valley mayor, Ben Houchen

Scott Hunter

10 December 2024

Labour in opposition made a great deal of noise about the need for Houchen, the South Tees Development Corporation and Teesworks Ltd to be investigated by the National Audit Office. Now in government those demands have ceased. So, what now? 



On 29 July, a spokesperson for the government stated that it was awaiting a report from Houchen detailing how the Tees Valley Authority planned to introduce governance reforms in response to the recommendations made in the Tees Valley Review, published in January this year. Houchen’s report was duly submitted at the end of September. Since then, nothing has been heard from the Ministry for Communities, Housing and Local Government (MCHLG) to whom the report was sent. So last week we wrote to MCHLG to ask for an update. 24 hours later we received their response, printed here in full:

“We are considering the mayor’s latest update and will respond in due course.”

That’s it, apart from some background information on a forthcoming Devolution White Paper.  We tried again, and this time asked them to verify a report that it had been decided that the matter could not, in fact, be referred to the NAO.

Answer? No answer.

Since then, over the weekend, Angela Rayner hinted to Laura Kuenssberg that this may indeed be the case. On Monday, Cabinet Office minister, Pat McFadden, gently contradicted that and hinted that an investigation into Houchen may still be on the cards. Are we to conclude that no specific action will be taken to rein in Houchen at all? That the answer will lie in the generic provisions of the Devolution White Paper? Or is the government just dithering?

In the interim, until the ‘due course’ is up, what can Houchen, the property developers to whom 90% of Teesworks has been gifted, and his well-oiled propaganda machine expect to achieve without proper scrutiny?

Houchen Performs at the STDC Board Meeting

The 5 December meeting of the STDC board saw Houchen in in fine form, entertaining attendees to a prolonged rant about how difficult it was to make headway at the freeport when people like Middlesbrough MP, Andy McDonald, and others continued to spread lies about its operation. When leader of Redcar and Cleveland Council, Alec Brown, dared to observe that the 28 recommendations for reform presented by the authors of the Tees Valley Review weren’t lies, Houchen responded by ranting the same things all over again, and invited Alec Brown to do something to bring his Labour colleagues under control.

Another Pay Day for the Property Developers Imminent

Recent announcements by the government (4 October) that, as part of its net zero agenda, it will support the Net Zero Teesside (NZT) project, increase the likelihood that the project will go ahead ever more probable. We note in passing, however, that the consortium behind the project has yet to make its final investment decision. 

One of the most egregious acts of the property developers discussed in the Tees Valley Review was the deal they made to lease the site of the SeAH monopile factory through Macquarie, which provided them with a large dividend, and shifted responsibility on to STDC if anything goes wrong. The authors of the Review were stumped as to how this arrangement could in any way be seen to offer value for money. In the absence of any restraint being put in place by government, there is nothing to stop the developers attempting something similar with NZT.

Teesworks Auditors in Meltdown

The FT  reported on 3 December that South Tees Development Corporation’s auditors, Forvis-Mazars, have refused to sign off two years of the project’s accounts (2021 – 2023).

“Auditors have refused to sign off two years of accounts at Lord Ben Houchen’s Teesside regeneration body, while also pointing to “significant weaknesses” in its value for money arrangements” announced the FT. They report that the auditors were required to form an opinion on whether the Development Corporation was delivering value for money, the years in question being 2021 – 2023.

They go on to explain that Forvis Mazars' audit report relies heavily on the Teesside Review, published in January this year, which found the ‘significant weaknesses’ in question, but did not pass judgement on the issue of value for money. That was left to the auditors. But the principal reason for refusing the sign off was that the government has set a deadline for the presentation of auditors’ reports and Forvis Mazars were unable to reach a conclusion before the due date, and therefore presented a ‘disclaimed opinion’.

However, a considerable backlog of audit across the local government sector has been building up in recent years and the paper reports that a number of audits are expected to deliver ‘disclaimed opinion’, as auditors are under pressure to meet the government’s deadline.

What this means is that the Teesworks has effectively been shielded on account of the short deadline on the audit demanded by government. Auditors may provide ‘disclaimed opinion’ on a number of local authorities this year, but Teesworks is the only one that has been preceded by an investigation into corruption. What’s required is for Forvis Mazars to be given a new deadline for submission of the audit with an obligation to provide definitive opinion.  At present, there is no sign of MCHLG proposing such an undertaking.

On the one hand then, the FT report appears to indicate that there is no immediate cause for concern here, given that the government’s deadline has been problematic. However, the fact that the auditors’ report does not refute any of the issues raised by the Tees Valley Review indicates that the matter is far from over.

Houchen Forges a Special Relationship

On 25 November the mayor wrote to Donald Trump to congratulate him on his election victory on behalf of the people of the Tees Valley. He also invited him to visit the region as he believes the pair have common interests. Full text available here for those the mayor hasn’t blocked on social media.

This was too much even for some of his acolytes, and of the 285 comments on his post there must be at least 20 that expressed disgust at his action. We expect their authors to be joining us on the banned list shortly. 

The Mystery of the Teesworks Battery Energy Storage Facility

On 18 November, Houchen put out the following social media post:

Good News? Well, there are a few bits missing, one of which is the question of why he chose to write this up in mid-November when, as far as we are aware, there had been no further developments in negotiations with the company concerned, Energy Optimisation Solutions (EOS), since July.



Of the things that Houchen chose not to mention in this post is that the development of a much larger battery energy storage system (BESS) was announced in the local press earlier in the year. On 22 May, the Gazette published an article on the proposed facility under the title “£1bn battery storage project poised to take shape at Teesworks”, stating

“Teesworks Ltd has struck a deal with leading battery storage specialist NatPower UK for an option to build one of Europe’s biggest Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) at the Long Acres section of the 2,500 acre Teesworks site, sources say.

“The company is part of the NatPower group, an energy transition developer with bases around the world including the UK, US, Italy and Kazakhstan. The facility – which will take up 50 acres of land – will enable up to 1000 Megawatts (MW) of additional green energy to be plugged into the grid …”

By 14 June, Tees Business was not only quoting Houchen stating how much he was looking forward to working with Nat Power, but a public information session had been set up in Redcar. For their part, Nat Power even set up a dedicated website for the project. This 50 acre development dwarfs the 3-acre facility being proposed by EOS.

The Teesworks newsfeed, on 1 July, announced the EOS plan but stated that the NatPower plan was still live. As the two facilities appear to be on the same site, we have written to NatPower to ask for confirmation as to whether they still intend to go ahead with the project.

Houchen’s post on 18 November is also a little odd not simply because it does not announce any further development in the EOS project, but also because it landed on the same day that the magazine Renewables Now reported that a company called Field had just taken over a project to build an energy storage facility just outside Hartlepool. Houchen does not mention this, yet this venture will have twice the capacity of the EOS plant.

Perhaps the reason behind this is that these sites, while they create jobs for construction workers, generate no employment after completion. So, there is no opportunity to do ‘Jobs! Jobs! Jobs!’ about them.

In the course of reporting on these developments, both the Gazette and Teesworks own newsfeed refer to the size of the Teesworks site as 2,500 acres. Some readers will recall, however, that, at one time the site was 4,500 acres. So, has it shrunk?

The issue of the size of the site brings us to the guided tour, which we attended on 1 November.

Tales of Mystery and Imagination on the Teesworks Tour

Not much, really, would be the simple answer to that question. The only two structures on the site are still the SeAH factory and the Teesworks Skills Academy. We spent much of our time enjoying enthusiastic commentary on where developments are just about to happen, while looking out at piles of earth and rubble, with a first stop on the land where Net Zero Teesside is to be built. Our guide did not offer any clue as to when this consortium might sign the lease for their proposed site. Nor Circular Fuels, nor EOS, nor Willis Sustainable Fuels.

Where he did offer us a clue was to do with the amount of land at Teesworks that is suitable for redevelopment. It is not 4,500 acres, nor is it 2,500. It is 1,600, roughly one third of the total land area. This raises the question of what the remaining two thirds contains. To this we can provide only a partial answer.

The middle of the site contains, in a row, the SLEMS, the Highfield Environmental site, and High Tip. High Tip is large mound containing legacy industrial waste. Next to it, Highfield Environmental currently handles both hazardous and non-hazardous waste on an equally high mound. The SLEMS is a series of ponds containing BOS oxide slag. While it is clear that redevelopment of these sites would be difficult, it is equally clear from visiting the site that they do not cover 3,000 acres. What visitors to the site did not see were the remaining areas that are considered unsuitable. Nor were we offered any information as to why they cannot be developed.

All of this raises the question of exactly how many jobs can realistically be expected to be created there.  Our tour guide gave it as 20,000, as did Matt Vickers MP when he appeared on BBC Question Time on 7 November, the one difference between them is that Vickers insinuated that these were already on the table. Other estimates are available.

Jobs, Jobs, Jobs, Jobs, Jobs ...

Them good-payin’, secure jobs at Teesworks have always been at the centre of the mayor’s propaganda output, and on the trembling lips of his acolytes. For the rest of us, the numbers need to be taken with a pinch of salt.

The official figure given by Teesworks has long since been 20,000, but Michael Gove has, in the past, claimed it was 30,000. The Tees Valley Review gives it as around 9,000.

First there is the issue of construction jobs vs permanent positions in operational facilities. The Tees Valley Energy Recovery Facility website, for example, states:

“The TV ERF project will also create hundreds of jobs during the construction period and approximately 40 permanent positions once operational.

Both NatPower and EOS state the number of construction jobs, but give no figure for permanent positions (and we expect this to be zero). Net Zero Teesside similarly gives a jobs figure only for construction.

More curious is the SeAH factory. Since it was first announced in 2022, the number of jobs it would generate was given as 750 direct jobs plus 1500 more in the supply chain.

Then, on 11 October, UK Export Finance announced £225 million additional investment in the SeAH project. The government newsfeed states

“New financing means that the factory will be able to produce even bigger monopiles and a wider range of products to meet industry demands, supporting the UK’s place in the global offshore wind supply chain.”

And, as for jobs,

“The project will create up to 750 jobs by 2027”

So, the additional £225 million will result in the same number of jobs as before. Right. 

While the government dithers over what to do about Houchen, Teesworks continues to make up prospective job numbers. Apart from SeAH, no company has yet signed a lease. It is wholly unclear where the land designated as unsuitable for redevelopment is situated, and what is preventing the remediation work that the last government pumped so much money into.

As for those in the Tees Valley who have now unwittingly congratulated Trump on his election victory we persist in a state of limbo.

NatPower has not responded to our inquiry