General Overview and Scrutiny Committee - Monday 17 November 2025, 7:30pm - Wandsworth Council Webcasting

General Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Monday, 17th November 2025 at 7:30pm 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

 
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point

this evening to this meeting.
I am Councillor Sheila Boswell,
and I will be chairing this meeting this evening.
The meeting of our first, actually,
our general overview and scrutiny committee.
So in the normal fashion, members of the committee,
I will now ask your names in alphabetical order,
and please acknowledge your presence.
Councillor Apps.
Good evening, Councillor Sara Apps,
Shaftesbury and Queenstown Ward.
Councillor Crivelli. Good evening, Councillor Crivelli, East Puntney Ward.
Councillor Osborne. Hello, I'm Councillor Osborne, Tooting Broadway Ward.
Councillor Suttors.
Thank you everybody. I would also like to welcome Councillor Gasser as the cabinet member for children.
Good evening everybody.
Councillor Richard Jones is also joining us as leader of the opposition group in accordance with Standing Order 66.
Councillor Richard Jones will not be able to vote on any matter on the agenda, but will be able to speak and participate in the debate.
We also have a number of officers present around the table, as you can see,
who will introduce themselves when they address the committee.
Now, I would like to say a few words as the chair of this,
our very first general overview and scrutiny committee, before we start.
Today's committee is simply put, democracy at its best, because democracy at its best
flourishes when scrutiny and opposition are actively embraced.
Different and diverse perspectives serve as cheques on power, ensuring leaders are held
accountable, remain accountable and are transparent.
And when opposition is respected rather than suppressed, it strengthens the
resilience and integrity of the whole democratic process. And that is what we
are doing here this evening.
As chair of the Children's Committee, I know that the decision made by cabinet
on the 3rd of November to close Bradstow school in Kent was taken with regret and a heavy heart.
But it was taken with the interests of Wandsworth residents at heart, our residents, the people that
we are elected to represent. I fully understand the type of school that Bradstow is and the needs
of the children there, that they so passionately
and wonderfully support the staff.
And as, because I visited the school,
and I've seen this firsthand, and I was very moved.
And I know this decision will be viewed as unpopular,
and I know it's a huge disappointment
to the staff and families of the Bradstow School community.
But there are two things of which we must be very clear
and upon which the closure decision was faced.
Firstly, that the proposal to close is not a reflection
of the quality of care and education that is provided
by Bradshaw school staff.
The other, which is the most important part,
is that the school's financial position is in such a place,
it means that the school is unsustainable.
We have also been clear that our responsibility as Wandsworth councillors lies with Wandsworth's families as I've already said and also
Also the use of Wandsworth taxpayers money
Therefore as we go through the debate this evening the points that we need to be clear about and decide on is
Whether we as Wandsworth elected councillors
ultimately
accountable for the spend of Wandsworth taxpayers money are prepared to use that
funding to supplement other local authorities who are refusing to pay
their bills with the school holding debts of over 5 million 4 .9 million of
which is disputed and 4 .6 million owed by Kent County Council the school
currently supports 11 children with only one child from Wandsworth, a child for
whom we have secured a placement for January 26. That placement, if we have
further delays, will be in jeopardy. Do we really want to prejudice the future of
the one child for whom we are ultimately responsible for at Bradstow? I would ask
this committee to consider where their responsibilities lie to our residents or to other local authorities
children in particular Kent. We have fully supported the school's leadership to try
and secure a future for the school. We've paused the process to allow for options to
be explored and this council has been patient and compassionate and understanding. However,
there are no alternatives which would make the school's future viable.
So I can say that although a difficult one, the decision to close the Bradstow School
in Kent is right for one's worth and a decision I unequivocally stand by.

1 Declarations of Interests

Now I'm going to move to item one, which is declarations of interest.
Are there any declarations of interest?
Thank you very much.
I'd just like to draw your attention to the fact I visited the school, in fact with you,
Sheila Boswell, Councillor Boswell, on the 22nd of January this year in order to see
for myself.
Thank you, Councillor Upps.
Any other?
I made the same visit so I make the same decoration.
And I do too.
So that is me declaring an interest there.
Councillor Sutters.
Thank you very much, Councillor Sutters.
So we now move to item 2.

2 Call-in Request: The Discontinuance of Bradstow Community Special School and registered Children's Homes (Paper No.25-397)

Call in request.
The discontinuance of Bradstow Community Special School and Registered Children's Homes, paper
number 25 -397.
So, members, we have before us a call in request relating to the cabinet decision to agree
the discontinuance closure of Bradstow Community Special School.
I also received a request from Mrs. Sarah Adams, the principal of Bradstow School.
And whilst this is not a formal deputation request, I have agreed with Ms. Adams
that she can address the committee for three minutes at the start of our meeting.
And I'm just going to run through the procedure.
So the procedure we will follow for considering this matter will be,
One, Ms Adams will address the committee for three minutes.
Two, Councillor Richard Jones will then be invited to explain the reasons for the call -in
request.
Three, Councillor Gasser, the cabinet member for children, will be invited to respond.
The committee can then ask questions of the decision -maker and senior officers if required
and debate the issue.
And at 5, the committee will then vote on how we intend to respond to the call -in with
the options available to us that you will all have seen set out in paragraph 1 of the
paper.
So now I'm going to ask Ms. Adams to address the committee if you would like to come and
sit at the table.
Could you turn your microphone on, Ms. Adams? Okay, thank you, Chair. I'm here on
behalf of the children, families and wider SCN community whose lives have
been profoundly affected by this decision. The impact goes far beyond one
school and will be felt for years. Families feel deeply let down. Many have
spent years fighting for the right support, only now to face long journeys,
unfamiliar settings and the fear of their Children being uprooted from the
adults who know them best. Every child from Wandsworth who attended Bradstow
has now been placed outside their local authority. One as far as Gloucestershire.
This is not the inclusive community based care we aspire to. Bradstow has
been more than a school. It is a place where Children felt safe and understood
The decision has left vulnerable young people facing uncertainty and families carrying out
that emotional weight every day.
Three key points for the Committee to consider this evening are
1.
The initial decision was made without key information despite it being available.
2.
The Committee should reconsider the situation with full and accurate information.
3.
Bradstow has repeatedly demonstrated its viability yet these efforts have been blocked and we
are happy to answer questions about this.
Several Council decisions have undermined the school's viability, shaping the circumstances now used to justify closure.
Most significantly, preventing new admissions removes the school's ability to remain viable,
a decision many families believe may not align with legal duties for children with SEND.
The KCC debt is being cited as a reason for non -viability,
yet this debt remains whether the school closes or stays open, and will still require recovery.
It should not justify closure, especially when other concerns have been addressed.
We also dispute the claim that everything possible has been done.
Blocked attempts to demonstrate viability, refusal to admit pupils and unconsidered purchase
proposals show otherwise.
An offer to purchase the schoolkeeping staff and children in place was submitted to Councillor
Stocks but received no response.
But when recently revisited, it was rejected because the closure decision had been made.
These viable options were never explored.
Finally, if the school is truly not viable,
how is it that two academies and three independent providers
have sought to take it on?
Their interest directly challenges that claim.
These decisions reach into families' homes
and children's lives.
They deserve compassion, honesty,
and genuine partnership.
I ask the committee to reflect, to listen,
and to help rebuild the trust our community urgently needs.
Thank you.
Your seat and of course you're all welcome to stay and listen to the debate.
So I'm now going to move to ask Councillor Richard Jones to set out the reasons for the
call -in request.
Thank you, Chair.
There can't be a more serious decision that a council can take than to shut a school,
not least a unique residential school with a waking curriculum serving some of the most
vulnerable children in our care with the most profound and complex needs.
The decision to close Bradstow School was taken by the Cabinet last Monday, the 3rd
of November.
Under Wandsworth's constitution, those decisions can be called in and suspended if they transgress
the principles, the democratic principles of decision -making in our council.
The conservative opposition sought calling of this decision on two bases.
The first was that the decision was contrary to the presumption of openness and transparency
under Article 10 .3 of our Constitution, and secondly, that there was a risk that the decision
was unreasonable or irrational. And I'll take each of those in turn. Firstly, lack of openness
and transparency. At the cabinet meeting on the 3rd of November, Councillor Gasser, in
outlining her recommendation, explained that, in her view, it was time to close the school
because there was no realistic prospect of academization of the school.
And she said that she inferred that the lead academy provider at the time,
that sort of interest in the school, would not receive the academization order.
That statement was not supported by anything in the Cabinet Papers,
nor was it questioned or scrutinised by any other member of the cabinet that evening.
Furthermore, it should have been because Ms. Benton, the representative for Bradstow that
evening, stated in her remarks that we know that the Department for Education had requested
more time for the school to explore academization with the Bridge Academy Trust.
So that was the first ground on which this call -in was granted by the Chief Executive.
The second ground, which I think now takes on a lot more significance given what happened
subsequent to the Cabinet's decision, including the production of the full correspondence
between the Council and the Department of Education, which wasn't available at the time
the Cabinet made its decision, is whether this decision can really be said to be reasonable
or rational under the standards that councils should act.
We know there are two things arise,
one from the correspondence and one from the material
in the cabinet papers or the absence of material
in the cabinet papers.
The correspondence reveals on the 28th of October,
the Department of Education,
after months of correspondence with Wandsworth,
asked for the Council to pause the closure process until March of next year.
On 30 October, the Council's officers wrote back, agreeing conditionally to the pause
in the closure, on the basis of a financial ultimatum, which the Department was not in
a position to meet.
The Department then wrote back the next day, not endorsing the closure, but withdrawing
its request for the pause and saying that Wandsworth should therefore take its course.
And as the Chairman outlined at the start of this meeting, the central contention of
this administration is not that the school is failing its pupils.
Quite the contrary, the school provides exemplary care for its pupils.
The central contention is that the school is no longer viable.
That is fiercely contested by the school.
And it bears note in the correspondence to the Department of Education that the Council
summarily asserted that the underwriting of the period of pause to be something in the
region of £600 ,000 without providing in the letter any basis or justification for that
cost.
We know that the school vigorously argues that it is viable, and we know that many of
arguments that is presented in its business plan were not examined in the
Cabinet paper or in the Cabinet discussion itself. And we welcome this
meeting tonight to fully explore those arguments because there is still time
to pause this process and to explore a cat amization properly.
Finally, Madam Chair, if I may, I'm grateful for you meeting me before this
meeting for me to make this request to you. But we have the head teacher of
Bradstow School here this evening, Mrs. Sarah Adams, who has come all the way from Broadstairs
to address this committee. The reason for this call -in was that the Cabinet had the
benefit of a presentation from Miss Benton, from Bradstow School, but they did not have
the opportunity to ask questions or seek further evidence from Miss Benton. And therefore,
the Cabinet members' answers went unchallenged. There was a huge lacuna in the reasoning,
and that's what's led to this call -in.
So what we'd recommend and what we would ask this committee
to prevent that problem happening this time
is that Mrs. Adams is allowed to participate
in a portion of this discussion.
So as well as the fact that we can ask
Councillor Gasser questions,
we can also ask Mrs. Adam questions.
That will mean that whatever decision
the committee takes tonight,
they will not be able to say that they did not give
the school the opportunity to answer questions
at this committee. I think that is a reasonable request. It's in accordance with the way we
usually receive third parties in these meetings. I agree formally it's not a deputation, but
with respect the pupils and families of Bradstow don't care about our formalities, they want
to put their case. This committee and this council would benefit from the opportunity
to be able to ask Mrs. Adams those questions. And so I would ask the committee and I'd ask
you chair formally if we could admit Mrs Adams for part of the discussion to do
that.
Thank you, Councillor Richard Jones. And thank you for your clarity on and
for putting your case. Um, yes, I did meet you outside the committee, and we
did discuss this because as Miss Adams knows in our email correspondence on
And it's quite within my remit as chair to agree or not to agree.
But I felt it was right that Ms. Adams should come here and
have three minutes to address the committee.
But it came with that condition that there would be no questions.
The reason for that is, and I've already said in my introduction,
this is the first time we've had a general overview and scrutiny committee.
And the purpose of what we're doing here this evening is between the majority party and the minority party for us to debate
between us
and
Have this out and then come to a conclusion and choose on options and miss Adams being part of that is
Way outside the remedy the remit of this committee and on I apologise
are Miss Adams that you have been drawn into this that I am NOT going to agree
to it and I think that we should continue the business as set out which
would be that we would ask councillor Gasser if you would now like to respond
Chair you did agree to a vote if you weren't minded to grant it in your
discretion you said you would take a vote of the committee so councillor
apps. Thank you, Chair. I agree with your reasoning.
And so I propose that we continue with the business as you have set out.
So we have you got a seconder? Thank you, Councillor Osborne. So we will now go to a
vote on whether there should be questions, I presume. Continue with the business as set
out. So we take a vote on continuing with the business as set out. All those
who vote for continuing with the business as set out. That is three.
Those who vote against continuing with the business is set out
to
so
I will continue with the business as set out, which means that I will now ask Councillor
Gasser if she would like to respond to Councillor Richard -Jones.
Yes, thank you. Good evening. First of all, thank you very much to Ms Adams. Thank you
for coming. Thank you for speaking. Thank you for all that you do always for the children
and the families and we do appreciate that.
And I hear you, Councillor Richards -Jones, you say it's a very serious decision.
It is an extremely serious decision, an extremely painful decision.
None of us go into politics to close special schools.
I spent eight years in opposition fighting your closure of special needs provision like the Vines,
I would vote, the orders of my advisory service.
But we are having to make this very, very painful decision.
As I said at the cabinet meeting on the 3rd of November,
Bradstow School in Kent has always been a valued and much loved provision.
Over the years we've seen many local authorities entrust the school and
Wandsworth Council with the education and care of their children with complex needs alongside our own Wandsworth children.
But Beth's practise has changed.
As the lead member for Wandsworth Children's Services, my commitment is to invest in our local schools
in order that we can keep children with special needs close to their families, their friends, their communities.
We've just opened a state of the art provision, Paddock Secondary and Sixth Form School in Tooting,
which will see many more children with complex needs supported right here in Wandsworth alongside their families' wishes.
This commitment, supported by 41 million pounds for investment locally,
has meant that parents prefer to keep their children close to home.
And as such, the need for placements at Bradstow has significantly declined over the years.
There are now only 11 children in Bradstow and only one is a Wandsworth child.
And we have found alternative provision from him from January.
Bradstow is 100 miles away from here.
The school is run by its leadership team and governors.
The council's role is to provide support and advice.
And we've been doing this at a level which far exceeds the support we offer any other school in Wandsworth for many years now.
The current financial forecast is dire, an accumulated deficit of close to 1 million by the 31st of December, 2025.
And I've seen long term figures over the last seven years, five of those years the school was in deficit.
We have been working in the interest of the school for
years to explore alternative arrangements such as a transfer to Kent County Council, which was the obvious solution.
Indeed, the thought or the talks of transfer started under the previous administration.
Our intention was to transfer the school to Kent with no purchase price.
That would have been the logical solution.
But unfortunately, Kent County Council pulled out the negotiations.
And we're currently funding two of their children still at the school as they refuse to pay the bills.
So Wandsworth is paying for those children.
In February this year, Wandsworth Council paused the process on closure to allow the school time to explore all possibilities.
And this has come at a further cost to the council with the debt owed by Kent and also a bit by Surrey County Council growing.
and Wandsworth has to fund that debt.
We were effectively lending the school money.
This is money that should be for Wandsworth children,
and I can't allocate it for Wandsworth children.
We were hopeful that Cygnus Trust was going to be the answer,
and we worked very cooperatively with Cygnus.
We would have loved that to have come good,
but in July we heard from the DFE
that they could not approve this plan.
We were then also optimistic when Bridge Academy Trust
submitted an expression of interest in October.
We were hoping for some warm words from the DFE to give us this hope so
that we could think about maybe pausing, but we got no warm words.
So we had to proceed with our process of consultation moving towards potential closure.
We had an official letter from the DFE on the 28th of October asking us,
officially, formally to pause and I took that to the cabinet.
It's a big decision and the consensus was, well, we could pause but it cannot cost one's worth any more money.
And we've been clear for a long time with DFE, it cannot cost, so you have that in the papers now.
That letter, I asked officers to write a very firm letter, which they did,
So, you know, making it absolutely clear that we could only consider this at no cost to ourselves, to Wandsworth.
Then we had a letter back late on the Friday, the 31st of October.
And the conclusion I drew from that, they advised us they were not going to ask us to pause any longer.
They realised we would move to decision and it was pretty clear what the decision would be because the papers were public with our recommendation.
So I read into that correctly as it turns out that they were not minded to grant an Academy order.
The subsequent correspondence which we have showed that I was correct in that assumption.
Cabinet had seen that letter, we had not published it.
So Cabinet made an informed decision on my advice that the only option left,
the only option left and it's a heartbreaking option, was to move towards closure.
So if this is, depending on what happens this evening, but we will continue to work with the leadership
of the school to mitigate the impact of what we know is a really difficult time for children, for families, for staff.
And I feel for all of them, and I'm sorry this has been prolonged by the opposition basically calling it in.
But my duty really is to protect the best interests of one's worth children.
And for that reason, I'm asking this committee to endorse the cabinet's decision of the third of November.
Thank you very much, Councillor Gusset, for putting the majority parties on side on that.
And as you finished on it, this call -in has delayed the children being able to prepare for,
as we decide this evening, an ending. It's taken stolen two weeks from them,
which is appalling because children with special needs,
and when it comes to endings, need to be...
I'm sorry, the incredulity in the gallery should be noted there.
There's a leadership team from Bradstow in support of Bradstow in the gallery,
and they are really incredulous at the comments of the chair there.
Are there any questions?
Or, Councillor Osborne, do you want to respond?
Yeah, if I may, I want to explore the point of view which has been laid out by the minority
party this evening.
And also, if I may, make some general comments as well.
I understand. I mean, we've had a year on and off of, or more, of the minority party
objecting to the review and objecting to decisions that were being taken on Bradstone. Now,
Now, if you have a situation where the administration wants to take an action and there are people
affected, children in a school, parents of those children, carers of those children,
other attendant parties in all sorts of different ways, the staff at a school, quite often you
are in a position where those people have no voice.
The administration has a voice, but the people affected don't have a voice.
The only option they have for a voice in the debate at this Council is for that to be put
by the opposition.
I understand that very well.
I have been there.
I have been there many times as an opposition Councillor rather than an administration Councillor,
which is what I am now.
There have been occasions when I've asked for a leeway
for a school, specifically for a school,
which was up for closure.
And in at least one instance, got a stay of execution
for that school, eventually closed,
but it got a stay of execution.
So I understand why the opposition has picked up this issue.
I respect the point of view and the position taken by the opposition.
That doesn't mean I agree with it, but I respect it.
But there comes a point when livelihood of staff, the fate of children's education,
the anxiety for parents and carers becomes such an issue that a decision
must be taken. And to prolong the taking of a decision surely is just prolonging
sometimes in some circumstances. And I think I invite the opposition to consider what they
are doing here and what the effect is of their intervention on this school. They're delaying
and they're blocking of a decision where frankly I think it would be kind to be clear to the people
engaged and involved and affected. Having said that, I have a question, I think, for
the opposition. This process really, question mark over Bradstow School, goes
back a very, very long way. Long before the current Labour administration. At
least until 2017, back into 2017. Finances have been questioned and
questionable at the school. There's been a constant tendency for the school to
increase costs, not always authorised, which is one of the things that's putting
pressure in the involvement of other authorities, not just Wandsworth.
And we're talking huge sums of money at that school. This is in a period, by the
when Councillor Crivelli was chair of the Children's Committee and might have
wanted to have raised some of these issues with his cabinet member who would
have been Councillor Sweet, if I remember rightly, dealing with children's issues,
at least for part of the time. You get to a position eventually where Labour
becomes the administration. The opposition, when they were the
administration, I would suggest, I would contend their courage failed them. We as an administration
have grasped the nettle and decided to take a decision, and that is what we are doing. So I
end up with a question for the opposition. Does the opposition accept the responsibility of this
Council is first and foremost to Wandsworth residents, Wandsworth taxpayers, Wandsworth
children, and that we should not simply keep underwriting losses in a school which isn't
even in Wandsworth, which is in Kent.
and predominantly the children there are not from Wandsworth.
That's my question to the opposition tonight.
You may demand a comeback. You've got a right of reply, I think, on some of that. You've been mentioned.
Yeah, Councillor Richards -Jones, if you'd like to respond, and then I've got Councillor Apps, Councillor Crivelli and Councillor Sudd.
Certainly, thank you. I'll start with the delay point and then the responsibility point.
On delay, I'm afraid there was a strange and marked change of tone in the Labour Council
this evening.
Councillor Boswell started off the meeting by saying this meeting was democracy at its
best.
She and Councillor Osborne then proceeded to tell us that we were wrong to bring this
call in and in fact the school and its pupils, we were doing them a disservice.
That is not the view of the parents and the governors and the leadership of the school.
Furthermore, I think if the papers are accurate, that the effect of this call -in, if we lose
the vote tonight because there is a three Labour votes to turn down the call -in, then
the timetable proceeds as the cabinet outlined, so there would be closure by the end of this
year.
So there can't be any arguments about delay.
I want to highlight, and it goes to Councillor Osborne's second point, there were four inaccuracies
that were in Councillor Gasser's introduction.
The first she said that the responsibility
is to Wandsworth children, and she mentioned
Paddock School as some sort of replacement for this provision.
That fundamentally mischaracterizes
the nature of the provision at Paddock,
which is very different to the nature of provision
at Bradstow.
And Wandsworth Council does owe an obligation
to children in its care that have the sort of complex needs
that can only be met at Bradstow.
Furthermore, if it doesn't find an orderly way to save this school, this facility will
not survive.
I am not aware of any facility anywhere else in London or the southeast that has comparable
pet care and facilities like this.
Council Gasser said that as things stand, there is debt outstanding from Kent County
Council and Surrey County Council.
She's right by that when she says that, but she says Wandsworth has to fund this debt.
It doesn't.
It's debt.
Wandsworth needs to initiate legal proceedings and recover the debt.
If the debt is due to Wandsworth, and it can be recovered in the courts, and it can be
recovered with interest as well, it's an absolute curiosity of this case that Wandsworth has
not recovered these sums of money, which it says it's entitled to.
Counsellor Gasser also says that in her remark to the Cabinet where she said she inferred
that DFE wouldn't grant the academization order.
She said that the subsequent correspondence
between the council and the Department for Education
vindicated that approach.
That is not true.
The correspondence actually shows something different.
The correspondence that this committee has been shown,
and which has been published, shows
that the Department of Education expressed
no view about the academization order or its discussions
with the Bridge Trust, Academy Trust, until Cabinet took its decision on the 3rd of November
to proceed with closure. So what actually happened was Wandsworth preempted the decision
of the Bridge Academy Trust. It kiboshed what could have been a route to academization.
But all that said, there are still viable routes to save this school, as Mrs. Adams
as outlined at the start of this discussion.
And finally, I would just say that on the viability question, which is what this debate
fundamentally boils down to, the school has put together a comprehensive and voluminous
business plan to propose how it can meet the financial challenges.
It draws out, firstly, that through restructuring, it has saved 800 ,000 pounds already, and that
does not include the ability to taking new enrollments.
The school has told conservative counsellors
that it has sufficient interest in the remaining
places in Bradstow, that it could fill those places
immediately.
I mean, we could even take payment on account
if the council was so minded to do that.
This is still, from what we can see,
certainly not being tested thoroughly and contradicted
by the administration.
This is still a viable school.
It needs more time before it can find the vehicle for the next stage of its continuation
Yes, thank you
Richard Jones, I'll just come back on your various points
So, PAD, I don't know if you've been to see it.
It's a wonderful school.
It has children with autism and complex needs.
It obviously doesn't have residential,
and for some children, they do need residential care.
But there is other provision.
I mean, so we have found it for our four Wandsworth children.
And various parties have done needs assessments around Kent.
So Kent did their own and decided not to take on Brad.
So we ourselves have done one.
I think Mr. Johnson's in the room can talk to that.
We decided, we concluded there wasn't a need in the DFE, and their letter also said they had a look.
There's not a need.
So the general consensus is there is sufficient provision.
So we're working on that basis.
So that's to answer that point.
On the unrecovered debt, of course we have taken out legal proceedings.
Of course we have.
We paused those legal proceedings for a while, while we were in negotiation with Kent,
because you can't really be taking your friends to court if you're trying to do business with
them.
But when that all fell through, we've now started the legal proceedings again.
I might ask Mr. Hallock to share as much as we're allowed to share.
I don't want to give away too much, but I'll ask Mr. Hallock to comment on where we're
up to with the legal proceedings.
Those two, and then I'll answer the other points.
Mr. Halleck, if you could respond on that.
Yes, we're about to enter court.
We are meeting Kent for a without -p
ejures discussion.
I will just say, if the debt was as easy as it is to recover said, and I'm not sure why
it was such a big deal in all academy conversations, because continuously that was the issue, or
From the school side even though I would repeat that that is not the issue because we've lent the school the money
And we're never saying give it back so they have the money
But recovering it is not going to be so easy because it takes evidence of every single
Placement every single item we trying to recover
They have put an offer forward, but it is
less than
50 %
Close to 30 % of the mount
Thank you very much Mr. Halleck. I think Councillor Osborne wanted to respond on these points
and then I'm very well aware that three councillors have got questions. So Councillor Osborne
and then I will go to Councillor Apps to begin.
Yes I, by the way, actually I've got no problem with this call -in meeting at all. I don't
actually think that anybody on our side has.
I welcome it.
I think this is an innovation in the way the,
I mean, it's always been possible to have call -ins,
but this style of calling is a useful innovation, I think,
and I think it's something we should use in future
for a deep dive into some controversial issues.
I'm very much in favour of it.
But at the cabinet meeting, the discussion led by Councillor Gasser referred to a specific
academy order.
And by the time we get to the 6th of November, in the correspondence, it's clear that if
we say to the DFE, as I understand it, it means the DFE are no longer progressing the
the cadaomization expression of interest with the bridge trust.
And the response is, that is correct.
I agree it was after the cabinet decision,
but it's very clear that the interpretation was in the right direction
and the truth of the matter is there have been two possible Academy offers at Bradstow,
both of which have withered away. They obviously don't regard Bradstow as viable and we've lost
them. So don't keep interrupting, you've got an opportunity to come back, please. I waited for
a while to come back on you and I request that you do the same for me.
So your assertion that they had no view and that continued to be the case is not true.
I was going to go to the questions now.
Did you have something else you wanted to contribute?
Yes on what councillor Osman is talking about so the the letter from the DFE
I mean I've been working with the DFE for what six months now. I've had meetings with ministers meeting with I don't know mandarins
I've learned to understand the careful way they speak and
I could very well infer from the careful way
They wrote that letter and the fact there were no warm words
And there weren't haven't been you know as we kept asking you can see from the correspondence you requested today
The officers kept requesting some sort of warm words, some sort of reassurance to the DFE that they were minded to think about this, to do something about it.
And we just weren't getting those.
So it was clear to me that this wasn't actually going to come to fruition, but they didn't want to say it.
Nobody wants to close the special schools.
The DFE did not want to be responsible for that, of course not.
So I had to recommend this very difficult decision.
Had the DFE come back in the email exchange to say, yeah, actually we would like to.
we could have revoked the decision.
And there was always that option,
but they didn't come back to us and say,
oh yes, we do want to.
It was always sadly obvious to me
that they were not minded to,
and I was proved correct.
Thank you, Councillor Gasser.
Right, Councillor Apps.
Yes, thanks very much for the opportunity
to put my question.
What I'm very much mindful of is that children,
and particularly Wandsworth children must be at the heart of our decision making and how we consider these issues.
I mean, there has been a long period of uncertainty and delay, which must be really hard for
families who are facing uncertainty about where their children are going to be in school.
So how have we ensured that Wandsworth families who have been affected directly by this have been supported through this process?
I'll start and perhaps if officers want to add, if I forget anything.
But yeah, absolutely.
I mean, since it's since about November last year now, isn't it?
Our offices have worked very, very closely with the families, talking them through,
guiding them, supporting them, explaining all the options, offering all the options.
And as I say, so three children have already moved on successfully.
The fourth child who is still there, there is a place for him from next January.
So yes officers are doing everything they can and then of course we support with the transition because it's it's very difficult to make changes
With those sort of needs of course we support with that
Thank you, I must go to the
minority party for questions
Councillor crevely you have a question and then councillor Sottos. Yeah, firstly. Can I just give a point of personal explanation?
Just come back in councillor Osburn's a assertion that Bradstow is being closed and it's all cancer crevely fault
Can I just say that, taking into account – I've got my figures correct here – if we look
at the amount of fees that were outstanding back in spring of 2022 when I lost any influence
on the executive, the total amount of fees outstanding for Kent was £34 ,000, slightly
less than the £1 .2 million that's outstanding under the current administration.
And it is a point worth noting, of course, that Wandsworth did still put children there
who had complex needs, it wouldn't have been earmarked for closure quite simply because
we were still placing children there.
But I do want to ask a question about the debt and about why it is that this hasn't
been recovered, because it is a very important point.
I think anyone looking at this in an objective manner would think that what's happening is
the school is on the hook for something that Wainsworth has done.
And it's not just Kent who have got outstanding fees.
other local authorities have got fees as well.
You appreciate the school leadership made it clear that they'd asked to be included
in the process about recovering the fees.
They'd asked, they said that they could support in providing the necessary evidence about
what they could say about the agreements that had been struck about the pupils that had
been placed and the fee agreements that had been made.
Their assertion is that they weren't included in that process.
and clearly the school's involvement is essential in trying to ensure that as
much of the overdue fees are recovered as as quickly as possible. So why wasn't
the school included in that process about recovering the fees because it
does look very much as though Bradstow is being closed because Wandsworth
hasn't recovered its outstanding fees.
Mr. Halleck, would you like to answer that?
Yeah, firstly, I'd say school leaders and school governors run schools.
They are responsible for collecting the debt, though because of the risks and the size of
this school, especially with 62 children three years ago, let's say, but all the way back
to when I arrived here eight years ago, it was a huge amount of money to collect.
It's 13 million pounds at its peak.
Complex, mostly Kent.
Kent was the biggest place in many, many years.
Councillor Correia is right.
We used to place about 12 children,
and that slowly came down.
But throughout that nine years, we
had huge amounts of meetings.
The current leadership's predecessors
were involved in those meetings.
Every two weeks, I have a recruitment meeting,
and it's only a Bradstow discussion
because of the size of the risk. This school is now small. You have to triple the size of
nearly to take it back to where it was before. One of the reasons it was shrunk was to make it
more manageable. It was a challenge to run the school. We helped considerably. I don't think
I've given any school in this borough or in our remit within Maintain Schools as much attention
as Bradshaw over the years. Yes, in the last year that we have been trying to work with the school,
They've been looking to catamize.
They've got to know.
They've got to chase themselves.
It's a different ball game.
We cash flow that school.
Without our cash flow, the school
would not be able to pay their staff.
Yes, there's something about invoicing.
As an academy or a private provider,
we invoice in advance.
You collect as much money as you can in advance.
But there's huge risk in that.
You just need one provider to not pay.
And you don't have enough reserves.
You don't have enough cash flow.
And you cannot pay your staff.
We went through.
We worked with Kent.
We did not want to we wanted a viable provider counsel. We thought could manage this
We we worked with them that was declined. We've been through the process for nine months
on a cat amization
And all through that period with the school has been involved. We've asked school. They've taken more of a proactive
Approach in the last nine months I have to say
But yes, we had many meetings without them. We invited them, but sometimes it was in holidays or so on that wouldn't work out.
So it's not like a lack of involvement of the school. I just cannot, yeah, that's just not true.
Thank you very much for the response to Councillor Cuvelli. Councillor Sottas.
Thank you. Firstly, I am pleased that you put so much money into PADEC.
I think it's fantastic that you were able to rebuild it and improve on the offer that
it has.
But severe, profound, and complex needs are really easy words to bandy about.
And the kids at Bradstow are nothing like the kids at Paddock.
I have friends with kids at Paddock.
I do not have friends with kids at Bradstow.
One little girl, I'm told, ripped out her retina.
These children cannot in any way work with their own nervous system.
They're just not the same at all.
They're also not capable of living with their families half the time.
When they go home during the holidays, it causes havoc within the families.
And that's very sad in itself because of course the 52 weeks was closed.
So I do not accept, sadly, that PADC is a good substitute for Bradstow.
And that's why I want to save it, because the expertise within Bradstow is Legion.
And I think we should be able to do something with it.
I think we should be able to go back to the days of BERT, where they were running training
programmes.
They did a lot of training programmes at PADC around the country, where they were making
money in that way. You might be able to optimise the land. They've got 14 acres. Why do they
need 14 acres? They don't. You could hive some of it off. You could try that. I'm not
saying you've taken this lightly. I know you haven't. It's a really, really difficult decision.
But I would ask you to think very, very carefully about what those words mean, what a waking
curriculum means. It's not the same as turning up the school at nine o 'clock in
the morning and going home at 3 .30. And that's why I'm here tonight. That's why
I'm fighting for this school. That's why I'm fighting for the children. Whether
they're ours, whether they're Kent's, whether they're Surry's, I would prefer
their ours. And I agree with you that we should look to our own children. But
you've done a fantastic job with our children, those that need to be here. I
I don't know about the alternative facilities you've managed to look into and send some
of the children to.
I did try to look at it myself, and I wasn't able to find anything that I thought was the
same as this, that was run by a local authority and was not run for profit.
But I would say I don't think you should be subsidising Kent.
I don't think you should be subsidising – sorry, I don't think you should be subsidising
anybody.
You have to find ways to bring that money in.
But you've also got to really look into your heart if you're going to lose Brad's vote after all these years.
For our future children and for the children of the UK.
I feel, I'm sorry, but I feel really passionately about this.
Thank you.
Did you want to respond, Councillor Gasson?
Yeah, absolutely.
I absolutely hear you.
I know families who have sent their children there as well.
And I know there are some children whose needs are very profound and they do need 24 hour care, sometimes three to one 24 hour care.
I do know that the 52 week provision was closed for a reason.
Offset said that wasn't our decision, that was Offset.
So that was very sad and I don't know how those families are managing now.
That must be hard.
Yeah, it's really painful.
I mean, you mentioned some sort of money making options, if you like, training and the land and that.
But that's for the school and the governor's to do, isn't it?
We don't run that school.
So I haven't actually seen their recovery plan.
I'm sure Mr. Alec can talk to it.
But obviously, even if it was viable, I don't know whether it was, it wouldn't be viable straightaway.
So it would still involve us putting more and more money in subsidising.
So the term that we're just in now, the extra term, is costing us five or 600 ,000 pounds.
And that's not if that's if everybody paid their bills, which they weren't so so if you're going to have another term
Probably cost is about the same again, then maybe you have the summer to me to have a few more people's costs
It's the same again. It's more and more money that one's worth would have to subsidise Brad's there, and I just can't recommend that unfortunately
Counsellor up. Do you want to come in?
Yes, I'm counsellor Sutter's and counsellor gasps. I just spoke about the
about the 52 week provision being removed.
I think we need to remind ourselves, it is in the papers, it's on paragraph 3 .7,
that this is because we could not guarantee the safety of the children.
It is because medication went missing.
This is very serious and quite frankly, at the end of the day, I want to make sure that one's worth children and
all children are safe and that they're properly looked after and
that the services that they're being offered are not deemed inadequate, but are in fact good.
So I do think it's important when we bring these points up that we put the context.
And Wandsworth took the right decision to ensure the safety of children in our care.
Can I just come back on?
Counsellor Soto?
Medication going missing is an operational issue.
It can be sorted.
Can also be an abuse issue, or it can be a difficulty for children.
It can be very unsafe.
We have to take those sorts of things seriously.
I accept that, but it can be sorted.
Like Councillor Osborne, I think you wanted to come in.
Yes.
Look, I've treated the minority parties' assertions with due respect in this discussion, and tried
to listen and hear and understand what it is that they're arguing.
And I would, given the context and the subject matter, I would respectfully ask Councillor
Crivelli not to be too flippant in this debate.
I haven't suggested that everything was his fault, for example.
But what I do think is that the minority party within the administration, there were issues
about the financial health of Bradstone and they let it go on. There were issues
about debt recovery in the previous administration. They let it go on for
many years and as I said before it was the Labour administration that looked at
the situation and grasped the nettle and decided to deal with this case and
And that's what we're doing.
But I have, in that context, I have a question.
I'd like to know what we've got in the way of assurances
that we have worked with placing authorities in the interest
of the children at Bradstow.
And is Wandsworth satisfied that there is a sufficiency,
plenty of alternative places should the decision stay
that we close Bradstoe, sufficient places for those children.
Would you like to respond?
I'll start, and again, if I've missed anything out, perhaps officers will chip in.
But we don't actually have the responsibility for
the education placements of children from other boroughs.
But you could say we have a moral responsibility.
So yes, we've been absolutely transparent about our intentions and the timelines.
And we have shared with the other authorities and we have suggested to them and
urged to them that they conduct parallel planning kind of in the way that we have been to make sure that there are places for
their children if and when Bradstow has to close.
So in part, as I said earlier, I think it's part of our due diligence, we looked into the sense of efficiency in Kent.
And when they did their own assessment as well, they assessed that there was efficiency.
The DFE seemed to think there's enough places.
So I am not unduly worried that there are not enough places.
I am worried, of course, about the transition for children because it will be a very big
deal.
I do respect that.
Thank you, Councillor Gasser.
Are there any more questions?
Yes, Councillor.
Thank you.
If it's okay, I'd like to explore two further points because, and Councillor Gasser will
heard this herself from the supports of the school, that it's their view that the Council
was determined to close this right at the start. And it has not exhausted all possible
alternatives. It is simply procedure with closure. And I want to put two points to you.
The first was the curtailment of the enrollment of new pupils into the school once the closure
began. Now, follow the papers. The reason given for that was that given the school was
Its future was in doubt that it would not have been advisable to put pupils in that
school because then the disruption of moving was inevitable.
Of course, there's a massive circularity about that argument because only if it's going to
close, or the more likely it is to close, the more you would not allow new enrollments.
So the blanket policy to not allow new enrollments does kind of imply that the Council was going
to close the school.
My first question then is, and this might be for Councillor Gasol or it might be for the education officers,
why did the council feel able to make a blanket decision in respect of all prospective new pupils to this school,
irrespective of the positions or needs of that child presenting to the school?
Because for example it might be that on a needs assessment it was better for the child to spend any period in a school of Bradstow's expertise and facilities even if there was the prospect of a transition at the end.
Ms. Van Rowley.
Yeah, I mean I think for me and I've been very clear about this that I do I would not feel comfortable
To allow new placements at a point where and it wasn't about whether a decision had been taken we were in a proposal
to close a school now I
Heard when I visited the school for the pre -publication
Consultation from parents from staff that even the timescales we had at that point
were too short and children needed more time to transition,
that it was unfair we were doing in the timescales we were.
So then on the flip side of that,
when we went into a formal consultation,
I'm being told you should just let children in
and if parents are happy with that arrangement,
then that should be okay.
And I said I'm really sorry, I'm not comfortable with that.
You've said one thing in a pre -publication consultation,
that these children need time to transition,
to move on, that change is so difficult for them, yet on the other breath let more children
in.
It will help the financial position and if parents are okay with that, then you should
be supporting it.
I'm really sorry as an educator, I wouldn't be comfortable doing that and that was my
position.
It was nothing to do with an ultimate decision, it was about what was right for children and
families at that time and I stand by that.
I won't belabour this point, but I do think the answer illustrates my concern, which is
that it was based on a blanket view of the consultation response.
And as you said, these children, when in fact behind that is a multiplicity of different
needs and then a judgement, a blanket one, about what the prospective applications would
be.
And I think that was the wrong approach.
I also think it has financially severely constrained the school.
But I read you know, I think those points have been made my second question. It's possibly mr. Halleck that's best to answer this
What is the value of the Bradstow school site?
We did get evaluation during the Kent discussions it was one of the
Elements of the discussion was not to understand the value of the property
It's probably between seven and nine million is what they said depending on the type of use
Could be closer to 10.
Had you received any valuations before your sorry, when were the discussions with Kent
County Council approximately and when did you receive that valuation?
So we had about two and a half to three years off the top of my head, but it was a long
time discussing with Kent.
The valuation was far closer to the end in 2024.
Because I will wrap up this point, but you'll be aware that in July 2023, the Council published
internally an asset management strategy which identified Bradstow School on page 28, I believe,
as a very high value site for alternative use.
Alternative use implies not education.
And the document says that service workshops had been convened to arrive at that view.
And that's council speak, by the way, for education officers and others involved.
And then on page 30 of the asset management review, it lists Bradstow Sen School in Kent
in the third column, which is titled Cell.
So as you know, because we've made this point in the Chamber, it's been the view of conservative
Councillors was that there was a long in the tooth formed idea about the value of
this site and in particular as the asset management strategy says for alternative
use for not education clearly it had been valued on some level before your
discussions with Kent County Council and it does support the views of Bradstow
school that there was some element of predetermination in this process because
the council was pursuing a capital receipt for the Bradstow site.
Thank you, Councillor Richard Jones.
That's a very serious allegation.
Mr Hallock, if you would like to respond to that, I think the cabinet member would like
to come in.
I can only say I wasn't in those service meetings.
Councillor Gatton.
You're referring to a document which is an internal officer level and not even senior
officer level document.
It has never been to cabinet, it is not our policy, it has not been to council.
Real, you can disregard that document.
It is not, no, it's absolutely not our policy.
It has never ever been to Cabinet.
Just because an officer writes it doesn't make it real.
Or it makes it real, it doesn't mean it's true, it doesn't mean it's positive.
I can make a quick point of information on that, Chair, just so the gallery can understand
what this document is.
It's the Wandsworth Asset Management Strategy, 2023, 2028.
If you Google it, you'll see it.
It's a glossy document.
And I think the administration disclosed in answer to a question from us from cabinet
that they had spent thousands of pounds on graphic designers to finalise this document.
I would simply suggest that you don't spend thousands of pounds on graphic designers to
finalise what's a purely junior officer internal document.
Yes, thank you.
Thank you for that.
And I think we need to move on because I know Councillor Crivelli wanted to ask a question.
I don't know whether it's on the same subject.
Something that was contained in the calling papers, and I wanted to ask you about paragraph
4 .1.
It's on page 11.
It said the school has not made an operational surplus for over four years, even without
accounting for unpaid fees.
Is that correct?
because I thought the school 2425 had delivered a 600K in -year surplus, which had reduced
its deficit from 1 .2 million to 600 million. Correct?
Are you talking about the increase in the deficit just for January, which was – are
you talking about the –
Are we talking about 2024 -25 financial year?
In that year, the school made a 600 ,000 surplus in -year, but it was paying down a deficit
of over 1 .1 million, so it left it with a 590 ,000 deficit overall.
So they still reduced the deficit from one point, they cut it in half, didn't they?
Yeah, and remember that's for any account for non -paying fees is taken into account.
Thank you, Councillor Croci.
Sorry, can I just come back on that? You've said in 4 .2 the school's forecast will deliver
another 670 ,000 between September 2025 and December 2025, bringing the overall deficit
position to circle 1 million. But that doesn't mention the reduction in deficit over the
past year, bearing in mind you've stopped the school from enrolling more pupils, correct?
The school started with 590 ,000 deficit.
By the time it gets to August, it's halfway through a year.
We've used the school's own forecast figures up to December, and that was taking it to
a negative 965, close to a million pound deficit by December.
Yes, there are lots of variables involved at the moment, including number of children,
number of staff.
So it is a challenge to forecast at the moment, but the reality is there's a huge debt pile
with, and I don't want to comment on that yet, but with a settlement that's far lower.
I'll be very brief.
I'll be very brief.
But I mean, we all know what's happening with Labour at the point about the debt enough.
But the fact that they're able to have an operational surplus, even in what is an exception
challenging climate and they're able to address the deficit by cutting it in half.
Does that not show the school potentially has a viable financial future?
The deficit in half, I'm not following.
They started 590 for the beginning of the year.
To December the forecast is nearly a million.
Yes, in that period, there's a term there where it seems like surplus has been made
in the short term.
But we're working on financial years here.
There's redundancy costs included,
and it's also for that 800 ,000
that need to be accounted for.
Yeah, but it could be different.
It's definitely gonna be different to 965
because that's a forecast a month ago.
What it will end up being is,
I don't know exactly right now
because there are so many moving parts.
Can I ask a question about that?
I'll be very brief.
Of course, I'll be very brief.
But you did mention things about incorporating redundancy costs
and things like that.
There obviously will be a cost of decommissioning the school.
Have you done any assessment about how much
it's going to cost to close the school by way of redundancies?
Having security on site because it's going to be empty,
you can't leave that unattended.
How can you weigh the decommissioning costs
that you're talking about against the running costs
that you're talking about keeping it open?
Yes, we have.
Obviously, again, variables.
There's a lot of variables.
Staff are leaving.
I don't know exactly at the rate right now today.
I don't run the school.
But it could be between 500 and a million pounds
of redundancies at the end.
Okay, I'm going to bring that questioning to a close now because you had a very good
go.
Yes, Councillor Apps.
Thank you.
So we've explored already that we offered, well Wandsworth offered Kent Council to take
over the school.
That was a Conservative run administration at the time.
They did not find that offer attractive.
I wondered if we could have some idea what the terms, roughly what the terms were we were offering that.
We've also had more than nine, I think around nine months now of pause from the consultation,
which we agreed to so that the school could explore a cut of my station.
That so far has not resulted in any academy being able to make an offer which worked.
But there still appears to be the view that there's an alternative to closure that still remains open for exploration.
And which could provide a viable future for the school.
And really my question is, I don't see it at the moment, but if it is, what is it?
So you asked about the offer to Ken.
Of course I wasn't around then, but my understanding is we weren't going to sell the school to Ken.
We were going to give the school to Ken.
Is that right, just transfer it over so it wasn't about making money at all.
It was about securing provision for those children in Kent.
Yeah, 125 year lease.
So in terms of a viable alternative, well, I don't see one.
I mean, maybe I'm not the right person to ask the question, but
we have allowed plenty of time to explore these academy options.
And unfortunately, they've come to nothing so far.
I don't see an alternative.
Maybe, I don't know what else to say.
I've run out of options.
We've come to the end of the road.
There is no viable alternative that we can see.
I think Ms. Van der Rohe would like to come in.
Yeah, I mean I think, again, my correspondence
that's been shared today, I have chased and chased
the DFE for responses to ask them where we are.
I think I was very, very clear around timescales in terms of when we would need a viable option
on the table.
I didn't stop that conversation.
It could be very easy for me to say, actually, it's not my responsibility.
It's the school's leadership conversation with the trust, with the DFE.
But all of my correspondence shows I tried to do everything to get academization over
the line.
Firstly with Cygnus and the response was that they were not able to approve that academy application.
At that point the bridge was put forward.
We couldn't delay further, but we allowed them the option to run in parallel to our formal consultation.
Throughout that process, actually despite me chasing, I got very little communication from the bridge, from the DFE.
I kept asking to say where are we?
Do you need anything from us?
Is there anything more we can offer?
I said, I have to write the paper for cabinet with recommendations based on the formal consultation.
These are the time scales.
I can only put forward viable options for cabinet to consider.
And at the point of writing that paper, there was absolutely nothing on the table.
Despite asking, despite pushing for a sense of,
even with what have you put to the minister,
I asked for what was in that document, they weren't able to share it with me.
So I think I've been completely transparent with the DFE,
with colleagues to say we will do whatever we can to get this over the line.
But unfortunately, when it came to the point of the decision on the 3rd of November,
there was no confirmed viable option on the table.
Thank you very much, Ms. Villarreal,
for sharing that with the committee so powerfully.
I saw that correspondence myself
for the first time this afternoon,
and what struck me was the work of our dedicated officers
that you could not have done more
in terms of chasing and chasing and chasing
and supporting and supporting and supporting to bring an academy or an
Akademization about and to support that. But it wasn't to be and that has not
happened and unless there are any more questions I think I'm going to ask the
committee on how we intend to respond. Councillor Osbourne did you have a
Any question be put?
Thank you, Councillor Osbourne.
Councillor -
We move to a vote, sorry.
Councillor Apps.
I propose recommendation 1C that we take no further action in relation to the decision so that the decision can move forward.
I think clarity in this case is kindness.
I think it would be good for the children, for the staff, for the whole school community,
and not least for Wandsworth families to be able to move forward.
Thank you, Councillor Apsell.
I'm going to ask for all, thank you for seconding that.
So I'm therefore going to ask all those who are for C, take no further action.
I think there should be a discussion of the alternative.
I know you're going to vote.
On the relation to the decision.
on 1C, but should we talk about 1A? We can put forward our case and then you can vote
with it or against it. But we ought to really talk about what the options are and then move
to a vote. No, no, there are three, sorry, this is for the three, this is for the people
in the public gallery. There are actually three recommendations that we now have to
make. So we've had a conversation about the merits of closing Bradstow or otherwise, but
We've actually got two options.
The first option, which is the option
that the opposition would support,
is to refer the decision back to the decision taker,
that's the cabinet, for reconsideration
with reasons for the reference back
and any recommendations for the change of the decision.
So in brief, our reasons would be to give more time
to allow academy or private providers to come forward.
The alternative, which is what Councillor Apps
has put forward, is to take no further action
in relation to the decision, whereupon the decision will come into force and may be implemented immediately.
So it is as if this committee had never happened.
Thank you, Councillor Richard Jones.
So we have on the table, as put forward by Councillor Apps and seconded by Councillor Osborne,
C, which is take no further action in relation to the decision, whereupon the decision will
become inter -force and be implemented immediately.
So can I ask for all those for?
No, we won't, no.
Because we had that on the table.
Please Councillor Osborne.
Please Councillor Osborne.
I am asking for all those who are for C as I have read out.
So I'm taking three votes for C as I have read out.
Take no further action.
Those against?
I'm asking for those against and there are two votes.
Two for those against.
Take no further action.
Therefore, the vote is carried at sea.
Thank you very much.
I declare this meeting is now finished.