Headteacher denied right to defend Bradstow as Labour rushes closure

Bradstow School, a specialist facility in Kent run by Wandsworth Council for children with severe autism and complex needs, will close on December 31 after the council’s new scrutiny system failed its first major test.

The school, which Wandsworth has operated 80 miles away in Broadstairs since 1990, currently serves just 12 pupils – only one from Wandsworth – and faces a disputed £4.6 million debt from other councils. On November 3, Wandsworth’s Cabinet voted to close it, citing financial unsustainability.

Under Wandsworth’s constitution, opposition councillors can “call in” Cabinet decisions they believe lack transparency or seem unreasonable, triggering a review by scrutiny committees. This is meant to be a safeguard – a way for councillors to examine controversial decisions, demand answers, and if necessary, send them back for reconsideration.

Bradstow: The special needs school nobody wanted to save – least of all those who said they did

On Monday night, Wandsworth’s General Overview and Scrutiny Committee – meeting for the very first time – examined the Bradstow closure. The committee identified eight serious concerns: disputed debts that had mysteriously quadrupled, critical documents hidden from Cabinet, the school being blocked from taking new pupils, and claims about government positions that documents showed were false.

But when it came to the vote, the three Labour councillors voted against the two Conservatives to take no action. The concerns they’d spent two hours discussing remained unresolved. The closure proceeds.

Conservative councillors called in the Cabinet decision on two grounds: lack of transparency and potential irrationality. They argued that critical information was missing from the Cabinet papers and that the decision to close rather than wait for an academy solution was unreasonable.

The call-in specifically highlighted confusion over the Department for Education’s position, with Councillor Gasser claiming the DfE wouldn’t grant an academy order while the school’s representative said the DfE had requested more time to explore academisation with Bridge Academy Trust.

What the documents revealed

Papers released for the scrutiny meeting included correspondence between Wandsworth and the DfE that hadn’t been available to Cabinet members when they made their decision. These documents showed:

• The DfE requested on October 28 that Wandsworth pause the closure until March 2026
• Wandsworth responded on October 30 with a conditional agreement demanding £600,000 with 48 hours notice
• The DfE withdrew its pause request on October 31 after the ultimatum

Crucially, the DfE never stated they wouldn’t grant an academy order – this was, as Councillor Gasser later admitted, her “inference” from the absence of “warm words” in their correspondence.

The debt that keeps changing

One of the most confusing aspects concerned the alleged debt owed by Kent County Council. The Cabinet report states [pdf] Kent owes £4.6 million and hasn’t paid properly for over two years, yet in the meeting Kent was quoted as saying there is “no legal basis” for the claim and considers “the matter closed.”

When questioned, council officers confirmed Wandsworth had dropped legal proceedings in August 2024. The opposition noted that earlier in 2025 the debt had been cited as £1.2 million in previous documents, though the council now claims £4.6 million – with no clear explanation of how or when it grew nearly fourfold.

Democracy denied

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of Monday’s meeting was the treatment of Sarah Adams, Bradstow’s headteacher, who had traveled from Kent to address the committee. She was permitted three minutes to speak but when opposition leader Richard Jones requested she be allowed to answer councillors’ questions, Labour members voted 3-2 against it.

“This committee and this council would benefit from the opportunity to be able to ask Mrs Adams those questions,” Jones argued. But Committee Chair Sheila Boswell, who had opened the meeting by declaring it “democracy at its best,” ruled that allowing stakeholder participation was “way outside the remit of this committee.”

The scrutiny revealed significant contradictions in the financial case for closure. While the council claims the school faces a £1 million deficit by December, evidence showed:

• The school reduced its deficit from £1.2 million to £600,000 in the past year
• It achieved a £600,000 in-year surplus despite being blocked from taking new pupils
• The school says it could fill vacant places “immediately” if allowed

Councillor Crivelli pressed officers on why the school was prevented from accepting new students when this guaranteed financial failure. The response was that it would be “unsettling” for children if they had to transition again at term end – a circular logic that ensured the outcome it claimed to prevent.

The predetermined outcome?

A particularly damaging revelation came when Councillor Jones referenced Wandsworth’s Asset Management Strategy 2023-2028, which apparently identifies Bradstow for disposal. Councillor Gasser dismissed this as “an internal officer level and not even senior officer level document,” but Jones noted the council had spent “thousands of pounds on graphic designers” to produce it.

If true, this suggests the closure was predetermined, making the consultation process and scrutiny meeting theatrical rather than democratic.

After two hours of discussion that raised but didn’t resolve these issues, the committee voted on whether to refer the decision back to Cabinet for reconsideration or take no action.

The vote followed party lines exactly:

• For no action (Labour): Councillors Apps, Osborne, and Boswell
• For referral back (Conservative): Councillors Crivelli and Sutters

With no action taken, the closure decision stands and will be implemented immediately.

The unanswered questions

The scrutiny committee spent two hours identifying problems but resolved none:

Issue Raised	What Documents Showed	Answer Provided
DfE wouldn’t grant academy order	DfE never said this – only requested time for due diligence	“I inferred it from lack of warm words”
Kent owes £4.6m	Kent says “no legal basis” for claim, matter is “closed”	No explanation for quadrupling from £1.2m
School is unviable	Reduced deficit from £1.2m to £600k, had demand for places	“Blocking admissions was to avoid disruption”
Why weren’t DfE letters in Cabinet papers?	Letters contradicted Cabinet’s narrative	Not addressed
School’s business plan	Referenced but never examined	Not discussed
Asset Strategy shows predetermined closure	Document identifies Bradstow for disposal	“Junior officer document, not policy”
Why deny headteacher questions?	She traveled from Kent to provide answers	“Outside remit of committee”
Why rush to close instead of waiting?	Bridge Trust still conducting due diligence	“Can’t keep subsidising losses”

What happens now

The school closes December 31. Twelve children with severe autism and complex needs must find new placements. According to the headteacher, every Wandsworth child who attended Bradstow has now been placed outside their local authority, with one sent as far as Gloucestershire.

The 14-acre site in Kent will presumably be sold, though no plans have been announced. The 100 staff face redundancy with six weeks notice.

The bigger picture

This was the first test of Wandsworth Labour’s new General Overview and Scrutiny Committee structure, introduced as part of governance reforms. If the purpose of scrutiny is to provide independent oversight of executive decisions, that purpose failed on Monday night.

Eight significant issues were raised:

1. The DfE’s actual position on academisation
2. The reasonableness of refusing to wait until March
3. The school’s disputed financial viability
4. The quadrupling debt claim
5. Missing correspondence from Cabinet papers
6. The Asset Management Strategy suggesting predetermined closure
7. The blocking of new admissions
8. The school’s unexamined business plan

Only one – that the school provides excellent care – was properly addressed. The rest remain unanswered, buried under a 3-2 vote that suggests scrutiny in Wandsworth means going through the motions rather than requiring answers.

This story will be updated with any responses received.