Lyndale School Closure Consultation: Cllr Phil Gilchrist “this looks to be a set of moving goalposts”
Lyndale School Closure Consultation: Cllr Phil Gilchrist “this looks to be a set of moving goalposts”
Cllr Phil Gilchrist (left) presented with the Andy Day Memorial Cup by former Mayor Cllr Dave Mitchell (right)
Councillor Phil Gilchrist (the Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group on Wirral Council) has kindly provided this blog with his consultation response to the Lyndale School Closure Consultation. It is reproduced below. For the purpose of clarity when reading the acronyms SEN and DCSF have been expanded and this addition appears in brackets [] in bold italic text.
Ed – Updated (revision 4) 10:50 12/8/14 to replace absolute values in table 1 with relative values to fix display problem. Ed – Updated (revision 5) 10:55 12/8/14 to replace absolute values in table 2 with relative values to fix display problem. Linked email address.
Feedback Form
Please let us know the main relationships you have with the school(s) by putting a tick in the appropriate box or boxes. You might be a parent and a member of staff, for example.
School
Parent
Member of Staff
Governor
Other Person
Elleray Park
Lyndale
Stanley
Foxfield
Meadowside
Other (Please Specify)
Cllr
I attended the consultative meeting held at Acre Lane on 10th April and the further meeting held on 16th June.
I have also visited The Lyndale School on 27th January on a private fact finding arrangement, and, on 9th May after a request from parents.
In addition I have visited the school and Stanley, Foxfield, Meadowside and Elleray Park with other councillors on 16th and 17th June.
I was also a signatory to the ‘Call In’ considered by the Council committee.
Short fact finding visits can only provide a brief picture of how a school works day by day. In making the recent visits I formed a strong impression of the way the children at The Lyndale might be ‘compared’ with children of the same ages at Elleray Park and Stanley.
In attempting this I also need to take account of the needs that I did not see – children who are not in the school, that day, because of their poor health.
It seems to me that a high proportion of children attending Lyndale have the most serious needs.
Lyndale may not be the best laid out building but is ‘home’ and provides the atmosphere and the facilities to stimulate the children.
The financial problems flow from the formula adopted by the Council.
Consultation on changing the funding formula began in 2010, under the last Government, when the DSCF [Department for Children, Schools and Families] looked at the formula (Chapter 4) for high cost pupils.
The formula the Council adopted in 2013 arose from discussions at the Schools Forum which chose the present banding system which has added to the pressures on Lyndale’s finances.
The parents need the utmost assurances that the care and education being provided must continue to that same high standard.
Without sight of ‘the answers’ provided to parents I am aware that reference is regularly made to what the SEN [Special Educational Needs] ‘test’ should ensure.
As I mentioned at the last meeting this looks to be a set of moving goalposts.
A ‘pale imitation’ is not good enough for the children.
Some years ago parents did seek the creation of an all through school, up to the age of 19. One of the ‘drivers’ was the issue of ‘transition’ at age 11.
Councillors who visited Foxfield and Meadowside were assured that there is a very thorough process for transition – with study of the children, visits to Lyndale by staff before children move, and visits by parents to those schools.
These visits showed the differences in the buildings ‘on offer’.
The new Stanley building was ‘sparse’ and assurances were given that any new additions could be designed with needs of ‘The Lyndale’ children in mind
However this appeared to be an addition as an ‘afterthought’.
The children at Elleray Park had different needs from the children at Lyndale.
Assurances have been given that schools can adapt their teaching styles and methods to the needs of children, that parents have choice and that there is good communication between professionals.
It is apparent that the parents at Lyndale place great emphasis on the way the staff the children ‘know’ interact with them Equally the staff are able to ‘read’ the developing signs and gestures that the children are able to return.
I have asked how the ‘Lyndale’ can be completely replicated elsewhere.
The answer has not, as yet, as far as I know, been given in a way that fully satisfies the parents,
However, if the Council insists on change then it should design a setting that has the atmosphere and facilities valued by parents, several classrooms with accessible changing, a communal hall where children can fully socialise and guaranteed access to hydrotherapy. .
Please tell us your name and address, postcode, and email address if you have one. We will not use your personal information for anything other than this consultation.
Please note: In order to ensure that this process is fully open and transparent, other people will be able to read all the responses to this consultation.
As Tom Harney (the Chair of governors at Lyndale School) himself said at that actual meeting in relation to another matter “it’s amazing the things that go on”. He was also one of the few speakers at that meeting to get applause. The comments made by Cllr Paul Hayes (a Conservative councillor who if I remember correctly was also present at that same meeting) about the consultation process as reported in their local paper were very critical of the way the consultation process and that meeting was handled.
As I’ve mentioned the Conservative and Lib Dem positions, I should mention that the only Labour councillor I recognised at the meeting (Cabinet Member for Childrens’ Services Cllr Tony Smith) arrived late. It is of course extremely difficult to describe what the Labour position is on Lyndale School other than being pro closure consultation, telling the public that they have an open mind and that no decision has been made yet. A decision is expected on the 4th September on the next stage. The point that Labour are keen to make is not for Labour to do things that would give the impression that they have made their mind up. This was again made at the July Council meeting by Councillor Tony Smith and Councillor Phil Davies.
So in the words of a Wirral Council officer Phil Ward what was the purpose of these notes about the meetings? Phil Ward said “They’re notes recording the high level points raised at the meetings and importantly we will be reporting them to Cabinet.”
I had a look through the notes for the one question I asked in the two-hour meeting (something is there but it bears little resemblance to what I asked). It wasn’t there in any form that resembles what I asked. Maybe it wasn’t classed as “high level” enough. Maybe I should instead have started by saying “This is a high level question I am asking so please put it in the notes”. Or maybe Wirral Council doesn’t like putting down tricky questions and answers and prefers to subtly rewrite the historical record to suit itself.
However this isn’t about me. This is about Lyndale School. Let’s have a look at the notes Wirral Council produced.
Here’s the first line of their notes “10th April 2014: 10am to 12pm”
Err no, seems Wirral Council can’t get the date and time of its own consultation right (which should worry you there right from the start if they can’t get the simple stuff right like the date and time!) It should read “16th June 2014: 5.30pm to 7.30pm”.
Turns out there were two different meetings at Acre Lane as part of the consultation. There were notes from both meetings. Apologies.
Moving on, it seems the “points” column according to the table used are not what the people had to say at the consultation. No the “points” column is reserved solely for points made by officers and the Cabinet Member Cllr Tony Smith.
The more difficult questions raised, the important concerns of parents about what’s going to happen, what appears in the points column? Nothing… almost as if Wirral Council is ashamed as to what was said to these questions to be known in public.
Even some of the answers that do make it are misleading. At least one of the officers is in fact tying themselves in knots and going into policy areas that strictly speaking in my opinion they shouldn’t. To the best of my knowledge all the officers at that meeting are in politically restricted posts. One of these legal restrictions from what I remember is that they are not allowed to “speak to the public at large or to a section of the public with the apparent intention of affecting public support for a political party”.
Now I will make this clear, I’m not referring to Julia Hassall, David Armstrong or Andrew Roberts. These people are senior professionals and although I’m sure people like me make doing their jobs more difficult, I will state now my personal opinion that all three have been extremely professional in my past dealings with them.
This is despite me doing what in any other sphere of life outside the political arena would be classed as behaviour that would lead to people falling out with each other. I have written things (robust criticism would be putting it very mildly) that disagree with their professional opinions and have pointed out what I perceive as flaws in arguments they have used. They know I do not however do this out of malice or anything personal.
That’s just the nature of politics as one of the rules is “don’t take things personally”. Other people’s opinion of them may be wildly different but like myself they are doing a job in a highly political environment, so criticism goes with the territory. They are public figures (as are politicians) and are rewarded with a high salary partly to reflect the problems that having to deal with the likes of the press can cause.
Now you can point out at this point the press is supposed to be impartial. I try to be even-handed (and believe me that’s very difficult at times) and to quote Cllr Jerry Williams recently “There’s no side to the gentleman, he does a very good job”. An editorial decision (and I’m pretty sure the Wirral Globe takes a similar policy stance too) was made a long time ago that we’re against the closure of Lyndale School, but obviously in the reporting of this matter to do it justice we have to report both sides of this issue.
There are people of course that are for the closure of Lyndale School. You are entitled to your opinion too (it just happens to be one that this publication disagrees with but that is the nature of politics)! However one of the extremely important roles of the press in society is to stand up for the viewpoints of people who can’t advocate for themselves. The children of Lyndale School are in that position.
The person to whom my criticism is about at that meeting is the Wirral Council officer Phil Ward. Now I’m not saying he said things downright stupid and overt like “vote Labour in May” I’m not. However throughout the whole meeting he appeared to champion a particular policy position/stance on this matter.
There is admittedly a fine line between explaining decisions that have already been made and talking about decisions that have yet to be made by politicians in the future. The former is entirely legitimate for officers to do. Taking policy positions (especially on a party political matter such as how education budgets are spent) is something that officers have to be very careful of.
Now officers can say in relation to future decisions “based on my professional advice or opinion I advise you to do X (or X, Y and Z are options I’d prefer you to do X). However the decision is up to you.” That is one thing, however they should not advocate support when speaking to the public during a consultation for a particular political decision that has yet to be decided or even worse give the impression that a decision has already been made when it hasn’t yet (even if they think they can guess how it will be made). If they go down this route, their impartiality will be called and can be called into question (and his was during the meeting).
No officer at Wirral Council I know of before in a politically restricted post has done what was done at that consultation meeting by Phil Ward in the way he did it. Believe me, during meetings politicians have put officers under extreme pressure to take sides. Most officers with some common sense (and there are a lot of them at Wirral Council) will politely decline to answer such questions. This is what should happen.
This was however what the audience at Acre Lane found so amazing. A consultation is supposed to be about listening to their views (and yes Wirral Council has a long way to go on getting better at involving the public in their decision-making). However chairing this meeting was an officer who was the equivalent of waving a red flag to a bull. Had he come to the meeting with the genuine attitude of “We’re here today to hear your views, the purpose of the consultation is to do that, we appreciate you being here and we’ll listen carefully to what you have to say.” then I think the audience would’ve applauded him. However the impression the audience got was that he was lecturing them and completely impervious to any other viewpoints.
Sadly this particular officer did somewhat get stuck in “broadcast” mode. However, this attitude leads to the audience getting the following impression and I quote from the notes “No one has fully answered any question. You are just white-washing it. You have already made your decision”.
The Wirral public are not stupid, nor are they children. They are able to read people’s body language and how they say something. How something is said and the person’s body language when saying it are a large part of its meaning. Sadly Phil Ward didn’t seem politically savvy enough that night to develop a positive relationship with the audience. Nor did he seem to appreciate the way power shifts. The senior officers are better attuned to these kind of things.
There was for example in that room that night, Emma Rigby from the Wirral Globe, myself and Leonora. For those who recognise us, they’d know that that amount of people from the press means you have to be very careful what you say. I hope to carry on in the next few days with publishing a transcript of the long meeting itself. In the meantime the below links should take you to what has been published so far.
Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.
Applying the “public interest test” to this Freedom of Information Act request, they go on to state “the Council believes that all the information/responses for the consultation require collating and then they are published as a complete article. The Council does not want to release partial information at this time and
then have to amend its response.”
Although councillors were sent it before the debate on Lyndale School at the last full Council meeting on the 14th July, I remember during that meeting, the Mayor Cllr Foulkes stating that he’d only received it on the Saturday before the meeting (which was on Monday evening) so how could he be expected to have time to read it before the meeting (or words to that effect)? Similar reasons were also given by councillors last week on the Audit and Risk Management Committee over the amount of time to read a late 526 page supplementary agenda.
So, despite the fact that Wirral Council don’t seem to want the consultation responses to be published until around a week before the special Cabinet meeting (perhaps because all the responses will be hundreds of pages) here is a another consultation response from a married couple of a child at Stanley School. If Lyndale School closes, Stanley School is one of the two schools that Wirral Council have suggested that Lyndale children will be transferred to. I’ve blacked out the names and contact details of the parents who wrote this response.
LYNDALE CONSULTATION
Personal observations and thoughts from Parents with a child at Stanley School who has Severe Learning Disabilities, Autism and who is non-verbal.
Mrs XXXXXX attended the Consultation Meeting held at Stanley School on 3rd June and visited Lyndale School on 10th June, spending a morning meeting children and staff.
Firstly, the consultation document has no explanation of PMLD other than that it means Profound and Multiple Learning Difficulties (or is it Disabilities!) There is also nothing about the children currently at Lyndale (apart from the number of pupils) and their complex health and medical needs which are especially relevant to this consultation. This document has not made it easy for people and parents of especially Stanley school where there are currently no children with PMLD to be consulted properly when there is no meaningful information about the children that go to Lyndale in it. It is far too general and the information too money focused with nothing about the very complex needs of the children. The term CLD is also only defined as Complex Learning Difficulties (also disabilities) and no explanation or example given again.
We are against the proposal to close Lyndale School for the following reasons:
Lyndale school caters so well for the children who go to that school. Why jeopardise that? The children have very specific educational, care, health and developmental needs which we do not feel can be met at any other Wirral school. All avenues should be thoroughly explored to keep Lyndale School open. It is a vital part of the community it serves and it enriches the lives of the children that go there. Their families feel safe in the knowledge that their children are safe, happy and well looked after by the staff and health professionals at the school. This also aids their educational learning.
Large schools are not necessarily better schools. The advantage of a smaller school especially for children with PMLD is that their needs can be met in more manageable and stimulating surroundings and class sizes can be much smaller and better personalised.
Stanley school as it is currently staffed and equipped is not suitable for the children who go to Lyndale. It will need substantial investment to improve its suitability if it hopes to give children from Lyndale the same quality of life they currently have.
We can only comment on Stanley and not Elleray Park.
The children who attend Stanley school as well as having Complex Learning Disabilities, in many cases also have additional needs stemming from autism, communication difficulties and behavioural issues. They do not have the same physical frailties as most of the Lyndale children and many will not understand the potential dangers of physical interactions.
The practicalities of putting together 90+ very physically active children with predominantly physically frail and vulnerable children is a real worry for us and other parents/carers from both schools. There is a very real possibility of harm being caused inadvertently.
Bringing the Lyndale children to Stanley school will bring massive disruption to all of the children from both schools. It also raises serious safeguarding issues when physically frail children are in close proximity to robust physically active children with unpredictable behaviour patterns.
Stanley school has one full time nurse. Additional specialised staff would be needed (at significant cost) to provide medical support for the Lyndale children’s medical and health needs. Also specialised training in lots of areas including tube feeding and use of oxygen would be essential.
Outdoor environment. There is a lack of suitable outdoor play space at Stanley even for the current children who attend. For a new build this is unacceptable and should not have been allowed to happen. There are no green spaces nor the sensory garden which was promised. The upper school playground is the
area in which the school transport drops off and picks up and was painted by the council with road markings. This has caused a vast amount of confusion and problems for a lot of children who are directed to play there when parents/carers spend so much time and effort trying to teach road safety. It will be even more unsuitable and totally uninspiring for children whose current school has a vast
amount of greenery, quiet areas, a wonderful sensory garden and practical outside spaces.
Indoor environment. The new Stanley school has been set up to be predominantly low arousal and this conflicts with the stimulating environment at Lyndale.
There is not currently the capacity at Stanley to cope with the relocation of Lyndale children and provide spaces for children coming through the new Education Health and Care Plan (statementing) process due to begin September 2014.
Parents/carers chose a school for their child based on circumstances at the time of statementing. If Lyndale is closed then the council will be shifting the goal posts for many of the pupils in other Special Schools as well. This may lead to parents/carers of children in the other schools exploring alternative provision for their own children’s education as the whole ethos and set up of that school will change.
The ideal time to bring Stanley and Lyndale together would have been when Stanley was rebuilt. The new Stanley school could have been designed to cater for all the children and would have brought the 2 schools together in one space under one roof in a totally planned and coordinated way having regards for the needs of both sets of children. This possibility of closing Lyndale and transferring the children to other schools just seems totally haphazard.
Yes Stanley can be changed, but at what cost to Lyndale and Stanley children’s current and future education and lives? For us as a family it is not a case of not wanting Lyndale children, rather it is more that it shouldn’t have come to this situation, forcing a decision by this consultation.
Closing Lyndale will severely reduce the flexibility and capacity of Special Educational Needs primary school places in the borough. This is a very piecemeal and frankly idiotic way of planning SEN provision in Wirral.
SEN provision in the borough needs to be considered as a whole and not on a school by school basis as seems to be happening at the moment. Closing one school will have a massive effect on the sector because of the relatively small size of that sector. Once a school is closed there is no going back for anyone! This is a very risky strategy.
Special schools are not the same as mainstream where they can fairly easily absorb pupils from other schools if one is closed. There are many more wider issues to consider around SEN and disability. Transition, well being, funding, resources and integration are more complex.
The Council should be looking at the whole picture. Look at what there is now and plan for the long term future. There is a real need to come up with a sensible plan and not do it school by school.
The Wirral Councillors making these important and ultimately life changing decisions for many children and their families have absolutely no understanding (unless they have a disabled child or relative themselves) of the demanding and challenging issues those children and families face day to day. That is why it was so important to visit Lyndale, see the children, the school, meet with the staff and gain a valuable insight into the educational lives of these children and what it means to their families.
Each day can be a massive struggle for parents/carers and their disabled children and it is the staff and health professionals at our special schools who provide much needed and essential support to these children and families. Our Special schools of Lyndale and Stanley are very different from mainstream schools in the way that they operate a very flexible open door policy and the staff are very much like an extended family you can call on for advice and support when you need it. They are more than educational establishments, they are family and treasured for what they bring to our children. The depth of feeling on this special relationship should not be under estimated. If Lyndale is closed that
relationship will be ripped apart from those children and families. How can you replace that?
Our children are all individuals with their own specific needs and personalities and their parents/carers know their child best. They are the ones that should be listened to and taken notice of in all areas affecting their children, especially about their education, happiness, health, safety and security. Every child is different and you cannot generalise their needs. What may be ok for one child
could be horrendous for another and people don’t always think about that. They are all children who deserve the best we can give them to enable them to flourish and have a happy life.
It was an absolute privilege to visit Lyndale School and it would benefit no one to
close it. It would cause intolerable stress and anxiety to children, families and
staff who are uncertain about their jobs. How can taking away a major part of
their daily lives and support system be beneficial?
Mr & Mrs XXXXXX
If you have a response to the Lyndale School consultation you’d like published on this blog please email it to me at john.brace@gmail.com.
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
The politics of jealousy: why Wirral’s 66 politicians need to be careful what they say about disability
Liverpool Carnival Parade 2014: A number of wheelchair users taking part in the parade
The politics of jealousy: why Wirral’s 66 politicians need to be careful what they say about disability
Above is a photo of a carnival you will probably never get to see in a newspaper as it shows two disabled people in wheelchairs participating in the parade. So why am I showing you this and what relevance does it have?
For years, Wirral Council has got itself into trouble on disability issues. I’ll briefly recap, Martin Morton and the way Adult Social Services treated disabled adults, the proposed closure of Moreton Day Centre and now the proposed closure of Lyndale School.
The thread running through all of those is an extremely dangerous one to tell society. It’s one of withdrawing services for those with a disability or in the case of Martin Morton’s whistleblowing shamefully taking advantage of adults with disabilities as some of them due to the nature of their disability can’t stand up to organisations like Wirral Council without outside help.
So what sort of message does this give out? It’s one of jealousy of the vital services people require because of their disability. It’s one that fuels an increase in disability hate crime (much of which goes unreported). It’s one (that in the case of Lyndale School) thousands signed a petition against it going any further.
Disabled people are a part of society. I was brought up in the 80s and we were taught to be accepting and tolerant. When I was a teenager I went to school with a lad who had epilepsy, he used to routinely have fits and the school called an ambulance due to him knocking himself out. We didn’t treat him any differently though because of his epilepsy! We treated him as a friend.
In adult life I sat on a university committee of staff and students (I was there to represent the views of ~17,000 students). In what to some will seem an extremely ironic twist, the law library wasn’t accessible to wheelchair users as it was on the first floor. Despite our pleas, despite this being unlawful, the Chair of the committee was told that the university wanted to spend the small amount of money for adapting the building on other things. Disabled students weren’t a priority you see, not to senior management who came from a bygone age when people with disabilities didn’t go to university.
However, politicians have to be extremely careful when dealing with sensitive issues involving minorities. There’s a sensational over reporting of benefit fraud cases in the media. Officially more is lost to administrative errors than benefit fraud and the rates of benefit fraud are extremely low. Due to the press coverage this isn’t what some of the public think. Telling the public such boring facts sadly doesn’t tie in with the political line of some irresponsible tabloid sensational journalism.
So going back to Lyndale School. My views on it are well known and on public record. I don’t have any personal connection to the place other than having known its Chair of Governors Tom Harney for many years. The problem for Wirral Council is this though, it has a very chequered history involving disability issues that the public know about through the press. Such issues weren’t caused by one or two people being prejudiced but a culture at Wirral Council that allowed this to operate.
Now I know there are plenty of politicians at Wirral Council that know what happened in the past was wrong and despite what some people may think about politicians I know that many have a highly developed sense of right and wrong and know in their hearts when they’re asked to vote for something they don’t believe in. Yes, I’m being reasonable to politicians for a change.*
*A rare occasion I know.
The change has to start with them though, the rhetoric has got to change, the demonising of the disabled and minorities in society that they know can’t speak back has got to stop. For that they’ve got to look into their hearts. They’ve got to realise the damage their actions, that their words are doing to society at large, they’ve got to have some understanding of the consequences.
The people involved in the Lyndale School campaign are wonderful, pleasant people. Just because I wrote about what was happening I got sent a thank you card! I’ve never received a thank you card for a story I’ve written on this blog before (or since).
No, don’t be silly I’m never expecting a thank you card for writing about politicians but I’m trying to get across that the people involved with Lyndale School are very different to the political class. Unlike how certain politicians are being portrayed I don’t think many of the people involved in Lyndale School have even one ruthless bone in their entire body.
Yet this has been a struggle for them, they have families to care for and children with very complex and life limiting conditions. Many of them should be rewarded, applauded for the unsung work they do every day, unthanked by some politicians who now propose pulling the rug out from under their feet. The work of unpaid carers doing hard work in difficult circumstances saves the taxpayer billions each year.
The issues involving disability, culture, prejudice and stereotyping are extremely complex. They won’t be solved overnight. The law has changed, such legal battles have been won but society itself needs to catch up. My plea to politicians is to show leadership, to realise the sensitivities of these issues and to realise there are times when the politically right thing is to show compassion, humility and be flexible enough to have an open mind on such issues. The days of prejudice and stereotyping by politicians should be confined to the history books as they no longer have a part to play in 21st century society.
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
How did 62 Wirral Council councillors vote on Lyndale School?
How did 62 Wirral Council councillors vote on Lyndale School?
Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.
Councillor Jeff Green said that the children attending Lyndale School had complex and profound medical conditions with a significant number being life limiting. In his opinion they had a moral obligation to meet the wishes of the parents to continue their child’s education at Lyndale. He said that the direct schools grant was ring-fenced for education so no savings would be made by closing Lyndale.
He continued by referring to the over ten thousand people that had signed a petition against closure. If Lyndale closed, the children would transfer to other schools which catered for children with very different needs. Cllr Green referred to the review of primary places and the reasons given by officers for closing Kingsway Primary School in Seacombe. The Conservative councillors had voted to keep it open and it had thrived since receiving an outstanding OFSTED inspection. He asked the [Labour] administration to have a change of heart and keep the school open as it was a facility doing an “outstanding job”.
The Mayor (Cllr Steve Foulkes) said it had been remiss of his not to congratulate Cllr Pat Cleary on his maiden speech. He asked Cllr Hayes to give his right to reply.
Cllr Hayes also took the opportunity to congratulate Cllr Cleary on his maiden speech and referred to what Cllr Cleary had said earlier about a previous consultation where the Leader of the Council had expedited a proposal based on an early evaluation of consultation responses. He asked why is it they have to wait till 4th September when the consultation ended on the 25th June? In debating the notice of motion Council was taking a view and making a recommendation which it had done many times on different issues.
He referred to the consultation process and the glowing terms and how it was held out as an example of good practice by both Cllr Phil Davies and Cllr Tony Smith. However questions put by parents to Wirral Council had been answered on the final day of the consultation, so where was the “equality of arms”. He said it was time to end the “misery and pain” and time that the Cabinet made a resolution that Lyndale was to remain open.
A card vote was called for. The first vote was on Labour’s amendment (to defer any decision on the future of Lyndale School to a special meeting of Cabinet in September).
Cllr Ron Abbey (Labour) FOR
Cllr Tom Anderson (Conservative) AGAINST
Cllr Bruce Berry (Conservative) AGAINST
Cllr Chris Blakeley (Conservative) AGAINST
Cllr Eddie Boult (Conservative) AGAINST
Cllr Alan Brighouse (Liberal Democrat) AGAINST
Cllr Philip Brightmore (Labour) FOR
Cllr Chris Carubia (Liberal Democrat) AGAINST
Cllr Pat Cleary (Green) AGAINST
Cllr Jim Crabtree (Labour) FOR
Cllr Matt Daniel (Labour) FOR
Cllr George Davies (Labour) FOR
Cllr Phil Davies (Labour) FOR
Cllr Bill Davies (Labour) FOR
Cllr Paul Doughty (Labour) FOR
Cllr David Elderton (Conservative) AGAINST
Cllr Gerry Ellis (Conservative) AGAINST
Cllr Steve Foulkes (Labour) ABSTAIN
Cllr Phil Gilchrist (Liberal Democrat) AGAINST
Cllr Jeff Green (Conservative) AGAINST
Cllr Robert Gregson (Labour) FOR
Cllr Pat Hackett (Labour) FOR
Cllr Paul Hayes (Conservative) AGAINST
Cllr Andrew Hodson (Conservative) AGAINST
Cllr Kathy Hodson (Conservative) AGAINST
Cllr Mike Hornby (Conservative) AGAINST
Cllr Treena Johnson (Labour) FOR
Cllr Adrian Jones (Labour) FOR
Cllr Chris Jones (Labour) FOR
Cllr Stuart Kelly (Liberal Democrat) AGAINST
Cllr Anita Leech (Labour) FOR
Cllr Ann McLachlan (Labour) FOR
Cllr Moira McLaughlin (Labour) FOR
Cllr Dave Mitchell (Liberal Democrat) AGAINST
Cllr Bernie Mooney (Labour) FOR
Cllr Christina Muspratt (Labour) FOR
Cllr Steve Niblock (Labour) FOR
Cllr Tony Norbury (Labour) FOR
Cllr Matthew Patrick (Labour) FOR
Cllr Denise Realey (Labour) FOR
Cllr Louise Reecejones (Labour) FOR
Cllr Lesley Rennie (Conservative) AGAINST
Cllr Les Rowlands (Conservative) AGAINST
Cllr John Salter (Labour) FOR
Cllr Harry Smith (Labour) FOR
Cllr Tony Smith (Labour) FOR
Cllr Tracey Smith (Conservative) AGAINST
Cllr Walter Smith (Labour) FOR
Cllr Chris Spriggs (Labour) FOR
Cllr Jean Stapleton (Labour) FOR
Cllr Mike Sullivan (Labour) FOR
Cllr Adam Sykes (Conservative) AGAINST
Cllr Joe Walsh (Labour) FOR
Cllr Geoffrey Watt (Conservative) AGAINST
Cllr Stuart Whittingham (Labour) FOR
Cllr Irene Williams (Labour) FOR
Cllr Jerry Williams (Labour) FOR
Cllr Pat Williams (Liberal Democrat) AGAINST
Cllr Steve Williams (Conservative) AGAINST
Cllr Janette Williamson (Labour) FOR
The vote was announced as 35 in favour, 26 against with one abstention. There was then a card vote on the motion (as amended by Labour’s amendment).
So the decision made was to defer a decision on Lyndale School to a special meeting of the Cabinet on September 4th.
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
