Councillors kicked back but still got forced into a secret vote on what happens next with Warwickshire County Council's ill-fated 'Bridge to Nowhere'.

Green Party group leader Cllr Jonathan Chilvers and colleague Cllr Keith Kondakor sought to challenge whether the entire update on the overdue and over-budget road capacity works over the A46 at Stoneleigh Junction should be heard in private session.

Cllr Chilvers was denied permission to speak and Cllr Kondakor was twice stopped from raising a point of order by chair Cllr Ed Harris, decisions he articulated following prompts from chief executive Monica Fogarty.

Conventionally, all councillors are asked to approve going into private session before asking members of the public and press to leave and it almost always gets passed without dissent. 

Some hands were raised to send it into private session but many councillors paused with neither Cllr Harris, Ms Fogarty nor monitoring officer Sarah Duxbury – the county council's most senior legal official – declaring that the vote had been carried.

Ms Fogarty later prompted Cllr Harris to say there would be no vote and the public and press were asked to leave.

The Green duo subsequently told the Local Democracy Reporting Service that it was never their wish to discuss commercially sensitive matters in public but argued updates on the project itself and discussion of the knock-on effects of the project already being so far over budget should not be hidden.

The council has confirmed a behind-closed-doors vote meant the project would continue from January 2026.

What's the row about?

It relates to the currently disconnected bridge straddling the A46 at Stoneleigh Junction, near Kenilworth.

Problems associated with a lack of available material for the accesses and subsequent cost overruns resulted in a redesign of the scheme which pushed back the finish date to the summer of 2027 – five years later than planned.

The last published estimate cost of £57 million is more than two-and-a-half times the £21 million mooted when the project was initially taken forward by a Conservative cabinet in 2016 and 50 per cent more than the £38 million quoted when more detailed plans were rubber stamped. 

The £38 million was brought together by a mix of funding partners but Warwickshire County Council is alone in being on the hook for every penny spent beyond that. 

The vote that never was…

Cllr Harris introduced the exclusion of public and press as he normally would with Cllr Chilvers and Cllr Kondakor raising their hands.

The council's livestream of the meeting shows Ms Fogarty shaking her head in their direction, with Cllr Kondakor then asking to make a point of order and Cllr Chilvers asking if he could "speak on this briefly".

Cllr Harris' microphone picked up Ms Fogarty's prompt for him to say there would be "no provision for speaking".

Cllr Kondakor again asked to raise a point of order with Ms Fogarty heard to say to Cllr Harris "there is no point of order", which he repeated.

The council's standing order 6.8 states that "an elected member may raise a point of order at any time" but that it "may only relate to an alleged breach of these standing orders or the law". It adds that "the elected member must cite the rule or law and the way in which they consider it has been broken".

Cllr Kondakor was not afforded that opportunity. 

Ms Fogarty then prompted Cllr Harris to "ask the council if they approve the exclusion", which he did, adding: "All in favour, yes? Do you agree with the statement and exclusion of the press and public?"

Cllr Kondakor asked: "Could we wait a moment?"

At that point, leader Cllr George Finch jumped in: "Why? Why are we waiting? We've never done that before."

Ms Fogarty then stood to address the meeting. "Councillors, to be clear there is no provision for a debate. It is simply to ask councillors to agree with the statement," she said. 

Cllr Kondakor replied: "But we have the option of not agreeing. We should be able to explain why we don't agree."

Ms Fogarty said: "There is no such provision to not agree. It has been published on the agenda as an exempt item and this is simply a procedural matter to exclude the press and public, that is all."

Murmurs continued with Cllr Harris, appearing to refer to a vote, saying it would be a "straightforward for and against", but his microphone picked up Ms Fogarty saying: "There is no vote."

Cllr Harris said: "There is no vote required, so essentially we are asking the press and public if they wouldn't mind leaving at this point."

Was the council right? 

The council has cited commercial sensitivity throughout its protracted negotiations with contractors Colas. 

Early this year, then-portfolio holder for finance and property Peter Butlin mistakenly let slip a further £16 million had been put aside to deal with cost overruns, essentially showing the council's hand to contractors that set the prices. His subsequent acknowledgement of the error and apology was accepted across the board by fellow members of the previous council.

Commercial sensitivity is among the valid reasons to hear such things in private provided "in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information".

However, updates on elements that don't relate to money are also being heard behind closed doors, a matter that the Local Democracy Reporting Service raised with Warwickshire County Council last month. 

A council statement read: "The project is still subject to the restraints of commercial sensitivity so at this stage it remains inappropriate to discuss it in public. We are working towards providing public updates as soon as we are able to."

However, that was accompanied by news that specialist rock cutters had been put in place ready to restart work in the new year, long before Tuesday's debate and decision.

The council was asked why these types of updates had not been heard in public sessions and what consideration had been given to hearing some parts in public and some in private. That was more than two weeks ago and no response has been received.

Cllr Kondakor later told the Local Democracy Reporting Service: "If we are doing things in confidence, that should at least be voted on in public – it's not like all councillors are happy with the stuff that's happening.

"The rock cutters – who was told about that? We need some public statements so councillors know where the line is on what they can talk about."

'Disaster'

Cllr Chilvers, who remained in the chamber for the private debate and confirmed a vote had been held, said: "This whole project is a massive disaster and it is so big that it has a knock-on impact to the rest of the county's finances.

"It means that some of the schemes in each individual areas or towns, like keeping areas around schools safe, might not happen.

"The public deserves to have some insight into something of this scale. Some of this has to be confidential because we are still negotiating with contractors but some of this should have been in the public domain."

Asked which elements should have been heard publicly, Cllr Chilvers replied: "The general knock-on impact for the public's finances.

"There were hints of it in the statement of accounts for 2024-25, something that was in the public domain. It named a figure of an outstanding £13 million in accounting terms, we know that figure is no longer accurate but we can't say what it is."

Bigger cost overrun? 

Cllr Chilvers confirmed he was unable to talk about what he had voted on.

However, decisions costing less than £2 million do not have to go to full council votes, they can be signed off by cabinet members – the Reform UK councillors in charge of major service areas. 

Cllr Chilvers said: "This confidential report would not be coming forward if all of this was still hunky-dory.

"We saw that in March when the previous administration let out the £57 million figure. Originally this project was £22 million, then it was £23 million, then £30 million, then it was £57 million. Who knows what it will end up as?

"It is right that some of this is confidential, we want to get the best value from the contractor. I don't have a problem with some of it but we could look at the general principles of what is going on here, the magnitude of spend and the knock-on effect it has on other areas of the council."