We call upon Ashford Borough Council, which exercises CCTV oversight across both Ashford and Tenterden, to immediately pause and reconsider the Cabinet decision made on 9 October 2025 authorising entry into the Swale CCTV Partnership for the provision of CCTV monitoring and out-of-hours call handling services. The proposed move date is 1 April 2026. The decision was made in exempt session pursuant to Paragraph 3 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972, notwithstanding that the financial, technical and workforce material said to underpin the proposal was neither disclosed nor made available for any form of meaningful scrutiny by affected staff, elected Members or the public. This includes the absence of any assessment of the material impact upon staff who would be required to undertake substantially longer commutes from Ashford, Tenterden and other parts of the borough to Swale. The significant burdens of increased travel time, personal expense and altered work–life balance, together with the foreseeable consequences for recruitment, retention and continuity of service, appear not to have been evaluated at all.

The statutory power to exclude the press and public is strictly circumscribed, must be exercised sparingly and only where demonstrably necessary, and must comply with the overarching principles of transparency, accountability and democratic oversight embedded in the local government framework. On the face of the available information, no adequate or proportionate justification has been advanced for withholding from public examination material central to a decision concerning a core public safety function. The opacity of the process, and the failure to disclose the evidence base underpinning the proposal, engages serious concerns as to procedural fairness, rationality, the taking into account of relevant considerations and adherence to the Council’s statutory obligations governing lawful decision-making under domestic public law.

There is no publicly available evidence demonstrating that the Council has met its statutory Best Value obligations under Section 3 of the Local Government Act 1999, which require the authority to secure continuous improvement in the way its functions are exercised, having regard to economy, efficiency and effectiveness. The Council has not disclosed any options appraisal or detailed evaluation of internal cost-saving or technological alternatives that could retain the CCTV service within Ashford while significantly reducing operating expenses. Alternatives such as line-of-sight transmission systems, wireless point-to-point connectivity, hybrid fibre-wireless solutions and competitive arrangements with alternative infrastructure providers have not been assessed transparently. Without this analysis, the assertion that outsourcing would deliver meaningful or sustainable savings cannot be properly verified or challenged, and the Council risks breaching both Best Value duties and its obligations under the Local Government Act 2000 to ensure transparent and accountable executive decision-making.

It is now publicly acknowledged that a significant number of CCTV cameras across Ashford and Tenterden have been out of operation for a prolonged period, with the result that the effectiveness and resilience of the Borough’s surveillance network has been materially compromised. Members of the public have expressed concern that essential coverage is no longer assured, and Kent Police have reportedly been unable, on several occasions, to obtain footage following incidents due to camera outages. These matters underscore a wider systemic issue within the existing service which appears not to have been examined, disclosed, or remedied prior to the Council’s decision to pursue outsourcing. A local authority cannot lawfully restructure, diminish or relocate a public-safety function while substantial elements of the underlying infrastructure remain non-operational, without first conducting and publishing a rigorous technical and operational assessment. The existence of widespread outages engages the Council’s duties under the Tameside principle, the Best Value framework, and the wider statutory obligations of transparency, accountability and informed decision-making. It is therefore imperative that the Council pause implementation of the proposed transfer until a full, evidence-based assessment has been completed and made publicly available.

Recent notes of a staff consultation meeting held on 6 November 2025 make matters even more troubling. Officers informed employees that the anticipated saving arising from the proposed outsourcing was “circa £300,000 per year” and that the annual cost of operating the Ashford Monitoring Centre was “£812,000”. When staff sought disclosure of the underlying financial analysis, including the breakdown of operational expenditure, building costs, BT line charges and other non-staffing cost drivers, they were told only that this would be “asked” and that the information might be shared. No business case, financial appraisal, alternative-options analysis or cost–benefit evaluation has been published. The consultation notes further record that the Cabinet report was treated as confidential and that although the minutes are publicly available, they contain no disclosure of the financial rationale relied upon.

These matters, taken cumulatively, underline the extent to which the Council has failed to comply with its statutory obligations. The Best Value duty under section 3 of the Local Government Act 1999 requires a demonstrable evidential foundation to support claims of economy, efficiency and effectiveness. The Local Government Act 2000 requires executive decisions to be taken transparently and on the basis of published material sufficient to permit meaningful scrutiny. The duty of inquiry articulated in Secretary of State for Education v Tameside MBC [1977] AC 1014 obliges a public authority to take reasonable steps to inform itself of all matters relevant to its decision. It is not open to a local authority to rely on unparticularised financial assertions, still less private assurances made verbally to staff, as a substitute for a publicly accessible and objectively verifiable evidence base.

The admissions contained within the consultation notes therefore do not mitigate the deficiencies; they exacerbate them. They amount to express confirmation that (i) the figures presented to staff are unsubstantiated, (ii) the underlying financial data has not been disclosed, and (iii) no reasoned, evidence-based justification has been provided for asserting that outsourcing delivers value for money or satisfies the statutory requirement of continuous improvement. On any view, the Council’s approach is inconsistent with lawful decision-making, irrational in the public law sense, and plainly fails to meet the standards imposed by domestic statute, caselaw and proper administrative practice.

It is further understood that the Council had previously considered relocating the CCTV control room from the old Civic Centre to International House at a significant capital cost. If outsourcing to Swale was pursued in order to avoid those internal relocation expenditures, that represents a material consideration that has not been disclosed or evaluated. A local authority is under a duty, articulated in the Tameside principles, to inform itself adequately of all relevant options before reaching a decision. In addition, the Council is subject to the statutory Best Value duty in Section 3 of the Local Government Act 1999, which requires a demonstrable appraisal of all reasonably available alternatives before adopting any course of action that involves public expenditure or significant service reform. The Local Government Act 2000 further requires executive decisions to be taken transparently and supported by published information sufficient to enable meaningful scrutiny. The Local Government Finance Act 1988 imposes a duty on the Section 151 officer to ensure that the financial affairs of the authority are properly administered, which includes ensuring that capital expenditure decisions are supported by sound comparative analysis. This requirement is reinforced by Regulations 3 and 4 of the Accounts and Audit Regulations 2015, which mandate that financial decisions must be taken in accordance with proper practices and supported by adequate accounting records.

The absence of any published analysis of the costings, feasibility or comparative merits of relocating the Ashford control room to International House, and the absence of any assessment of that option against outsourcing, reinforces concerns that relevant alternatives were not lawfully considered. Where an outsourcing decision may have been adopted to avoid internal capital investment, the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 may also be engaged, requiring the authority to demonstrate that the decision was taken in a manner that was transparent, objective and compliant with the principles governing public procurement. Furthermore, any material modification of the operation or location of a surveillance system engages the transparency and governance duties in the Surveillance Camera Code of Practice issued under Sections 33 and 34 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, including the requirement to publish a clear and evidenced rationale for any significant change to the system.

If the Council elected to outsource primarily to avoid internal capital investment, it was required to articulate and justify that rationale openly and to demonstrate that such an approach satisfied its statutory obligations under the Local Government Act 1999, the Local Government Act 2000 and the broader principles of lawful, transparent and evidence based decision making. No such justification has been provided.

There are also grave employment law concerns which appear not to have been identified, let alone addressed, in the Council’s decision making process. The existing CCTV workforce cannot lawfully be compelled to relocate to the Swale facility. Their contracts of employment do not appear to contain any express mobility clause capable of mandating relocation, and any attempt to impose such a requirement would amount to a unilateral variation of contract, a repudiatory breach and conduct entitling the employees to resign and claim constructive dismissal under the Employment Rights Act 1996. Moreover, such an imposed relocation would constitute a substantial and detrimental change in working conditions within the meaning of Regulation 4(9) of the TUPE Regulations 2006. Any dismissal arising for a reason connected with the transfer would be automatically unfair under Regulation 7 unless the Council could demonstrate an economic, technical or organisational reason entailing changes in the workforce. Cost saving, which appears to be the central rationale for the proposal, is incapable of satisfying that statutory test.

In addition, the Council’s own Conditions of Service reinforce the contractual limitations that appear to have been disregarded in the formulation of this proposal. Ashford Borough Council's Conditions of Service from August 2025 contain no mobility clause of any kind and therefore do not permit the Council to vary an employee’s contractual place of work unilaterally. The document treats the designated work location as a fixed contractual term and makes clear that travel provisions relate to work-related duties rather than a permanent change of base. Moreover, the Council’s Remote Working Policy, contained within the Conditions of Service, actively encourages remote and flexible working, emphasising the benefits of reduced commuting, improved wellbeing and lower personal travel burdens. These policies contradict the assumption that a wholesale relocation of staff to Swale is either necessary or consistent with established employment practices. The failure to consider these internal policies, the absence of any contractual authority to compel relocation, and the disregard of policies expressly designed to minimise excessive travel all reinforce the conclusion that the proposed transfer represents a substantial and detrimental change within the meaning of Regulation 4(9) of the TUPE Regulations 2006 and has been pursued without due regard to the Council’s own employment framework.

Staff were informed that no redundancies would occur, not because the Council intended to provide job security within Ashford, but because employees were told that they would be required to accept roles at Swale and that, as a consequence, redundancy would not be available as an option. The representation was therefore framed in terms that effectively removed any choice from employees, on the basis that a job exists for you at Swale and that an employee could not decline the transfer and access redundancy. This position is legally unsustainable. Under TUPE, an employee cannot be compelled to relocate where their contract contains no mobility clause, and the existence of a role with the transferee does not extinguish the statutory right to object to the transfer or to claim that the proposed change amounts to a substantial detriment under Regulation 4(9). Nor does it negate the protections concerning constructive dismissal under the Employment Rights Act 1996. If those assurances were presented as fixed and unconditional, they are capable of creating a substantive legitimate expectation under the principles in R v North and East Devon HA, ex p Coughlan. There is no evidence that the Council evaluated the legal consequences of informing staff that redundancy would not be available, and the failure to consider that issue raises serious concerns of fairness, reliance and legality.

It has also been suggested that transferring CCTV employees, many of whom earn salaries in the region of between £27,000 and £34,800 per annum, might enable the Council or its partner authority to secure savings of up to £10,000 per employee by placing staff onto Swale’s lower salary scale. If such an assumption informed the decision, it is fundamentally misconceived. Under Regulation 4 of TUPE, all contractual terms, including salary, must transfer intact. Reducing pay to achieve financial efficiencies or harmonising terms downward is prohibited and has been consistently held to be unlawful in domestic caselaw. Financial modelling predicated on impermissible salary reductions is therefore irrational, contrary to law and incapable of forming a legitimate basis for the decision.

The Council either knew, or ought to have known, that the proposed transfer cannot yield lawful salary related savings and that the outsourcing model rests on a misapprehension of the statutory framework governing the protection of employees’ rights. In proceeding on that basis, the Council may have failed to take into account matters that are highly material, and may have acted on an erroneous understanding of the law which is itself capable of amounting to a public law error. Staff were additionally assured that no redundancies would occur, and the Council does not appear to have considered whether that assurance induced a legitimate expectation or whether it would be frustrated by the proposed transfer. The failure to address these issues raises serious concerns regarding fairness, reliance and procedural propriety which do not appear to have been lawfully assessed.

Ashford’s CCTV control room is a publicly funded asset forming a critical component of local community safety, crime prevention, emergency response capability and democratic accountability. The decision to diminish, relocate or outsource this essential service was taken without any public consultation, without a published equality impact assessment as required under the Public Sector Equality Duty in Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, and without the disclosure of evidence capable of demonstrating that the proposal serves the public interest or meets any identified operational necessity. The absence of such assessments engages the well-established Tameside duty, requiring decision-makers to inform themselves properly of all relevant considerations before acting.

The Council has further failed to demonstrate compliance with the transparency and accountability principles that underpin the Human Rights Act 1998, particularly the public’s Article 10 right to receive information where access to that information is essential for democratic oversight of local authority decision-making. The proposed transfer also engages the Data Protection Act 2018 and the UK GDPR, including Article 5(1)(a), which requires personal data to be processed lawfully, fairly and transparently. The handling and potential transfer of CCTV data, which includes sensitive personal information of members of the public, demands a rigorous assessment of data protection risks, governance arrangements and accountability structures; yet no such assessment has been published or made available for scrutiny.

For these reasons, we request that the Council immediately suspend all steps connected with the proposed transfer. It is essential that no further action is taken until the Council has disclosed, in full, the financial, technical, operational and legal material said to have informed the Cabinet’s decision. A lawful and transparent re-evaluation must then be undertaken, including a proper appraisal of all reasonably available alternatives, in accordance with the duties of openness, accountability and informed decision-making embedded within the Local Government Act 2000 and the broader principles of public law. Any reconsideration must be subject to effective democratic oversight through Scrutiny or Full Council, rather than confined to exempt session.

We further seek confirmation that the Council will comply with its statutory obligations under the Best Value framework in Section 3 of the Local Government Act 1999, the Public Sector Equality Duty in Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, and the transparency, fairness and accountability requirements arising under the Data Protection Act 2018 and UK GDPR. The Council must also demonstrate adherence to the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the TUPE Regulations 2006, including the prohibition on altering contractual terms for cost-saving purposes. It is imperative that the CCTV monitoring function is retained within Ashford unless and until a clearly superior, fully evidenced and publicly supported alternative is established.

Finally, the Monitoring Officer is reminded of the mandatory statutory duty under Section 5 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 to prepare a formal report and halt implementation where a decision appears unlawful, procedurally improper or in breach of any enactment. On the face of the available information, that threshold appears engaged.