Wyn Williams J, High Court (Admin)

The claimant, a young person who used a youth centre funded by the defendant council, sought declaratory relief and a quashing order in relation to the council's 2012/13 revenue budget item CYPS-26 on youth services. The claim relied on two statutory grounds: (1) that the council failed to comply with section 507B of the Education Act 1996 and the Secretary of State's statutory guidance by failing to take steps to ascertain and take into account the views of qualifying young persons; and (2) that the council failed to have due regard to the public sector equality duties under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010.

The judge concluded that the decision to approve the budget did involve a function under section 507B because the proposal envisaged potential closure of youth centres, but that the council had "taken steps" to ascertain young people's views through a published medium term financial plan, council magazine distribution, meetings with management committees and wider public consultation in late 2011. Those measures satisfied the statutory threshold.

The judge also concluded that members had adequate information, including equality impact assessments and appendix summaries, alternative budgets and trade union representations, and therefore had due regard to the section 149 duties when approving the budget. On both grounds the claimant's challenge failed and the claim was dismissed. The judge also considered and rejected a submission that section 66 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 foreclosed relief in this case, observing that even if relief were appropriate a quashing of a single budget line would not necessarily engage section 66(2)-(3) in the way suggested by the defendant.

Background and parties

The claimant, a 21 year old attendee of a youth centre funded by North Somerset Council, challenged the council's approval of its revenue budget for 2012/13 so far as it affected youth services, and in particular the budget item referenced CYPS-26. The claimant originally sought a wider quashing order but limited the quashing relief to CYPS-26. The defendant is the local billing authority.

Relief sought and procedural posture

• The claimant sought declaratory relief and a quashing order in respect of the CYPS-26 budget proposal. The proceedings were first instance judicial review in the Administrative Court before Wyn Williams J.

Issues framed by the court

1. Whether the council, in approving the revenue budget, was exercising a function under section 507B Education Act 1996 so as to attract the duties in section 507B(9) to take steps to ascertain and take account of the views of qualifying young persons; and if so whether the council breached that duty.
2. Whether the council and its members had due regard to the public sector equality duties under section 149 Equality Act 2010 when approving the budget, and whether the equality impact assessments provided were adequate to discharge that duty.
3. Whether statutory provisions in the Local Government Finance Act 1992 (in particular section 66) affected the court's remedial powers if a breach were found.

Court's reasoning and findings

The judge found that approval of the revenue budget did include approval of individual budget proposals such as CYPS-26 and therefore did amount to exercising a function under section 507B because CYPS-26 potentially envisaged closure of youth centres and thus could affect the sufficiency of youth facilities. He then analysed whether the council "took steps" to ascertain young people's views. The court accepted that the council undertook wide consultation in late 2011: publication of the draft Medium Term Financial Plan, an edition of the council magazine delivered to households explaining proposed youth service reductions, meetings with youth club management committees, a public consultation exercise and publication of equality impact assessment summaries (appendix 6) with the full EIAs made available on request or online. Although pre-approval consultation with individual young people was limited and further consultation prior to the 21 February 2012 budget meeting did not occur, the judge considered the statutory threshold of "taking steps" to be modest and held the council had satisfied it.

On the equality duty the judge applied established authorities on the content and operation of the public sector equality duty: the duty is fact sensitive, requires a conscious approach and rigour but does not demand exhaustive, forensic analysis of every protected characteristic in every case. The January 2012 EIA and the summaries, taken with members' access to background papers, a circulated trade union submission highlighting the duties, and the budget debate including a specific amendment to protect youth provision, provided sufficient information for members to have due regard to section 149. The court therefore rejected the claimant's complaint that the EIAs were inadequate for purposes of section 149.

Finally, the judge dealt with the defendant's reliance on section 66 Local Government Finance Act 1992 which, in certain circumstances, restricts judicial review of council tax calculations. The judge accepted that section 66 applies to challenges to the core calculations but considered that a quashing of a single budget element did not necessarily amount to quashing a calculation under section 66(2) and that the court should not interpret the Finance Act provisions so as to frustrate legitimate procedural challenges.

Outcome The claim was dismissed on both statutory grounds.

Claim dismissed. Wyn Williams J held that the council was exercising a function under section 507B Education Act 1996 but had taken sufficient steps to ascertain young persons' views and had regard to the Secretary of State's guidance; and that members had sufficient information, including equality impact assessments and consultation materials, to have due regard to the public sector equality duties in section 149 Equality Act 2010. Accordingly both grounds of challenge failed. The court also considered but did not need to apply the Local Government Finance Act 1992 section 66 bar to relief, concluding that a quashing of a single budget line would not necessarily be caught by section 66(2)-(3).