London Borough of Islington & Ors v Mayor of London & Ors

The claim challenged the Mayor of London’s and LFEPA’s adoption of the Fifth London Safety Plan 2013-16 (LSP5) principally on public law grounds (irrationality/Wednesbury), for alleged failure to take into account relevant considerations (including local risk and third-appliance and full response times), for defective consultation and for breach of the public sector equality duty under s.149 of the Equality Act 2010. The court treated the challenge primarily as a review of process rather than merits and examined whether statutory requirements (including the Fire and Rescue National Framework and duties under the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 and the GLA Act 1999) and the PSED had been respected.

The judge concluded that the Commissioner’s modelling (carried out with ORH) validly incorporated detailed localised historic data on serious incidents (five-year incident distributions assigned to 6,700 risk nodes), that attendance-time performance standards were performance indicators rather than proxies for risk, and that the optimisation, simulation and sensitivity analyses collectively engaged with foreseeable risks. The consultation was found not to be so unfair as to vitiate the decision, and the public sector equality duty was addressed in substance by targeted risk/lifestyle analysis and borough-level equality assessments. The claim was dismissed.

This judicial review concerned LSP5, the integrated risk management plan recommending station closures, appliance decommissioning and firefighter reductions to meet required savings. Claimants were seven inner London boroughs and an individual resident; defendants were the Mayor of London, the London Fire Commissioner and LFEPA; the Fire Brigades Union intervened in support of the challenges.

Nature of the claim/application: judicial review seeking to quash the decision(s) adopting and directing implementation of LSP5 on grounds of irrationality/Wednesbury unreasonableness, unlawful consultation, and breach of the public sector equality duty (s.149 EA 2010).

Issues framed by the court:

• Whether the decision‑making process lawfully identified and assessed "all foreseeable fire and rescue related risks" as required by the National Framework and associated guidance;
• whether the Commissioner and Mayor treated attendance time standards and the principle of equal entitlement in a way that rendered the decision irrational;
• whether the consultation was legally adequate (scope, disclosure of ward/third-appliance impacts and certain numerical material); and
• whether the public sector equality duty was complied with in substance.

Court’s reasoning (concise): the court accepted that the legal remit was narrow and process-focused. It found the modelling methodology legitimate and that historical serious-incident data (two-or-more-appliance incidents over five years) and a detailed travel-time/risk-node matrix meant local risk was built into optimisation and subsequent sensitivity testing. The judge held that the attendance standards (6/8 minutes etc.) were performance indicators used to assess model outputs, not drivers that displaced risk-based planning; and that the Commissioner’s sensitivity analysis and the equality analyses addressed the PSED in substance (using lifestyle/'priority postcode' targeting and borough-level equality assessments rather than a ward-by-ward protected-characteristic census). On consultation the court accepted some shortcomings (e.g. presentation of a fatality calculation) but found no material unfairness requiring quashing. The court applied ordinary Wednesbury review and refused to adopt heightened/anxious scrutiny. The claim was dismissed and certain procedural reliefs refused.

The claim is dismissed. The court held that (i) the decision-making process was lawful and rational in that the Commissioner’s modelling incorporated detailed locality-based historic incident data and conducted sensitivity analysis; (ii) the consultation, while imperfect in presentation of some material, was not so unfair as to vitiate the outcome; and (iii) the public sector equality duty had been considered in substance through lifestyle/priority-postcode targeting and borough-level equality analyses. The court declined to apply heightened scrutiny and refused a free‑standing challenge to the Commissioner’s report and to a separate FBU re-consultation claim about FRUs.