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

A fire and rescue authority may allocate limited resources by applying a London-wide principle of broadly equal entitlement to emergency response times, provided that foreseeable local risks are properly identified and considered. Detailed historical incident modelling, supplemented by sensitivity analysis, was capable of satisfying the National Framework. The court must not substitute its own assessment of competing resource-allocation choices unless the decision is irrational, material considerations were omitted, or the statutory process was unlawful. Consultation need not disclose every level of local detail at the outset, provided consultees can make an informed and meaningful response. The public sector equality duty requires substantive, proportionate consideration, but does not require exhaustive analysis of every protected group and geographical permutation.

The claimant boroughs and an individual resident challenged the adoption of the Fifth London Safety Plan 2013–16. The Plan provided for the closure of fire stations, decommissioning of appliances and reduction of firefighter posts to achieve substantial savings. The Mayor directed the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority to adopt the Commissioner’s revised proposals, which LFEPA ultimately did.

The claim alleged failure to assess foreseeable local risks, irrational reliance on equal response-time entitlement, failure to consider third-appliance and other operational factors, breach of the public sector equality duty, unfair consultation, and misdirection by the Mayor. The central questions were whether the decision-making process was unlawful and whether the consultation and equality analyses were legally adequate.

1. Claim dismissed. Permission was granted in relation to the decisions of the Mayor and LFEPA, but the substantive claim failed. Permission was refused in relation to the Commissioner’s report as a free-standing target of judicial review and in relation to the FBU’s additional FRU challenge.
2. The National Framework required foreseeable fire and rescue risks to be identified and assessed, but prescribed no particular methodology. The five-year history of serious incidents, assigned to approximately 6,700 risk nodes, provided a rational and sufficiently localised basis for modelling demand. The subsequent sensitivity analysis considered effects on priority postcodes, severe domestic fires, high-rise incidents, deprivation, fatalities, injuries, rescues, third-appliance attendance and heritage buildings.
3. The principle of equal entitlement was a guiding, not overriding, principle. It sought broadly similar attendance times for comparable incidents wherever they occurred in London. Its use did not erase local risk because serious-incident data influenced resource allocation. The 6- and 8-minute standards operated principally as performance indicators and did not unlawfully dictate the modelling outcome. Standard Wednesbury scrutiny applied; heightened scrutiny was not required.
4. The omission of call duration and post-arrival fire-fighting time, the treatment of third-appliance attendance, protection of 28 stations and temporary Southwark closures were matters of professional judgment. None established that the process was irrational or that a material consideration had been unlawfully ignored.
5. The consultation was effective. Ward-level information was supplied during the consultation when requested, leaving sufficient time for representations. The late disclosure of third-appliance data and the imperfect presentation of fatality calculations did not render the process unfair. The later FRU proposals did not constitute a fundamental difference requiring re-consultation.
6. The equality analyses, read as a whole, gave substantive and proportionate attention to protected characteristics. It was lawful to focus on lifestyle factors identifying those most at risk from fire, rather than undertake an exhaustive ward-by-ward analysis. The Mayor was entitled to rely on the Commissioner’s material after addressing compliance with section 149 of the Equality Act 2010.
7. The Mayor’s reference to maintaining public safety did not demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the Plan. The Commissioner’s advice recognised both increased attendance times in some areas and continuing preventive work. LFEPA was obliged to comply with the Mayor’s direction.

First-instance judicial review in the Administrative Court. The judgment records no appeal.