A & Ors, R (on the application of) v Oxfordshire County Council

A local authority may set a budget and indicative medium-term financial plan without thereby determining the precise form of future services. The executive must retain an open mind when making later operational decisions, and must assess need, consultation responses and equality implications at the stage when the service decision is made.

The public sector equality duty requires substantive, rigorous and open-minded consideration. It does not ordinarily require a fresh reconsideration of the overall budgetary envelope fixed by the full council. A consultation duty is not necessarily breached because final consultation responses were unavailable when the budget was set, where the executive later makes the effective service decision and properly considers them.

The claimants, children who benefited from open-access children’s centres, sought judicial review of Oxfordshire County Council’s budget decision of 16 February 2016 and the Cabinet’s decision of 23 February 2016 to develop eight children and family centres.

They argued that the Council and Cabinet unlawfully treated a proposed £6 million reduction in children’s services as fixed, without properly assessing need, considering consultation responses or complying with the public sector equality duty under the Equality Act 2010. The claim was heard as a rolled-up application for permission and, if permission were granted, substantive relief.

1. Outcome. Permission was refused and the applications were dismissed. The claim was untenable on the facts and had no significant legal merit.
2. The full Council was responsible for setting the annual budget, while the Cabinet was responsible for determining the precise expenditure and allocation of the sums available. The medium-term financial plan was indicative and flexible. It did not bind the Cabinet to a particular service model or prevent alternative savings being considered.
3. The Cabinet did not in fact treat the medium-term financial plan as set in stone. The evidence of the lead Cabinet member, the Council’s alteration of the proposed reduction and the debate about children’s centres showed that the decision-makers understood that flexibility remained.
4. In any event, treating the budget as a funding envelope would not itself breach the relevant duties. The full Council was not required to reconsider the precise future form of children’s services when setting that envelope. It had complied with the public sector equality duty in substance, with knowledge of the likely effects on vulnerable groups and after real debate. The Cabinet later considered the service and community impact assessment, consultation responses and equality implications.
5. The consultation duty under section 5D of the Childcare Act 2006 required consultation before the effective service decision. It did not invalidate the budget merely because the Council had not received the completed consultation report when setting it. The Cabinet was the body required to consider the detailed responses before deciding the service model, and there was no suggestion that it failed to do so.
6. The court also accepted, as an alternative, that the earlier equality assessment and the February 2016 decision-making process were sufficient. Had an error been established, the evidence showed a very strong probability that the outcome would have been substantially the same, meeting the high threshold under the Senior Courts Act 1981.

Not applicable. The judgment was a first-instance decision of the High Court (Administrative Court).