Williams, R (on the application of) v Caerphilly County Borough Council

A local authority’s general strategy is not necessarily a decision concerned with its budget, borrowing or capital expenditure. The relevant focus is the function being exercised and the decision’s direct consequences. A statutory duty to secure continuous improvement and consult on improvement arrangements does not apply to every strategic decision. The public sector equality duty requires a conscious and rigorous consideration of the statutory equality criteria when the specific decision is made. A generic or historic equality assessment may not suffice, and the court will not assume that compliance would have made no difference without a secure evidential basis. A consultation response raising a possible community asset transfer does not require the authority to pursue that option where the authority reasonably decides it is not a relevant consideration.

The claimant sought judicial review of two decisions by the Council. The first was the Cabinet’s adoption of a Sport and Active Recreation Strategy for 2019–2029. The second was the Cabinet’s decision to close Pontllanfraith Leisure Centre.

The challenge to the Strategy Decision alleged that the Cabinet lacked authority, lacked adequate financial information, and failed to comply with improvement and consultation duties under the Local Government (Wales) Measure 2009. The challenge to the Closure Decision alleged breach of the public sector equality duty and failure to consider community asset transfer.

1. Strategy Decision. The relevant function was the subsidiary power under section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972, rather than the power to provide recreational facilities under section 19 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976. Under paragraph 2 of Schedule 4 to the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Functions and Responsibilities) (Wales) Regulations 2007, the focus was on the function being discharged and the decision’s direct consequences. The Strategy was a general policy direction. It did not commit the Council to specific expenditure, capital expenditure or borrowing. The Cabinet therefore had authority to adopt it.
2. The absence of detailed implementation costs did not make adoption unlawful. The Strategy did not authorise a specific programme of works, and future proposals would require separate decisions and business cases. Financial considerations could properly be addressed incrementally. The challenge based on irrationality and inadequate financial information failed.
3. The duties in sections 2 and 5 of the Local Government (Wales) Measure 2009 concern arrangements to secure continuous improvement and consultation about those arrangements. They do not attach to every strategic or high-level decision. The Strategy was a plan for the future exercise of ordinary functions, not an improvement arrangement. The consultation duty therefore did not arise. Part 1 of the Measure remained in force; it had not been repealed, impliedly repealed or lost by desuetude.
4. Closure Decision. Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 required due regard to the equality objectives. The question was substantive: whether the decision-maker had consciously and carefully considered the likely effect of closure on persons sharing protected characteristics. The earlier assessments and the generic Strategy assessment did not address the specific closure. The officer’s report and minutes did not demonstrate focused consideration of the likely effects on older and disabled users.
5. The Council’s no-difference argument failed. The duty concerns the decision-making process, and there was no secure basis for concluding that proper compliance would have made no difference. Ground 4 succeeded.
6. The Council was not legally required to pursue community asset transfer. It was entitled, within the bounds of Wednesbury reasonableness, to decide whether that possibility was a relevant consideration. The failure to pursue it did not make the Closure Decision unlawful. The judicial review was allowed only on Ground 4.