L (An Infant), R (On the Application Of) v Buckinghamshire County Council

A local authority deciding the sufficiency of children’s centres must assess local need, sufficient provision, and what provision is reasonably practicable, including affordability, buildings, geography and accessibility. No particular methodology or express formula is required if the duty is performed in substance. A statutory consultation need not ask whether the status quo should be maintained where the authority is consulting on realistic proposals within a reduced budget, provided consultees can suggest alternatives and respond meaningfully. A provisional view or preferred option does not establish predetermination. Public sector equality duties require a rigorous and informed assessment of likely impacts, but the weight given to those impacts remains for the decision-maker.

The claimant, an infant represented by his mother, sought judicial review of Buckinghamshire County Council’s decision to close 19 of its 35 children’s centres and retain 16 as family centres with wider early-help functions. The decision followed a ten-week consultation and an options appraisal undertaken against a substantial reduction in available funding.

The claimant alleged unfair consultation, predetermination, breach of the sufficiency duty under the Childcare Act 2006, breach of duties under the Children Act 2004 and the 2006 Act, and breach of the public sector equality duty. The central issues were whether the consultation was procedurally fair and whether the Council had performed its statutory duties in substance.

1. Claim dismissed. The consultation and the decision were lawful.
2. Under section 5A of the Childcare Act 2006, the Council had to consider the need for children’s centres, what provision would be sufficient to meet that need, and what provision was reasonably practicable, taking account of matters such as affordability, buildings, geography and accessibility. The statute and guidance prescribed no particular methodology. The duty could be performed through the Council’s integrated assessment of its wider early-help strategy.
3. The Council’s materials and consultation responses showed a conscious and informed assessment of need and sufficiency. The retained sites remained children’s centres, with continuing early-years provision and wider family services. The Council rationally concluded that 16 centres would meet local need and that retaining all 35 was not reasonably practicable without unacceptable service reductions.
4. The statutory consultation duty required a fair process, including consultation while proposals remained formative, sufficient reasons for intelligent response, and adequate time. The Council was entitled to consult on realistic options rather than a proposal it did not advance. Its preferred option and provisional decision to reject the status quo did not amount to predetermination because consultees could propose alternatives and the Council changed its proposals after consultation.
5. The duties under sections 1 and 3 of the 2006 Act and section 11 of the Children Act 2004 were complied with. The section 1 duty was an overarching target duty, challengeable only on irrationality grounds. The Council rationally sought to improve the well-being of all children and reduce inequalities, with particular attention to vulnerable families.
6. The public sector equality duty was also discharged. The decision-makers were properly informed by a thorough equality impact assessment and consultation results. The duty concerned process, not a prescribed outcome; the Court could not substitute its view about the weight to be given to equality implications unless the decision was unreasonable or perverse.