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

The claimant sought judicial review of a Cabinet decision to close 19 of 35 children’s centres following a 10-week consultation and an early help restructuring, alleging unlawful consultation, predetermination, breach of the sufficiency duty in section 5A of the Childcare Act 2006, breach of duties under sections 1 and 3 of the 2006 Act and section 11 of the Children Act 2004, and failure to comply with the Public Sector Equality Duty (section 149 Equality Act 2010).

The court held that the consultation complied with the procedural fairness requirements (formative stage, adequate reasons and sufficient time), that consultees had opportunities to propose alternatives and the Council took consultation responses into account when finalising its variant of Option B. The judge found that the Council had assessed local need and sufficiency in substance via research, the Consultation findings, the Family Centre Site Locations Report, and the Officer’s Report, and therefore complied with the s.5A sufficiency duty. The court also held there was no irrationality under sections 1 and 3 of the 2006 Act or breach of section 11 of the 2004 Act, and that the Public Sector Equality Duty had been conscientiously addressed through a thorough Equality Impact Assessment and mitigation measures.

Background and parties:

• The claimant (an infant, through his mother) challenged the lawfulness of Buckinghamshire County Council’s decision (Cabinet, 4 March 2019) to close 19 of 35 children’s centre sites and to retain and redesignate 16 as family centres offering broader early help services. The decision followed a 10-week Consultation (4 October to 13 December 2018) and was based on officer papers including a Consultation Findings Report, Early Help Strategy, Proposed Design for New Family Support Service, Family Centre Site Locations Report and an Equality Impact Assessment.
• Key factual context: the Council faced a required reduction of approximately £3.1 million in early help expenditure and commissioned research showing under‑utilisation of many existing children’s centre buildings and a need to target resources more effectively to those in greatest need.

Nature of the claim and relief sought:

• The claimant applied for judicial review seeking to quash the Council’s Decision on grounds that the Consultation was unfair (including predetermination), that the Council had failed to discharge the statutory sufficiency duty under s.5A Childcare Act 2006, had breached duties under ss.1 and 3 of the 2006 Act and s.11 of the Children Act 2004, and had failed to comply with its Public Sector Equality Duty (s.149 Equality Act 2010).

Issues framed by the court:

1. Whether the Consultation was procedurally fair (formative stage, adequate reasons and sufficient time) and free of predetermination.
2. Whether the Council complied with the sufficiency duty in s.5A of the Childcare Act 2006 when assessing local need and what was reasonably practicable to provide.
3. Whether the Council breached ss.1 and 3 of the 2006 Act or s.11 of the 2004 Act in the decision-making process.
4. Whether the Public Sector Equality Duty (s.149 Equality Act 2010) was properly discharged.

Court’s reasoning and disposition:

• Consultation: the court applied established consultation principles (formative stage, sufficient information and time) and concluded the Consultation documents and questionnaire provided clear explanation of the Council’s financial constraint, the three options consulted upon (A, B, C), avenues for consultees to propose alternatives, and specific questions addressing site choices and alternative savings proposals. The court rejected assertions of predetermination, noting the Council amended proposals in response to consultation by retaining two additional centres and changing site selections.
• Sufficiency duty (s.5A): the court assessed the materials as a whole (pre-consultation research, options appraisal, Family Centre Site Locations Report, Officer’s Report and Consultation findings). It concluded the Council had regard to the statutory sufficiency duty in substance and had rationally determined that the 16 retained family centres (and continued use of closed-site buildings for community/early years provision) would be sufficient and reasonably practicable.
• Other statutory duties: the judge found no irrationality under ss.1 or 3 of the 2006 Act or breach of s.11 of the 2004 Act; the decision engaged children’s welfare and the materials evidenced consideration of those duties.
• PSED: the Equality Impact Assessment was thorough, identified likely positive and negative effects (including for age), proposed mitigation and evidenced a conscientious focus on equality considerations. The court concluded the PSED had been satisfied.

Conclusion: the claim for judicial review was dismissed, the court concluding the Consultation and the Decision were lawful and the relevant statutory duties had been complied with.

The claim for judicial review is dismissed. The court held the Consultation was procedurally fair and at a formative stage, there was no predetermination, the Council had complied in substance with the s.5A sufficiency duty under the Childcare Act 2006 by assessing local need and practicability through research and site-selection analysis, duties under ss.1 and 3 of the 2006 Act and s.11 of the Children Act 2004 were met, and the Public Sector Equality Duty (s.149 Equality Act 2010) was properly discharged via a thorough Equality Impact Assessment and proposed mitigations.