Somerset County Council, R (On the Application Of) v The Secretary of State for Education

An academy order must be made having regard to its practical effect on wider statutory education duties and an ongoing area-wide reorganisation. A decision-maker must identify and investigate material risks that the proposed conversion will impede that reorganisation, rather than rely on general expectations of cooperation. Published requirements concerning academic performance, financial performance and viability must be addressed, or departure from them must be justified. In exceptional circumstances, fairness may also require reasons for approving an academy application. The court does not substitute its own educational assessment, but may quash a decision affected by failure to consider a material impact, inadequate inquiry, departure from policy or inadequate reasons.

Somerset County Council sought judicial review of the Regional Schools Commissioner’s decision to make an academy order enabling Swanmead Community School to become an academy and join Bridgwater College Trust. The decision was made while the Council was consulting on a wide-ranging review of school organisation in the area, following an independent report concluding that the existing three-tier structure was not viable. The Council argued that conversion would remove its ability to direct or reorganise Swanmead and would prejudice a whole-area solution. The Secretary of State relied on the school-led nature of academy applications, expected cooperation by the trust and the separate approval process for changes to age ranges. The central issues concerned material considerations, inquiry, published policy, statutory purpose and reasons.

1. Outcome. The claim succeeded on Grounds 1, 2, 4 and 6. It failed on Grounds 3 and 5. The decision approving Swanmead’s application and the academy order were declared unlawful and quashed.
2. Material impact. The Commissioner failed to have regard to the prejudicial effect of converting Swanmead while the Council’s review and consultation were continuing. Swanmead was the only middle school under the Council’s control. The leading options in the independent report involved substantial change to it, including possible closure. Conversion would give the trust a legal veto over changes requiring its consent. The separate requirement for approval of any later age-range change did not answer that problem.
3. Inquiry and rationality. General assurances that the trust would cooperate if consensus were reached were circular and inadequate. The Commissioner should have made specific inquiries about the trust’s position on the structural options under consideration. On the material available, no reasonable authority could have been satisfied that it possessed the information necessary to decide the application.
4. Published policy. The decision-making framework required consideration of academic performance, financial performance and viability. The uncertainty created by the ongoing structural review made viability more important, not less. The Commissioner neither assessed viability against the possible options nor identified a justified departure from policy.
5. Statutory purpose. Although the academy order substantially impeded the Council’s target duties, it did not utterly defeat them. The improper-purpose ground therefore failed, and the Commissioner was not required to investigate the school’s motives.
6. Reasons. In the unusual circumstances, fairness engaged a common-law duty to give reasons despite the absence of an express statutory duty for an approved application. The letters relied upon gave assurances and described future processes, but did not explain why the application had to be approved during the consultation or how the principal objections were addressed. They were inadequate.
7. The case was unusual and did not establish a general duty to give reasons whenever an academy application is approved.