WC (R on the application of) v Somerset County Council

A consultation on school reorganisation is lawful if conducted fairly and while the decision-maker retains an open mind. Fairness does not ordinarily require consultation on every alternative model, but realistic alternatives may need brief explanation so that consultees can respond intelligently.

Under Education and Inspections Act 2006, the duty to consider rural-school factors is continuing once a statutory closure proposal is being formulated, but it is not triggered merely by preparing earlier consultation documents. The public sector equality duty requires a rigorous and informed assessment, not achievement of an equality outcome. Indirect discrimination and Convention discrimination may nevertheless be justified by proportionate educational and financial objectives.

Two children sought judicial review of Somerset County Council’s decision of 17 March 2021 approving a reorganisation of schools in the Crewkerne and Ilminster area.

The proposals changed the existing three-tier structure to a two-tier structure, including closure of Misterton Church of England First School and amalgamation of Greenfylde Church of England First School with Swanmead Community School. The claimants challenged the consultation, alleged predetermination, breach of the rural-school presumption, the public sector equality duty, indirect discrimination, Convention discrimination and irrationality.

1. Consultation. The authority had consulted on several alternatives during an earlier consultation and was entitled subsequently to consult on a preferred model. Fairness did not require it to consult again on every viable model. However, because the reorganisation was complex, fairness required some reference to realistic alternatives. That requirement was met by the published review, consultation documents, reports and statutory proposal. The authority had an open mind and had conscientiously considered the consultation responses. The Sedley principles were satisfied.
2. Predetermination. A predisposition towards a two-tier structure was permissible. The question was whether the authority had closed its mind to the merits. The evidence did not establish actual predetermination or a real possibility of apparent predetermination.
3. Rural school closure. The authority had to follow the presumption against closure in the Closure Guidance unless there was a properly articulated reason to depart from it. Under section 15(4) of the Education and Inspections Act 2006, the local authority had to give proper and conscientious attention to the statutory factors when formulating the statutory proposal. That duty was continuing, but arose when formulation of the statutory proposal began, not when earlier consultation documents were prepared. The statutory proposal and decision-making materials demonstrated compliance.
4. Equality and human rights. The authority had properly considered the risks to pupils with SEND and vulnerabilities, including the exceptional transition of pupils to the enlarged secondary school. Its rational assessment was that reducing transition points was beneficial overall. It also considered the reduced availability of non-denominational places. The loss of secular provision in Ilminster placed persons without religious belief at a particular disadvantage, but the decision was a proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims. The same conclusion followed under article 14 of the ECHR.
5. Irrationality and inquiry. Opposition from consultees did not make the decision irrational. The authority rationally assessed the risk that lack of stakeholder cooperation would prevent implementation. Its decision not to undertake the further cost-benefit analysis recommended in the review was also rational, given the identified substantial saving.
6. Disposition. Permission was granted on the equality-duty ground, but all grounds failed. The claims for judicial review were dismissed.

First-instance judicial review proceedings. The two claims were heard and determined together. The claims were dismissed by the High Court (Administrative Court).