JO, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Ealing

A consultation on changes to children’s centre provision is lawful where it occurs while proposals remain open to development, even though budgetary constraints and a preferred option form part of the context. The authority must provide enough information and reasons to permit intelligent consideration and response, but need not consult on every rejected alternative or explain the individual selection of every centre where the overall proposal and guiding principles are clear. Under the Childcare Act 2006, the authority must assess sufficient provision in the context of its general duties to improve well-being and reduce inequality. The assessment is fact-sensitive and may take account of outreach provision, geography, demography, experience and financial considerations. Judicial review does not permit the court to substitute another lawful solution.

The claimant challenged the London Borough of Ealing’s Cabinet decision of 11 June 2025 approving the Improved Early Help Offer and Early Help Strategy 2025–2028. The decision proposed reducing the number of children’s centres while strengthening outreach through community venues. The challenge alleged that the consultation was not undertaken at a formative stage, did not provide sufficient information and reasons, and failed to comply with the statutory duty to secure sufficient children’s centres to meet local need under section 5A(1) of the Childcare Act 2006.

The central questions were whether the consultation was lawful and whether the Council had lawfully assessed and secured sufficient provision.

1. Claim dismissed. The consultation complied with section 5D of the Childcare Act 2006 and the common-law consultation requirements.
2. The Medium Term Financial Strategy did not make the consultation predetermined. It contained budgetary proposals and expressly contemplated consultation, further planning and amendment. The requirement to balance the budget formed part of the context but did not impose a financial fetter or eliminate alternative approaches.
3. The consultation was undertaken at a sufficiently formative stage. A consultation may identify a preferred option and invite consultees to suggest alternatives. The existence of another possible solution does not itself establish unlawfulness. Whether alternatives must be addressed is fact-sensitive and depends on what fairness requires in the particular statutory context.
4. The Council provided sufficient information and reasons. The proposal to reduce the number of centres and strengthen outreach, together with the guiding principles, enabled intelligent consideration and response. The law did not require an explanation of why each individual centre had been selected for closure or retention. The substantial and informed responses, and the subsequent reinstatement of three centres, supported the conclusion that consultation had operated genuinely and influenced the proposal.
5. The Council complied with the sufficiency duty. Sections 1 and 3 of the Childcare Act 2006 informed the assessment under section 5A. Children’s centres could not be considered in isolation from the wider Early Help model, including outreach. The Council had considered evidence concerning place-based provision, hard-to-reach communities, and gaps in availability, affordability and geography.
6. The Act and guidance prescribed no particular methodology. The assessment involved weighing geographical, demographic, operational and financial factors, together with what was reasonably practicable. No obvious logical error or mistake of fact was established. Other lawful solutions might have been preferable to some consultees, but that was not a matter for the court.