High Court considers judicial review of Ealing children’s centre closures

The hearing, taking place at the Royal Courts of Justice in front of Mr Justice Kimblin on 24-25 February, will examine the duties of local authorities in relation to children’s centres and will look at the stage at which it is appropriate to consult on cuts to provision.

The claimant, JO, is a two-year-old child who lives in Ealing. JO and her parents have relied on the services provided by the centres due to close since JO was nine weeks old.

Representing the claimant, law firm Rook Iwin Sweeney said the parents are “extremely worried” the closures will lead to JO and other children and parents being less able to access important activities and opportunities.

A children’s centre – often called a Sure Start Children’s Centre – is a local hub that brings together a range of services for families with children from pregnancy through to age five.

Local authorities are under a statutory duty to provide children’s centres.

Rook Irwin Sweeney noted: “Section 5A of the Childcare Act 2006 provides that local authorities must, so far as is reasonably practicable, make arrangements ‘for sufficient provision of children’s centres to meet local need’.

“The Act also requires local authorities to consult on any changes to provision at children’s centres ‘before anything is done that would result in a relevant children’s centre ceasing to be a children’s centre’.”

The local authority held a 12-week consultation from 3 February 2025 to 27 April 2025.  

According to the law firm, this had “significant engagement”, with over 2,300 people responding to the consultation.

Rook Irwin Sweeney added: “Those who responded were overwhelmingly opposed to the closures. Various concerns were raised by consultees, including parents having to travel significantly further to attend children’s centres going forwards and that these centres may not have the capacity to support them and their children.

“In addition, many expressed concerns about the lack of suitable alternatives, especially those relying on the centres for affordable childcare, essential parenting support and early intervention. This is particularly a concern in more deprived areas of Ealing, such as Southall and Northolt.”

The council proposed that alternative settings could provide children’s centre services including libraries, places of worship, and hostels, but many consultees raised that these do not provide the same safe, secure environment.

The claim was lodged on 10 September 2025. The claimant contends that:

1. The consultation was unlawful because the proposals were not consulted on at a ‘formative stage’ and because insufficient reasons were provided to allow for intelligent consideration;
2. There has been a breach of the sufficiency duty set out in the Childcare Act 2006 which provides that local authorities should ensure there is sufficient provision of children’s centres in its area; and
3. The decision taken was irrational, being outside the range of responses open to a reasonable decision maker.

If the claimant succeeds, the Court will be asked to quash the decision made by Ealing to close the children’s centres.

Caroline Barrett, partner at Rook Irwin Sweeney acting for JO said: “This is an important claim which will examine the duties of local authorities in relation to children’s centres and will look at the stage at which it is appropriate to consult on cuts to provision.

“The proposed cuts in this case are significant, with 10 out of 25 centres earmarked for closure. The local authority has always told parents that it is making changes because it wants to improve services and increase engagement with the children’s centres provision.

“However our client, along with many other parents, is concerned that the effect of these closures will nevertheless be to reduce access to provision in the area, and not increase it. During the consultation the local authority did not ask consultees about other ways to improve access to children’s centres or to increase engagement – the only options open for consideration in the consultation were to keep things the way they were (which was “not recommended”), or to close children’s centres. The consultation was also undertaken at a time when the Council had already agreed on budget cuts for children’s centres. Our client is therefore very concerned that the consultation was not carried out at a formative stage, and that it will result in a lack of provision for JO and for others in the area.”

The Claimant is represented by Jenni Richards KC of 39 Essex Chambers and Ollie Persey of Garden Court Chambers as counsel, and Caroline Barrett and Jennifer Wright of Rook Irwin Sweeney LLP as instructing solicitors.

The London Borough of Ealing has been approached for comment.

Lottie WInson