High Court rejects judicial review claim over Welsh council plans for school closure

In a judgment issued last week (19 June), His Honour Judge Jarman agreed that the council had a case to answer over the judicial review claim that they had not given proper and timely consideration to alternative proposals other than closing Ysgol Meidrim in Carmarthenshire, but rejected both grounds submitted by the claimant.

Ysgol Gynradd Meidrim is a Welsh medium primary school for 4 to 11-year-olds in the village of Meidrim, some eight miles west of Carmarthen. It currently has about 30 pupils which is 43% of its capacity. There are currently two teachers.

HHJ Jarman KC, sitting as a judge of the High Court, said: “On 17 November 2025, the cabinet of the defendant council resolved to consult on its future with the preferred option, amongst four others, as closure at the end of 2026, with a transfer of pupils [to] Ysgol Griffith Jones in St Clears, some three miles from Meidrim. The consultation period ran from 16 January 2026 to 2 March 2026.

“The claimant, who has two children at the school and was a pupil there herself, challenges that decision on two grounds. The first is that the decision does not comply with the Welsh Government’s School Organisation Code 2018 (the Code) in proceeding to consultation without very careful consideration of all other reasonable alternatives and a clear assessment of merits and viability undertaken.

“The second ground is that the governing body of Ysgol Meidrim was not given a fair opportunity to be heard on its potential closure and was not requested to raise any further alternatives.”

The council submitted in response that neither of the grounds were arguable. Further, it submitted that the claim was premature, or alternatively and conversely, that it had not been brought promptly.

Discussing the first ground, the judge said: “The claimant’s case under the first ground is that the cabinet, in resolving to put its proposals out to consultation, did not consider the alternatives put forward by the governing body, and thus there was a breach of the Code. It is clear that no such consideration was given.

“The Code required the council to identify all reasonable alternatives and to assess them, before deciding to consult. However, the Code also envisages that further reasonable alternatives may come forward, which will then need to be assessed.”

He added: “Given this ground of challenge then of course the council must meet it in these proceedings. That is a different matter to how it deals with consideration of the consultation exercise as it is required to do by the Code. It has not been suggested that there is good reason for departing from any of those requirements in this case.”

Turning to the way in which the council addressed the first ground, Judge Jarman noted: “The way in which the council has chosen to address this ground in these proceedings gives rise to some concern.

“The council has filed two witness statements in these proceedings, one from Alan Carter, the council’s schools transformation and change manager, and the other from Councillor John Glynog Davies, the cabinet member for education. Each usefully deals with the background leading up to the challenged decision. However, what is concerning is that each then goes on give his view on the viability of the proposals of the governing body.

“[…] Councillor Davies properly confirms that all responses to the consultation will be considered before any decision is made.”

HHJ Jarman continued: “The decision maker in this case is not Mr Carter or Councillor Davies, but the council. It is the council which must give conscientious consideration to the governing body’s options. If that is done, then the fact that these were not identified by the council before resolving to consult on the options which it identified does not in my judgment lead to a conclusion that such decision was made in breach of the Code. If it is not done, that may give grounds for such a challenge, but it is to be hoped and expected that the council will comply with its requirements under the Code and under the law.”

Turning to ground 2, the judge noted there appeared to be “a genuine misunderstanding” on the part of the governing body as to what was required after the initial meeting in March 2025.

He said: “It is also unfortunate that there were communication difficulties which led to the late submission of the governing body’s alternative options.”

Despite this, he found the council was entitled to take the view that these could be considered as part of the consultation process.

Concluding the case, HHJ Jarman said: “In this particular case, in my judgment it was reasonable to consider whether the consultation process was fatally flawed in the way the claimant says. If it was, then it is understandable that the claimant would not want to wait on the off chance that, notwithstanding the flaws, the governing body’s options or one of them may be adopted.

“I have concluded that provided those (options) are considered conscientiously then the challenge is not made out, but I would not find that the challenge was premature.

“The result is that I give permission on both grounds, but find that neither ground is made out, for the reasons given. Accordingly I need not deal with other points taken by the council.”

On 19 June, Carmarthenshire County Council issued a new statutory notice in accordance with Section 43 of the School Standards and Organisation Act 2013, with a minor amendment to the one it issued on 16 June, proposing the discontinuation of the school.

The decision to issue a statutory notice to Ysgol Meidrim was agreed at a meeting of Carmarthenshire County Council’s Cabinet on Monday 1 June 2026.

In response to the judgment, Ffred Ffransis from Cymdeithas yr Iaith, a group of people who campaign for the Welsh language and the communities of Wales, said: “The judge criticised the lack of clear communication from the council and that governors had the impression that the council had not yet seriously considered alternatives to closure of Ysgol Meidrim, but found that the evidence did not yet reach the high threshold for legal intervention. He has warned the council that they must give ‘conscientious consideration’ to the alternative proposals drawn up by Governors.

“The council has two choices now. Either it can ‘carry on regardless’, or it could withdraw the Closure Notice and enter into genuine discussions with Governors over their proposals. The council must at least demonstrate a new open attitude during the Objections Period to discussing the alternative proposals.”

Cllr Glynog Davies, Carmarthenshire’s Cabinet Member for Education: “Carmarthenshire County Council accepts and notes the judgment in relation to the Judicial Review. The Council has issued a statutory notice proposing the discontinuation of Ysgol Meidrim. As the proposal is currently within the statutory objection period, it would not be appropriate for the Council to comment further at this time.”

Lottie Winson