| SPOTLIGHT |
A group of parents have issued a judicial review challenge to the proposed closure of two children’s centres in Hackney, arguing that the council’s consultation process was “unfair and unlawful”.
The claimants, represented by law firm Rook Irwin Sweeney, note that closing the children’s centres (Fernbank and Sebright) would result in the loss of 129 affordable childcare places to Hackney families.
The public consultation on the potential closures of Fernbank and Sebright began in January and closed on 24 April.
The three claimants argue that as a result of flaws with the council’s consultation exercise, family members and other concerned parties were unable to properly respond to the changes being proposed.
The council thereby breached the second Gunning criteria, in “failing to provide consultees with sufficient information to make an intelligent response”, they suggest.
Campaign group ‘Save Hackney’s Children’s Centres’ described the structure of the consultation as “hugely confusing”, adding that some parts did not meet accessibility requirements.
The claimants’ overarching ground of challenge is that the council’s consultation exercise was so unfair as to be unlawful. In particular:
Speaking to the Hackney Citizen last month, Alex Rook, Partner at Rook Irwin Sweeny said: “The main issue our clients have with the consultation is that it is predicated on the fact that Hackney says that they have to make these savings.
“However, we believe this is misleading, and that’s reflected within the consultation.”
He continued: “[The consultation] starts from a position of fact that they have to make the savings here, when in fact, they could be made elsewhere, or not at all, for example by dipping into their reserves in order to save these essential services.”
The campaigners issued a letter before claim in April, warning the council to expect a legal challenge.
According to the Citizen, in a formal response to the campaigners’ letter before claim, the council said it “does consider it necessary to achieve savings in the children’s service in order to reduce its overall funding gap”.
It added: “Identifying a need to deliver savings does not suggest that such savings are inevitable and unavoidable. Nor does it necessarily imply that no alternative is available.”
The claimants now seek a declaration that the council’s consultation exercise was unlawful, and that therefore it has not discharged its consultation duty under section 5D(b) and (c) of the Childcare Act 2006.
The claimants also seek an order quashing the consultation.
Alex Rook, Partner at Rook Irwin Sweeney, said: “We had hoped that Hackney would agree to look at this decision again, and if necessary reconsult without giving the appearance that they had to make these savings, but they have refused to do so. Regrettably, our clients had no choice but to issue urgent judicial review proceedings.”
Hackney Council declined to comment.
Lottie Winson
