A west London council has had to defend its decision to close 10 children centres at the High Court this week.

On Tuesday, February 24, and Wednesday, February 25, Ealing Council faced a judicial review over the controversial policy which has been described as "unlawful". The case, which was brought by parents on behalf of a two-year-old child – who cannot be named for legal reasons – argues that the consultation process around the closure broke the law.

The claimant, represented by Jenni Richards KC, brought the case on three grounds. It was argued that the consultation was unlawful because the proposals were not consulted on at a formative stage – meaning that a decision to close the centres had already been made prior to a consultation – and because consultees were not given enough reasons or information to properly consider the policy.

The council argue that the simple fact it is only closing 10 centres, having initially decided to close 12 is proof that the policy was at a formative stage and open to change at the time of the consultation.

Second, Ms Richards argued that the council closed the children's centres without ensuring that enough services would be available, particularly for families who rely on them most. Local authorities have a legal obligation to make sure there are enough children's centres and services in the area, which the claimant argued the council has failed to do.

Finally, the claimant insisted that the decision to close 10 centres was "irrational" because it ignored key evidence, and consultation responses. The defence argued that by bringing services into people's communities, the council acted entirely rationally.

The hearing was attended by 16 people supporting the claimant, mostly from Save Ealing Children's Centres. Liberal Democrat Councillor Jon Ball was also in attendance.

From the council, Cabinet Member for a Fairer Start, Cllr Josh Blacker was in attendance, alongside Helen Harding, Assistant Director of Early Help and Prevention, and Kulsuma Faiz, the Strategic Project Manager.

advertisement

Speaking inside Courtroom 3 at the Royal Courts of Justice, Ms Richards argued that throughout the consultation process, Ealing Council purposefully misled the public about the reasons for the closure, which according to the claimant was primarily a financial decision. In council documents, the "need" for the savings generated by the closure was outlined, however in the consultation material, this did not appear as such.

Defending the consultation process, Rory Dunlop KC described the savings as a benefit to the council, but reaffirmed that it was merely a benefit of the primary goal, which the council maintains was improving the early help offered in the borough.

He said: "In determining the need for children's centres, value for money and services are key, how can we improve outcomes for families with the greatest need. Second, and it is second, is the value for money – it is part of every decision a local authority must make."

Another point raised by the defence was that the existing "25 children's centres" were not actually children centres defined in law. In fact, despite the council professing to have 25, it only has seven.

This is because in law, a certain amount of services must be provided for somewhere to be considered a children's centre. Instead, the rest are known as "link sites" providing children's services. In legal terms, this means the borough will only have four children's centres post closure, with three being closed.

A point of contention between both sides related to the amount of data residents required in order to make a well-informed contribution to the consultation. The council did not explain its rationale on why the ten centres identified to close were picked.

Council lawyers argued that the public did not require any more information to make a well-informed decision, reading aloud detailed and coherent arguments put across during the consultation. During an interview with the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS), Cllr Peter Mason, Leader of the Council, outlined that many people feel afraid of going to council buildings due to stigma, and as such do not receive the help they need.

This was something which was put across by the defence, citing 2024 research appearing to suggest something similar generally. However, on day two of the hearing, this was shot down by the counsel on behalf of the claimant.

"There is a reliance on the 2024 research. First, the 2024 research doesn't actually say what they say it says, and secondly, there is no evidence that it was before the decision maker, nor that the research formed any part of the consultation.

"The information wasn't in the consultation, nor was a link provided. It is a feature of the submissions given by the local authority and given the context of this consultation, a surprising one – you could have found it online."

Speaking outside court upon the conclusion of the hearing, Claire Welsby, a former senior council officer and a lead campaigner for Save Ealing Children's Centres, said: "It didn't have to get to this stage if the council listened to Save Ealing Children's Centres last year but it took a family representing their child to come forward and to take on this challenge."

Overseeing the review and making the decision is Mr Justice Kimblin. Speaking after the hearing, he told the court that he will reserve the decision and will not put a timeframe on the outcome.

Should the judge rule in favour of the two-year-old and consider the decision "unlawful", the claimant has requested the quashing of the council's decision to close ten centres and a reimbursement of costs associated with bringing the case.