5.68.1R (B) v Oxfordshire CC [2016] EWHC 2419 (Admin)
When budget setting the full Council was not required to have all the relevant consultation responses before it and was not required to discharge the PSED otherwise than by being aware that the implementation of the proposed policies, on the basis of which the budget was approved, would be likely to have an impact on affected services
Facts: In the light of budgetary decision-making by the full Council, Oxfordshire’s Cabinet resolved to reduce the Council’s funding of children’s centres which would involve closing some of them, to re-organise the manner in which related services were provided to children and families in their area and to focus on children with higher levels of need. Two child claimants, though their mothers as litigation friends, sought a judicial review, on the basis that the Council was in breach of the PSED and also the Childcare Act 2006 which, inter alia, requires local authorities to make arrangements for early childhood services that are sufficient to meet local need, based on an assessment of local need and consultation.
Judgment: Langstaff J refused permission to apply for judicial review but, having heard full argument, delivered a full judgment in which he concluded that (i) the full Council when setting the budget did not need to have the relevant consultation responses before it and was not required to discharge the PSED otherwise than by being aware that the implementation of proposed policies would be likely to have an impact on affected services; (ii) but in any event, the full Council when setting the budget did have before it SCIA (service and community impact assessments) and a petition highlighting the risks of the course proposed for vulnerable service users and therefore, as a matter of substance, discharged the PSED albeit that members had not been reminded of the terms of the legal duty and reached a lawful decision despite the absence of the consultation responses/report; (ii) the Cabinet meeting had the consultation report and adequate SCIA (service and community impact assessments) and, on the facts (by virtue of a witness statement from the Lead Member for children’s services), did not consider that its hands had been tied by the budget-setting exercise so as to preclude it from concluding that budgetary savings could be made from elsewhere so that children’s centres did not need to be closed; (iii) even if the Cabinet had considered that the budget was set in stone, its decision would not have been in unlawful in breach of its duties in relation to consultation, to assess need and to discharge the PSED.