| SPOTLIGHT |
Hackney Council is facing a High Court challenge over the proposed closure of two children’s centres, with a group of parents arguing that the London borough’s consultation process was “unfair and unlawful”.
The judicial review will take place on 6 and 7 November at the Royal Courts of Justice.
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 – a cut of a quarter of all subsidised nursery places in Hackney.
The council previously said it considered it necessary to achieve savings in the children’s service in order to reduce its overall funding gap.
The public consultation on the potential closures of Fernbank and Sebright began in January and closed on 24 April.
The 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.
Speaking to the BBC, Natalie Aguilera, one of the campaign leaders, said one of their key arguments in court will be that the council argues that the cuts are "necessary" but the funding for the nurseries is coming from a non-essential funding pot.
Alex Rook, Partner at Rook Irwin Sweeney, said: "It is our client’s position that Hackney’s consultation document presented the budget cuts underlying the proposed changes as a necessity, when in fact the Defendant’s budget was not set in stone and alternatives for achieving the requisite savings were available. We say that those responding to the consultation were therefore positively misled that the required savings had to come from children’s services expenditure, when they in fact did not. This prevented consultees from fairly and intelligently responding to the Defendant’s consultation.
"In addition, we will argue that the Defendant’s consultation documents failed to present a range of alternative options which had in fact been identified by a specific review carried out by Ernst & Young into the Defendant’s children’s centre services. This was notwithstanding the fact that most of these options were said by the Defendant to be “under consideration”. Consultees were thereby deprived of the information they would have needed to make an intelligent response which advocated one or more of these alternative options."
He added: "We have invited Hackney to reconsider its position and rather than incur these legal costs, to confirm that it will not rely on the consultation carried out, but instead to work with our clients, and other stakeholders, to identify solutions that do not involve the likely closure of these invaluable children’s centres. [...] At present they appear unwilling to do so."
Hackney Council has been approached for comment.
Lottie Winson
