BUJ, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Bromley [2026] EWHC 102 (Admin)

[2026] EWHC 102 (Admin)AC-2025-LON-002512
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
KINGS BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Venue Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London, WC2A 2LLDate 27 January 2026
Before
ANDREW BURNS KC(sitting as a DEPUTY JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT)
Between
THE KINGClaimant(on the application of BUJ, a protected party,Claimantby his father and litigation friend, MNO)ClaimantLONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEYDefendantPOLLARD THOMAS EDWARDS LLPInterested Party
Alice Irving (instructed by Bindmans) for ClaimantWayne Beglan (instructed by London Borough of Bromley Legal Services) for DefendantNo appearance from the Interested PartyHearing Hearing date: 26 November 2025
Approved JudgmentANDREW BURNS KC sitting as a DEPUTY JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT:The Application
[1]The Claimant challenges the Defendant’s decision to close the Poverest Centre, one of its two adult education centres within the borough of Bromley. The Poverest Centre provides a wide range of courses including some for adult learners with learning difficulties and disabilities.[2]By order of 23 September 2025 this is a hearing seeking permission to apply for judicial review and then also the substantive hearing of the judicial review if permission is granted. There is also an application by the Claimant dated 10 November 2025 to rely on further evidence. Anonymity was granted by order of Mrs Justice Lieven on 31 July 2025 when she initially granted permission to apply for judicial review. That order was set aside by Mr Justice Sheldon as it was made without sight of the Defendant’s acknowledgment of service. On 22 September 2025 this hearing was listed as a rolled- up hearing.[3]The Claimant applied to submit additional evidence about the number of courses delivered at adult education centres which I have allowed and taken into account.

The Facts

[4]The Defendant’s service is known as the Bromley Adult Education College and it employs around 170 staff. It delivers 698 courses and supports over 3,000 learners across more than 6,000 course placements. The power to provide adult education was delegated to the Mayor of London and since 2019 these services have been delivered locally through the Defendant.[5]Under this framework, the Mayor of London sets strategic goals and the Greater London Authority sets the funding priorities, but the Defendant designs and delivers the service. It is thus a discretionary service provided by the Defendant and not a legal requirement on the Defendant.[6]Part of the service delivers courses for learners with learning difficulties and disabilities such as arts and crafts, cookery, dance, drama, fitness, music, digital skills, maths, English, sewing and gardening. They may also be supported by the Defendant’s separate adult social care service which has several day centres across the borough, providing daytime activities, care and social interaction.[7]A range of adult education courses are delivered at the Poverest Centre in Orpington, some in standard classrooms but others with kitchens, outdoor areas or in a large rehearsal room. The other centre is the Kentwood Centre in Penge which delivers courses including on English, maths, digital skills, preparation for employment, counselling, wellbeing, physical exercise and the arts. Kentwood also delivers some courses for adults with special educational needs, but at present the vast majority of these are delivered at Poverest.[8]The Claimant is a 37-year-old autistic man with learning disabilities and epilepsy. He requires support with all aspects of daily living. He has a care and support plan under the Care Act 2014 and has been assessed as being at risk of social isolation. He attends Poverest four days a week and has done regularly for 14 years.[9]He and others have attended courses at Poverest over a long time and it is part of their weekly routine. The Claimant can get to Poverest by car or taxi in 15 minutes. He is prone to seizures when travelling longer distances. The Claimant spends only about two hours at Poverest at a time because he can only use the bathroom at his home.[10]In 2025 the Defendant proposed to restructure its adult education service. The Defendant says that it is not closing any of its services but is changing how and where they are delivered. The Defendant is doing this in order to provide overall improvements to a large group of people across the full range of adult education services as well as because it is under the same acute financial pressures as many local authorities.[11]The Defendant has unfunded budgets in excess of £7.5 million mostly relating to Adult Social Care and Housing costs. The 2024/2025 provisional accounts noted that without action to address the ‘budget gap’ in future years the Defendant could exhaust its revenue reserves by 2027/28. The Defendant will lobby for extra funding but says it “cannot rely on future significant increases in funding... It remains essential to take action to deliver a sustainable ongoing financial resilience – the Council has a statutory duty to have a balanced budget.” The action to address the Defendant’s future years ‘budget gap’ was reported to the January and February 2025 meetings of the Executive.[12]The Defendant’s Property Review completed in 2024 found that the Defendant needed to spend up to £164 million to repair and maintain its existing estate. The review identified surplus assets for disposal or redevelopment from its large portfolio of buildings. It aimed to restructure services to address substantial financial pressures (it reported a net overspend of nearly £14 million), provide affordable housing (it has a significant population in temporary accommodation within the borough) while trying to make improvements to its services.[13]Poverest was one of 20 properties identified as surplus to requirements and suitable for housing. The Defendant had first identified Poverest as a potential site for housing development in November 2022. The 1.176 hectare site is capable of providing up to 50 local homes in the near future at a sustainable location. The review noted that Poverest was not a specialist building and many of its courses could be delivered elsewhere.[14]The Defendant said that its Property Review was a strategic piece of work across a wide property portfolio and therefore needed no individual consultation with members of the community or the service users of each of the properties in this wide portfolio.[15]The Defendant’s adult education service needs some specialist facilities. It is proposed to retain Kentwood for courses needing special facilities and to deliver standard courses (including some for those learners with learning disabilities) at other sites including some in the south of the borough (closer to where the Claimant lives). Those sites are unlikely to have specialist facilities and so are likely to be courses that can be delivered in a standard room.[16]The Defendant has not yet decided which courses will be provided at Kentwood and which will be provided at other sites around the borough and says that the decision about which adult courses will be provided at which sites is subject to future consultation.[17]In 2024 the Poverest redevelopment plan contained an options appraisal which identified nine options. These ranged from retaining Poverest and making building repairs, demolishing it and rebuilding a new centre on the site to moving services to other sites so the Poverest site could be redeveloped into affordable housing.[18]In May 2024 the Defendant’s Children, Education & Family Services division considered 19 sites as part of the Extended Property Review and agreed that 8 sites including Poverest should be recommended as being surplus to operational requirements. Poverest was not identified as a crucial or specialist location which needed to be retained as the Defendant decided that many courses could be delivered effectively from other available buildings, while courses requiring specialist facilities could be delivered at Kentwood.[19]Kentwood was assessed as not suitable for housing or disposal. In June 2024 the Defendant confirmed that Kentwood was of sufficient size that it could be upgraded and adapted to accommodate all the required provision of adult education courses. It was proposed that courses would be delivered at Kentwood and at the Defendant’s various premises around the borough in a ‘hub and spoke’ model. Kentwood would act as the ‘hub’ and council premises such as libraries and community centres would be the ‘spokes’ around the borough.[20]The Defendant noted that the disposal of Poverest would have a negative impact on the range of courses offered and some courses would become untenable. Some people who could access Poverest would be unable to travel easily to Kentwood. It proposed to address this potential equality impact by the hub and spoke model. Those with mobility difficulties who would have difficulties in travelling to Kentwood would be able to access other courses at the spoke locations.[21]The Defendant’s report went through a number of stages. On 6 August 2024 a report was taken to the Chief Officer’s Executive. In September 2024 it was approved by the Cabinet and Directors’ Meeting. Local ward councillors were able to comment on it in December 2024. At this stage the Defendant considered how to redesign Kentwood to meet the service’s needs. This included ensuring the service was accessible to users with learning difficulties and disabilities.[22]On 21 November 2024 a spatial planning questionnaire response identified the need for accessible provision at Kentwood such as a cookery room, a space for music/dance/drama, a quiet/breathe space and outdoor areas for gardening together with necessary specialist equipment and storage. These kinds of spaces were regarded as vital to maintaining the quality and breadth of the curriculum.[23]A draft equality impact assessment was completed on 17 December 2024 which noted that some of the satellite ‘hub and spoke’ sites might not be fully accessible and that longer travel distances or costs could reduce attendance and access for some users. However it concluded that reasonable adjustments could be made to mitigate those disadvantages.[24]The report and the draft equality impact assessment were published online and were reviewed by a public scrutiny committee on 20 January 2025. The Defendant’s report noted that efforts would be made to mitigate the impact on service users particularly those with protected characteristics (such as disabilities) and that sites would not be disposed of until there was a clear operational plan that met its current audience needs with an updated assessment as required.[25]The report said:
“3.3 As a result of stakeholder engagement whilst progressing the [Operational Property Review] it has become clear that not all the Council buildings are still required to deliver Council services… 3.4 Therefore this report details proposed changes to the Council’s estate and seeks agreement to progress operational plans to enable the disposal of sites, or to take forward self-delivery affordable housing schemes. 3.5 It should be noted that as part of the preparation of the operational plans stakeholders will be engaged to help shape the changes to the delivery of the services from new buildings and to inform officer operational decisions in their new locations… Operational Plans will be agreed by the relevant Portfolio Holder which will subsequently allow the Property team to take the site to market… … 3.11 There are two main sites which were identified as offering significant collocation potential which enabled services to identify other sites as surplus to operational requirement. Firstly the Kentwood Adult Education site in Penge which is a large site and has the potential capacity to host the whole of the Adult Education service (alongside the day centre that already operates from this location) with the adult education service adopting a hub and spoke model…. 3.12 Several of the proposed service moves and collocations are subject to planning permission for extensions of the sites the services will move to, and there is a risk that should be noted that Planning permission may not be given in all cases. In these circumstances officers will in the first instance look for alternative collocation opportunities. No sites will be disposed of until the services are satisfied that the [sic] have appropriate buildings to deliver services from, with a clear operational plan that meets current audience needs, and updated Equality Impact Assessments will be undertaken as required. 3.13 The draft Equality Impact Assessments that have been undertaken in relation to the relocation of services to inform this report are provided as appendices… 3.21 Poverest Adult Education site has also been identified as surplus to operational requirement. A review of the Adult Education courses has shown that there is capacity at the Kentwood site to deliver the full programme using a hub and spoke model, allowing a number of courses to be run from other Council buildings across the borough, for example the Council’s libraries, and Children and Family Centres. The cost of repairing the Poverest site cannot be justified in the current financial context and therefore a new approach to delivering adult education is required and consolidating the service on to one site with a spoke model will ensure that the negative impact of closure is mitigated. There will be changes to how the Adult Education service is delivered and therefore a number of programmes will move to be delivered from alternative locations, therefore this will have an impact on some service users as reflected in the Equality Impact Assessment. Every effort will be made to mitigate the impact on service users particular those with protected characteristics. Adult Education is not a statutory service however stakeholder engagement will be undertaken to inform the Operational Plan design. 3.22 An Operational Plan for the delivery of the service from Kentwood as a hub and spoke model will be developed by the service…”
[26]It is significant that the Defendant’s report adopted the ‘hub and spoke’ model in part to mitigate the accepted negative impact of closing Poverest and noted the adverse effect on some service users reflected in the Equality Impact Assessment. The report did not say that there would be no impact, but only that ‘every effort’ would be taken to mitigate the impact on service users particularly those with protected characteristics. The Defendant approached the closure decision aware that there would be ‘winners and losers’ if the new structure and model were adopted.[27]On 22 January 2025 the Defendant’s Executive decided to progress the plan “informed by ongoing stakeholder engagement” to enable the disposal of five sites including Poverest or take forward affordable housing schemes on the sites:
“Progressing operational plans (informed by ongoing stakeholder engagement) to enable the disposal of the following sites (Castlecombe Youth Centre, Royston Contact Centre, Spitfire Youth Centre, Saxon Centre, and Poverest Adult Education Centre) be agreed; Progressing the disposal of these sites and officers taking them to market once the operational plans are in place and approved by the relevant Portfolio Holder be agreed, unless officers identify affordable housing delivery potential for any of these sites, in which case separate reports will be brought to committee…”
[28]Having made the decision to close Poverest, on 26 March 2025 the Defendant’s Executive decided to fund the development for affordable housing at the Poverest site, allocating £23.7 million funding including £4.5 million from a GLA grant (requiring works commencement by March 2026). It agreed to move to a planning application and procurement of a design and build works contract. In its 28 July 2025 pre-action protocol response the Defendant stated that:
“At this stage the development of operational plans was ongoing. There will be no final closure of the Centre without those operational plans”
. That was misleading in part as the reality was that the closure had been decided in January 2025 and the decision would have to be reversed if the operational plans could not implement a successful hub and spoke model. In March 2025 the Defendant was satisfied that the housing delivered on the Poverest site contributed to the housing targets set in its Housing Strategy and the new London Plan and would contribute to delivery of its Regeneration Strategy.[29]By a letter dated 28 April 2025 to learners and their families, the Defendant communicated its decision to close Poverest. The Defendant said:
“The London Borough of Bromley has made the decision to dispose of the land currently occupied by the Poverest Centre. This site is being considered for new housing developments… The Council plans to relocate all services currently delivered from the Poverest Centre to the Kentwood Centre in Penge. The move is expected to take place in September 2027…”
[30]Others were also notified of the decision to close Poverest at this time. It was clarified that not all courses would be moved to the Kentwood and the ‘hub and spoke’ model was mentioned. The Defendant’s letter dated 3 June 2025 to the Claimant’s family (which was not received by them) mentioned this and the proposed closure of Poverest and said a consultation would follow. It said:
“Once detailed proposals have been developed, BAEC will be consulting with all current learners and the wider community on the plans, ensuring that all interested parties have the opportunity to contribute.”
[31]In correspondence to users the Defendant mentioned a 30-day consultation, which is now accepted to have been a miscommunication and an error. No consultation was proposed at this point. The Defendant’s view was that the strategic decisions about its properties did not require consultation with the users of those buildings. Instead it proposed to consult users of the adult education service when it was designing what courses would be provided and how to deploy the Kentwood hub and spoke model.[32]In summer 2025 (and still at the hearing) the Defendant said there was work to do to identify which of its premises would be suitable to be part of the hub and spoke model. It is assessing its other buildings, such as libraries and youth centres. Although no final decisions have been made, the Claimant and learners in Orpington may be able to access courses at Orpington Library, Petts Wood Library or the Duke Youth Centre which are all within a 5-minute drive from Poverest. However the Defendant accepts that attending courses which need large teaching spaces or specialist facilities will require a 30-45 minute journey to Kentwood (or even longer with bad traffic on the roads).[33]The Claimant would face difficulties making that journey to Penge as there is a risk of long journeys triggering a seizure due to his epilepsy. His present journey is 15 minutes and so while a 30 minute journey might be practical if all went smoothly, I accept the unpredictability of traffic is a real cause of concern for him and his family. The Claimant would also be able to stay for shorter periods at Kentwood as he can only use the bathroom at home. The Claimant fears that he (and maybe others) will lose practical access to some specialist courses if Poverest closes. This includes drama courses which are delivered in a large room (which is a course he is currently taking).[34]The Claimant’s family is concerned about what can be provided in other locations and regret the loss of the community and social aspects of Poverest. Evidence of impact of the closure from the Claimant’s friends at Poverest include men and women with severe disabilities who have been regular users of Poverest (one for whom it has been her “lifeline”) and who express various levels of concern about the challenge of the added journey to Penge or about the emotional impact of losing Poverest. It is clear that many people have a significant attachment to Poverest and would face challenges in going to new and different locations to access adult education courses.[35]The Defendant says that it is satisfied that the hub-and-spoke model will increase the geographical spread and overall access to the adult education service, benefitting the group of adult education learners as a whole as well as benefitting many of those with learning disabilities. The Defendant points out that some alternative social interaction can be provided at its day centres or at the spoke locations. In effect the Defendant’s assessment was that the overall benefits outweigh the disadvantages to people like the Claimant and it proposes to reduce such disadvantages through mitigations which will be the subject of further consultation.

The Grounds

[36]The grounds for the Claimant’s proposed judicial review are:a. Failure to consult fairly before taking the decision;b. Failure to make adequate inquiries prior to decision (i.e. breach of the Tameside duty); andc. Failure to have ‘due regard’ to equality considerations under the public sector equality duty.[37]The Defendant says that these grounds are not arguable, says that Claimant is out of time to challenge the decision made in January 2025 and that time should not be extended. It contends that relief would be detrimental to good administration and the overall benefits of restructuring are such that it is highly likely that the outcome for the Claimant would not have been substantially different if a consultation had been undertaken. It submits that applying s.31(6) and/or 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 relief must be refused.

The Legal Principles

[38]The Mayor of London and Greater London Authority have a delegated duty under the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 to “secure the provision of such facilities as the Secretary of State considers appropriate for… education suitable to the requirements of persons who are aged 19 or over”. This includes access to free courses for adults who satisfy certain conditions. There is also a duty to encourage participation of adults over 19 years in education and training. The Defendant has a power (rather than a duty) to deliver adult education services and receives funding to do so.[39]A public body’s duty to consult before taking a decision is simply part of its duty to act fairly. The approach is governed by whether someone has a sufficient interest so that there is a legitimate expectation of such consultation: R (Moseley) v Haringey LBC [2014] 1 WLR 3947 at para 23-24:
“23. A public authority's duty to consult those interested before taking a decision can arise in a variety of ways. Most commonly, as here, the duty is generated by statute. Not infrequently, however, it is generated by the duty cast by the common law upon a public authority to act fairly. The search for the demands of fairness in this context is often illumined by the doctrine of legitimate expectation; such was the source, for example, of its duty to consult the residents of a care home for the elderly before deciding whether to close it in R v Devon County Council, Ex p Baker [1995] 1 All ER 73. But irrespective of how the duty to consult has been generated, that same common law duty of procedural fairness will inform the manner in which the consultation should be conducted. 24. Fairness is a protean concept, not susceptible of much generalised enlargement. But its requirements in this context must be linked to the purposes of consultation. In R (Osborn) v Parole Board [2014] AC 1115, this court addressed the common law duty of procedural fairness in the determination of a person's legal rights. Nevertheless the first two of the purposes of procedural fairness in that somewhat different context, identified by Lord Reed JSC in paras 67 and 68 of his judgment, equally underlie the requirement that a consultation should be fair. First, the requirement “is liable to result in better decisions, by ensuring that the decision-maker receives all relevant information and that it is properly tested”: para 67. Second, it avoids “the sense of injustice which the person who is the subject of the decision will otherwise feel”: para 68. Such are two valuable practical consequences of fair consultation. But underlying it is also a third purpose, reflective of the democratic principle at the heart of our society. This third purpose is particularly relevant in a case like the present, in which the question was not: “Yes or no, should we close this particular care home, this particular school etc?”
It was:
“Required, as we are, to make a taxation-related scheme for application to all the inhabitants of our borough, should we make one in the terms which we here propose?”
[40]The touchstone emerging from Lord Diplock's speech in Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374 is whether a claimant has in the past been permitted to enjoy some benefit or advantage. Whether or not he or she can then legitimately expect procedural fairness, and if so to what extent, will depend upon the court's view of what fairness demands in all the circumstances of the case (R v Devon CC, exp Baker [1995] 1 All ER 73).[41]As said in R (LH) v Shropshire [2014] PTSR 1052 closure of a local authority day centre is a serious step even though it does not amount to an outright withdrawal of a service as alternative courses may be available to users. Consultation was required even if it was not as serious as the closure of a residential home. Fairness needs to be looked at in the context of adult education rather than care, but the principles are similar. What is fair or unfair is notoriously fact sensitive and there may be differences in legitimate substantive expectation at a national level in relation to national public policy decision compared to those of a limited cohort affected at local level by a closure of specific service (R(Bhatt Murphy) v Independent Assessor [2008] All ER (D) 127 (Jul)).[42]It is for the Defendant to determine how the consultation should be carried out, including the manner and extent of the consultation. Judicial review against the approach taken is available only in the standard way such as if it is irrational or Wednesbury unreasonable (R (Help Refugees Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] 4 WLR 168). A decision-maker has a wide discretion as to what option on which to consult and may choose not to consult on a discarded option, but if consultation takes place at a formative stage, consultees can invite consideration of the discarded option: R (United Co Rusal plc) v London Metal Exchange [2015] 1 WLR 1375.[43]A local authority can generally determine how to take relevant considerations into account and the test is a high hurdle of whether in the circumstances no reasonable local authority would have failed to take into account the specific consideration in issue or obtained further information: R (Plant) v Lambeth BC [2017] PTSR 453. In Plant there had been a consultation with residents about the demolition of homes for a major redevelopment, which was alleged to be unlawful. While the Court noted that some criticism could be made of some aspects of the consultation, the process as a whole had not been unfair and no substantial prejudice was caused to the claimant.[44]A local authority is expected to know its circumstances and the issues within its borough and can rely on the expertise of the officers advising it unless the substance of theofficer’s report significantly misleads the local authority in some material way: R v. Selby DC ex p. Oxton Farms [2017] PTSR 1103.[45]A decision-maker must take reasonable steps to inform itself but it can, subject to rationality, decide whether it has sufficient information to make the decision in question: Secretary of State for Education and Science v Tameside MBC [1977] AC 1014 and R (Balajigari) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] 1 WLR 4647. The Court may intervene if no reasonable authority could have been satisfied on the basis of inquiries made that it possessed the information necessary for the decision.[46]The Public Sector Equality Duty is imposed upon public authorities by section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. A public authority must, in the exercise of its functions, have due regard to the need to matters including to advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic such as a disability and persons who do not share it. Due regard should be had in particular to the need to take steps to meet the needs of disabled persons and to encourage them to participate in public life or in any other activity in which participation is disproportionately low.[47]The approach to the duty was summarised by McCombe LJ in Bracking v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2014] Eq LR 60. Equality duties are an integral and important part of the mechanisms for ensuring the fulfilment of the aims of anti-discrimination legislation. An important evidential element in the demonstration of the discharge of the duty is the recording of the steps taken by the decision maker (personally) in seeking to meet the statutory requirements. The decision maker must assess the risk and extent of any adverse impact and the ways in which such risk may be eliminated before, and not after, the adoption of a proposed policy. The non-delegable and continuing duty must be exercised in substance, with rigour, and with an open mind and not by ticking boxes. Provided the court is satisfied that there has been a rigorous consideration of the duty, it is for the decision maker to decide how much weight should be given to the various factors informing the decision.[48]The concept of ‘due regard’ requires the court to ensure that there has been a proper and conscientious focus on the statutory criteria, but if that is done, the court cannot interfere with the decision simply because it would have given greater weight to the equality implications of the decision than did the decision maker. The public authority must have due regard to the need to take steps to gather relevant information in order that it can properly take steps to take into account disabilities in the context of the particular function under consideration.

Ground 1 – Failure to Consult

[49]The Claimant and other users had been permitted to enjoy the benefit or advantage of activities at Poverest for many years. The change to providing courses requiring specialist facilities and equipment at Kentwood is significant to someone with a learning disability.[50]I accept that there is no significant distinction between day centres and adult education as users of both have a legitimate expectation that they will continue to serve the community in their different ways and meet the social needs of learners who attend. The Claimant’s social care assessment includes “developing or maintaining… personal relationships” as an eligible need and the Poverest helps to meet that need. The Defendant points out that there are other socialisation opportunities being developed by the Defendant which recognises the overlap between provision of adult education and social opportunities. The approach in Baker and LH applies here.[51]The Defendant must balance its budget and I accept that many socio-economic interests and competing factors were involved in the decision to close Poverest as part of a general reorganisation of the Defendant’s property portfolio. There is no statutory obligation to consult before making modifications to the provision of adult education services. The decision was highly fact and context specific and was taken with the benefit of expert advice about the overall benefits of the restructuring. However that does not displace the need to consult in an appropriate case.[52]This is a local provision of benefit to an identifiable cohort (both users of Poverest and those with special needs who take courses suitable for people with learning disabilities). It is not a politically delicate national decision or national policy.[53]I accept that the Defendant is still working out the operational plans for its adult education services from September 2027 when Poverest is due to close and intends to consult with service users and take those consultation responses into account in implementing its hub and spoke provision. This implementation plan is still at a formative stage and there can be meaningful consultation about what services can be provided in the spoke locations. However it is too late to consult over the provision of the specialist courses at Poverest as the decision has already been taken to locate them at Kentwood.[54]The decision was taken in the context of a wider review and I accept that consultation was not required of the users of every property included in that review. However once Poverest was identified during that review as a centre proposed for closure, long-term users of this adult education centre had a legitimate expectation to consultation in the same way that a local authority should consult residents of an old people’s home or users of a care centre which they proposed to close. The fact that some courses would be provided elsewhere does not remove their legitimate expectation that the specialist Poverest courses would continue to be reasonably available to them.[55]Fairness required that the Defendant consult with learners and their families/carers before deciding to close Poverest and the Claimant was prejudiced by that failure to consult. He and others were denied the opportunity to be heard. They had something to say that was relevant to the decision to be taken. They would have commented on whether the need for specialist courses in the south of the borough was so important that it outweighed the factors in favour of closure. Subject to the factors considered below this ground is both arguable and has substantive merit.

Ground 2 - Breach of the Tameside duty

[56]The Claimant suggests that there was a logical gap in the Defendant’s reasoning as Poverest was identified as surplus to requirements as most courses could be delivered effectively from other premises whereas in fact specialist facilities were necessary. However the Defendant regarded these facilities as reasonably available at Kentwood and was not proposing to deliver courses which needed specialist facilities at spoke sites.[57]The Defendant’s reports of January 2025 and March 2025 contained sufficient information for the Defendant to decide that restructuring of the provision to a hub-and-spoke model was appropriate and that Poverest was surplus to the overall requirements of that provision. The content of the reports is supported by the Defendant’s evidence. There were a wide range of factors for the Defendant to consider. The information in those reports was considered together with the experience and knowledge of the Defendant’s Executive and councillors of their borough and the services they provided.[58]The Defendant was not required to know the preferences of all its users or their personal circumstances in relation to travel around the borough. It is sufficient that the services are reasonably available within the borough and there is no duty to make them available in any particular location. There was a rational basis to conclude that courses could be delivered from other buildingsand that the impact of the closure of Poverest would be substantially mitigated by providing many of the courses in alternative locations.[59]It is not arguable that no reasonable authority could have been satisfied on the basis of the January and March 2025 reports (and the further inquiries made) that it possessed the information necessary for the decision. The Defendant could properly be satisfied that it had the information necessary to decide whether Poverest was surplus to operational requirements and should be closed. The Defendant was entitled to determine how to take the relevant factors into account and did not arguably act irrationally.

Ground 3 - Breach of the PSED

[60]The January 2025 report recognised that closure would have an impact on service users but stated that the hub and spoke model and engagement with users would ensure that the negative impact of closure was mitigated. The Equality Impact Assessment recognised that longer travel distances across the borough could reduce attendance and access to learning opportunities for disabled people and took this into account. It noted that learners had a wide range of needs. Some courses would be provided through the hub and spoke model and therefore would be accessible. The Defendant took into account that specialist facilities, which were necessary for some courses, could only be provided at Kentwood. Social opportunities would be available at the replacement hub and in the spokes when courses were provided there.[61]The Defendant recognised the potential impact of the decision on equality objectives and knew there were equality implications. The December 2024 Equality Impact Assessment addressed the risk of longer travel distances for some service users as well as the benefit of shorter trips for others. It recognised the disruption to familiar routines and possible increases in transport costs. It discussed ways of mitigating those issues. The additional travel for users who lived closer to Poverest and further away from Kentwood was obvious to the decision makers who had a good knowledge and experience of the borough and its geography.[62]The EIA was considered by the Defendant before it took the decision. The Defendant is entitled to take into account that the spoke sites are already Council premises which have been subject to obligations to be accessible to disabled users for many years. Taken in context the Defendant was not advised by the Assessment that all disadvantages to all users would be removed completely, but that they would be mitigated - that is reduced or diminished. The hub and spoke model meant that some disabled users (such as the Claimant) who had difficulties in travelling to Kentwood could be prevented from accessing some of the courses, but other courses would be available closer to their homes.[63]I am satisfied from the January 2025 and March 2025 reports and the evidence before me that the Defendant had its equality obligations in mind during the decision making process. The Defendant was entitled to make its decisions in stages updating its assessment as it went along. The decision to close Poverest was a strategic one and the Defendant was entitled to conclude that the restructuring would lead to overall advantages to the community and those to whom the public sector equality duty applied.[64]It is not arguable that the Defendant failed to comply with the duty in taking its decision to close Poverest or failed to make adequate inquiries as required to comply with the duty.

Extension of Time

[65]The Defendant points out that the claim is out of time as the challenge is to the decision taken on 22 January 2025. It has acted on the decision and also says under s.31(6) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 there is detriment to good administration in granting the relief sought having regard particularly to the capital funding obtained and the delay to provision of new housing accommodation. It also notes the current cost of continuing to maintain Poverest and the fact that it will gradually dilapidate.[66]The Claimant contends that the January 2025 decision was dependent on that plan showing that other premises were available and so it was a conditional decision. It contends that time for limitation starts on 28 April 2025 when the final, unconditional decision was made and announced (relying on R (Burkett) v Hammersmith and Fulham LBC [2002] 1 WLR 1593).[67]The Defendant has referred to the January 2025 decision as an ‘in-principle decision’ but notes that closure of Poverest was at that stage approved and was not conditional on further events. I accept that it was possible that officers could discover factors which could have resulted in them asking the Defendant to review or reverse the decision, but it was not conditional. However this was not made clear to the Claimant’s family when they asked about the erroneously proposed consultation in May and June 2025. The Defendant referred to the “proposed” or “potential” closure stating that notice of a 30-day consultation had been given. In July 2025 the Claimant approached lawyers and a legal letter was sent on 17 July 2025 seeking confirmation about the consultation and a formal pre-action letter was sent on 21 July 2025. The Defendant sent a substantive response on 28 July 2025 andthe claim was lodged on 29 July 2025.[68]I do not accept that the Defendant has shown substantial hardship or detriment to good administration. The proposed housing development is due in 2028 or later and there are many stages in the planning and development to come. The relatively short delay occasioned by the bringing of this claim does not result in substantial hardship to the Defendant.[69]I am satisfied that the claim was issued promptly in all the circumstances, including the Defendant’s various references to the potential closure and promise of a consultation. This is an appropriate case to grant an extension of time as the Claimant acted reasonably in seeking to resolve the matter with the Defendant and to clarify whether a decision had been taken. Judicial review should be a last resort and a claimant who seeks promptly and reasonably to resolve the issue without litigation should not be penalised for a short delay in making the claim. It was not realistic for the Claimant to have known about the decision prior to 28 April 2025 and an extension is appropriate.

Senior Courts Act 1981

[70]Section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 Act provides that a court must refuse to grant a remedy on a claim for judicial review if it appears to the court that it is highly likely that the outcome for the claimant would not be substantially different if the conduct complained of had not occurred. The outcome for the claimant is the decision taken. The “conduct complained of” is the legal error or flaw which would justify the grant of a remedy in judicial review.[71]The court is concerned with evaluating the significance of the error on the decision-making process. The court must consider the decision and assess the impact of the error on that decision in order to ascertain if it is highly likely that the decision would not have been substantially different even if the decision-maker had not made that error.[72]It is not for the court to try and predict what the public authority might have done if it had not made the error. If the court cannot tell how the decision-maker would have approached matters, or what decision it would have reached, if it had not made the error in question, the requirements of section 31(2A) are unlikely to be satisfied.[73]R (Plan B Earth) v Secretary of State for Transport [2020] PTSR 1446 noted that a claimant has no burden to show that a public authority would have come to a different conclusion. I have to be satisfied that it is highly likely (rather than inevitable) that the outcome would have been the same or not substantially different even if the public law error identified by the court had not occurred and the users of Poverest had been properly consulted before the January 2025 decision. It is my duty to refuse relief if the statutory criteria are satisfied subject to the “exceptional public interest” discretion.[74]This depends on the particular facts of the case but I must bear in mind the fundamental relationship between the courts and public authorities and avoid, even subconsciously, assessing the merits of the public decision under challenge.[75]Where the approach of the Defendant is unlawful, it will often be impossible for a court to conclude that it is ‘highly likely’ that the outcome would not have been ‘substantially different’ if the public authority had gone about the decision-making process in accordance with the law. The threshold remains a high one and R (Bradbury) v Brecon Beacons National Park Authority [2025] 4 WLR 58 reminds me that I must not try and predict what the Defendant would have done if it had not made the error. I need evidence as to how the Defendant would have approached matters or what decision it would have reached, if it had not made the error in question.[76]I have identified that the only arguable error in this case is the failure to consult users of Poverest before reaching a decision to close the centre and relocate all the specialist courses to Kentwood. There is clear evidence in this case from the full and clear explanation of the decision-making process used by the Defendant and the rationale in its reports and witness evidence. The Defendant had a public need and duty to address its budgetary and housing challenges by disposing of property where services could be adequately provided elsewhere and which would provide sustainable sites for affordable housing. It needed to make cost savings and the evidence shows that Poverest was an appropriate site for housing unlike Kentwood. Kentwood is well located in the densely populated area of Penge, one of the borough’s areas of deprivation. It is a good hub location to meet the needs of users and was not an appropriate site for alternative uses.[77]Taking all this into account, I accept that the failure to consult was highly likely to have made no difference to the outcome. Although the Claimant and others were entitled to be consulted, it is clear that nothing would have arisen in the consultation that could or would have changed the outcome. It is highly likely that the decision would have been the same – with Kentwood identified as the only realistic site for the hub and Poverest identified as the only realistic site for closure and redevelopment for affordable housing.[78]It would not have achieved the Defendant’s financial or housing needs to retain both Poverest and Kentwood and to try to build a smaller number of houses on the Poverest site. The points raised by the Claimant and others in the evidence are highly likely to have been considered by the Defendant to be capable of reasonable mitigation in the way its operational plan is delivered and having regard to its Equality Impact Assessment. The evidence meets the high threshold in s.31(2A).[79]The Defendant is highly likely to have decided the restructuring needed to take place in order to secure the substantial public and financial benefits of rationalizing its property portfolio and the provision of up to 50 units of housing on the Poverest site.[80]There is no exceptional public interest permitting me to disregard the requirements in s.31(2A) and so for those reasons relief must be refused and the application for judicial review is dismissed.