‘Unfair and unlawful’: Campaigners take council to court over children’s centres consultation

Protest and survive: campaigners contesting the closure of Fernbank children’s centre earlier this year (Monday 22 April 2024). Photograph: Maya Sall / Free to use by partners of the BBC Local Democracy Reporting Service.

Hackney Council is to be taken to court as campaigners battle to save two children’s centres from closure.

Parents and campaigners have brought a case against the council on the grounds that the consultation process surrounding the proposed closure of Stoke Newington’s Fernbank and Haggerston’s Sebright children’s centre was, they argue, “unfair” and “unlawful”, and therefore there are not sufficient legal grounds to close the centres.

The judicial review will take place on 6 and 7 November 2024 at the Royal Courts of Justice.

“We are pleased to be getting our day in court but also saddened that it has come to this,” Natalie Aguilera, one of the campaign leaders, told the Citizen.

“We do not want Hackney Council to be spending funds on court cases, but ultimately, we are firm in our belief that the consultation was unfair and unlawful, so we had no other choice than to pursue legal action.

“We have been clear that we would fight tooth and nail to try to keep these valuable services – particularly the subsidised childcare – available to disadvantaged families, for which they are a lifeline”.

Since January, parents have been protesting the proposed closure of Fernbank and Sebright children’s centres, which provide affordable childcare for children between six months and five years of age.

As part of the plans, Oldhill children’s centre in Clapton and Hillside in Stamford Hill face being reduced to term-time-only childcare services.

The proposals are part of Hackney Council’s aim to find savings amid a £1.07 million budget deficit, which the Town Hall says is a result of a drop in nursery fees and higher operational costs.

It is part of a wider effort from the council to save £4 million across its early years’ service within the next three years.

Lawyer Alex Rook, who is representing the families, previously told the Citizen: “[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.”

Hackney Council rejected the accusations, telling Rook it does “not accept your criticisms of the consultation, and considers that the consultation was fair and lawful”.

In a formal response to the campaigners’ letter before claim, which was submitted in April and warned the council to expect a legal challenge, the Town Hall 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.”

Commenting on the council’s position, Aguilera said: “If only Mayor Woodley would listen to residents instead of unelected council officers who appear to be determined to close or privatise children’s centres, despite clear evidence of their positive impact”.

“Hackney’s children’s centres are ‘jewels in the crown’ and should be preserved at all costs. These cuts are wrong and unnecessary.”

Hackney Council was contacted again for new comment, but said it cannot comment on live legal proceedings.  The judicial review will be heard by a judge and because there is no jury involved, there is no-one to prejudice.