Blake and Others v London Borough of Waltham Forest: Admn 7 Apr 2014

Application for judicial review of a decision by the Council terminating Christian Kitchen’s licence to operate a ‘soup kitchen’ at the Mission Grove car park, London E17.
Held: The request for judicial review was granted. The council’s position that there was no evidence to suggest the relocation would affect users’ ability to access the kitchen ‘fails to accord with reality of common sense’. The Council had failed properly to comply with the PSED (Public Sector Equality Duty) requirements: ‘The requirement imposed by the PSED is that the decision-maker should be clear precisely what the equality implications are when he puts them in the balance, and that these equality implications should be given due consideration side by side with all the other pressing circumstances relevant to the decision. There must be a structured attempt to focus on the measure’s effects, including undertaking any due enquiry where that is necessary. Here, while very high numbers of people are not directly affected by the impugned decision, there is nevertheless an identifiable group of particularly vulnerable people, many (or most) of whom depend on the soup kitchen for their only hot meal each day, and who are therefore, potentially gravely affected by it. This group was correctly identified by the Council as potentially directly affected by the revocation decision, and the Council (again correctly) assumed that its decision would have a disproportionately adverse effect on this group which includes elderly, disabled and other vulnerable people. Although the Council did not provide the soup kitchen service itself, and was under no duty to support or facilitate it, the fact is that for more than 20 years, it did facilitate this service by allowing it to use Mission Grove without a fee.
What the Council failed to do however, having recognised and identified a potentially affected vulnerable group, is follow its own guidance requiring that ‘negative impacts must be fully and frankly identified so the decision-maker can fully consider their impact’ so that the impact assessment is ‘evidence based and accurate’. It failed to identify in clear and unambiguous terms, the most likely adverse impact this vulnerable group might face as a consequence of the decision proposed; and failed to engage with mitigating measures to address that impact, by failing to engage with the very real prospect that the soup kitchen would close altogether because Christian Kitchen would not move to the alternative site offered if forced to leave Mission Grove. Rather than examining and assessing this impact, the Council instead, examined and assessed a hoped for and much less serious impact.’

Simler DBE J
[2014] EWHC 1027 (Admin)
Bailii
Equality Act 2010 149
England and Wales

Local Government

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.523497