The Queen (on application of RP) v London Borough of Brent
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE STADLEN |
| Judgment Date | 07 December 2011 |
| Neutral Citation | [2011] EWHC 3251 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/8051/11 |
| Date | 07 December 2011 |
[2011] EWHC 3251 (Admin)
The Honourable Mr Justice Stadlen
Case No: CO/8051/11
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Mr Paul Bowen (instructed by Harrow Law Centre) for the Claimant
Mr Paul Greatorex (instructed by London Borough of Brent) for the Defendant
Hearing date: 6 October 2011
This is an application for Judicial Review of a decision by the London Borough of Brent ("the council") to close its Short Breaks Unit at 24 Crawford Avenue earlier than had previously been decided. The unit is one of two residential units run by the council for the provision of short term respite care for disabled children.
In April 2010 the council had decided to relocate both units into a single new Short Break Centre as part of a new Village School for disabled children. First admissions for the new unit were scheduled to take place in December 2012. Following the reduction of local authority funding consequent on the government spending review the new administration in Brent which was elected in May 2010 was faced with an immediate need to make savings to the council's budget in the order of £37million and in February 2011 the council's budget for 2011/2012 reduced the Children and Families Department's budget by £10.5 million in comparison to the financial year 2010/2011. Early closure of Crawford Avenue was identified by the council as a means of saving £517,000 over two years, which savings were said by the council's Director of Children and Families in a report to the council's executive dated 23 May 2011 ("the 23 May 2011 report") to be necessary to achieve a balanced budget.
The decision to close Crawford Avenue earlier than originally decided was taken by the council's Executive on 23 May 2011. It was called in by the council's Overview and Scrutiny Committee ("OSC") which, at a meeting held on 8 June 2011, rejected a proposal made by councillor Lorber, a member of the committee and, under the previous administration, leader of the council, to recommend to the executive to retain Crawford Avenue until the Village School facility was ready. The OSC split on party lines and councillor Lorber's proposal was defeated by the Labour councillors who had a majority on the committee. Instead the committee noted the decision made by the executive on 23 May 2011.
The Claimant and her supporters
The claim for judicial review is brought by the Claimant who is the mother of a severely disabled 12 year old boy, AP, who uses the short break care facilities provided by Crawford Avenue. The claim is also supported by the parents of six other children with behavioural disabilities who, together with the Claimant, have made witness statements in support of the claim.
AP has hydrocephalus or water on the brain. He has a ventricular – peritoneal shunt to drain the fluid to relieve pressure on the brain. He has an overactive bladder and has fluid in the ears. He experiences collapsing episodes and is under the care of a heart specialist at Great Ormond Street children's hospital. His condition causes him to present with challenging behaviour and when he becomes frustrated he lashes out. He has an older brother with whom he shares a room at home. His behaviour is such that his mother needs short breaks from caring from him and his brother needs time and space to himself to study. Until November 2010 AP received 472 hours of short breaks care at Crawford Avenue which was later reduced to one session of after school care from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. once a week and one session of day care once a month. AP has attended Crawford Avenue since he was five. The attraction to the Claimant of Crawford Avenue is that it provides respite care which she considers is able to deal effectively with AP's challenging behaviour. In particular because he becomes frustrated and lashes out if he is in a small space she considers that he derives benefit from the large garden and the large sensory room in Crawford Avenue which allows him and other children to move around freely.
The Claimant is strongly opposed to the closure of Crawford Avenue. She has a small house and a very small garden and her older son who is 18 shares a room with AP and needs time to himself. She therefore considers that it would be inappropriate to have respite carers in her house and does not wish to receive direct payments from the council to pay for it. Nor does she consider that Clement Close is a proper alternative to Crawford Avenue. Clement Close is the other short care respite residential unit run by the council, whose functions and services are due to be replaced by the new unit in the Village School when it opens in December 2012. Clement Close currently houses physically disabled children. It is not currently suitable for providing services to children with behavioural disabilities and as part of the decision to close Crawford Avenue in October 2011 the council decided to spend £50,000 adapting Clement Close to the needs of children with behavioural disability. However, because of the risks presented by children with behavioural disabilities to children with physical disabilities, in particular those in wheelchairs, it would not be possible even after the proposed adaptation for Clement Close to provide services to children with behavioural and physical disabilities at the same time. The plan was that residential facilities should be provided to each category of child on alternate weeks. The Claimant considers that this would deprive her of the flexibility she currently has to arrange when she would like AP to attend the unit.
RB is the mother of ZB. ZB is 15 years old and has attended Crawford Avenue since the age of four. ZB currently receives 472 hours a year of respite care at Crawford Avenue including both day and overnight stays. She frequently goes to school from Crawford Avenue and returns there from school. ZB has autism, which her mother states results in her needing routine and a stable environment in familiar surroundings. She has challenging behaviour which means that she can lash out at any time at anybody. She likes to move around freely and paces up and down exhibiting inappropriate behaviour such as taking her clothes off in public, approaching strangers and touching them inappropriately. RB has a small ex-council house which restricts ZB's movements. She is unable to go into the garden as it is too small and the children on the estate often throw things into the garden and hurl abuse at ZB. RB says that Crawford Avenue provides the space which she cannot provide at home. In 2009 ZB suffered a psychotic breakdown which, according to her mother, was due to her being placed in a school that was not suitable for her needs. She stayed there for one and half years. The breakdown was so severe that ZB attacked her mother and RB's other daughter had to call the police for help. RB states that it was agreed that ZB could not be left in the house with her or her other daughter as she was uncontrollable. She was taken to Crawford Avenue which offers respite emergency care for situations such as that.
RB opposes the closure of Crawford Avenue on the ground that it provides routine structure and a safe environment for ZB. ZB is familiar with the surroundings which for her are like going from home to home. RB asserts that if Crawford Avenue were to close there would be no other suitable unit which could cater for ZB's complex needs. RB states that she has been told by ZB's social worker that if Crawford Avenue were to close there would be no other emergency respite provision in Brent. RB is also concerned that if RB's movement is restricted, as she says it would be at Clement Close which is much smaller than Crawford Avenue, that could have very serious negative consequences. According to RB due to the nature of their challenging behaviour the children who attend Crawford Avenue need space between themselves and she considers that Clement Close lacks the necessary space indoors and outdoors and is too cramped and congested. Clement Close has a very small sensory room that is less than a quarter of the size of that at Crawford Avenue and in the view of RB is not suitable for her daughter's needs. She is opposed to direct payments as an interim measure because they would not meet her needs as a single parent. She would have to employ someone suitable to assist with ZB who would struggle to get used to the person. Her house is too small and more importantly she would not herself have any respite from looking after ZB if she stayed at home.
FL is the father of KL, a 17 year old girl who has attended Crawford Avenue since the age of seven. She currently receives 420 hours a year support at Crawford Avenue including both day and overnight stays. She attends Crawford Avenue every Friday after school, which, together with the day care, allows her stimulation which FL says she cannot get at home and which allows both her parents and her younger sister some respite. KL has Classic Autistic Spectrum Disorder, characterised by obsessive behaviour, hyperactivity and no understanding of social norms. FL states that if she does not have routine or familiarity with her surroundings she becomes extremely hyperactive which often results in her needing emergency respite. He states that she has settled in well at Crawford Avenue becoming excited when she knows she is going there. He is of the view that Clement Close cannot meet her needs and states that he would...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R Farooq v Secretary of State for the Home Department
...UKHL 19; R (on the application of Usk Valley Conservation Group) v Brecon Beacons National Park [2010] EWHC 71; and R (on the application of RP v London Borough of Brent [2011] EWHC 3251 (Admin). The claimant relies on all of these cases to promote an argument that the Secretary of State sh......
-
The King on the application of AF v Milton Keynes Council
...to acquaint himself with the relevant information to enable him to answer it correctly? 17 In R (RP) v Brent London Borough Council [2011] EWHC 3251 (Admin) at paragraph 239, Mr Justice Stadlen described the Tameside duty as “a requirement of general application to all relevant decision ma......
-
Active Equity Holdings Ltd v The Registrar of Companies
...to acquaint himself with the relevant information to enable him to answer it correctly”. 43 In R (RP) v Brent London Brough Council [2011] EWHC 3251 (Admin) at [239] Stadlen J described the Tameside duty as “ a requirement of general application to all relevant decision makers and a necess......
-
Wilbert Lynch v The Chief Personnel Officer
...— Commonwealth Caribbean Administrative Law, pgs 127–129 in support of this contention. 6 [1977] AC 1014 @ 1056B per Lord Diplock 7 [2011] EWHC 3251 (Admin) 8 Extracted by Counsel for the Claimant (submissions filed on 1 st February, 2021) from R v Secretary of State for the Home Departmen......