Legal Challenge Looms for Ealing Children's Centre Closures

Letter sent warning of potential judicial review of decision

A demonstration against the closures outside Ealing Council offices

August 13, 2025

Ealing Council is facing a potential judicial review following its decision to close or repurpose ten of the borough’s 25 children’s centres. A formal legal warning was issued on 5 August by solicitors Rook Irwin Sweeney, acting on behalf of a local resident. The letter argues that the council’s consultation process was legally flawed and that the decision may breach statutory duties under the Childcare Act 2006.

The challenge comes after months of public opposition to the closures. A petition organised by the campaign group Save Ealing’s Children’s Centres has attracted nearly 2,500 signatures. The Liberal Democrat opposition has also taken a role in resisting the proposals. Councillors have tabled a formal motion to reverse the decision, proposed a fully funded budget amendment to keep all centres open, and provoked a full debate at a recent meeting of the full council. They have also supported public demonstrations outside Perceval House and worked alongside campaigners to raise awareness.

The council’s Cabinet approved the closures on 11 June, as part of its new Early Help Strategy. The stated aim was to restructure services and improve outreach provision across the borough. Following the consultation, three centres—Jubilee in Ealing, Petts Hill in Northolt, and Dormers Wells in Southall—were removed from the closure list. However, campaigners have criticised the lack of transparency around this decision and continue to oppose the closure of the remaining centres.

The legal letter sets out three grounds for challenge. First, it argues that the consultation was unlawful because the council had already committed to making £751,000 in savings before the consultation began. This, the letter claims, meant that the process was not conducted at a formative stage and presented only one viable option—closure of the majority of centres.

Second, the letter alleges that the council failed to meet its legal duty to ensure sufficient provision of children’s centres under section 5A of the Childcare Act 2006. It claims that the council did not provide any meaningful analysis of how the closures would affect accessibility or demand, nor did it demonstrate that the remaining centres would be adequate to meet local need.

Third, the letter accuses the council of failing to comply with statutory guidance issued under the Sure Start programme. This guidance advises that local authorities should not close children’s centres unless they can show that outcomes for disadvantaged children will not be adversely affected. The solicitors argue that Ealing Council did not provide sufficient evidence or reasoning to justify its departure from this guidance.

The claimant has requested that the council rescind its decision and undertake a fresh consultation that includes alternative options to closure. If the council does not respond by 4pm on 19 August, the claimant intends to proceed with a judicial review and seek costs.

In response, an Ealing Council spokesperson said, “Ealing Council remains committed to improving access to our Early Help and Children’s Centre services for all families in our community. We are aware of the legal challenge that has been brought forward and will be consulting with our legal team.”

Liberal Democrat Councillor Jonathan Oxley, spokesperson for children’s services, criticised the policy, stating that the closures would adversely affect deprived and vulnerable children. He said the decision ignored academic research highlighting the importance of children’s centres in supporting early development and wellbeing. Councillor Oxley added that it was a “sad indictment” of the council’s approach that legal action was now required to ensure residents’ concerns were heard.