Williams, R (On the Application Of) v Caerphilly County Borough Council

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal concerns the decision of Judge Swift to dismiss a challenge to the lawfulness of a local authority cabinet's decision to adopt a ten-year Strategy (2019-2029) for the provision of sports and recreation facilities. The Strategy set out a vision and key principles guiding future decisions on sport and active recreation in the authority's area.

The Strategy acknowledged that sports and recreation facilities were a discretionary service for the local authority, which currently operated ten leisure centres, many of which were aging and costly to maintain. The Strategy proposed rationalising these to four strategic, high-quality, multi-service leisure centres located in specified areas, with the remaining centres either transferring to school management (if joint use) or closing.

One leisure centre, Pontllanfraith, was not designated as a strategic centre and was not a joint use facility. The council deferred a decision on its closure pending adoption of the Strategy. After adoption, the council commissioned a report recommending closure and subsequently resolved to close the centre. The Appellant, a regular user and campaigner against closure, challenged both the adoption of the Strategy and the closure decision via judicial review.

Judge Swift dismissed the challenge to the Strategy adoption but found the closure decision unlawful due to failure to comply with public sector equality duty. The present appeal concerns only the lawfulness of the Strategy adoption decision. The council did not cross-appeal the closure decision.

The appeal raised three main issues: whether the cabinet had authority to adopt the Strategy rather than the full council; whether the cabinet failed to consider the cost of implementing the Strategy as a material consideration; and whether the Strategy constituted an "arrangement to secure continuous improvement" under the Local Government (Wales) Measure 2009, triggering specific duties including consultation.

Procedurally, the claim for judicial review was issued in February 2019 and amended in May 2019 to include the closure decision. An interim injunction was granted preventing irreversible steps to close the Pontllanfraith centre. The hearing before Judge Swift occurred in June 2019, with judgment delivered shortly thereafter. This appeal was heard in February 2020.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the decision to adopt the Strategy was a function reserved to the full council or within the cabinet's executive authority.
2. Whether the cabinet failed to have regard to the cost of implementing the Strategy, a material consideration in the decision-making process.
3. Whether the adoption of the Strategy constituted an "arrangement to secure continuous improvement" under section 2 of the Local Government (Wales) Measure 2009, thereby requiring compliance with consultation obligations under section 5 of the Measure.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Strategy adoption was effectively a firm decision to provide four strategic leisure centres and close or transfer the remaining six, with significant budgetary and capital expenditure implications, thus falling outside cabinet authority and requiring full council approval.
• The cabinet failed to consider the financial costs of implementing the Strategy, lacking sufficient information on costs for the strategic centres and savings from closures, rendering the decision irrational under Wednesbury principles.
• The Strategy adoption was an arrangement to secure continuous improvement under the 2009 Measure, triggering a duty to have regard to efficiency and to consult properly under section 5; the consultation was inadequate due to lack of financial information.

Respondent's Arguments

• The Strategy was a broad policy document setting out general objectives over ten years, not a hard-edged or prescriptive plan mandating specific expenditure or closures.
• The cabinet had authority to adopt the Strategy as a matter within executive functions; no full council determination had been made to reserve this function to itself.
• The Strategy did not commit the council to any specific expenditure or capital borrowing at the time of adoption, so it was not "concerned with" the budget or capital plans in a manner requiring full council approval.
• The cabinet was entitled to adopt the Strategy without detailed costings given the long timeframe and uncertainties; financial considerations would be addressed in future decisions as plans were developed.
• The 2009 Measure's general duty to "make arrangements to secure continuous improvement" was aimed at improvement arrangements distinct from ordinary executive decisions; adopting the Strategy was not such an arrangement and thus did not trigger the consultation duty under section 5.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court undertook a detailed statutory and purposive analysis of the local government executive arrangements under the Local Government Act 2000 and related regulations. It emphasized the default position that functions are executive unless specifically reserved to the full council by statute or regulations.

The court considered whether adopting the Strategy was a function "concerned with" the council's budget or capital expenditure such that it required full council approval. It applied a narrow, direct-consequences interpretation of "concerned with," focusing on whether the decision itself committed the council to specific expenditure or borrowing. The Strategy was characterized as a broad policy framework setting out intentions over a ten-year period without binding financial commitments or hard-edged decisions.

The court rejected the appellant's argument that the Strategy adoption was a "gateway decision" mandating immediate expenditure or closures, noting that subsequent decisions with financial implications would require separate reports and approval. It found that the Strategy adoption was within the cabinet's executive authority.

On the failure to consider cost, the court held that given the nature of the Strategy as a long-term framework with uncertain and variable financial implications, it was not irrational or unlawful for the cabinet to adopt it without detailed cost information. Financial considerations would be addressed at the stage of implementing decisions.

Regarding the Local Government (Wales) Measure 2009, the court interpreted the general duty to "make arrangements to secure continuous improvement" as applying to distinct improvement arrangements rather than every executive decision. It found that the Strategy adoption was not such an arrangement but a strategic plan for future service provision. Consequently, the consultation duty under section 5 was not triggered. The court noted that applying the duty to all strategic decisions would impose an impractical consultation obligation on local government.

Holding and Implications

The appeal is dismissed.

The court upheld the decision that the cabinet had lawful authority to adopt the Strategy, that it was not required to have detailed financial information on costs at the time of adoption, and that the adoption did not constitute an arrangement triggering the consultation duty under the 2009 Measure. The decision confirms that broad strategic plans setting out policy objectives over a long period, without binding financial commitments, fall within executive functions and do not automatically engage specific consultation duties. No new precedent was established beyond the application of existing statutory interpretation principles to these facts. The direct effect is that the Strategy adoption stands and the appellant's challenge fails.