SURREY County Council failed in its statutory duty to consult families of vulnerable children who would be affected by £21million of cuts to SEND services, a court has heard.

A judicial review into the council’s proposed savings for special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) opened at the Royal Courts of Justice in London on Tuesday.

Representing families in front of a public gallery full of parents and children from across Surrey, Jenni Richards QC also argued the “substantial impact” of the savings was highlighted by headteachers during a forum months before councillors approved the cuts in March.

She said they feared in 2017 the council would struggle to meet potential needs of children with the existing budget before any cuts were made.

During day one of the two-day hearing in front of Lady Justice Victoria Sharp and Mrs Justice Maura McGowan, the court heard Surrey County Council councillors “made the choice” to approve the savings totalling £21m but that the decision was “flawed” because of the lack of “compliance and regard” to the “potential of adverse impact” on those affected.

Representing five children and their families fighting to reverse the cuts, including the Hollow family from Farnham, Ms Richards said: “We recognise local authorities have choices, often difficult choices, to make about priorities and application of their services, but such decisions about prioritisation and resource allocation have to be informed.”

Ms Richards talked the bench through the minutes and agenda items for February’s full council meeting and January and March’s Surrey County Council cabinet meetings where the £21millon worth of savings in the budget were approved.  

She said: “If you know those savings face challenges and barriers then before you approve the budget, there needs to be exploration and assessment of what the challenges and barriers are and how they will impact the council’s most vulnerable group of children.”

Representing Surrey County Council, Jonathan Moffat QC said figures set out in the budget were not “set in stone”, adding the budget was a projection of finances and that cabinet members were not “bound” by the decision.

“Just because something is in the budget, doesn’t mean it will happen,” Mr Moffat told the court room.

He said the cabinet was “well aware” years before the March meeting of acute financial pressures for SEND services.

But, he added, the decision by councillors was based on finances, saying at the time of adopting the budget the impact on services “had not been worked out”.

He said: “The simple fact is, at the time the council took the decision it didn’t know what the impacts were. It cannot be said the council unlawfully failed to take into account something that wasn’t ascertainable at the time of the decision.”

He added if a decision in the future about the services needed to be made then a consultation would be carried out. Hearing continues.