Termination of licence to operate soup kitchen was unlawful: High Court

A High Court judge has ruled that a local authority’s decision to terminate a charity’s licence to operate a ‘soup kitchen’ at one of the council’s car parks was unlawful.

Christian Kitchen has run the kitchen at the Mission Grove car park in London E17 for more than 20 years. It provides around 80 meals a night and is open for one hour seven nights a week.

However, anti-social behaviour had been associated with users of the soup kitchen, although the extent was hotly contested.

This and the fact that Walthamstow High Street was undergoing substantial regeneration lead Waltham Forest Council to conclude on 17 April 2013 that the licence should be revoked.

The council did offer an alternative site for re-location of the soup kitchen, at Walthamstow Avenue.

The claimants – Christian Kitchen and two users of the kitchen – rejected the alternative site on the grounds of safety and accessibility, and applied for judicial review.

The soup kitchen was allowed to continue to operate at Mission Grove, pending the outcome of the judicial review challenge.

The claimants originally sought to attack the revocation on a wide range of grounds, but chose ultimately to focus on one ground only – that there had been a breach of the public sector equality duty.

It was common ground that:

• The council was neither providing the soup kitchen service, nor was it under any mandatory duty to facilitate the continued operation of the soup kitchen, either at Mission Grove or elsewhere;
• The council was legally entitled to terminate the licence at Mission Grove, subject to compliance with the PSED.

The claimants argued that Waltham Forest should have considered the likely impact of its decision on vulnerable, disabled and elderly users of the soup kitchen. They said there was no proper appreciation of the potential impact of the decision on equality objectives and the desirability of promoting them.

The local authority denied that it had acted unlawfully and said that it had complied with the PSED.

It argued that the decision to revoke the licence was not contingent on an alternative, suitable site being offered, so that any criticism of the alternative was irrelevant.

Waltham Forest added that criticism of the alternative site related to its safety and accessibility, which were matters for it to determine subject only to questions of reasonableness. (This was not in issue on this judicial review application).

In Blake & Ors v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2014] EWHC 1027 (Admin) Mrs Justice Simler ruled in favour of the claimants.

She found, amongst other things, that the council’s equality analysis failed to comply with its own guidance. The authority also had a substantive obligation to “grapple realistically and frankly with the obvious impacts” of the decision to revoke the licence.

The judge said: “I have come to the conclusion that the PSED was not complied with here. The risk of closure was not considered and weighed in the balance, and the impact of closure was not assessed and steps to mitigate this impact were not addressed.

“Mr Hanshaw [Waltham Forest’s Divisional Director Public Realm] did not properly appreciate, or if he did, failed to address the most likely adverse impact of the revocation decision, namely closure of the soup kitchen altogether. This failure meant that the process was vitiated from the outset and was never put right.”

She added: “The council should have considered the likely impact of its decision on the vulnerable users of the soup kitchen on the basis that the soup kitchen would close rather than on the wholly unrealistic basis that they would suffer little or no detriment because the soup kitchen could relocate to the lay-by at Crooked Billet which was well served by public transport.

“Thus although an impact assessment was carried out here, it did not provide the analysis and information necessary to discharge the duty to have focussed due regard in the circumstances of this case, and neither the council nor Keith Hanshaw could be clear precisely what the equality implications would be of any decision to terminate the licence at Mission Grove.”

Mrs Justice Simler said she was not persuaded that there were any grounds for limiting relief to a declaration only. She therefore quashed the revocation decision with a view to reconsideration.

Alex Rook of law firm Irwin Mitchell, which represented the claimants, said: “The judgment proves what our clients have been saying all along, which is that the council failed to have regard to the needs of vulnerable users when taking the decision to move the soup kitchen service, which has been situated in Mission Grove for 25 years, to an out-of-town site that our clients have always argued is completely unsuitable.”

Cllr Clyde Loakes, Waltham Forest’s Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Environment, said: “We are disappointed by the judge’s decision but will review the findings and continue to talk with Christian Kitchen to find a way forward for both users of the kitchen and residents nearby.

“The Court has recognised our concerns – which are supported by police information – around the anti-social behaviour linked to the soup kitchen, and our focus on ensuring the safety of local people and those raising families in the area still stands.”

Cllr Loakes added: “We appreciate that the majority of the people who use the soup kitchen are law-abiding, but the current site has sadly become a magnet for some people who want to cause trouble. We will continue to monitor criminal activity in the local area with the police as we move forward.

“Our aim has always been to move the soup kitchen to a site that is safer for our residents rather than closing it, and this will continue to be the subject of our ongoing conversations with the trustees.”

The council pointed to a police report from February 2013 which said local residents and the business community had “repeatedly” aired their complaints to local councillors and the police.

The report said police had identified 15 problematic core street drinkers and these individuals regularly frequented the soup kitchen.

“Since June 2012, a total of 58 arrests can be attributable to these individuals for a range of offences including, violence against the person, public order, theft, drunkenness and breach of the Banning Order (ARZ),” it added.

A follow-up report said that there had been further arrests within the same 15-strong group and a wide range of incidents.