A petition for judicial review was lodged at the Court of Session this week against Renfrewshire Council (first respondent) and the Renfrewshire Health and Social Care Integration Joint Board (second respondent).

On 24 November 2023, the second respondent agreed to:

“Combine Mirin and Milldale: merge the Mirin and Milldale services, which will support the evolution of services towards a community delivery outreach model whilst maintaining a building-based provision strand. The revised service would focus on eligibility only for people who have family-based support, with a flexible, personalised approach for people who have Supported Living care packages”.

The second respondent’s decision of 24 November 2023 meant the closure of Milldale. A local petition against the closure has already received over 3,600 signatures. The petitioner challenges the respondents on four main grounds:

(a) The first respondent failed to exercise its duties under section 149 of the 2010 Equality Act in relation to the proposed closure of Milldale; failed to carry out an Equality Impact Assessment (EQIA) which satisfied the requirements of the 2012 Regulations and has unlawfully sought to delegate its duties under the 2010 Act to the second respondent; failed to consult with service users including those with disabilities; et separatim failed to consult with services users of Milldale at Scots common law;

(b) The second respondent failed to properly exercise its duties under section 149 of the 2010 Act in relation to the proposed closure of Milldale; failed to carry out an EQIA before it made its decision of 24 November 2023; failed to satisfy the requirements of the 2012 Regulations and failed to consult with service users including those with disabilities before making its decision of 24 November 2023; et separatim failed to properly consult with services users of Milldale at Scots common law;

(c) The second respondent’s decision in relation to Milldale was unlawful as its closure had already been predetermined by the second respondent who had fettered their discretion and the second respondent failed to follow a fair process in breach of the petitioner’s legitimate expectation that it would do so; and

(d) The first and second respondent’s provision, criterion or practice to close Milldale discriminated against disabled service users and was unlawful in terms of sections 15, 20 and 29 of the 2010 Act.