A Court Called One Of These Decisions Unlawful. A Review Called The Other Flawed.
Two other communities fought a hospital downgrade before us — one won in court, one didn't win at all. Here's what actually made the difference.
We're not the first community to watch a children's service get moved eight miles down the road by people who don't have to live with the consequences. Two other fights show what actually moves the needle — and what doesn't.
The one they lost in court
In 2013, the Save Lewisham Hospital campaign in south-east London fought a plan to downgrade their A&E and maternity unit. The twist: the cuts weren't even being imposed because of problems at Lewisham. They were forced through because a neighbouring trust, South London Healthcare NHS Trust, was in financial trouble, and the government used special administrator powers meant for that trust to reshape a hospital next door.
Campaigners took it to the High Court. In July 2013, Mr Justice Silber ruled that the Health Secretary had acted outside his powers and breached the NHS Act 2006. The government appealed. In 2014, the Court of Appeal threw that appeal out too. The downgrade was quashed. Lewisham kept its A&E.
The one where the review found fault — and nothing changed anyway
Banbury's Horton General Hospital tells a harder story. When plans emerged to downgrade its consultant-led maternity unit, Oxfordshire's health scrutiny committee did exactly what Lancashire's scrutiny committee has now done for us: they referred the decision to the Health Secretary and asked for it to be called in.
It worked, in the sense that a review happened. The Independent Reconfiguration Panel, led by Lord Ribeiro, examined the decision and concluded that Oxfordshire's clinical commissioning group had "fallen short" in how it considered the options before deciding, and said a fuller appraisal was needed.
And then the downgrade went ahead anyway. The unit became a midwife-led unit in 2017, despite the panel's own findings.
Why this matters for us
Our case has the same shape as both. Like Lewisham, there's a real question of process: a 13-week consultation drew 7,840+ responses, keeping the children's A&E at Ormskirk was the most popular option, and NHS bosses had already named Southport as their "preferred option" before anyone was consulted. Keeping both sites was ruled out beforehand too. That's not a neutral process — that's a decision dressed up as a consultation.
Like Horton, we already have a scrutiny committee's unanimous call-in request sitting with the Health Secretary, unanswered. Lancashire County Council's committee did its job in March 2026. West Lancashire's MP has asked for the decision to be reversed. What Horton teaches us is blunt: asking for a call-in is necessary, but it is not, on its own, sufficient. What Lewisham teaches us is that when the process itself was unlawful, courts will say so — and that campaigners who keep pushing, formally and publicly, can still win.
What we're asking for: the Health Secretary must call in the decision and give it the scrutiny it hasn't had. We love the doctors and nurses at Ormskirk; our fight is with those who ignored 7,840 answers and are hoping we'll stop asking before they have to.
Spread the word — share this briefing: