All UK public consultations are supposed to comply with the Gunning Principles.
1. proposals are still at a formative stage
A final decision has not yet been made, or predetermined, by the decision makers
2. there is sufficient information to give ‘intelligent consideration’
The information provided must relate to the consultation and must be available, accessible, and easily interpretable for consultees to provide an informed response
3. there is adequate time for consideration and response
There must be sufficient opportunity for consultees to participate in the consultation. There is no set timeframe for consultation, despite the widely accepted twelve-week consultation period, as the length of time given for consultee to respond can vary depending on the subject and extent of impact of the consultation
4. ‘conscientious consideration’ must be given to the consultation responses before a decision is made
Decision-makers should be able to provide evidence that they took consultation responses into account
In this case, I'm not sure that they complied with any of them.
The risk of not following these principles could result in a Judicial Review. A number of public bodies across the UK have been taken to Judicial Review and deemed to have acted unlawfully in their Public Sector Equality Duty – usually linked to the four Gunning Principles.
www.nhsinvolvement.co.uk/connect-and-create/consultations/the-gunning-principles
The judicial review should be about the way in which the consultation was carried out and the way the decision was made, rather than the decision itself. If the process was flawed then any decision made is unlawful.