Bailey & Ors v London Borough of Brent Council

A library authority must take reasonable steps to inform itself about local library needs before deciding whether its proposed service is comprehensive and efficient. Judicial review is concerned with serious or obvious legal error, not merits-based disagreement about the quality or detail of the assessment.

Under the Equality Act 2010, due regard must be paid to the statutory equality needs as part of the decision-making process, before the final decision is made. The authority need not assess every alternative policy or conduct a mathematically quantified comparison of affected and unaffected groups. A consultation is lawful where consultees receive sufficient information to respond intelligently and have a genuine opportunity to seek further information.

The claimants, residents and library users, challenged Brent Council’s decision to close six of its twelve public libraries as part of the Libraries Transformation Project. They alleged that the Council misunderstood its duties under section 7 of the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964, unlawfully failed to consider community-run alternatives, conducted an unfair consultation, inadequately assessed library needs, and breached section 149 of the Equality Act 2010.

The central issues were whether the Council had lawfully informed itself about local needs, whether it had kept an open mind about alternative provision, whether the consultation supplied sufficient information, and whether equality considerations had been addressed at the proper stage and with sufficient rigour.

1. Community provision. Section 7 permits library facilities to be provided through appropriate arrangements involving community or private groups. The Council nevertheless did not misconstrue that duty or unlawfully fetter its discretion. It considered the proposals and was entitled to reject them because their business cases were not robust, they did not achieve the required savings, or they imposed unacceptable costs or risks.
2. Consultation. The consultation was lawful. The Council explained the proposed closures, their rationale, the financial background and the strategy of concentrating resources on better-located libraries. Consultees had extensive opportunities to request further information. The Council was entitled to consult on its preferred proposal and was not required to consult formally on every alternative means of achieving the same savings. The seven appraisal factors did not unlawfully move the goalposts.
3. Needs assessment. A lawful assessment of a comprehensive and efficient service required reasonable steps to obtain and analyse relevant information. The material could be spread across the main report, consultation report, equality impact assessment and background papers. The Council considered usage data, demographic information, research, consultation responses, accessibility, children’s needs, digital services, alternative provision and resources. No serious or obvious legal error was shown.
4. Equality duty. The formative stage continued until the April 2011 decision. It was therefore lawful for the Council’s full equality impact assessment to be completed and considered before that decision. Section 149 required due regard to the statutory needs, not achievement of particular outcomes. The Council was not required to compare every alternative policy, quantify every possible overlap of protected characteristics, or investigate a merely theoretical risk of indirect discrimination. The assessment was informed, conscientious, timely and proportionate.
5. The rolled-up applications were dismissed. Permission was granted, but substantive relief was refused.