Draper v Lincolnshire County Council

A library authority must provide a comprehensive and efficient service. Comprehensive does not require a library within a particular distance of every resident, but reasonable access for all residents, including through digital and targeted services. Financial constraints may inform the service’s design, but cannot remove the statutory duty. Consultation must occur while central features of the proposal remain open to change. An authority cannot present a proposal as open to alternative solutions and then reject a materially different expression of interest because it falls outside the consultation’s scope. A public authority satisfies the public sector equality duty by giving due regard to relevant equality needs and devising a rational mechanism for avoiding unlawful discrimination; the duty is not a duty to achieve a particular result.

The claimant challenged Lincolnshire County Council’s decision of 3 December 2013 to reduce its static library provision from 44 libraries to 15, together with changes to mobile, online and targeted services. He alleged breach of the statutory duty under the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964, flawed consultation, breach of the public sector equality duty, irrationality and unlawful treatment of an expression of interest by Greenwich Leisure Ltd, a charitable organisation proposing to operate the whole service while retaining existing provision.

The council maintained that the statutory service remained comprehensive and efficient, that the consultation was lawful, and that GLL’s proposal was insufficiently detailed and would require an unduly lengthy procurement exercise. The central issues were whether the consultation was genuinely formative and whether GLL’s expression of interest had been lawfully considered.

1. Statutory library duty. Section 7 of the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 requires a comprehensive and efficient service. A comprehensive service means one reasonably accessible to all residents, using reasonable means including digital technology. Accessibility includes reasonable travel distances and times and accommodation of difficulties arising from disability, age and family circumstances. Budgetary constraints may be taken into account, provided the resulting service still meets section 7.
2. Consultation. Consultation must take place while proposals remain at a formative stage and the authority has an open mind about central elements. A preferred option may be put forward, but consultees must have a meaningful opportunity to influence it. Here, the reduction to 15 static libraries was presented as fixed. The consultation was therefore flawed, notwithstanding the council’s consideration of alternative suggestions.
3. Expression of interest. GLL’s proposal was an expression of interest under section 81 of the Localism Act 2011. The council’s own documents and conduct could not support both the contention that general alternatives were open for consideration and the contention that GLL’s proposal fell outside the consultation. Under the Secretary of State’s guidance, the council could request further information, but that request had to be optional. The proposal should have been properly considered rather than rejected on the stated basis.
4. Equality and irrationality grounds. The council had identified the potential disproportionate effects on disabled and elderly people and women and had considered mitigation. Its approach was not irrational, so the duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 was satisfied. The use of a 30-minute travel criterion, although inaccurately described at the meeting as Department for Transport guidance, did not make the decision irrational.
5. Relief. The defective consultation and unlawful treatment of GLL’s proposal together required the decision of 3 December 2013 to be quashed. The council was required to reconsider, including obtaining further details from GLL and, if appropriate, undertaking a further shorter consultation.