R (Draper) v Lincolnshire County Council

The claimant challenged the defendant's decision of 3 December 2013 to redesign library services in Lincolnshire, arguing breach of the statutory duty under section 7 of the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964, unlawful consultation, failure to comply with the Public Sector Equality Duty (section 149 Equality Act 2010) and failure to lawfully consider an expression of interest under the Localism Act 2011. The court held that computer and internet facilities properly fall within the scope of a library service under section 7, but an authority is not required to provide every particular service so long as the statutory duty is met.

The consultation was held to be flawed because a central element of the proposal—the reduction of the statutory service to 15 static libraries with targeting based on a 30 minute travel time—was effectively fixed and therefore not at a formative stage for meaningful consultation (Gunning/Partingdale principles). The court also found that an expression of interest from Greenwich Leisure Ltd should have been treated as an expression under section 81 of the Localism Act 2011 and more fully considered (including seeking further information) before rejection. The equality duty challenge failed because the council had given appropriate consideration to the needs of protected groups. The court rejected the claim of irrationality based on the 30 minute travel time. Because of the combined failings in consultation and the handling of the expression of interest, the decision was quashed and the council ordered to reconsider.

Background and parties. The claimant, a user of Lincolnshire libraries, brought judicial review proceedings challenging the council's December 2013 decision to reduce statutory library provision and adopt a tiered model involving significant cuts. The defendant was Lincolnshire County Council.

Nature of the claim and relief sought. The claimant sought quashing of the 3 December 2013 decision on grounds that it breached the duty in section 7 of the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964, that the consultation was unlawful, that the council failed to comply with the Public Sector Equality Duty (section 149 Equality Act 2010) and that the council unlawfully rejected an expression of interest from a charitable body under the Localism Act 2011 without proper consideration.

Issues framed by the court.

• What services fall within the section 7 duty and whether computer/internet services are part of the statutory library service.
• Whether the consultation complied with the principles in R v Brent LBC ex p. Gunning and R(Partingdale) v Barnet, in particular whether key elements were at a formative stage.
• How expressions of interest under the Localism Act 2011 (s.81 et seq.) should be treated and whether the council lawfully considered Greenwich Leisure Ltd's submission.
• Whether the council complied with the public sector equality duty (s.149 Equality Act 2010).
• Whether the decision was irrational or tainted by material error of fact (the use of a 30 minute travel time).

Court's reasoning and findings.

• Section 7: The court accepted that modern computer and internet facilities were properly regarded as part of a library service for purposes of section 7(1) and (2)(b), but an authority is not compelled to provide every specific service so long as the comprehensive and efficient service requirement is met.
• Consultation: The consultation documents made clear that certain central elements (notably the reduction to 15 static libraries and the targeting based on a 30 minute travel time) could not be influenced, such that the proposal was not at a sufficiently formative stage and the consultation was flawed under Gunning/Partingdale.
• Expression of interest: Greenwich Leisure Ltd's submission, although received at the end of the consultation period, constituted an expression of interest under s.81 of the Localism Act 2011 and should have been properly considered; the council should have requested further information before rejecting it, particularly as the Guidance contemplates optional requests for further detail.
• Public sector equality duty: The court concluded the council had adequately identified and considered the equality impacts and proposed mitigating measures; there was no failure to have due regard under s.149.
• Irrationality: The challenge based on the use of a 30 minute travel time and an alleged mischaracterisation of Department of Transport material did not establish irrationality or material error of fact sufficient to quash the decision.

Remedy and wider comment. The court quashed the 3 December 2013 decision and remitted the matter for reconsideration, noting that the council could seek further information from GLL and, if appropriate, conduct a shorter further consultation focused on any overall alternative proposals. The court observed that the statutory route under section 10 Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 is cumbersome and not a practical alternative to judicial review.

The claim is allowed and the 3 December 2013 decision is quashed. The court found the consultation flawed because a central element of the proposal (reducing the statutory service to 15 static libraries with the proposed targeting) was effectively fixed and therefore not at a sufficiently formative stage, and the council failed properly to consider an expression of interest from Greenwich Leisure Ltd under the Localism Act 2011 (including seeking further information). The public sector equality duty was satisfied and no irrationality was made out on the 30 minute travel-time point. The council must reconsider the decision.