Tilley v Vale of Glamorgan Council

The claimant sought judicial review of a Cabinet decision of 9 March 2015 concerning the future of a number of local libraries, including Rhoose Library, and the promotion of a policy to develop community-led libraries. The court identified the core legal principles: the duty under section 7 of the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 to assess needs before closing libraries, the public sector equality duty in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, and the consultation requirements as articulated in Coughlan and considered in Moseley. The judge found that the March 2015 resolutions amounted to conditional decisions to close libraries if no expressions of interest or viable business cases were received, but those conditions had not been fulfilled and all the libraries remained open; accordingly any challenge to an actual decision to close was premature. The consultation was held to be lawful and the decision to promote community-led libraries was not irrational, although the officer report should have more clearly summarised the adverse findings in the area-specific equality impact assessments.

This is a claim for judicial review of the Cabinet of the Vale of Glamorgan Council made on 9 March 2015. The decision concerned proposals derived from a library review and strategy to develop community-supported/managed/led libraries and to reduce opening hours, and specifically whether Rhoose Library should be pursued as a community-led library. The claimant, a local library user, challenged what the Cabinet decided and the consultation leading to that decision.

The court set out the factual and procedural background: April 2014 and July 2014 versions of the Library Review and a consultation process; consultation material and questionnaires; the Leader's reports to Cabinet (28 April 2014, 11 August 2014 and 9 March 2015); area-specific equality impact assessments (EIAs); expressions of interest and later business cases submitted by community groups; and the minutes of Cabinet and the Lifelong Learning Scrutiny Committee.

The nature of the claim and issues before the court:

• (i) The nature of the claim/application: judicial review seeking to challenge the Cabinet decision of 9 March 2015 as unlawful — in substance a challenge to (a) an alleged decision to close libraries and (b) the consultation and the lawfulness of adopting a policy to promote community-led libraries.
• (ii) Issues framed by the court: what the Cabinet actually decided; whether a challenge to a decision to close was premature given the conditional nature of the resolutions; whether the consultation was lawful and in time; whether the Cabinet had had due regard to the Equality Act 2010 s149 duty; and whether the decision was irrational.
• (iii) Reasoning and outcome: the judge concluded that (a) the March 2015 resolutions operated as conditional decisions to close libraries if no expression of interest or viable business case were received, but those conditions were not met before the claim so there was no operative decision to close and a challenge to closure was premature; (b) the officer report inadequately signposted the adverse findings of the area-specific EIAs and thus did not demonstrate that members had been assisted to give due regard under s149, a procedural defect which would have vitiated an actual closure decision but which was remediable in any future report; (c) the consultation complied with the Coughlan/Moseley test (formative stage, sufficient reasons, adequate time, conscientious consideration) and was not unlawful or time-barred on these facts; and (d) the policy choice to pursue community-led libraries and to include Rhoose was not irrational on the available material. The claim was dismissed.

The court commented that deficiencies in reporting the equality analysis were capable of being corrected in future decision-making and that the judicial review should not intervene prematurely while the Cabinet retained decision-making authority and the conditional triggers for closure had not been satisfied.

The claim is dismissed. The court held that the Cabinet's March 2015 resolutions were conditional decisions to close libraries if no expressions of interest or viable business cases were received, and those conditions were not met so there was no operative decision to close (challenge premature). Although the officer report poorly summarised adverse findings in area-specific equality impact assessments and so did not demonstrate that members had been assisted to give due regard under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 (a procedural defect), that defect vitiated only a hypothetical closure decision and could be remedied in any future report. The consultation complied with the relevant legal test and the decision to pursue community-led libraries was not irrational.