Tilley v Vale of Glamorgan Council

A local authority’s decision to close libraries conditionally does not amount to an operative closure decision if the stated conditions are not fulfilled. Before making an actual closure decision, the authority must assess local library needs, as required by the duty in section 7 of the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964. A consultation must occur while proposals remain formative, provide sufficient reasons and time for intelligent responses, and involve conscientious consideration of responses. There is no automatic obligation to consult on every alternative. The question is fact-sensitive and depends particularly on whether the alternative is realistic. A decision to promote community-led libraries was rational where the authority reasonably considered that local enthusiasm might support such a library despite opposition to the proposal.

The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant Council’s Cabinet decision of 9 March 2015 concerning the future of five libraries, including Rhoose Library. The decision promoted community-led libraries and provided for expressions of interest and business cases, with possible closure if the relevant conditions were not met.

The claimant argued that the decision was premature, that the preceding consultation was unlawful because it did not consult on alternatives such as reduced opening hours, and that the decision was irrational. She also challenged the Council’s compliance with its statutory library-service duty and the public sector equality duty.

1. Construction and prematurity. The Cabinet had made conditional decisions to close libraries if expressions of interest or business cases were not received. Those conditions were not fulfilled: expressions of interest and business cases were received for all the libraries, which remained open. Accordingly, at the hearing there was no operative decision to close any library, and the challenge to closure was premature.
2. Statutory duties. The court would have held that an actual closure decision was unlawful because the Council had not assessed library-service needs as required by the duty implicit in section 7 of the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964. The court would also have held that the Cabinet had not demonstrated due regard to the needs in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. Those defects did not invalidate the conditional decision because no closure followed and any future closure decision could be reconsidered lawfully.
3. Consultation. Applying the principles in R v North and East Devon Health Authority ex p Coughlan [2001] QB 213, the consultation was lawful. It took place at a formative stage, supplied sufficient information, allowed adequate opportunity for responses and was conscientiously considered. The Council was entitled to consult on community-led libraries as its preferred option. Reduced opening hours at Rhoose were not a realistic alternative on the facts, and consultees could make alternative suggestions in the free-text section.
4. Rationality. The Council was entitled to revisit its original classification of Rhoose and include it in the proposal. It was also entitled to conclude that residents’ enthusiasm for the library might lead them to support a community-led model if closure was the alternative. The financial assumptions were not so strikingly irrational as to justify judicial intervention.
5. The judicial review application was dismissed.