Tilley, R (on the application of) v The Vale of Glamorgan Council

A local authority may rationally approve a community library proposal without first identifying a minimum number of volunteers, provided the material before it reasonably supports viability and no significant contrary concern has been withheld. Where a decision-maker chooses to take viability into account, it must receive sufficient information to make an informed judgment and must be alerted to significant concerns.

A comprehensive and efficient library service is assessed by reference to the library authority’s administrative area, not each individual settlement. The Welsh location standard likewise operated by reference to the authority’s area. The public sector equality duty requires substantive, conscientious consideration with an open mind, but does not require minute forensic investigation of every possible impact. Section 28 of the Children Act 2004 does not incorporate article 3 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant Council’s cabinet decision of 8 February 2016 to establish five community libraries, including at Rhoose, delegate authority to conclude operating and asset-transfer agreements, and reconsider the position if an agreement could not be reached.

The challenge alleged irrationality concerning volunteers, failure to assess the revised Rhoose business case, breach of the statutory duty to provide a comprehensive and efficient library service under the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964, breach of the public sector equality duty under the Equality Act 2010, and failure to treat children’s best interests as a primary consideration under section 28 of the Children Act 2004 read with article 3 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

1. Claim dismissed. The Council acted lawfully in resolving to establish a community library at Rhoose and to delegate authority to conclude a legally binding operating agreement.
2. The cabinet was entitled to rely on the revised business case, which stated that volunteers were being recruited and that the initial response was promising. There was no legal duty to identify a minimum number of volunteers or to establish that the number had already been recruited. The possibility that later negotiations might reveal difficulty in agreeing opening hours did not make the February decision irrational.
3. Viability was a material consideration which the cabinet had chosen to take into account. The relevant question was whether the report, revised business case and information given at the meeting enabled an informed judgment, and whether significant officer concerns had been omitted. The cabinet had the revised business case, the report, information about funding and premises, and the officers’ conclusion that earlier gaps had been addressed. No significant concern had been withheld.
4. Section 7 of the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 did not require the Council to assess service provision separately for Rhoose. The proposed community libraries would continue to contribute to the statutory service. Even if they were excluded, the relevant Welsh location standard was met by reference to the Council’s administrative area, where at least 75 per cent of households were within the specified distance of a library.
5. The cabinet had due regard to section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. The report and equality materials identified affected protected groups, possible adverse impacts and mitigating measures. The duty required substance, rigour and an open mind, but did not require every possible ramification to be investigated in minute detail.
6. Section 28 of the Children Act 2004 required arrangements for functions to be discharged having regard to safeguarding and promoting children’s welfare. Its different language and concept did not incorporate article 3 of the UN Convention. In any event, the decision was to establish a community library, not to close one, and the children’s interests had been considered. Any procedural defect would not have altered the outcome and would not justify relief.

First-instance judicial review. The judgment records an earlier judicial review concerning the library strategy, R (Tilley) v Vale of Glamorgan Council [2015] EWHC 3194 (Admin.), in which the claim was dismissed; an appeal was pending, but the present judgment made no comment on it.