Page, R (On the Application Of) v Darlington Borough Council

A fair consultation must occur while proposals remain formative, give sufficient reasons for intelligent consideration, allow adequate time for responses, and involve conscientious consideration of the responses. A public authority need not consult on every possible alternative or allow consultees unlimited time to develop proposals. A representation creates a legitimate expectation only where it is clear, unambiguous and devoid of relevant qualification. Generalised substantive unfairness is not an independent public-law ground; the challenge must be framed through established principles such as legitimate expectation or irrationality.

The claimant, representing members of the Darlington community, challenged the Council’s decision to close Crown Street Library and relocate library services to the Dolphin Centre. She alleged that two consultations were legally inadequate and that the Council had breached a legitimate expectation arising from a letter offering assistance in developing alternative proposals.

The Council had rejected proposals to retain Crown Street Library after considering consultation responses and an independent assessment. Permission for judicial review was granted by King J. The claimant also sought a late amendment to introduce further grounds, which the court refused.

1. Late amendment. Permission to amend the grounds was refused. The application was made very late, no good reason was shown for the delay, the proposed allegations could prejudice the Council, and the amendments had no apparent merit.
2. Legitimate expectation. The Council’s letter did not create a legitimate expectation. Its language about helping the Steering Group was unclear and equivocal, and did not specify the nature or manner of assistance. Applying the standard in R v IRC, ex p MFK Underwriting [1990] 1 WLR 1545, the representation was not clear, unambiguous and devoid of relevant qualification. In any event, the Council had provided sufficient assistance and had considered the resulting Business Case.
3. Fair consultation. The first consultation complied with the Gunning principles. It took place before the final decision, provided sufficient information, allowed adequate time, and the responses were conscientiously considered. The Council was not required to allow the Steering Group as much time as it needed to develop its proposal, nor to provide further opportunities to respond to the independent consultants’ criticisms.
4. The second consultation was not invalid because it addressed only relocation to the Dolphin Centre. A public authority may consult on a single option and need not include every alternative. The savings figures were not materially misleading, and the claimant did not establish that matters raised at a later meeting had been unlawfully ignored.
5. The Council had not adopted a closed mind. The decision was taken by the elected Council after considering the consultation material and opposition to closure. Following R (Gallaher) v Competition and Markets Authority [2018] UKSC 25, general or conspicuous unfairness was not a freestanding ground of review. The claim therefore failed.

The claim for judicial review was dismissed.

Permission for judicial review was granted by King J after an oral hearing on 28 November 2017. The High Court then dismissed the claim.