WX, R (On the Application Of) v Northamptonshire County Council

A local authority facing acute financial pressure must still make library-service decisions by reference to its statutory duties and all material considerations. Under section 7 of the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964, the authority must assess local needs and decide whether the proposed service will be comprehensive and efficient. Judicial review is concerned with whether something has gone seriously or obviously wrong in the information-gathering, analysis or decision-making process. Consultation responses must be conscientiously considered before proposals are finalised. Financial urgency does not remove the need to consider equality duties, children’s welfare, or the financial interaction between library closures and children’s centres. Decisions presented as having no real choice, without addressing those matters, are unlawful.

Two residents sought judicial review of Northamptonshire County Council’s decisions concerning proposals to remove 21 of 36 libraries from the statutory library service. The decisions followed a consultation, a financial crisis, a section 114 report and an auditor’s advisory notice. The claimants challenged the consultation process, the assessment of the statutory library duty, equality and children-related duties, consideration of children’s centres, and the library budget allocation.

The central issue was whether the Council’s decisions after the auditor’s intervention had lawfully balanced the need for savings against its statutory obligations and the consultation material.

1. Permission and outcome. Permission was granted on the challenges to the Cabinet decisions of 27 February and 13 March 2018 and the library budget head approved by full Council on 28 February 2018. The relevant decisions were unlawful. The provisional view was that the Cabinet decisions should be quashed, while the appropriate relief concerning the budget allocation required further submissions.
2. Consultation. The consultation itself was lawful. The options were sufficiently explained, consultees had adequate information and time, and the Council was not required to consult on every possible alternative. However, after the auditor’s advisory notice, the Cabinet abandoned the promised further and diligent exploration of consultation responses before adopting Option 2. The product of consultation was therefore not conscientiously taken into account.
3. Section 7 duty. The Council had rationally used available usage and accessibility data during the review and consultation stages. The court would intervene if something had gone seriously or obviously wrong in the information-gathering or analysis process. But, before adopting a proposal leading to closures, the Cabinet had to decide whether the restructured service would provide a comprehensive and efficient library service. It failed to do so and did not balance that duty against the financial pressures.
4. Other duties and considerations. The equality impact assessments were adequate, but there was insufficient evidence that the decision-makers consciously used them when adopting Option 2. The duty under section 11 of the Children Act 2004 required children’s welfare to be actively promoted and remained a relevant consideration. The Council also had to understand and weigh the financial consequences for children’s centres, including possible grant clawback and relocation costs. It had not undertaken a proper cost-benefit analysis.
5. Relief. The court did not determine the merits of any particular closure. The Council remained entitled to reach the same substantive outcome after lawful reconsideration. The parties were urged to agree proportionate relief and consequential orders in the public interest.