Susanne Girdler, R (on the application of) v Caerphilly County Borough Council

Under s 7 of Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964, a local authority may reorganise library provision if it reasonably concludes that the resulting service remains comprehensive and efficient. Reasonable accessibility is a multi-factor evaluation, taking account of travel, particular needs, local circumstances, mitigation, contemporary library use and financial efficiency. Judicial review is not a merits exercise or forensic re-weighing, especially where specialist statutory oversight exists. Under s 149 of Equality Act 2010, mitigation may reduce or offset disadvantage without eliminating every adverse effect. Residual effects must be identified and considered. Decisions affecting children require evaluation of their possible impact, and Welsh-language duties require positive and adverse effects to be considered together.

The claimant, a member of a campaign group, sought judicial review of the defendant council’s decision to implement a library-service strategy closing ten smaller libraries and concentrating provision in town-centre community hubs, supported by outreach, LibraryLink and digital measures. The challenge concerned the statutory library duty, the Public Sector Equality Duty, the socio-economic duty, the duty concerning children’s welfare, and Welsh Language Standards 88 and 90. Interim relief had prevented closures; the matter proceeded to a rolled-up hearing and permission was granted to amend the grounds. The central question was whether the council’s decision-making process and conclusions were lawful, rather than whether the court preferred a different library network.

The court refused permission on grounds 1–4 and dismissed the claim.

1. Library duty. Section 7 of the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 requires a comprehensive and efficient service for all persons wishing to use it. Reasonable access, including distance, travel time and particular problems related to disability, age and family circumstances, formed part of a contextual evaluative exercise. The court applied the approach in Draper v Lincolnshire County Council [2014] EWHC 2388 and followed the high threshold identified in Bailey and others v London Borough of Brent [2011] EWHC 2572 (Admin). Welsh Ministers’ statutory oversight and alternative enforcement route under sections 10 and 16 reinforced judicial restraint.
2. The council had quantified travel, population and transport evidence, considered Library Standards, existing provision and usage, contemporary needs, outreach and LibraryLink mitigation, hub benefits and financial pressures. A reduction in the number of sites did not automatically breach the duty. The council rationally balanced comprehensive access with efficiency, and the court could not substitute its view on the number or location of libraries.
3. Equality and socio-economic duties. The Public Sector Equality Duty required a rigorous assessment undertaken with an open mind and informed by necessary and relevant information. The court applied the principles in R (Bracking) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2014] Eq LR 60 and Powell v Dacorum Council [2019] EWCA Civ 23. Judicial review was not a merits review or an invitation to conduct an overly forensic critique. Under sections 149(1)(b) and 149(3) of the Equality Act 2010, mitigation could reduce or offset adverse effects without eliminating them. Residual negative effects were lawful if identified and considered. The integrated assessments adequately addressed protected characteristics, disadvantage, intersectionality and both positive and negative effects.
4. Children and Welsh language. The court applied the procedural dimension of the best-interests obligation explained in R (DA) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2019] UKSC 21: a decision affecting an identified group of children requires an evaluation of its possible impact. The integrated assessments satisfied section 28 of the Children Act 2004. Under section 25 of the Welsh Language (Wales) Measure 2011 and Standards 88 and 90 in the Welsh Language Standards (No. 1) Regulations 2015, the council was entitled to evaluate positive and adverse effects together and to conclude that better provision in fewer locations, with mitigation, was lawful.

The council’s decision to implement the strategy was lawful.

This was a first-instance judicial review. The judgment records interim relief on 8 September 2025, a rolled-up hearing order on 3 March 2026, and permission to amend the grounds on 24 April 2026. No appeal is stated.