R Brenda Page v Darlington Borough Council
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mrs Justice Whipple |
| Judgment Date | 16 July 2018 |
| Neutral Citation | [2018] EWHC 1818 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/2969/2017 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 16 July 2018 |
[2018] EWHC 1818 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Mrs Justice Whipple DBE
Case No: CO/2969/2017
Nicholas Bowen QC and David Lemer (instructed by Watkins and Gunn Solicitors) for the Claimant
Richard Clayton QC (instructed by Darlington Borough Council) for the Defendant
Hearing dates: 18 th & 19 th June 2018
Judgment Approved
Order at bottom of this judgment.
Introduction
The Crown Street Library opened in Darlington in 1885. It was built as a library, and was gifted to the people of Darlington by the Pease family, a wealthy local Quaker family with links to the town. The original library building was extended in 1900 and 1930, by building on land also gifted by the Pease family. It is a grade II listed building which is significant for planning purposes because of its preserved interior and its continued use as a functioning library.
On 23 March 2017, Darlington Borough Council, Defendant to this claim, decided to close Crown Street library.
The decision to close Crown Street library is challenged by Brenda Page, who is a representative of the wider community of Darlington. She argues that the Defendant's closure decision is vitiated by a failure to conduct a proper consultation process and is in breach of the Claimant's legitimate expectation. The Defendant resists this application, arguing that the two consultations which took place before the decision was made were properly conducted, and denying that the Claimant has any legitimate expectation at all.
There is before me an application by the Claimant to further amend her grounds. I shall deal with that application in the course of this judgment.
Evidence
The Claimant filed a witness statement (dated 19 June 2017). She was supported by Sheila Harris (witness statement dated 19 June 2017), Yvonne Richardson (witness statement 20 June 2017), John Imperato (witness statement 19 September 2017) and Gemma McDonald (witness statements 27 February 2018 and 2 May 2018). The Defendant filed witness statements from Luke Swinhoe (dated 4 October 2017) and Paul Wildsmith (dated 20 April 2018 and 17 May 2018). I was taken to parts of the witness evidence during the hearing. I have (re)read it all in the course of writing this judgment.
The trial bundle comprised four lever arch files containing relevant documents and correspondence.
Background
In 2011, the Defendant commissioned a report on the options for Darlington Library Service. At that stage, the Defendant provided library services in three ways: at Crown Street, at Cockerton and by means of a mobile library. The purpose of the report was to present findings from a review of library services and to present options for the future provision of the services. Closure of Crown Street was amongst the options considered in that report.
That report was considered by the Defendant and led to the Darlington Library Plan 2012–15. This listed 7 options to save money; none of them included closing Crown Street.
On 11 February 2016, the Defendant launched a public consultation relating to a number of its services. It was facing a substantial cut in funding from government and needed to identify savings; the only way it could break even in the current year was to use reserves. It drew up a “medium term financial plan” (“MTFP”) to address the funding gap over the next 4 years. The wide ranging proposals contained within that plan were the subject of the consultation. The consultation and the changes proposed within it were widely publicised in the local press. So far as the proposals related to libraries, they included the closure of Cockerton, the ending of the mobile library, and the closure of Crown Street with a plan to relocate library services to the Dolphin Centre. The Dolphin Centre is a municipal complex, much of which was built in the 1980s. It stands in the market place in Darlington. It houses an Olympic size swimming pool as well as a diving pool and other sports facilities.
The Defendant held two public meetings to discuss the MTFP proposals on 16 March 2016. Two further meetings were held on the 23 March 2016 specifically to discuss the library proposals.. After that, the “Darlington Libraries Steering Group” was formed by local residents including the Claimant, who resisted some or all of the proposed library closures. The Steering Group was supported by an organisation called “Darlington for Culture” which had been set up some years earlier.
Darlington for Culture organised a meeting which took place on 7 April 2016 to discuss the library proposals. This was attended by Ada Burns, the Defendant's Chief Executive. There was some discussion at that meeting about the possibility of saving Crown Street, possibly by allowing it to be run by volunteers from the community.
The following day, 8 April 2016, Ada Burns sent a letter to John Dean, the chair of Darlington for Culture who was also a member of the Steering Group. This is an important document. It states, so far as is relevant:
“I was glad to attend the meeting last night although had expected that it was arranged to do more substantive work on alternative models. Nevertheless following on I thought it would be helpful to confirm a few points and offer you some help these are set out below:-
• Consultation on the MTFP [Medium Term Financial Plan] finishes at the end of May so just to confirm that no final decisions will be made until Full Council on 29 June 2016.
• I imagine you may have this in hand but obviously prior to the end of May it would be good to see a written response to the consultation which may include such things as:-
…
○ Alternative proposals for the Library service that would deliver similar savings to those being proposed (see below)
…
In terms of any alternative proposal you will have heard my note of caution last night about timescale, ie the longer the Council waits to achieve its revenue savings, the bigger the gap grows and the more cuts that will need to be identified. So it's not an unwillingness to engage that is driving the timescale, but the very real pressure of the revenue budget.
I'd strongly suggest therefore and I know Paul Wildsmith has also expressed the same view; that the best prospect for an alternative model to be given serious consideration by Council is for it have substance and detail. Such a proposal may not be fully worked up but must give Council significant assurance that it has a chance of delivery. Should this be the case and obviously depending on feedback in respect of all the other budget proposals, Council may be in a position to allow a further short period of time to finalise the proposal.
To help you do this before the end of May, Paul Wildsmith and his team are more than happy to work with you over the next seven weeks to help you develop a proposal. I feel there would be a greater chance of producing a sustainable option if this happened, and in the immediate future if details of the information you might require were forwarded to us then we can get cracking preparing this.
In the meantime if you need any more information or have any more questions, please contact Paul.”
The Steering Group worked up a Business Case to preserve Crown Street. This was dated 24 May 2016 and was submitted to the Defendant on 25 May 2016. It considered, with comment and amendment, two of the Defendant's options:
i) Option 1, which was to close Cockerton and the mobile library service, close Crown Street and relocate the library to the Dolphin Centre. The Defendant had suggested that savings of around £335,000 pa could be achieved by this plan, but the Business Case suggested that the savings were lower (at around £205,000pa) once various costs were taken into account, including the loss of opportunity and other costs at the Dolphin Centre.
ii) Option 2, which was to close Cocketon and the mobile library but to retain Crown Street as the main library, refurbished to include a café. Once various costs and potential income streams had been taken into account, the Steering Group thought that this option would result in savings which were about £102,000 less than the savings under option 1 and might, once full costings were established, result in savings which were only modestly less than those projected for option 1.
The Steering Group also suggested a new option, option 3. That was the “community alternative option” which involved retention of the existing libraries at Cockerton and Crown Street, both re-designed as “community hubs”. Significant income was projected from a range of new services to be offered at these libraries including a café, room hire, children's parties and themed events, pop up shops, and so on. The income was projected to be £150,000 by year 3, sustained at that level thereafter. This option involved the libraries being run by a charitable incorporated organisation (or CIO) with trustees from the community, largely reliant on volunteers for day to day management. Substantial savings against current annual expenditure were projected, ie £239,000 in year 1 rising to £299,000 by year 3. There were greater savings than either option 1 or 2 would generate.
Even after the Business Case was submitted to the Defendant, members of the Steering Group continued to engage with the Defendant about library services. In one email dated 28 May 2016, Gemma McDonald, a member of the Steering Group, wrote to Ian Thompson, an officer employed by the Defendant, with various further questions about and suggestions for use of the Dolphin Centre. She asked whether the Defendant had considered the income from a squash court which would be lost...
To continue reading
Request your trial