The Queen (on the application of WX) v Northamptonshire County Council

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeMrs Justice Yip
Judgment Date14 August 2018
Neutral Citation[2018] EWHC 2178 (Admin)
CourtQueen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
Date14 August 2018
Docket NumberCase No: CO/1328/2018 and CO/1400/2018

[2018] EWHC 2178 (Admin)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

Birmingham Civil Justice Centre

33 Bull Street, Birmingham, B4 6DS

Before:

Mrs Justice Yip DBE

Case No: CO/1328/2018 and CO/1400/2018

In the matter of CO/1328/2018

Between:
The Queen (on the application of WX)
Claimant
and
Northamptonshire County Council
Defendant

In the matter of CO/1400/2018

The Queen (on the application of John Connolly)
Claimant
and
Northamptonshire County Council
Defendant

Mr S Broach and Ms K Hafesji (instructed by Irwin Mitchell LLP) for the Claimant WX

Mr C Howells (instructed by Watkins and Gunn) for the Claimant Connolly

Mr P Oldham QC (instructed by LGSS Law Limited) for the Defendant

Hearing dates: 26 & 27 July 2018

Judgment Approved

Mrs Justice Yip
1

These two applications for judicial review concern decisions to make significant cuts to the library service in Northamptonshire. While austerity measures have led to the closure of many libraries around the country, evidence placed before me suggests that the scale of these cuts is unprecedented. They must be seen in the context of a local authority facing unprecedented financial difficulties. Although the claimants suggest that many of the problems are of the defendant's own making, the simple truth is that action must be taken to regain control of a very precarious financial situation.

2

Members of the local community feel very strongly about the proposals to close 21 of the 36 public libraries in Northamptonshire. There is no doubt that the provision of libraries is an essential public service. As the foreword to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport's 2014 Independent Library Report put it, libraries are “a golden thread throughout our lives.” It must also be recognised that the Council must fund other essential services, including safeguarding children and vulnerable adults. The pressure on all statutory services is enormous. Some very tough decisions are still to be made in the coming weeks and months. In considering the applications, I am not concerned with the merits of what are undoubtedly difficult decisions, I am required only to determine whether the Council have acted lawfully.

3

The claimants are both residents of Northamptonshire. WX is an infant. She proceeds through her mother, who is very concerned that she will not have the same opportunity afforded to her older siblings to attend Desborough Library and the children's centre located there. Mr Connolly is a founding member of the St James Residents' Association and has been involved in a campaign to save St James Library. Both claimants seek to represent the wider public interest in libraries in Northamptonshire and their claims are not limited to consideration of the libraries at Desborough and St James. The witness statements served in support of the claims identify the potential impact of library closures across all sections of the community.

4

An issue was raised as to WX's standing. However, Mr Oldham QC did not press this point, while preserving the defendant's position in relation to any issue of costs that might arise. Subject to any further submissions, it appears to me that young children as a group are likely to be particularly affected by library closures and that the evidence of WX's mother establishes that she meets the relatively low threshold for standing. It is less clear to me why it was necessary for Mr Connolly to bring a claim covering essentially the same ground as WX's in the express knowledge that her claim was already proceeding. In due course, this is something I may have to revisit.

5

There is no need to set out the procedural history save to say that the applications were listed to be heard together at a rolled-up hearing for consideration of the applications for permission and, if appropriate, the substantive claims. I heard submissions over the course of two days (with extended sitting hours) and received some further written submissions thereafter. I observe that the parties recognised that the time estimate was insufficient. Recognising the wider implications that it may have at a time when the Council are still seeking to resolve the funding crisis, I have endeavoured to provide my judgment to the parties as quickly as possible while juggling other sitting commitments.

The statutory duty to provide a library service

6

Section 7 of the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 (“the 1964 Act”) provides:

“7.—General duty of library authorities.

(1) It shall be the duty of every library authority to provide a comprehensive and efficient library service for all persons desiring to make use thereof…

(2) In fulfilling its duty under the preceding subsection, a library authority shall in particular have regard to the desirability—

(a) of securing, by the keeping of adequate stocks, by arrangements with other library authorities, and by any other appropriate means, that facilities are available for the borrowing of, or reference to, books and other printed matter, and pictures, gramophone records, films and other materials, sufficient in number, range and quality to meet the general requirements and any special requirements both of adults and children; and

(b) of encouraging both adults and children to make full use of the library service, and of providing advice as to its use and of making available such bibliographical and other information as may be required by persons using it; and

(c) of securing, in relation to any matter concerning the functions both of the library authority as such and any other authority whose functions are exercisable within the library area, that there is full co-operation between the persons engaged in carrying out those functions.”

7

Section 10 of the 1964 Act confers powers on the Secretary of State to investigate a complaint that a library authority has failed to carry out its duties and to hold a local enquiry which may lead to an order requiring the authority to carry out its duties as directed.

Library Review 2017

8

In 2017, the need for the Council to make huge cuts in spending had been identified and library provision was reviewed in that context. I have been provided with the “Northamptonshire Libraries and Information Service Review 2017” dated September 2017. The executive summary to that report began:

“Years of efficiency measures have ensured that Northamptonshire library service is exceptionally cost effective.”

The report concluded that there was no room within the current structure for further efficiency savings and set out options to reshape the service. The introduction concluded:

“This review sets out the rationale for preserving the greater part of the service that serves the most people who visit libraries, for ensuring the broadest geographical spread with libraries that are well situated to add most value to communities and for developing a service that secures the best value for money.”

9

The claimants do not directly challenge the 2017 review. However, it is necessary to look at it carefully since it underpins much of the subsequent decision-making.

10

The Review was undertaken with reference to and shaped by the common design principles set out in a “good practice toolkit” produced by the Libraries Taskforce appointed by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS). The first design principle was the need to meet legal requirements. The 2017 Review set out the core duty before turning to the other principles. It looked at accessibility, including considering distances between libraries and travelling time by public transport. It noted national data relating to trends and attitudes towards library use and analysed data it held about visits to libraries in Northamptonshire and trends in library use within the county. The Review proposed three options and stated:

“All these options meet the 7 common design principles set out in section 2.”

11

Option 1 involved retaining 15 libraries (not including Desborough and St James) and developing “a community-managed library model to be offered to all other current library communities”. Option 2 would retain the same 15 libraries but without the additional model for community-managed libraries. Option 3 proposed retaining only the 8 large libraries in Northamptonshire.

12

The defendant's statistics were used to estimate that approximately 18.9% of active library users had not made use of any of the 15 libraries proposed to be retained in options 1 and 2 between February and June 2017.

13

The Review also noted the impact that library closures would have on designated children's centres. Of the 21 libraries affected by Options 1 and 2, 13 house children's centres. Those centres had been co-located with the library to improve value for money, although as confirmed during the hearing sharing only property and not members of staff. Under Option 2 it was recognised that there was potential for clawback of sums paid by way of grant to establish the children's centres. That risk was not recognised in relation to Option 1, presumably as it was hoped that the libraries would remain open under the community-managed scheme and that the children's centres could continue in the existing locations. Under Option 3, 19 libraries with children's centres would be scheduled for closure with the associated potential for clawback.

14

The claimants are critical of the Review. They further dispute the defendant's contention that the review concluded that all three options were compliant with the duty under s. 7 of the 1964 Act. However, when the document is read as a whole, it is clear that this was the author's conclusion.

15

I will return to the arguments on s.7 in greater detail below but I do not accept Mr Broach's submission that there were “fundamental flaws” in the defendant's approach at this stage. On the contrary, the Review appears to me...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • R Rachel Nettleship v NHS South Tyneside Clinical Commissioning Group
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 28 January 2020
    ...by the decision-maker, it is open to them to decide if they were the appropriate options: R (WX) v Northamptonshire County Council [2018] EWHC 2178 (Admin) at [67]. In R (Kidderminster and District Community Health Council) v Worcester Health Authority [1999] EWCA Civ 152 Simon Brown LJ, i......
  • R Shane Williams v Caerphilly County Borough Council
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 24 June 2019
    ...the Strategy, the money required would be available. He referred to the judgment of Yip J in WX v Northamptonshire County Council [2018] EWHC 2178 (Admin) at paragraphs 29 – 32. In that case a local authority ran into difficulties when setting its budget when an auditor's report concluded ......
  • Ron Glatter v NHS Herts Valleys Clinical Commissioning Group
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 6 January 2021
    ...to a shortlist of its making and to exclude options considered inappropriate (e.g. R (WX) v. Northamptonshire County Council [2018] EWHC 2178 (Admin) per Yip J at 56 It was therefore for the CCG to decide whether to rule out a new build option as unaffordable by reason of the £350 million ......
  • R Mae Magness (by her mother and litigation friend Ruth Magness) v Powys County Council
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 18 July 2019
    ...sector equality duties impose upon them by section 210 of the 2010 Act. Ground 2 25 In R (WX) v Northamptonshire County Council [2018] EWHC 2178 (Admin) Yip J summarised the principles which must be applied in order to assess the lawfulness of a public consultation such as that which occur......
1 firm's commentaries
  • Public Law Case Update - Consultation Edition
    • United Kingdom
    • Mondaq UK
    • 27 November 2018
    ...R (Kohler) v Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime [2018] EWHC 1881 (Admin); and R (WX) v Northamptonshire County Council [2018] EWHC 2178 (Admin). Consultation Duties and Many decisions made by public bodies have an impact on or affect their stakeholders. Although there is no single overar......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT