High Court judge rejects legal challenge to library closure and reorganisation plans

Susanne Girdler, a member of the Save Abertridwr Library Group, brought the case in the High Court.

The court heard Caerphilly wanted to reorganise into library hubs in its main towns and offer digital and community outreach services to mitigate closures of smaller libraries elsewhere. This was part of an attempt to save £45m.

Caerphilly decided to close 10 of its outlying libraries and focus resources on town centres.

Ms Girdler argued a number of grounds, which Kimblin J distilled down in his judgment to four issues: did Caerphilly follow the ‘library duty’ in s.7 of the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964; did it follow duties on equality; and services to children; did its plans damage the availability of services in Welsh?

Kimblin J said the library duty concerned whether the council reasonably concluded that all residents could use the town centre hubs using reasonable means, taking into consideration their protected characteristics and/or socio-economic disadvantage.

Ms Girdler claimed there had been an unreasonable failure by the council to properly inform itself about the impacts on accessibility as the travel distances and transport difficulties were not addressed to an extent that was Wednesbury unreasonable.

Caerphilly told the court the Welsh Public Library Standards contained thresholds for travel distances calibrated against population densities and Caerphilly assessed these would be met.

It admitted there would be “some reduction in attainment of the Welsh Public Library Standards” against the existing baseline in the borough, but said it still spent more on libraries than did comparable authorities.

Kimblin J said: “I have concluded that the council reasonably and rationally concluded that the library duty was met. It is not arguable that its conclusion was either unreasonable or irrational…”

This was because the library duty required an evaluation in which the relevant factors and the weight given to them differed from place to place, and from time to time.

“This is a multi-factor and evaluative exercise, undertaken by those with local knowledge and responsibility,” the judge said.

“What is or is not reasonable accessibility in a particular place and time is a question on which this court would require evidence to show that the high threshold to demonstrate an unreasonable conclusion had been passed.”

He said it was also relevant that the baseline of provision in Caerphilly is the highest in Wales and the council’s intention to co-locate services, including library services, within principal settlements “was self-evidently a means of providing both comprehensive access and efficiently.

“It was not the only means, but it was unarguably one reasonable solution to the range of issues which the council was seeking to address.”

Turning to issues of equality and children’s library services, Kimblin J said judicial review of a public sector equality duty assessment was not a merits review.

“Moreover, it is not an opportunity for an overly forensic analysis of the PSED assessment,” he said.

“The requirement for a rigorous assessment to inform its PSED duty does not necessarily equate directly with a forensic critique of that assessment by this court.”

He said there could be no doubt that Caerphilly’s relevant special cabinet meeting was “informed of, and understood the PSED”.

Sixteen 'integrated impact assessments’ were discussed at the meeting, which expressly referred to the PSED.

Kimblin J said these “did not require citation of s.149 of the 2010 Act in full. They are practical documents, not a treatise”.

Mitigation was not the same as elimination as “a mitigation measure is still mitigation if it does not eliminate the impact, but lessens its effects”.

He found it was “not arguable that the council failed to discharge its socio-economic duty as the claimant submits, or at all”.

The judge added: “I find that the council undertook a rigorous and objective analysis of travel distances and travel times as a result of which it understood the nature of the effect of its proposals.

"The council knows the socio-economic circumstances of its area and has plainly appreciated how its changes to library services will affect different sectors of the population.”

He further found Caerphilly made lawful assessments of effects on children of the reorganisation.

Ms Girdler’s claim about the impact on Welsh language provision was not arguable because “its premise is the identified negative effects but without regard to the positive effects.

“It is not possible to reach a conclusion on effects for a proposal such as this without considering the effects together and as a whole.

“Second, in this case, that assessment is an evaluative one which the council undertook with care, changing its approach in response to the consultations.”

Kimblin J refused permission and dismissed the claim.

Mark Smulian