Church Stretton Library

Williams v Shropshire Council.

Re: Church Stretton Library

Background

After extensive consultation and lawful democratic processes, Shropshire Council sought to enhance library provision for the whole community by relocating Church Stretton Library to a brand new library within Church Stretton School located approximately 0.6 miles away.

Mr Williams lives 0.1 miles away from the School and brought a Judicial Review claim contending that the library ought to stay where it is and not benefit from the enhancements at the new location a very short distance away.

The Council resisted the claim. It stressed in court documents that the claim was misconceived and that public funds were being wrongly used on this case and could be could be much better used for other purposes during this time of austerity when the Council had to make so many cuts following central government decisions.

The Council also stressed the Claimant had an alternative remedy available. If the campaign group wished to run the library then the Localism Act enabled it to send an Expression of Interest to the Council. The campaign group failed to do that. 

The Hearing

Instead, on the day of the hearing at the High Court the Claimant sought to amend his case to now rely on the Localism Act.  At the Court’s door the Claimant’s lawyers also suggested that they would not seek any legal costs against the Council.

The Council was advised by its barrister that the offer now made, although very late, ought to be given serious consideration. 

The Council agreed on a pragmatic basis to accept the very late offer from the Claimant. It agreed that its decision be quashed when considered in conjunction with this new late proposed ground of appeal and because there would be no order as to costs.

Had the Claimant made this offer before the court’s door and had the Claimant accepted the proposal made by the Council as long ago as in 2015 relating the Localism Act then these proceedings would almost certainly never had got this far. The Council was not able to secure its costs against the Claimant because the campaign group had said they had deliberately put forward a “man of straw”. The effect was that no costs order could be enforced against him and whereby costs against the Legal Aid Agency could not be recovered either.  

Judge’s view

The Judge at the hearing had expressed his surprise that the Claimant even had legal aid for this case when there are so many other cases such as family law cases involving children which do not qualify for Legal Aid.

The Council had to deal with the tactical use of Legal Aid against it in the manner raised but the effect of the agreement is that there will be a very large costs saving to the public purse for both the Council and the Legal Aid Agency as this case did not continue.  

Inaccurate Reporting by Campaign Group

The Council has noted that various messages that have come from the campaign group and others about what was alleged to have been said by the Judge and others at the hearing. Much of what has been said appears to be inaccurate. The Council has been seeking the actual order that the Claimant seeks but still awaits that from the Claimant. The Council did not previously consider it appropriate to comment to the media until that order had been seen but the inaccurate comments have required it to do so.

The Council remains committed to improving the facilities for all of its residents. It has to work within a very difficult framework because of austerity measures imposed by central government. The Council has exciting plans and vision for how this is to be achieved and will continue to work with all who seek to contribute.