High Court challenge to Barnhill by-election result

An Election Petition has been issued in the Election Petition Office of the High Court challenging the result of the January 23rd by-election. The petitioners have applied for a court hearing and the High Court will list a time and date for the hearing which will published on Brent Council's website.

The petition from the Conservative candidates  is set out below and is available via the Council's website. As an interested party I will comment no further other than note that the election result was declared around 12.50am on January 24th rather than January 23rd.

Click bottom right for full page.

This was the result of the Barnhill by-election:

UPDATED: Celebration as Bridge Park case referred to Attorney General

Campaigners to stop Brent Council from selling off the Bridge Park Complex won a round of the battle today when Brent Council's attempt to thwart the campaigners through a summary hearing at the High Court failed. The campaign has won the right to go to full trial over their claim that the Complex is protected by a covenant.

The judge referred the matter to the Attorney General and denied the Council the right to appeal. This does not mean the campaigners have won the battle to retain control of the site but it is a step forward. The community deserves recognition for their tenacity and resourcefulness. 

I was unable to attend the hearing as I was speaking at a meeting about climate change so please see the Kilburn Times website for full details. HERE

James Mastin's statement after the hearing on video HERE

Read the Judgment HERE  

Full report on the Guardian website HERE

UPDATE

Today, Friday, Dawn Butler MP for Brent Central told the Kilburn Times that she would not like to see the case go to full trial and would like to facilitate a mediation between the campaigners and Brent Council. She hopes to arrange an informal meeting next week. LINK 

There is no information on how much Brent Council has spent on the case so far but it must be considerable (see comments below). If the case can be solved through mediation it would save Brent council tax payers a lot of money that could be used for the benefit of the community.

UPDATE: Bridge Park campaigners: 'We're not giving up!' crowd into the High Court for Brent Council vs The Community hearing

UPDATE WEDNESDAY FEBURARY 27th

Crowds waiting to go into the High Court hearing this morning - they quickly filled up the Court

YESTERDAY'S POST

VIDEOS ABOVE-THE CAMPAIGN GIVES THE BACKGROUND TO THE CASE AND RESPOND TO BRENT COUNCIL'S RECENT ACTIVITIES

The Bridge Park Campaign will be attending the High Court tomorrow to contest Brent Council's attempt to strike out the case. The Council are trying to defeat the community's claim on the land allegedly using £500,000 of the funds meant to be spent for the community's benefit. 

 The Campaign said:

Brent Council do not want the evidence we have uncovered to be made public. So they are trying to Strike Out our case before it can be heard by full Trial.

It is a small Courtroom so numbers inside are limited. Attendees may have to safely wait outside the Court for updates:

Morning Session1 - 10.30hrs (2hrs)

https://bpcc-courthearing-session1.eventbrite.co.uk/

Session 2 - 13.00hrs(2hrs)

https://bpcc-courthearing-noon-session2.eventbrite.co.uk/

Update on Stop Haringey Development Vehicle court case

Photo from Inside Housing

Update from Gordon Peters first published on the HDV fundraiser page LINK

Heartfelt thanks to all supporters who have contributed to this campaign so far and you will see that we have surpassed our current target for funds. This allows us to cover fees and court costs to date, and be ready for any appeal should that be needed.

The Judicial Review concluded on Thursday 26 October with David Wolfe,QC, summing up after the three barristers representing Haringey Council and Lendlease had opposed our four grounds of the HDV being unlawful - that it was a commercial venture and should be a company not a LLP, that public consultation had been lacking, that the Public Sector Equality Duty had not been upheld, and that as a plan or strategy it should have gone to a full Council. They further opposed the granting of Relief [a cap on awards] and said the claim was out of time. They took up the detail of expert advice given to the Council's Housing Regeneration Scrutiny Panel and the Overview and Scrutiny Committee recommendations which were strongly critical of the HDV as if to say how open and consultative the Cabinet had been, although the Cabinet had gone ahead despite these.

David Wolfe was then able to show, through their own documents and business plans - much of which, over 700 pages in fact, had been redacted from any public view - that the HDV was indeed a major commercial venture, that it put social as well as affordable housing at risk, that poorer and vulnerable people in households both in estates scheduled for demolition and in leaseholds were not protected, and that this could not be called anything other than a strategy. He asked that the HDV be declared unlawful and relief on costs granted, rejecting the defence claim of being out of time as the whole process had been left undecided and kept changing its terms until the July 2017 Cabinet decision was made.

The judge, Mr.Justice Ouseley, then straightaway concluded the hearing and said that he would make his decision as soon as he could. We understand that this could still take some weeks.

Meanwhile I am very glad to say that the HDV is going nowhere right now, and it increasingly looks like this fundamentally flawed joint venture should not proceed.

To the HDV 'we say not so'.

STOP THE HDV: High Court, Oct 25/26 Public vs privatisers of public property

From Stop HDV

The Judicial Review on the Haringey Development Vehicle takes place in the High Court , Royal Courts of Justice, The Strand, London WC2A 2LL on 25 and 26 October, we hope supporters can come and join us in demonstrating support from 9 to 10 am particularly on the first day 25 October.

There will also be some public seating from 10 am.

The challenge is to Haringey Council setting up a supposedly 50/50 partnership with the Australian multi-national corporation, Lendlease, to take over land and property belonging to the Council, involving demolition and regeneration of estates as well as business premises and private houses in 'red-lined areas’. If it goes ahead it will be the biggest such transfer of local authority resources to a private entity in UK history. Lendlease have now joined Haringey as a defendant of the HDV in court.

 And all this
 without consulting the public on the HDV

• or taking it to a full Council meeting
• or sharing any of the financial risks to the public purse and assessment of viability
• or considering the consequences for the very diverse population and for vulnerable people through equalities impact
• or due consideration of partnership or company status.

Just ten years after the sell off of Alexandra Palace in Haringey was averted in court, with David Wolfe, QC acting for the claimants in that case, he will lead the legal team in court on 25 October in the attempt to stop the HDV.

None of this would have been possible without the amazing support from the several hundred people who have contributed through our crowdfunding to raise £25,000. £20,000 of this is required for our community cap on any awards which will be requested of the judge. The solicitors for the case, Leigh Day, and the barristers have put a great deal of work in to it, and as a result We are now asking for another £5,000 to make up the fees and costs accruing.

We hope you will make another donation, small or large, if you possibly can. You can donate to the crowdfunder at https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/stop-hdv/

This case has implications for the future of social housing in London and beyond, and at a time of acute crisis in that and the need for alternatives to corporate control of housing, for the creation of a fairer system and an end to decanting poorer people, it could be a landmark in helping local authorities change course.

Sheffield Greens respond to Labour Council's tree protest ban

Sheffield Greens are very disappointed that today the High Court ruled in favour of granting an injunction aimed at preventing peaceful protesting against the Council’s tree felling programme. The injunction was taken out against Green Councillor Alison Teal, two other named campaigners, and ‘persons unknown’. It comes into force on August 22nd.

The ruling, handed down this morning, means that tree campaigners will not legally be permitted to continue standing up for Sheffield’s street trees and for local residents by preventing the felling of healthy street trees.

Reacting the the verdict, Cllr Teal has vowed to continue opposing the Council’s plans, despite the injunction, and expressed dismay at the Council’s heavy handed and unnecessarily aggressive tactics:
 

I am very disappointed with this outcome, but will continue to do all that I can to save Sheffield trees. Sheffield Greens will not stop standing up for residents and communities who do not want this disastrous and unpopular tree felling programme to go on.

I would like to thank my legal team for their excellent work, and for all the messages of support I have received. In the short term, we will of course be looking into possible avenues of appeal against this decision.

It never had to come to this. The Council say that this action was a ‘last resort’, but in truth they have wasted time and taxpayers’ money on this needless, aggressive action when all they had to do was acknowledge residents’ concerns and to mediate with us.

In this, the case of Sheffield City Council vs The People, it is democracy and the residents of Sheffield who have lost. This decision by the high court is very worrying, as the right to peaceful protest has been fundamentally threatened.

The Council’s disastrous and unpopular tree felling programme continues to be a story of national and international embarrassment for our city.

Lucas: Parliament must debate and vote on triggering Article 50

Caroline Lucas MP has responded to the High Court ruling that the Government does not have power to trigger Article 50 without a vote in Parliament.

Lucas, Green Party co-leader, said:

We welcome this ruling which shows that Ministers do not have the power to trigger Article 50 without consulting Parliament.

Parliament must have the opportunity to debate and vote on triggering Article 50, rather than a group of Ministers at the top table having total control over this country’s future place in the world.

The Green Party will continue to fight to protect free movement, workers’ rights and the vital environmental protections we currently have as part of the EU.

Let Gove and Wilshaw spit blood - we'll organise for an alternative

Following on from the successful West London Education Question Time last week, I attended the Anti Academies Alliance AGM, and left optimistic that at last the agenda supported by both Michael Gove and Michael Wilshaw (their squabble is more about power and ego than policy) is being challenged on a broad front.

The AAA recognised the connection between the neoliberal privatisation and austerity agendas by agreeing to affiliate to the People's Assembly. They agreed to participate in developing the education policies and actions of the PA and to support their local and national activities that accord with those of the AAA and the National Campaign for Education.

The importance of democracy and accountability highlighted by the struggles around  academisation was the subject of a motion on Parental Ballots which was agreed by the AGM.

The notion read:

The AAA notes

• that many of the schools converting to academy status - voluntarily or forced - are doing so without proper consultation of parents
• the recent decision of Barking and Dagenham Local Authority to organise ballots of parents in schools facing academy conversion

The AAA believes

• that parents should have the final say on the status of their children's schools

AAA calls

• on all governing bodies in any school consulting on academy status - whether by choice or by direction - to hold a ballot of parents
• on all Local Authorities to organise parental ballots for all schools converting to academy status

I hope that Brent Council will take note of Barking and Dagenham's policy and adopt it. But B&D have gone further winning an historic injunction, alongside governors,  in the High Court preventing the imposition of an Interim Executive Board and an Academy Order on Warren School.(1) After Warren went into special measures a year ago a partnership was established with Rober5t Clack School and Warrens's results have risen by 16%.

The Director of Children's Services at B&D had said:

I believe the Secretary of State's proposal will disrupt the progress made, and could negatively impact on children's education.

The ruling by Mr Justice Collins is itself very interesting as he not only questions the decision itself, saying. 'It appears to me this decision should never have been made' but also questions the legislation which allows such decisions to take place in the face of local demoracy and th best interests of the children concerned.

The Judge said:

This is an extraordinary piece of legislation (Academies Act 2010). The Secretary of State has wide powers to make am IEB (Interim Executive Board) and AO (Academy Order) and thereafter consult. On the face of it that is crazy. How can he be impartial by consulting thereafter?

He went on:

(It) seems from reports the present Secretary of State thinks academies are the cat's whiskers - we know of course some of them are not.

Cllr John White, cabinet minister for  children's services, and Michael Pavey's equivalent in Barking said:

This (injunction) is a victory for both common sense and the education of our children. Our position remains that the improvements at the school, and the arrangements we have in place, are having a very positive impact on outcomes for children, and as such, imposing an academy will be disruptive to children's education.

This follows on from the Snaresbrook Primary school's victory against forced academisation where an effective parental campaign was backed by the senior management team of the school, the governing body and the local authority.

Even in Hammersmith and Fulham flagship Tory borough, the decision to close top performing  Sulivan Primary School to make way for a free school, has stubled with the Scrutiny Committee's decision to call in the decision.

There seems to be the potential for a cross-party and non-party campaign to at least slow down Gove's juggernaut.  This is only a small step though because the three main parties are still wedded to neoliberal ideas of education emphasising marketisation and the producing of children who are 'fit for work' or even in the case of some academies and free schools, 'fit for military service'.

We must both win small victories to slow down Gove's reforms but also build and win support for alternative ideas about what education is for, how it is organised, and how decisions are made.

Having been elected to the National Steering Committee of the Anti Academies Alliance on Saturday I hope to make a contribution to this strategy.

(1) Acknowledgements to paper circulated at AAA AGM

Judgment on libraries this afternoon

I will be going along to the Royal Court of Justice in the Strand  with other library campaigners this afternoon to hear the outcome of the Brent SOS Libraries appeal on Brent Council's closure of six libraries.

The judgment will be handed down at 2pm by Lord Justices Pill, Richards and Davis.

Brent Library Judgment on Monday

Lord Justices Pill, Richards and Davis are to give their judgment into the closure by Brent Council of six of its 12 libraries at the Royal Courts of Justice in the Strand, London.

The judgment will be handed down at 2 pm in Court 72. Brent SOS Libraries appealed against a High Court judge’s decision that Brent’s closures were lawful at a two-day hearing  on 10-11 November.

Dinah Rose QC argued on behalf of library users and Brent SOS Libraries Campaign that in deciding to close six libraries, the library had failed to prevent discrimination against groups such as Asians, young children and local school children, by neglecting to assess the impact on such groups.

Using the very same data that the council executive used to decide to close the libraries, Dinah Rose showed that 28% of Brent’s population is Asian and that 46% of active library users were Asian, so it was
obvious that the closure of the libraries would disproportionately affect Asian council residents.

She also showed that the highest concentrations of Asian populations in the borough were concentrated around three libraries – Preston, Barham and Tokyngton – all of which were closed. She had evidence to show that since closure, the library that users of these three libraries were expected to use instead – Ealing Road – was overcrowded.

Meanwhile the Council Executive has twice deferred its consideration of a report on the redevelopment of Willesden  Green Library which would mean its closure for two years and it has been revealed that the lease on Kingsbury Library Plus expires on September 2013. This work case scenario would leave only four fully-functioning libraries left.

The Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee has since launched an inquiry into library closures to which the Save Preston Library Campaign, Brent SOS Libraries and library users from Brent will submit evidence.

High Court ruling on libraries may have ramifications for Brent decision

A ruling in the High Court reported by the Independent today may have some relevance to the upcoming High Court decision on Brent libraries:

Judge McKenna, sitting as a deputy High Court judge, ruled Somerset and Gloucestershire had failed to comply with "public sector equality duties" owed to vulnerable social groups, including single mothers, children, elderly and the disabled.

The judge declared the decisions were "not merely unlawful decisions, but in substance 'bad government', and it is important to the rule of law to give due respect to these issues of equality".

The ruling means that Gloucestershire council must reconsider its plans to withdraw funding from 10 of its 38 libraries and the withdrawal of its mobile library service.

Somerset must reconsider its plans to end funding for 11 of its 34 static libraries and four of the six mobile libraries already off the road.

James Goudie QC, appearing for the councils, warned the library campaigners that the victory could turn out to be an "own goal" - and even more "draconian" reductions in library services could be introduced.

He said that, when the local authorities came to reconsider their decisions, it was at least "highly likely" they would make the same decisions again.

He said: "They might actually be more draconian from the point of view of those challenging libraries' closures than the decisions made months ago."

Council failed to investigate whether library closures indirectly discriminated against Brent Asians, QC claims

Outside the High Court today

The public gallery  of Court 63 was crowded with Brent library campaigners today as the first day of the Appeal was being heard.  The Appellant's QC made it clear that the library campaigners' case was based on the process that Brent Council followed in its consultation and decision to close the libraries, rather than whether it was right to close libraries as such.

She focused particularly on the Council's failure to recognise that its own data signalled the possibility that the closure of the six libraries would indirectly discriminate against the Asian population of Brent. The figures showed that whilst Asians constituted 28% of the Brent population, they accounted for 46% of library users while the white population of 45% accounted for only 29% of users. As 3 of the six libraries that were closed served areas with higher than average  Asian population,  they were left with only Ealing Road library in the ward with the most dense Asian population. (Before the closure of the other libraries more than 60% of Ealing Road users were Asian)  So not only were people deprived of their own libraries but the remaining library at Ealing Road, as later evidence testified, had become over-crowded as a result of the closures.

Cllr Ann John appears outside the High Court

The QC also drew attention to the fact that despite their high usage of libraries only 21% of responses to the consultation came from Asians. She argued that this should have alerted the Council to ask why Asians used libraries more than other groups and  why they had not been effective at getting the views of the Asian population. A double whammy. There had been no attempt by the Council to investigate if Asians would be more affected than other user groups.

A further argument was that the Equalities Impact Assessment, as required by legislation, had been done at the last minute, and after the decisions about closure had already been made for all practical purposes. Although the EIA was very long it was premised on the Council's belief that there was 'no risk' of indirect discrimination and therefore did not analyse the data. It was a question of 'never mind the quality, feel the width'. The Appellant's submission was that the Council had an erroneous approach to the EIA and had claimed that 'only' the elderly, those with a disability and the very young,(those who could not travel or migrate to other libraries), would be affected.

Equalities Commission gets involved in Brent libraries appeal

In a significant new development in the Brent Libraries Appeal,  I understand that the Equalities and Human Rights Commission has now got involved. The Appeal decision is likely on Thursday/Friday of next week,

The Commission have attached themselves to the Appeal on issues relating to the Council's Equalities Act duties and will be sending their own QC to assist Brent SOS Libraries legal representatives.

This could pave the way for investigation of other matters relating to the council cuts where campaigners have questioned whether the council has fully carried out their responsibilities under the Act.

Update from Save Preston Library Campaign

Brent Council have given an undertaking NOT TO  take any steps to dispose of any of the library buildings, and that the stock at Preston will not be disposed of now - nor will any steps be taken to that end. We expect the Council also to agree not to do anything that will prevent the reopening of any library should the appeal succeed. However, we are not yet clear whether this is also an agreement not to remove stock from libraries which are still intact - Preston and Kensal Rise. We will pass on more news when it is available. The Appeal is likely to be heard around November 10-11.

 In the meantime, we are maintaining our presence outside Preston Library. Although it is a breezy corner, it is becoming quite cosy - with lots of support, tea and cake from neighbours. If you can spare some time tomorrow to join in - that would be great. Today there was a children's reading circle after school. Please bring candles if you come after dusk.

 Take a look at the Preston Library Democracy Wall on YouTube - courtesy of Brent Greens:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gXrRARePks&feature=player_embedded

 

. Lots more photos of Brent's Wall of Shame and up to date news at http://brentlibraries.wordpress.com/

 

Library Campaign gets permission to appeal

Brent SOS Library Campaign's solicitors have been granted leave to appeal. They will be at court tomorrow at 10am to tell the Court what needs to be done to prevent the libraries being destroyed by Brent Council prior to the hearing.

Preston Library Campaign is calling for some people to go to the Court but emphasisies that they still need people outside the library to prevent books and equipment being taken away.

Campaign redoubles its efforts against Brent Council's 'senseless' library closures

Brent SOS Libraries, which represents campaigners at all six libraries closed by Brent Council issues the following statement after the High Court ruling that found against them:

We are obviously disappointed with the decision given by the judge today. We will be consulting with our lawyers on our legal options. We are determined to appeal if allowed to do so.

We believe that there are important points of principle at stake which an appeal court will decide differently.

Our campaign will redouble its efforts to expose the senselessness of Brent Council’s decision to close half of its libraries.

Although this seems an unequal struggle between Brent Council, with its extensive resources, and the people of Brent, who have waged the largest campaign ever seen in the 45 year history of the borough, we will be redoubling our efforts to prevent six libraries being closed for ever. If the council proceeds with these closures they will deny the people of Brent, a significantly deprived borough, the opportunity to study and read in a quiet accessible library. We are very concerned about the impact on the vulnerable and disadvantaged, including children and young people, now and for generations to come.

We strongly believe and continue to believe that Brent’s decision is wrong, and that the manner in which Brent arrived at that decision was unreasonable and unfair.

Our campaign to save the libraries in Brent continues because we challenge the idea that Brent can provide a comprehensive library service by closing half the number of libraries in the borough.
In the meantime, we demand that, in light of the serious concerns raised by local residents, Brent will take the time, before closing the doors of any library, to properly consider the options proposed by local groups to preserve local library services, and open a dialogue with those groups to find constructive solutions for our communities.

Brent Council has already spent over £70,000 of residents’ money on this legal case and they should not waste any more money in pursuing a library closure policy that the vast majority of Brent residents oppose.
We also call upon Jeremy Hunt Secretary of State for Culture, and Ed Vaizey the Minister responsible for libraries, to do their duty and decide on whether Brent can live up to its obligations to provide a ‘comprehensive and efficient’ library service by closing half of the borough’s libraries. They should now intervene to investigate this matter. A great many letters and signatures on petitions have gone to Jeremy Hunt – hundreds if not thousands, and so far we have been very disappointed that he and his department have not been willing to meet with local groups.

We also publicly ask that our constituency MPs, including Minister of State for Children and Families Sarah Teather, Glenda Jackson, and Barry Gardiner demand that they do so.

Despite the disappointing result , we must not fail to recognise the excellent legal work done by our tireless team of solicitors led by John Halford, and barristers led by Helen Mountfield QC, who did an outstanding job in an extraordinarily short time frame. And most of all, we must thank all of our supporters and volunteers, our friends and neighbours, who have worked day and night to organise and staff fundraising events, canvass for donations, hand out flyers, write proposals and open up their hearts and lives to offer witness statements; and in a demonstration of concrete support in one of the poorest boroughs in London have raised nearly £30,000 to ensure our case was heard. This campaign has galvanised our communities in a way that none of us could have expected, and Brent Council would do well to call on that energy to preserve and strengthen our local resources, rather than weaken them.

Crowds defend Kensal Rise Library

From a Labour Party member:

There was some good coverage of Kensal Rise library on the BBC1 local news at 6.30pm (,last night). There has been a vigil outside the library and local schoolchildren explained why they oppose its closure.  I was there this evening and there were some very angry people - including local Labour members, who were asking how to deselect the local councillors who supported the closures.

Library defeat but a battle worth fighting

I was unable to make the High Court this morning to hearing the ruling on Brent library consultation because I had commitments in a local school. However, I am pleased tp reproduce below the item posted on Brent Greens Blog by my colleague Shahrar Ali:

Today the People of Brent learned the sad news that they had not succeeded in their High Court battle to overturn the Council's plan to axe half of the borough's libraries (background).

I could sense the anxiety amongst my fellow Brentonians before the judgement was delivered. I reassured my neighbours that we did not know the result yet, but it seemed most of them did not dare believe that we would hear good news today, simply to protect against greater disappointment of a frustrated hope.

The truth is that whilst Justice Ouseley's judgement must be respected for what it is, his written judgement strikes me as a piece of legal casuistry in the main. Of course, points of law must be attended to, but in their attention one is always left with a judgement to make, whether on balance of probability or the spirit of the law as drafted. Even the most impartial observer could be left wondering whether arguments had been won, as opposed to counter-assertions (in this case the Council's) simply affirmed by the judge.

The Judgement (Case No. CO/4957/2011) summarises the main pieces of law in contention then itemises the grounds which Justice Ouseley takes to have not been demonstrated in law:

1. Unlawfully ignoring the role which community libraries and groups could play in fulfilling the s7 duties (Public libraries Act 1964)
2. Unlawful failure to consult
3. An unlawful failure to assess needs
4. Breach of the public sector equality duty

However, many of the judgements appear, in reason, to be question-begging:

"I cannot see that it is unlawful for the Council to start the process by warning the groups, as in effect it did, that its approach would be that alternatives had to achieve the same level of savings for the same level of service as the Council's own proposals." (para 77)

But no piece of law is going to circumscribe consultation down to this level of detail. The question is whether this was a fair constraint, to effectively debar solutions that did not conform to a pre-decided lowest common denominator budget.

Later still, the Judge writes: "The Council's approach was entirely consistent with the requirement in s7(2) that the provision of library services by other menas be "appropriate"." (para. 80)

That sounds more like an assertion than an argument.

By some textual anomaly, moreover, the following appears in the introduction without any qualification, simply stated as fact, not as an argument from our side:

"The public consultation had been unfair since the Council had not told the public what it needed to know about the running costs of libraries so that groups could make informed responses in support of voluntary arrangements, and had not been told the basis upon which the Council would appraise their alternative proposals." (para. 4)

Yes, I agree that this is true Justice Ouseley.

Overall, I am bound to say, this was a very disappointing and dispiriting judgement. I salute the people of Brent for bringing this case. My fear now is that Brent Council will feel itself emboldened in this course of action, obviously they will feel vindicated, but the reality is that they have lost the confidence of the people they are meant to serve.

Let the People of Brent unite in their common endeavour to safeguard our community from this assault on our local libraries. We can despair, but we shall also regroup - with the same practical intelligence and determination we have already shown, to find a better way forward.

This is a sad day for Brent; but also a day on which the Citizens of Brent who give a damn about lifelong education and protecting the vulnerable from abandonment should hold their heads up high. Just not in the High Court.

Kiss Curls in Court - the latest from Brent Libraries hearing

I popped into the afternoon session at the High Court today to see how the case was progressing. Crammed on to an  uncomfortable, creaking bench and barely able to hear the proceedings my attention kept wandering to the back of Councillor Powney's head where beguiling kiss curls spread across his shoulders. Enough! Back to the serious stuff...

Brent Council's case was being presented and their basic claim was that their decision had been rational, based on 'the facts on the ground' (including their financial plight), that any view of the reasonableness of their decision on grounds of whether their library service was 'comprehensive and efficient' was for the Secretary of State and not the Court, and that their consultation had been thorough and followed common procedures.  They argued that Section 7 of the Libraries and Museums Act mentioned library services and facilities but not buildings as such so that guidance in the Section did not include premises. Their basic case was that the Libraries Transformation Project would give a better library service from fewer buildings.

The areas where the Council's case began to crumble a little under the judge's questioning was the timing and thoroughness of the Equalities Impact Assessment and the lack of detail in the Needs Assessment.  The judge said that the LA seemed to have only assessed needs at a very general level. He  asked if a high level decision has been made on data which had not been spelled out. He said that from the data you could not tell how particular groups, like mothers with young children or schools had been considered. They did not feature in an assessment of need for the particular fixed facility which they could attend. There was no analysis of how the Library Transformation project would cater for them.

Another issue which perplexed him, and Brent's answer hadn't yet satisfied him when the Court adjourned, was the matter of the criteria for voluntary groups to make an offer to run buildings. He was concerned about groups not being informed of the criteria and the evaluation process for bids changing over time. He also asked about whether such offers were supernumerary to what Brent considered (in its transformed state) a 'comprehensive and efficient service'.

The Council side seemed to get a little unhappier as the afternoon proceeded and the Campaigners slightly more confident but it appears that it may eventually be decided on quite narrow interpretations of terms like 'viable', 'robust', 'reasonable' and 'comprehensive'. Brent Council is arguing for a very limited concept of consultation, which is in line with their recent practice - emphasising it is not negotiation, but made great play of the pages of submissions, letters, area consultative forum meeting minutes etc - but did not tell the Court that they had ignored them all.

The proceedings will go on tomorrow morning when the case resumes in Court No 2 at 10.30am. Supporters are urged to get down to the Strand to demonstrate outside and then join the audience in the public gallery.  This helps demonstrate the strength of feeling in the community and the importance of the case.  If you are worried about getting a sore bottom, be reassured that speeches from the Council and Campaigners QCs are not likely to take much more than one and a quarters hours. The judge is unlikely to make an extempore judgement tomorrow and may announce his decision as late as August. Brent Council has promised to take no action over the six library buildings until the judgement is announced.

Brent Libraries Challenge: Day 1

A report on the first day's hearing is available HERE on the Brent Green Blog and there is an informative, and amusing,  posting on I Spy In Queen's Park HERE

The Evening Standard has an article about the case and an interview with Tim Lott HERE

I am sorry to have missed today but I hope to make it down to the Strand tomorrow afternoon.