Court rules library closures unlawful.
This has the whiff of a pyrrhic victory about it. The judgment is based on a flaw in the closure process no more. I suspect this will lead to no more than a stay of execution for the libraries concerned. We know rural library services are an important function in rural areas – the idea that all the things encompassed by the traditional – building rooted – approach to libraries have to pertain however was past its sell by date long before the current issues of cuts and their library impact.
In some research I did for Defra last year – recently published – on the impact of cuts in terms of libraries – two unconnected individuals both identified the closure of buildings as an opportunity around modernization rather than a straightforward threat. Notwithstanding that the closure of any physical resource is a very visible and challenging issue for the local community in which it is based. I suspect many local authorities seeking to trim back their “library fleet” of buildings will have been surprised by the response of their local residents.
The hard fact remains however that sometimes changes to public services can be a driver of innovation rather than simply a bad thing per se. I suspect this may well be the case in the context of some library services across England and I would be interested in your experiences and reflections.
The article itself tells us:
“Campaigners attempting to stop the closure of their local libraries won a surprise victory in the high court on Wednesday when a judge ruled that the decision to axe services in Gloucestershire andSomersetwas unlawful and should be quashed. In his judgment on a judicial review brought by campaigners in the two counties, Judge Martin McKenna found that local authorities had failed to comply with their public sector equality duties when pushing through the closures. To the gasps and muted exclamations of the campaigners sitting at the back of the court, he ordered the councils to revisit their plans. Failure to do so, he said, would send the wrong message to other councils.”