AC-2025-LON-001414 - [2025] EWHC 2840 (Admin)

The claimant has brought this application for judicial review of the decision of Norfolk County Council (“the Council”) to dispose the Carnegie Library Building in King’s Lynn (“the Carnegie Library Building”) to the Interested Party, The Garage Trust (“TGT”).

The decision challenged by the claimant, the Margery Kempe Trust (“hereinafter referred to as “the Trust”), is that of the Council selling the Carnegie Library Building to TGT for £95,000. Insofar as the Council considered that some of the arguments being raised by the Trust was with respect to a decision made in 2022 to reallocate the library from the Carnegie Library Building to a community facility known as the Multi-User Community Hub (“MUCH”) or was with respect to the resolution made on 2 September 2024 that the Carnegie Library Building was surplus to Council requirements, it was made clear by Ms Antonia Hayes that the challenge was only with respect to the 2025 decision.

By order of Mould J on 5 August 2025 the application for permission was listed for an oral hearing in order to give the Trust, an unincorporated association, the opportunity to explore fully their submissions for obtaining permission to bring judicial review proceedings.

The Council had made it clear by the summer of 2023 that work was being undertaken to provide a process whereby local groups could apply to take on the Carnegie Library Building and that an information pack would be provided. During November 2023, public feedback was gathered by the Council and a number of interested parties had been requesting information in early 2024. On 24 July 2024 (after a pause for the general election on 4 July 2024) the Council advertised the process and invited organisations to express an interest.

On 2 September 2024, the Council made the decision:

“To formally declare King’s Lynn Central Library (2045/049) surplus to Council requirements and instruct the Director of Property to dispose of the property through a closed market exercise to charity and community groups in the first instance. If any agreement cannot be agreed within 12 months of the date of this meeting the Director of Property is to dispose of the property on the open market. In the event of a disposal receipt exceeding delegated limits the Director of Property in consultation with the Director of Strategic Finance and Cabinet Member for Corporate Services and Innovation is authorised to accept the most advantageous offer”

TGT and the Trust were the two shortlisted applicants and they were interviewed by a panel of stakeholders on 15 January 2025. TGT were preferred and a recommendation was passed to the cabinet member with responsibility for the decision and she made the decision to sell to TGT. Notice of the decision to sell to TGT was made on 27 January 2025.

It is clear that there were, and are, some local concerns with respect to the disposal of the Carnegie Library Building to TGT which have been evidenced by the collection of a petition with a large number of names. These concerns provide context to this application for permission to bring a judicial review challenge, but do not assist in the determination of whether the challenges raised are arguable.

Any challenge to the 2022 decision or the 2024 resolution would have been out of time. The challenge to the decision made on 27 January 2025 was a day out of time. The Council did not object to an extension of time being granted and the Trust set out that the delay had been partially caused by an alleged delay in response to a freedom of information request and partly because of technical issues with respect to e-filing and scheduled maintenance being undertaken. Given the tight time limits for public law challenges, any delay has to be considered significant. Good reason for the short delay had been advanced by the Trust and, considering the matter as a whole, it is appropriate to extend time by the short period necessary to allow for the application for permission to bring judicial review proceedings with respect to the 27 January 2025.

A further application was also made by the Trust for permission to rely upon additional witness evidence with respect to the allegations that TGT had a “19-month head start” in the bidding process and that the Council had been involved in TGT’s successful application for grant funding from the Architectural Heritage Fund. The Council did not object to reliance being placed upon this additional evidence and it was clearly relevant evidence for the purpose of the Trust being able to put forward its arguments in full. Permission is therefore granted for those two additional statements.

The application for permission was ordered to be listed for an oral hearing by Mould J in order to give Ms Hayes on behalf of the Trust an opportunity to put forward the contentions on the behalf of the Trust fully. It was important that she could, and for those contentions to be responded to by the Council, as it was not appropriate to merely belittle the grounds on the basis that the Trust was merely a disgruntled unsuccessful bidder. There is much more to the challenge than that.

I am grateful to both Ms Hayes, a litigant in person, for the careful and thorough work she has undertaken in order to present the case on behalf of the Trust, and to Mr Fowles, Counsel acting on behalf of the council.