Call-in Confirmed on Kent County Council's Decision to Sell Folkestone Library

On 9th February, Cheriton, Sandgate and Hythe East County Councillor Tim Prater led on submitting a call-in of the published Kent County Council decision to put Folkestone's Grace Hill Library up for auction.

The request was led by Tim Prater and supported by fellow Councillors Mark Hood, Alister Brady, Sarah Hudson, Antony Hook, Geoff Samme and Colin Sefton.

Today (17th February) KCC have confirmed that the call-in has been assessed as valid. The notification said:

"Please be advised that the call-in for the Folkestone Library Decision has been assessed and determined as valid. As a consequence, a Scrutiny Committee meeting will need to be held soon to consider the call-in.  I will write further to confirm which specific elements of the call-in met the criteria to assist with any meeting preparations.”

Tim commented:

"I'm delighted that our call-in has been judged as valid: I had every confidence it would be. As the call-in notice itself concluded, we believed:

‘this decision is unsafe and characterised by significant uncertainty as key financial details are absent, and the documentation indicates that KCC has not gathered or provided adequate information to make a confident decision. For these reasons, the decision should not proceed without further scrutiny, more complete information provided, and renewed efforts to explore viable alternatives that align with both community priorities and the Council’s financial responsibilities.’

“I'm looking forward to making that case in front of the Scrutiny Committee. I also hope to be able to give an opportunity to the Creative groups and Community representatives that felt so excluded from the decision to actually be able to have their say and put their evidence in front of the Scrutiny Committee. They just wanted a fair hearing. I hope we can now get that.”

The detailed response to the call-in request was as follows:

In this case, the following areas were identified as meeting the criteria for further consideration by the Scrutiny Committee.

Reason one: 8.5 Due consultation

While the decision does set out consideration of the historic consultation activity for the 2025 decision, which included confirmation that the Council’s likely intentions were to exit Grace Hill in terms of building responsibility, the consideration of to what extent the specific building, its location and history, should inform the future library arrangements is not significant within the decision documentation and in terms of the Cabinet Committee discussion there was very limited exploration of this point from a Library Service perspective with almost all elements being led by Infrastructure and the Deputy Leader.

It is important to note, however, that Consultations are not referenda and are one of a range of pieces of information to which decision-makers must give due regard.  KCC choosing to progress decisions not ‘endorsed’ by consultation feedback does not necessarily make a decision improper or flawed.

Reason two: 8.5 A presumption in favour of openness and an explanation of the options considered and giving reasons for decisions.

Specifically, the call-in argues that there is a lack of clarity regarding the engagement with Creative Folkestone and any confirmation or otherwise as to commitments or rejections of undertaking ongoing maintenance costs.  In the documentation and particularly during Cabinet Committee discussion, the position turned on a view that bids were assessed on their initial submission with limited opportunity to revise and resubmit to address concerns or gaps.  While comments at Cabinet Committee indicated that further engagement and discussion of these key points had taken place, there was no written confirmation or clarification provided and the final decision paper does not provide an update on this point in an explicit way.

In addition, the focus of the consideration of the bids is Infrastructure focused, with limited explicit articulation of consideration of the community benefit and Library Service opportunities which are material to KCC’s Library Service duties and Best Value duties.  Given that the decision sits with the Cabinet Member for Community and Regulatory Services and is ultimately a matter of determining how KCC should deliver Library Services, the limited explicit consideration of a refurbished Grace Hill vs the temporary Library provision indicates the decision leaves scope for exploring the Library Service considerations further.

Summary

The above points do not indicate any finding that the decision is incorrect, inappropriate or improper.  It is accepted that a significant amount of detail is provided in the Decision documentation and that there was a lengthy discussion at Cabinet Committee.

However, the call-in does raise reasonable points for further exploration by the Scrutiny Committee to secure assurance that all relevant due diligence has been undertaken and that sufficient Service Provision focused consideration was given to the choice between supporting Community-led alternative Library Provision at Grace Hill or the confirmed transfer to a new location and a consequent permanent removal of the Grace Hill building from the Library Service stock.