Margery Kempe Trust fails to overturn Carnegie Library sale to Garage Trust

The High Court has dismissed an application for judicial review brought by the Margery Kempe Trust challenging Norfolk County Council's decision to sell the Carnegie Library Building in King's Lynn to the Garage Trust for £95,000. HHJ Walden-Smith, sitting as a High Court judge, found none of the Trust's eight grounds of challenge to be arguable.

The dispute arose after the Council conducted a competitive process to dispose of the Grade II listed building, built in 1905 as part of Andrew Carnegie's philanthropic library programme. Following interviews of shortlisted candidates in January 2025, the Garage Trust, a regional performing arts organisation, was selected over the Margery Kempe Trust, which had been formed specifically to bid for the building.

The central allegations

The Trust advanced multiple grounds of challenge, principally alleging procedural unfairness and apparent bias. The core complaint centred on the Garage Trust's submission of a pre-application proposal in December 2022, some 19 months before the formal competition opened in July 2024. The Trust characterised this as an undisclosed "VIP fast track lane", drawing parallels with the PPE procurement scandals.

Further allegations included claims of bias arising from the CEO of the Garage Trust and Councillor Simon Ring both serving on the King's Lynn Town Deal Board, and suggestions that the Council improperly assisted the Garage Trust in obtaining a £10,000 Project Viability Grant from the Architectural Heritage Fund.

Additional grounds challenged the disposal as ultra vires, alleging breach of the Council's fiduciary duties under section 123(2) of the Local Government Act 1972, which requires disposal at best consideration. The Trust also raised claims concerning legitimate expectation, inadequate due diligence, breach of the Public Sector Equality Duty, and insufficient consultation.

The Court's analysis

On the question of best consideration, the Court found the Council had properly relied upon the general consent provided by Circular 06/03, which permits disposal below market value where the difference does not exceed £2 million and the disposal promotes social wellbeing. RICS-compliant valuations from 2022 and 2024 provided a community use valuation range of £90,000 to £125,000, making the £95,000 sale price defensible.

Regarding alleged bias, the Court applied the objective test from Porter v Magill, considering whether a fair-minded and informed observer would conclude there was a real possibility of bias. The mere fact that the Garage Trust's CEO and Councillor Ring both served on a 22-member civic board was insufficient to establish apparent bias, particularly given the Board had no interest in which organisation succeeded.

On the pre-application process, the Court accepted that developers routinely make planning enquiries about sites they do not own. The Garage Trust's pre-application consultation was "entirely usual" and "entirely proper", representing prudent due diligence rather than preferential treatment. The Trust could have undertaken similar steps but chose not to do so.

The Court found no evidence supporting the allegation that the Council assisted in obtaining the Architectural Heritage Fund grant, noting such funding represented legitimate preparation by the Garage Trust rather than unfair advantage.

Permission to bring judicial review proceedings was refused on all grounds. The Court granted a one-day extension of time for the application itself, accepting technical difficulties had caused a minor delay, but concluded the substantive challenges lacked merit. The Trust was ordered to pay the Council's costs limited to counsel's fees for the application hearing.