Library service at Cobbett Road has been suspended indefinitely.
Use by the Friends for non-commercial events, by the Tai Chi group and by the commercial tutoring company continue.
The Council has been in negotiations with commercial organisations about taking on the building and provision of Library services since March 2022.
This page of our website has turned into a sort of blog, chronicling the development of Council proposals to cut Cobbett Road's hours and/or funding - and our responses - through 2011 to 2016. These campaigns followed previous ones dating back to 2007.
Mid-March 2016
There's an extensive article in the Echo confirming that Cobbett and the other threatened libraries will be taken over following withdrawal of Council operational funding at the end of this financial year. We are still waiting for a formal announcement by the Council.
We are delighted that there has been a successful outcome from all the hard work by the Friends, by SCA, by Unexpected Places, by so many people in the local community and elsewhere, including our clutch of well-known personalities and success stories who love Cobbett and have made their feelings known. All those voices made it politically impossible for the Council to fail in its plans to find a way to reduce its responsibilities to our community.
SCA and Unexpected Places are committed to maintaining and extending Cobbett's role in our community, and we look forward to a long and productive partnership.
There's an extensive article in the Echo confirming that Cobbett and the other threatened libraries will be taken over following withdrawal of Council operational funding at the end of this financial year. We are still waiting for a formal announcement by the Council.
We are delighted that there has been a successful outcome from all the hard work by the Friends, by SCA, by Unexpected Places, by so many people in the local community and elsewhere, including our clutch of well-known personalities and success stories who love Cobbett and have made their feelings known. All those voices made it politically impossible for the Council to fail in its plans to find a way to reduce its responsibilities to our community.
SCA and Unexpected Places are committed to maintaining and extending Cobbett's role in our community, and we look forward to a long and productive partnership.
Early March 2016
We're still waiting to hear how the transition from Council operation (ending at midday on Saturday April 2) and SCA/Unexpected Places operation (starting on or soon after June 1) will be managed. The Friends are doing all we can to encourage the Council to keep the building open for use by all the current wide range of community groups. Meanwhile, have a look at a recent article from Unison's magazine to see what a multi-activity community centre based in a library can be like, with full Council funding and operation six full days a week. That Council (with a population just 25% larger than Southampton) is keeping 18 branch libraries and its mobile library alive - wonder where they find the cash? Thanks to Doreen for flagging up the article.
We're still waiting to hear how the transition from Council operation (ending at midday on Saturday April 2) and SCA/Unexpected Places operation (starting on or soon after June 1) will be managed. The Friends are doing all we can to encourage the Council to keep the building open for use by all the current wide range of community groups. Meanwhile, have a look at a recent article from Unison's magazine to see what a multi-activity community centre based in a library can be like, with full Council funding and operation six full days a week. That Council (with a population just 25% larger than Southampton) is keeping 18 branch libraries and its mobile library alive - wonder where they find the cash? Thanks to Doreen for flagging up the article.
Late February 2016
SCA submitted its Business Plan to the Council on time, and has been engaged in significant negotiations concerning the implementation of that Plan, as well as responsibility and finance for various matters. SCA are also working hard to secure grants to enable them to operate, and have made it abundantly clear to all that, unless they can see a financially viable future for the initiative, they will not proceed. Subject to that vitally important proviso, all parties are taking a very positive view of the situation, and the Friends are optimistic that Cobbett Road Library will remain an effective community asset. The Council was expected to make a formal announcement on or around Friday March 4th about the Business Plans submitted independently for the five Libraries under threat (sadly, no group has come forward with an interest in saving the Mobile Library), but a week has gone by without any news.
SCA submitted its Business Plan to the Council on time, and has been engaged in significant negotiations concerning the implementation of that Plan, as well as responsibility and finance for various matters. SCA are also working hard to secure grants to enable them to operate, and have made it abundantly clear to all that, unless they can see a financially viable future for the initiative, they will not proceed. Subject to that vitally important proviso, all parties are taking a very positive view of the situation, and the Friends are optimistic that Cobbett Road Library will remain an effective community asset. The Council was expected to make a formal announcement on or around Friday March 4th about the Business Plans submitted independently for the five Libraries under threat (sadly, no group has come forward with an interest in saving the Mobile Library), but a week has gone by without any news.
Early February 2016
In January, local group Social Care in Action (SCA) lodged a formal Expression of Interest with the Council, in partnership with drama group Unexpected Places. On Monday February 8 they met a range of Friends old and new to talk about their bid, and hear the views and ideas of library users. This was a very constructive and positive session, with SCA clearly determined to build on CRL's excellent record of outreach and focus for a wide range of community groups and activities. The next part of the formal process is the lodging of a detailed second-stage Expression of Interest by February 26. At this stage, it seems that the Council is impressed by SCA, and that their bid will be regarded very favourably.
In January, local group Social Care in Action (SCA) lodged a formal Expression of Interest with the Council, in partnership with drama group Unexpected Places. On Monday February 8 they met a range of Friends old and new to talk about their bid, and hear the views and ideas of library users. This was a very constructive and positive session, with SCA clearly determined to build on CRL's excellent record of outreach and focus for a wide range of community groups and activities. The next part of the formal process is the lodging of a detailed second-stage Expression of Interest by February 26. At this stage, it seems that the Council is impressed by SCA, and that their bid will be regarded very favourably.
January 2016
It's not only in Southampton that groups are fighting library closures (wouldn't it be nice to be fighting to open and improve libraries, rather than just desperately trying to save them?) For many years, registered charity The Library Campaign has been providing help and support to groups, and a focus for campaigning and information. A recent issue of their excellent magazine reported some astounding statistics unearthed by Ned Potter. Would you believe that each year in Britain there are more than twice as many visits to libraries as to Anglican church services, Theatres, A&E departments and Premier League football matches - combined? The only activity which comes close to library visitor numbers is going to the cinema. You can see this data, presented in a variety of ways, on Ned's Website. So much for the argument that it can all be done online?
In regard to Cobbett Road, the good news is that local health and social care enterprise SCA is getting on well with its aim of putting together a viable scheme for taking over Cobbett Road Library, with the involvement of local drama group Unexpected Places. Their ideas and principles are a close fit to those promoted by the Friends, and we fully support this initiative. The Council also seems pleased with this initiative, perhaps because it is the only way of fulfilling this aspect of their oft-stated claim that all the affected libraries should still be operating after March 31!
It's not only in Southampton that groups are fighting library closures (wouldn't it be nice to be fighting to open and improve libraries, rather than just desperately trying to save them?) For many years, registered charity The Library Campaign has been providing help and support to groups, and a focus for campaigning and information. A recent issue of their excellent magazine reported some astounding statistics unearthed by Ned Potter. Would you believe that each year in Britain there are more than twice as many visits to libraries as to Anglican church services, Theatres, A&E departments and Premier League football matches - combined? The only activity which comes close to library visitor numbers is going to the cinema. You can see this data, presented in a variety of ways, on Ned's Website. So much for the argument that it can all be done online?
In regard to Cobbett Road, the good news is that local health and social care enterprise SCA is getting on well with its aim of putting together a viable scheme for taking over Cobbett Road Library, with the involvement of local drama group Unexpected Places. Their ideas and principles are a close fit to those promoted by the Friends, and we fully support this initiative. The Council also seems pleased with this initiative, perhaps because it is the only way of fulfilling this aspect of their oft-stated claim that all the affected libraries should still be operating after March 31!
December 2015
As reported in The Guardian on December 17, the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals (cilip) have launched a campaign against the withdrawal of local authority library services from hundreds of libraries around the country. They have received legal advice which echoes that used by FCRL in our letter to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, John Whittingdale. Cilip argues that the 1964 Public Libraries and Museums Act and the 2010 Equality Act require the Minister to "maintain and improve the library service". They are talking to the Department of Culture Media and Sport, and are advising councils to put all closure and similar plans on hold until their discussions are concluded, as it is possible those plans "may not be lawful".
It may be too late for some British libraries, as detailed in a companion piece in The Guardian, but we have clearly not reached the end of the road just yet.
Happy Christmas!
The petition is heading for 10,000 signatures, thanks in part to support from high-profile writers including Neil Gaiman, Sir Andrew Motion and Joanna Trollope. Spread the word!
As reported in The Guardian on December 17, the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals (cilip) have launched a campaign against the withdrawal of local authority library services from hundreds of libraries around the country. They have received legal advice which echoes that used by FCRL in our letter to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, John Whittingdale. Cilip argues that the 1964 Public Libraries and Museums Act and the 2010 Equality Act require the Minister to "maintain and improve the library service". They are talking to the Department of Culture Media and Sport, and are advising councils to put all closure and similar plans on hold until their discussions are concluded, as it is possible those plans "may not be lawful".
It may be too late for some British libraries, as detailed in a companion piece in The Guardian, but we have clearly not reached the end of the road just yet.
Happy Christmas!
The petition is heading for 10,000 signatures, thanks in part to support from high-profile writers including Neil Gaiman, Sir Andrew Motion and Joanna Trollope. Spread the word!
The small group working with Southampton Area Co-operative Development Association has pulled out of its attempt to operate Cobbett Road Library under the Council's transfer scheme. Another group is now in discussions with the Council. Despite Councillor Kaur's assurance at a Council meeting that all groups wanting to be considered for running the threatened libraries would have to express their interest under full public disclosure terms, the Council insists all such information has been supplied "in commercial confidence" and they cannot provide any information about who is and isn't in the running to take over the threatened libraries.
Late November 2015
After a long time during which he appeared to regard the loss of local-authority-run libraries with equanimity, Ed Vaizey has apparently discovered that there can be shortcomings in that approach. In a situation where it seems a Minister has actually taken note of work by an independent research team, he has set up a Task Force (!) with the Local Government Association to "deliver the recommendations of the Sieghart Panel". That review panel emphasised that, while digital resources were important (and, for example, that all libraries should have WiFi, an aim being funded by £7.4million of Government money, shame they have those funds available, in part, thanks to reductions in the funding of local authorities), these complemented and couldn't/shouldn't fully replace other resources.
The Minister recently made a speech, in which he concluded "We are most fortunate to have in the public library service a remarkably trusted institution. I do recognise it is my responsibility as well as others to ensure that, despite the challenges, public libraries continue to build literate, educated, informed and knowledgeable communities throughout the country. We all - librarians, campaigners, the professional bodies and the other information and book trade organisations - need to contribute to the debate about how local authorities can realistically build a modern, comprehensive and efficient service which meets the needs of those whom it exists to serve and is achievable within the resources that are available. I look forward to hearing your ideas."
In Scotland, a report which looked at volunteering in libraries and volunteer-run libraries, suggests that despite a great deal of hard work by volunteers, community libraries, particularly larger operations, can face a range of problems, and that continued local authority support is important. Also, that it can be much more difficult, if not impossible, to achieve any sort of effective community-led library in deprived areas, and that while community-led libraries can deliver benefits, all those benefits ought to be achievable by libraries which are staffed and operated by local authorities.
It's not too late for Southampton's Cabinet to have a change of heart, and they might be pushing at an open door if they sought help from the Government?
After a long time during which he appeared to regard the loss of local-authority-run libraries with equanimity, Ed Vaizey has apparently discovered that there can be shortcomings in that approach. In a situation where it seems a Minister has actually taken note of work by an independent research team, he has set up a Task Force (!) with the Local Government Association to "deliver the recommendations of the Sieghart Panel". That review panel emphasised that, while digital resources were important (and, for example, that all libraries should have WiFi, an aim being funded by £7.4million of Government money, shame they have those funds available, in part, thanks to reductions in the funding of local authorities), these complemented and couldn't/shouldn't fully replace other resources.
The Minister recently made a speech, in which he concluded "We are most fortunate to have in the public library service a remarkably trusted institution. I do recognise it is my responsibility as well as others to ensure that, despite the challenges, public libraries continue to build literate, educated, informed and knowledgeable communities throughout the country. We all - librarians, campaigners, the professional bodies and the other information and book trade organisations - need to contribute to the debate about how local authorities can realistically build a modern, comprehensive and efficient service which meets the needs of those whom it exists to serve and is achievable within the resources that are available. I look forward to hearing your ideas."
In Scotland, a report which looked at volunteering in libraries and volunteer-run libraries, suggests that despite a great deal of hard work by volunteers, community libraries, particularly larger operations, can face a range of problems, and that continued local authority support is important. Also, that it can be much more difficult, if not impossible, to achieve any sort of effective community-led library in deprived areas, and that while community-led libraries can deliver benefits, all those benefits ought to be achievable by libraries which are staffed and operated by local authorities.
It's not too late for Southampton's Cabinet to have a change of heart, and they might be pushing at an open door if they sought help from the Government?
Early November 2015
Having apparently exhausted all local avenues of protest and lobbying, the Friends have gone to the top. Rachel Hickman, our amazing Secretary, has written a formal letter to John Whittingdale, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, requesting a Local Inquiry into the changes to Southampton's Council Library Service. This request is supported by "statements of impact" from a wide range of library users, including a substantial, authoritative and carefully argued submission from recently-retired teacher Anneliese Walker.
You can download a copy of the letter, and of Anneliese's statement.
Having apparently exhausted all local avenues of protest and lobbying, the Friends have gone to the top. Rachel Hickman, our amazing Secretary, has written a formal letter to John Whittingdale, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, requesting a Local Inquiry into the changes to Southampton's Council Library Service. This request is supported by "statements of impact" from a wide range of library users, including a substantial, authoritative and carefully argued submission from recently-retired teacher Anneliese Walker.
You can download a copy of the letter, and of Anneliese's statement.
Late October 2015
Some individuals have come forward to create Cobbett Action Group. They have submitted a formal "Expression of Interest" with SACDA (see below). As yet, there are no details available.
Some individuals have come forward to create Cobbett Action Group. They have submitted a formal "Expression of Interest" with SACDA (see below). As yet, there are no details available.
Mid October 2015
In late September the Council produced the "information packs" for groups and organisations interested in taking over the operation of the Mobile Library and five local Libraries under threat from "Option D". The Friends applied for one, despite having a long-established policy that operating Cobbett Road is beyond our skills and resources, so that we stayed fully informed of how things may develop.
Despite the Cabinet's assurances through the summer that of "several" groups wanting to take over the Libraries, at least one wanted to run Cobbett, no such group appeared at the evening meeting arranged by the Council for discussing the packs and finding out what other groups were planning. Instead, Friends in various groups and collections have had meetings with Councillors, individuals, SACDA (Southampton Area Co-operative Development Agency) and business developers to consider what can and should be done.
With a deadline of Monday October 19 for submission of a formal "Expression of Interest" (EoI), it has been decided that it would be wrong for the Friends to submit such a document, whether as lead, support or sole interested party, since we are not in a position to follow through and take over the Library. Instead, anyone interested in taking that route is urged to contact Nina Lambert of SACDA, so that a Cobbett Action Group can be formed to submit the EoI with the valuable assistance of SACDA and in co-operation with them.
In late September the Council produced the "information packs" for groups and organisations interested in taking over the operation of the Mobile Library and five local Libraries under threat from "Option D". The Friends applied for one, despite having a long-established policy that operating Cobbett Road is beyond our skills and resources, so that we stayed fully informed of how things may develop.
Despite the Cabinet's assurances through the summer that of "several" groups wanting to take over the Libraries, at least one wanted to run Cobbett, no such group appeared at the evening meeting arranged by the Council for discussing the packs and finding out what other groups were planning. Instead, Friends in various groups and collections have had meetings with Councillors, individuals, SACDA (Southampton Area Co-operative Development Agency) and business developers to consider what can and should be done.
With a deadline of Monday October 19 for submission of a formal "Expression of Interest" (EoI), it has been decided that it would be wrong for the Friends to submit such a document, whether as lead, support or sole interested party, since we are not in a position to follow through and take over the Library. Instead, anyone interested in taking that route is urged to contact Nina Lambert of SACDA, so that a Cobbett Action Group can be formed to submit the EoI with the valuable assistance of SACDA and in co-operation with them.
After another Cabinet meeting on September 15 at which the previous month's decision was confirmed, and a full Council meeting on September 16 where Libraries and their importance were discussed yet again, the "Preferred Option" of axing the Mobile Library Service and transferring five libraries to a non-profit organisations is being implemented. (See local Website bitternepark.info for a report on the rowdy Cabinet meeting).
Various groups have registered interest with the Council, including Friends of Cobbett Road Libary. This action is most emphatically not because we want to run the Library, but because it is the only way of obtaining the Council's information pack on the transfer arrangements and on the Library's running costs and building fabric. It was not a surprise to discover that significant maintenance expenditure is predicted, including an early need to spend around £30,000 on the roof.
Any new operator of Cobbett Road Library will be required to commit to a five year lease throughout which services will be maintained at more or less current levels. Although the Council would provide (and maintain) book stocks with IT equiment and services, it is not at all clear how such a scheme would be "sustainable" or "viable" as promised by the Council, given that it would require expenditure of well over £150,000 in that five years unless all work is carried out by volunteers, and the Council has stated emphatically that all the various suggestions for generating income from the Library are flawed and inadequate. Unless the Council is stating that its own management of its libraries is grossly incompetent, it is not clear to the Friends how any other group could bridge this funding gap. While it is possible that grants could be obtained initially, there seems little prospect of securing regular injections of the substantial sums needed to operate and maintain the Library.
Perhaps the Council knows things of which the Friends are ignorant, and it is possible that such matters may be disclosed at the meeting on October 7 when the Council hosts a session for all those who are registered as interested in one or more of the Libraries to be transferred.
Various groups have registered interest with the Council, including Friends of Cobbett Road Libary. This action is most emphatically not because we want to run the Library, but because it is the only way of obtaining the Council's information pack on the transfer arrangements and on the Library's running costs and building fabric. It was not a surprise to discover that significant maintenance expenditure is predicted, including an early need to spend around £30,000 on the roof.
Any new operator of Cobbett Road Library will be required to commit to a five year lease throughout which services will be maintained at more or less current levels. Although the Council would provide (and maintain) book stocks with IT equiment and services, it is not at all clear how such a scheme would be "sustainable" or "viable" as promised by the Council, given that it would require expenditure of well over £150,000 in that five years unless all work is carried out by volunteers, and the Council has stated emphatically that all the various suggestions for generating income from the Library are flawed and inadequate. Unless the Council is stating that its own management of its libraries is grossly incompetent, it is not clear to the Friends how any other group could bridge this funding gap. While it is possible that grants could be obtained initially, there seems little prospect of securing regular injections of the substantial sums needed to operate and maintain the Library.
Perhaps the Council knows things of which the Friends are ignorant, and it is possible that such matters may be disclosed at the meeting on October 7 when the Council hosts a session for all those who are registered as interested in one or more of the Libraries to be transferred.
Mid September 2015
It was almost Groundhog Day at the Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee (OSMC) on Thursday September 10, with at least some of the proceedings having a depressingly familiar tone as all-too-resistible argument met the immovable object of Cabinet determination.
The Cabinet had apparently spent two hours considering OSMC’s decision to “call in” the Cabinet vote on August 18 to go ahead with the “preferred option” to close the Mobile Library and withdraw Council staffing and management from five libraries across the City. They had read the statement of OSMC’s concerns and reviewed the points raised, but were baffled that anyone could regard Cabinet’s actions as anything other than the best possible solution to the twin needs to cut Council spending (in line with imposed government cuts and statutes) and to achieve long-term viability for the City’s Library Service.
OSMC chairman, Councillor Fitzhenry, pointed out at the start of the meeting that OSMC cannot (and must not) overturn or block Cabinet and Council decisions arrived at through the democratic process. OSMC’s role is to consider whether that process was properly informed, whether those making the decisions had taken full account of all relevant facts and opinions, whether, on reflection, a debate or decision should have taken a different path. Cabinet had been given several recommendations in regard to the proposals for the Library Service before its August 18 meeting, and had reported its response to those recommendations. Nevertheless, he, as chair of OSMC, felt that there were still valid concerns about the background to the Cabinet decision, which was why it had been “called in” for further review ahead of the Cabinet meeting on Tuesday September 15 (and the full Council meeting on Wednesday September 16).
As has become normal for Council meetings where the future of Library Service is considered, there were a substantial number of people wanting to hear the debate – including several Councillors who do not sit on OSMC, with many of these wanting to offer observations and ask questions. Councillor Fitzhenry reminded everyone that these contributions should address the specifics of the agenda item (Cabinet’s response to August OSMC and the subsequent call-in), and not simply go over old ground.
Councillor Kaur saw no reason to extend the debate unduly. When specific details were requested, she was prepared to offer them – including offering to spend two hours reading out the complete Cabinet report if that would help – but her position was that Cabinet’s decision to implement the “preferred option” was absolutely right, the only way to achieve a “sustainable” future for all libraries (Council-managed and otherwise), and that the consultation exercise had demonstrated clear public support for that approach.
Those opposing the decision tried to put new life into their case. It was suggested that figures in the report were missing, misleading or erroneous (particularly in regard to Millbrook, where the library had moved between publication of the original report and the Cabinet decision, with numbers using the library increasing dramatically in that time). The Cabinet’s assertion that Housing Revenue Account money could not be used to support libraries was challenged – the response was that HRA could only fund relevant “projects”, and could not be used to support “core services”. This area became complicated when it turned out that the Library Service pays HRA a rental for the current Millbrook Library premises.
Objectors asked for detail on how the projected third-party community hubs would operate (the seven bodies which have between them expressed interest in taking over all five premises and the Mobile Library cannot be named, nor any detail of the expression of interest disclosed, since that information is commercially confidential and, anyway, disclosing it would constitute illegal “pre-determination” of Cabinet’s decision – once the Cabinet has cleared OSMC reservations, the Council will advertise formally and all submissions will be in the public domain). Councillor Kaur promised that information would be made available in due course, and that there were many successful examples around the country. Apparently leases will be for five years, but the conditions won’t be released until the adverts are placed. (Pre-determination again.)
The validity of the consultation questionnaire results were queried – particularly after Councillor Kaur revealed that it would not have been possible to go ahead with the preferred option had the consultation indicated significant majority opposition to it. She rejected any suggestion that questions in the document had been “leading”, or that it (or use made of its results) had been “misleading” in any way, pointing out that after every set of tick-box answer options there was a box for free-text entry of any relevant view or opinion. This did not satisfy most of the general public, with murmurs of assent turning into applause for a challenge on this issue.
Vocal assent and applause were also given when concerns were put about the way that the proposals are likely to have a significant impact on the elderly, children, the deprived and disadvantaged. Councillor Kaur responded that all this had already been dealt with, that impact assessments showed problems would be limited, that vibrant community hubs would continue to serve these sections of the community. A novel point raised was fear that volunteers would not be properly trained, suitable or vetted for working with the vulnerable. Burgess Road had had several enquiries from people wanting to volunteer their services, who, despite assurances by the enquirer, turned out to have had no prior connection with the library or its various groups. Councillor Kaur stated that this issue had been foreseen, and the arrangements to be imposed on the community-led hubs would require rigorous checks and training.
One possible future for Southampton Library Service is amalgamation with one or more of Hampshire, Portsmouth and Isle of Wight services. This could give economies of scale, offer savings in terms of senior administrator posts and salaries. There appeared uncertainty over whether conversations with other administrations over such joint working had been with political or administrative bodies, since some Councillors said that their conversations had indicated very different views to those reported by Cabinet.
At the end, OSMC voted to recommend that Cabinet:
· accept flexibility in the transfer timetable to maximise the likelihood of successfully transferring libraries to community-led hubs
· ensure the timetable for transfer includes sufficient time for thorough scrutiny of bids
· looks yet again at HRA funding matters
· details “shared service” conversations with other administrations
· reviews data on Millbrook use and users
With apologies for such an aggressive summary of views put so eloquently by so many, and if there has been any inadvertent error in reporting procedural matters or specific statements.
At the start of the meeting, when Councillors must declare any interests, and political groups any “whip”, the Conservative group stated that, while they did not operate a “whip”, they, as a group, were unanimously in favour of retaining all current libraries under Council management. One of the questions put by Councillor Hannides might indicate that the Conservatives are considering whether it would be possible to bring back any of the transferred libraries into Council management should there be a future change in the political make-up of the City Council. In this context, note that the full Council meeting on Wednesday September 16 will consider a Conservative motion, signed by 16 councillors, stating:
“This Council recognises the important role libraries play in the social fabric of our city and calls on the Executive to commit to keeping Southampton's library buildings open. The contribution libraries make cannot simply be measured in the number of books borrowed. Many of our libraries have also developed into vibrant community centres, without any additional cost to the Council. These centres have become vital community hubs that have enriched and helped bond local communities. A safe and secure place for children, an enriching and motivating environment, a place for getting back on your feet or simply somewhere to reflect quietly - our libraries provide all of these and our residents need and deserve them.”
Will anything change? Who knows?
It was almost Groundhog Day at the Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee (OSMC) on Thursday September 10, with at least some of the proceedings having a depressingly familiar tone as all-too-resistible argument met the immovable object of Cabinet determination.
The Cabinet had apparently spent two hours considering OSMC’s decision to “call in” the Cabinet vote on August 18 to go ahead with the “preferred option” to close the Mobile Library and withdraw Council staffing and management from five libraries across the City. They had read the statement of OSMC’s concerns and reviewed the points raised, but were baffled that anyone could regard Cabinet’s actions as anything other than the best possible solution to the twin needs to cut Council spending (in line with imposed government cuts and statutes) and to achieve long-term viability for the City’s Library Service.
OSMC chairman, Councillor Fitzhenry, pointed out at the start of the meeting that OSMC cannot (and must not) overturn or block Cabinet and Council decisions arrived at through the democratic process. OSMC’s role is to consider whether that process was properly informed, whether those making the decisions had taken full account of all relevant facts and opinions, whether, on reflection, a debate or decision should have taken a different path. Cabinet had been given several recommendations in regard to the proposals for the Library Service before its August 18 meeting, and had reported its response to those recommendations. Nevertheless, he, as chair of OSMC, felt that there were still valid concerns about the background to the Cabinet decision, which was why it had been “called in” for further review ahead of the Cabinet meeting on Tuesday September 15 (and the full Council meeting on Wednesday September 16).
As has become normal for Council meetings where the future of Library Service is considered, there were a substantial number of people wanting to hear the debate – including several Councillors who do not sit on OSMC, with many of these wanting to offer observations and ask questions. Councillor Fitzhenry reminded everyone that these contributions should address the specifics of the agenda item (Cabinet’s response to August OSMC and the subsequent call-in), and not simply go over old ground.
Councillor Kaur saw no reason to extend the debate unduly. When specific details were requested, she was prepared to offer them – including offering to spend two hours reading out the complete Cabinet report if that would help – but her position was that Cabinet’s decision to implement the “preferred option” was absolutely right, the only way to achieve a “sustainable” future for all libraries (Council-managed and otherwise), and that the consultation exercise had demonstrated clear public support for that approach.
Those opposing the decision tried to put new life into their case. It was suggested that figures in the report were missing, misleading or erroneous (particularly in regard to Millbrook, where the library had moved between publication of the original report and the Cabinet decision, with numbers using the library increasing dramatically in that time). The Cabinet’s assertion that Housing Revenue Account money could not be used to support libraries was challenged – the response was that HRA could only fund relevant “projects”, and could not be used to support “core services”. This area became complicated when it turned out that the Library Service pays HRA a rental for the current Millbrook Library premises.
Objectors asked for detail on how the projected third-party community hubs would operate (the seven bodies which have between them expressed interest in taking over all five premises and the Mobile Library cannot be named, nor any detail of the expression of interest disclosed, since that information is commercially confidential and, anyway, disclosing it would constitute illegal “pre-determination” of Cabinet’s decision – once the Cabinet has cleared OSMC reservations, the Council will advertise formally and all submissions will be in the public domain). Councillor Kaur promised that information would be made available in due course, and that there were many successful examples around the country. Apparently leases will be for five years, but the conditions won’t be released until the adverts are placed. (Pre-determination again.)
The validity of the consultation questionnaire results were queried – particularly after Councillor Kaur revealed that it would not have been possible to go ahead with the preferred option had the consultation indicated significant majority opposition to it. She rejected any suggestion that questions in the document had been “leading”, or that it (or use made of its results) had been “misleading” in any way, pointing out that after every set of tick-box answer options there was a box for free-text entry of any relevant view or opinion. This did not satisfy most of the general public, with murmurs of assent turning into applause for a challenge on this issue.
Vocal assent and applause were also given when concerns were put about the way that the proposals are likely to have a significant impact on the elderly, children, the deprived and disadvantaged. Councillor Kaur responded that all this had already been dealt with, that impact assessments showed problems would be limited, that vibrant community hubs would continue to serve these sections of the community. A novel point raised was fear that volunteers would not be properly trained, suitable or vetted for working with the vulnerable. Burgess Road had had several enquiries from people wanting to volunteer their services, who, despite assurances by the enquirer, turned out to have had no prior connection with the library or its various groups. Councillor Kaur stated that this issue had been foreseen, and the arrangements to be imposed on the community-led hubs would require rigorous checks and training.
One possible future for Southampton Library Service is amalgamation with one or more of Hampshire, Portsmouth and Isle of Wight services. This could give economies of scale, offer savings in terms of senior administrator posts and salaries. There appeared uncertainty over whether conversations with other administrations over such joint working had been with political or administrative bodies, since some Councillors said that their conversations had indicated very different views to those reported by Cabinet.
At the end, OSMC voted to recommend that Cabinet:
· accept flexibility in the transfer timetable to maximise the likelihood of successfully transferring libraries to community-led hubs
· ensure the timetable for transfer includes sufficient time for thorough scrutiny of bids
· looks yet again at HRA funding matters
· details “shared service” conversations with other administrations
· reviews data on Millbrook use and users
With apologies for such an aggressive summary of views put so eloquently by so many, and if there has been any inadvertent error in reporting procedural matters or specific statements.
At the start of the meeting, when Councillors must declare any interests, and political groups any “whip”, the Conservative group stated that, while they did not operate a “whip”, they, as a group, were unanimously in favour of retaining all current libraries under Council management. One of the questions put by Councillor Hannides might indicate that the Conservatives are considering whether it would be possible to bring back any of the transferred libraries into Council management should there be a future change in the political make-up of the City Council. In this context, note that the full Council meeting on Wednesday September 16 will consider a Conservative motion, signed by 16 councillors, stating:
“This Council recognises the important role libraries play in the social fabric of our city and calls on the Executive to commit to keeping Southampton's library buildings open. The contribution libraries make cannot simply be measured in the number of books borrowed. Many of our libraries have also developed into vibrant community centres, without any additional cost to the Council. These centres have become vital community hubs that have enriched and helped bond local communities. A safe and secure place for children, an enriching and motivating environment, a place for getting back on your feet or simply somewhere to reflect quietly - our libraries provide all of these and our residents need and deserve them.”
Will anything change? Who knows?
Early September 2015
It seemed the long process of report, proposal, consultation, scrutiny and review had ended on Tuesday August 18, when all eight members of the Council Cabinet voted to accept the recommendation of Councillor Kaur, Cabinet Member for Communities, Leisure and Culture as described below. However, as reported in the Echo and on the bitternepark.info Website, this decision has been "called in" by the Council's Overview, Scrutiny and Management Committee, initially at their meeting on Thursday September 10. It is not clear whether this review will disrupt the Cabinet's planned timings for withdrawing Library Services from Cobbett Road Library (and elsewhere) on March 31 next year, or whether they can go ahead in their negotiations with charities and non-profit organisations said to be keen to take over running the building. Another factor which may need consideration is the Government initiative to enrol every child in their local library. Councillor Kaur has stated that the majority of books borrowed by schoolchildren are taken out from their school libraries, and that the Schools Library Service is not facing any cuts, but she did not suggest that school libraries would be opening during school holidays, nor how the long-established and successful summer reading challenges could be hosted by non-Council libraries in future - the 2015 "Record Breakers" challenge is, as usual, running successfully at Cobbett Road.
It seemed the long process of report, proposal, consultation, scrutiny and review had ended on Tuesday August 18, when all eight members of the Council Cabinet voted to accept the recommendation of Councillor Kaur, Cabinet Member for Communities, Leisure and Culture as described below. However, as reported in the Echo and on the bitternepark.info Website, this decision has been "called in" by the Council's Overview, Scrutiny and Management Committee, initially at their meeting on Thursday September 10. It is not clear whether this review will disrupt the Cabinet's planned timings for withdrawing Library Services from Cobbett Road Library (and elsewhere) on March 31 next year, or whether they can go ahead in their negotiations with charities and non-profit organisations said to be keen to take over running the building. Another factor which may need consideration is the Government initiative to enrol every child in their local library. Councillor Kaur has stated that the majority of books borrowed by schoolchildren are taken out from their school libraries, and that the Schools Library Service is not facing any cuts, but she did not suggest that school libraries would be opening during school holidays, nor how the long-established and successful summer reading challenges could be hosted by non-Council libraries in future - the 2015 "Record Breakers" challenge is, as usual, running successfully at Cobbett Road.
At Cabinet, Councillor Kaur proposed their "preferred option" shown here (minimally edited to remove cross-references to supporting documents associated with the meeting Agenda):
To approve the five key areas of Future Focus of the Library Service following consideration of the consultation feedback to include:
(ii) To approve Option D for implementation as outlined in the consultation process.
(iii) To cease to provide a Council managed Library Service from Cobbett Road Library, Burgess Road Library, Millbrook Library, Thornhill Library, Weston Library and the Mobile Library by March 31st 2016 and seek to encourage community led library initiatives in these buildings.
(iv) To delegate authority to the Director of Place to devise and implement the necessary processes and documentation required to establish, where appropriate, community led initiatives in the libraries that the City Council ceases to provide a service from.
(v) To delegate authority to the Director of Place, following consultation with the Cabinet Member for Communities, Culture and Leisure and the Head of Property, to lease Burgess Road Library, Cobbett Road Library and the new unit at Weston [for the purposes of para iv].
(vi) To approve the implementation of formal staff consultation on the changes that result from the decisions in this report and devise and implement a staffing structure accordingly.
(vii) To delegate authority to the Director of Place, following consultation with the Cabinet Member for Communities, Culture and Leisure and the Head of Property to do anything necessary to give effect to the recommendations contained in this report.
The meeting was held in the Council Chamber due to the considerable number of people expected to attend, which expectation was amply fulfilled, with some Councillors saying they had never seen so many people at a Cabinet meeting.
Throughout the consideration of Agenda Item 9, "The Future of The Southampton Library Service", Council Leader, Councillor Letts, stressed that the proposal was not "to close libraries", but to change the Library Service so that it was fully sustainable in the context of the financial situation facing the Council. That is, the Council needs to reduce expenditure by tens of millions of pounds, and the Library Service must make savings as proposed (the proposal is expected to reduce expenditure by £286,000 in 2017/8, less in 2016/7 due to transitional costs).
Councillor Kaur repeatedly stated that the consultation process showed overwhelming public support for the proposals (the graphic below shows the percentage responses to the question "To what extent do you agree or disagree with the council’s preferred option for the Library Services?" - decide for yourself which blocks of views you consider important, and which adjective you apply to the resulting comparison)
To approve the five key areas of Future Focus of the Library Service following consideration of the consultation feedback to include:
- Developing a lifelong love of reading
- Getting the City confidently online
- Helping to meet the information needs of the City
- Delivering in partnership
- Developing the 24/7 virtual (web based) online library
(ii) To approve Option D for implementation as outlined in the consultation process.
(iii) To cease to provide a Council managed Library Service from Cobbett Road Library, Burgess Road Library, Millbrook Library, Thornhill Library, Weston Library and the Mobile Library by March 31st 2016 and seek to encourage community led library initiatives in these buildings.
(iv) To delegate authority to the Director of Place to devise and implement the necessary processes and documentation required to establish, where appropriate, community led initiatives in the libraries that the City Council ceases to provide a service from.
(v) To delegate authority to the Director of Place, following consultation with the Cabinet Member for Communities, Culture and Leisure and the Head of Property, to lease Burgess Road Library, Cobbett Road Library and the new unit at Weston [for the purposes of para iv].
(vi) To approve the implementation of formal staff consultation on the changes that result from the decisions in this report and devise and implement a staffing structure accordingly.
(vii) To delegate authority to the Director of Place, following consultation with the Cabinet Member for Communities, Culture and Leisure and the Head of Property to do anything necessary to give effect to the recommendations contained in this report.
The meeting was held in the Council Chamber due to the considerable number of people expected to attend, which expectation was amply fulfilled, with some Councillors saying they had never seen so many people at a Cabinet meeting.
Throughout the consideration of Agenda Item 9, "The Future of The Southampton Library Service", Council Leader, Councillor Letts, stressed that the proposal was not "to close libraries", but to change the Library Service so that it was fully sustainable in the context of the financial situation facing the Council. That is, the Council needs to reduce expenditure by tens of millions of pounds, and the Library Service must make savings as proposed (the proposal is expected to reduce expenditure by £286,000 in 2017/8, less in 2016/7 due to transitional costs).
Councillor Kaur repeatedly stated that the consultation process showed overwhelming public support for the proposals (the graphic below shows the percentage responses to the question "To what extent do you agree or disagree with the council’s preferred option for the Library Services?" - decide for yourself which blocks of views you consider important, and which adjective you apply to the resulting comparison)
That overwhelming support was not demonstrated in the Chamber. The Cabinet was outnumbered by Conservative, Independent and Councillors-Against-Cuts Councillors who all expressed their opposition. Many members of the public also spoke out against the removal of Council Library services, often attracting applause from the dozens watching from the Public Gallery. The only people to speak in support of the proposal were Councillors Letts and Kaur - the other Cabinet members said nothing at any point during this section of the meeting.
As with the range of suggestions for raising income for the Library Service which were offered in the consultation process, those recommended for consideration by the Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee (OSMC) the previous week were mostly dismissed as being impossible (because they would require transferring funding from other "ring fenced" services) or would not be enough to meet the target set by the Executive for reducing Library Service costs. (One couldn't help wondering what the total of all the individually-inadequate sums might have been...)
OSMC had also recommended that the decision on the proposal should be deferred to a full Council meeting. Councillor Letts said this was not just undesirable, but - according to advice from the Council's Legal Services - illegal: the decision had to be taken by the executive. This was confirmed for the record by the legal officer present at the meeting.
Objectors expressed a range of concerns that there would be costs associated with the proposed changes, and that the impact would be greatest on the most vulnerable and deprived. (While the Council accept that there will be social costs and impacts, these are not quantified in their report, nor are the costs associated with unspecified "developments" of other Council services which are envisaged as mitigating those impacts.)
Councillor Kaur insisted that the way forward was for services to continue in the buildings from which the Council would be withdrawing Library Service. This service would be provided by charity or non-profit organisations with significant community involvement. She said that she had received approaches from a number of such organisations, and interest had been expressed in regard to all five affected library sites, but that until the decision to proceed with the proposal was taken she was legally required not to disclose any details as this would constitute "pre-determination". She also insisted that there were many examples of other authorities who had transferred libraries successfully to community-led schemes, and that St James Park and Oaklands Pool were positive examples within Southampton of such arrangements.
With everyone who had asked to speak having had their say, and Councillor Kaur having addressed each one's contribution with one or more assurances or objections as outlined above, the proposal was put to a vote and carried unanimously. A Brave New World awaits for Cobbett Road Library. You can read a detailed report about the meeting, based on a full recording, at bitternepark.info., where you can also see videos of some speakers, and a response to the decision from FCRL's Chairman Kevin Lancashire.
As with the range of suggestions for raising income for the Library Service which were offered in the consultation process, those recommended for consideration by the Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee (OSMC) the previous week were mostly dismissed as being impossible (because they would require transferring funding from other "ring fenced" services) or would not be enough to meet the target set by the Executive for reducing Library Service costs. (One couldn't help wondering what the total of all the individually-inadequate sums might have been...)
OSMC had also recommended that the decision on the proposal should be deferred to a full Council meeting. Councillor Letts said this was not just undesirable, but - according to advice from the Council's Legal Services - illegal: the decision had to be taken by the executive. This was confirmed for the record by the legal officer present at the meeting.
Objectors expressed a range of concerns that there would be costs associated with the proposed changes, and that the impact would be greatest on the most vulnerable and deprived. (While the Council accept that there will be social costs and impacts, these are not quantified in their report, nor are the costs associated with unspecified "developments" of other Council services which are envisaged as mitigating those impacts.)
Councillor Kaur insisted that the way forward was for services to continue in the buildings from which the Council would be withdrawing Library Service. This service would be provided by charity or non-profit organisations with significant community involvement. She said that she had received approaches from a number of such organisations, and interest had been expressed in regard to all five affected library sites, but that until the decision to proceed with the proposal was taken she was legally required not to disclose any details as this would constitute "pre-determination". She also insisted that there were many examples of other authorities who had transferred libraries successfully to community-led schemes, and that St James Park and Oaklands Pool were positive examples within Southampton of such arrangements.
With everyone who had asked to speak having had their say, and Councillor Kaur having addressed each one's contribution with one or more assurances or objections as outlined above, the proposal was put to a vote and carried unanimously. A Brave New World awaits for Cobbett Road Library. You can read a detailed report about the meeting, based on a full recording, at bitternepark.info., where you can also see videos of some speakers, and a response to the decision from FCRL's Chairman Kevin Lancashire.
August 2015
At the Council's Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee meeting on Thursday August 13, it was clear that Councillor Kaur, Cabinet member with responsibility for the Library Service, was determined to go ahead with this plan, and that all suggestions and proposals produced since November were regarded as irrelevant, impractical or impossible, while objections were immaterial or ill-informed.
Councillor Kaur repeatedly insisted that closing these Council-run operations was the only way to achieve a "sustainable" Library service for the future. She regards "community-led" operation as not just a viable alternative, but essential, pledging Council support including (at least initially) a Council post to "focus on developing partnerships and providing guidance and support to community independent libraries" (the costs of that post do not appear to feature in the financial arguments for library closures, which assess the resultant savings in 2016/7 as around £250,000).
The Friends of Cobbett Road Library remain determined to do all we can to try to keep all libraries open within the Council-run and -staffed service. Several Friends spoke at the scrutiny meeting, as did councillors from all parties. The closure plans and reactions to them have been featured in the Echo, with stories on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday. They have also provided coverage ahead of the Cabinet meeting today. Local website Bitternepark.info has, as always, given comprehensive details of what is and is not happening, and its reports last week and this are well worth reading.
The Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee passed several recommendations, including that the closure decision be deferred to the full Council meeting on September 16, but those recommendations are only advisory: the Cabinet is under no obligation to follow them. Therefore, at the Cabinet meeting on Tuesday August 18, its eight members, all of them Labour Councillors (Letts, Jeffery, Chaloner, Kaur, Rayment, Shields, Payne and Hammond) will almost certainly make the decision. If that happens, the full Council will never debate the analysis of the consultation exercise, in which well over 6000 people expressed their views on the closure plan.
At the Council's Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee meeting on Thursday August 13, it was clear that Councillor Kaur, Cabinet member with responsibility for the Library Service, was determined to go ahead with this plan, and that all suggestions and proposals produced since November were regarded as irrelevant, impractical or impossible, while objections were immaterial or ill-informed.
Councillor Kaur repeatedly insisted that closing these Council-run operations was the only way to achieve a "sustainable" Library service for the future. She regards "community-led" operation as not just a viable alternative, but essential, pledging Council support including (at least initially) a Council post to "focus on developing partnerships and providing guidance and support to community independent libraries" (the costs of that post do not appear to feature in the financial arguments for library closures, which assess the resultant savings in 2016/7 as around £250,000).
The Friends of Cobbett Road Library remain determined to do all we can to try to keep all libraries open within the Council-run and -staffed service. Several Friends spoke at the scrutiny meeting, as did councillors from all parties. The closure plans and reactions to them have been featured in the Echo, with stories on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday. They have also provided coverage ahead of the Cabinet meeting today. Local website Bitternepark.info has, as always, given comprehensive details of what is and is not happening, and its reports last week and this are well worth reading.
The Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee passed several recommendations, including that the closure decision be deferred to the full Council meeting on September 16, but those recommendations are only advisory: the Cabinet is under no obligation to follow them. Therefore, at the Cabinet meeting on Tuesday August 18, its eight members, all of them Labour Councillors (Letts, Jeffery, Chaloner, Kaur, Rayment, Shields, Payne and Hammond) will almost certainly make the decision. If that happens, the full Council will never debate the analysis of the consultation exercise, in which well over 6000 people expressed their views on the closure plan.
Late 2014
On Monday November 10, 2014, Southampton City Council released a report recommending changes to the City Library Service. This document, and its many detailed Appendices, can be downloaded from the Council Website. Formal public consultation on the report's proposals has closed, and it will take the Council quite a while to digest the thousands of responses. The report analysing the responses is now expected to be issued in August.
We suggest everyone reads the main report, which proposes closing Cobbett Road and four other libraries at some point in the next two years "unless community groups come forward to take them on". Friends of Cobbett Road Library are committed to doing all we can to keep the library open and staffed by paid professionals.
The Echo reported the plans, and our initial reaction. On Tuesday November 18, the Council Cabinet Scrutiny meeting provided an initial opportunity for Councillors to respond to the report. This meeting was open to the public - Ann MacGillivray attended and, with others, made clear the opposition of users to closure proposals, as reported in the Echo.
The report was tabled at the full Council meeting on Wednesday November 19. At the start of the meeting there were formal deputations from the public, including one about Cobbett Road Library. Anneliese Walker, 9-year-old Rose Hickman and Kevin Lancashire and made a strong plea for professionally-staffed and -run libraries to be kept open, particularly Cobbett Road which serves a wide range of needs for so many in our community. There's a report on this in the Echo for Thursday November 20. You can see full details of what was said on the Bitterne Park Website, and the presentation is on Youtube.
On Monday November 10, 2014, Southampton City Council released a report recommending changes to the City Library Service. This document, and its many detailed Appendices, can be downloaded from the Council Website. Formal public consultation on the report's proposals has closed, and it will take the Council quite a while to digest the thousands of responses. The report analysing the responses is now expected to be issued in August.
We suggest everyone reads the main report, which proposes closing Cobbett Road and four other libraries at some point in the next two years "unless community groups come forward to take them on". Friends of Cobbett Road Library are committed to doing all we can to keep the library open and staffed by paid professionals.
The Echo reported the plans, and our initial reaction. On Tuesday November 18, the Council Cabinet Scrutiny meeting provided an initial opportunity for Councillors to respond to the report. This meeting was open to the public - Ann MacGillivray attended and, with others, made clear the opposition of users to closure proposals, as reported in the Echo.
The report was tabled at the full Council meeting on Wednesday November 19. At the start of the meeting there were formal deputations from the public, including one about Cobbett Road Library. Anneliese Walker, 9-year-old Rose Hickman and Kevin Lancashire and made a strong plea for professionally-staffed and -run libraries to be kept open, particularly Cobbett Road which serves a wide range of needs for so many in our community. There's a report on this in the Echo for Thursday November 20. You can see full details of what was said on the Bitterne Park Website, and the presentation is on Youtube.
Previous Campaigns
9th February 2013
|
|
We are very grateful to everyone who supported this 2011/2012 campaign.
Many people visited our lovely 1939 Art Deco Library building, attended Friends of Cobbett Road Library meetings and signed our petition promoting the benefits of the library service and Cobbett Road Library in particular. They also spread the word to friends and neighbours, wrote to Councillors, MPs and the media. |
Packham: cutting library hours 'short-termist lunacy'
Betrayal of trust and an insult to sensibility’
Bitterne Park School alumnus, author and BBC TV wildlife expert Chris Packham signed the petition opposing cuts to Cobbett Road Library’s opening hours, describing the idea as “short-termist lunacy” – and suggested library resources should instead be strengthened and hours extended.
Photo under CC3 by Waggers based on an original photo by Humphrey the Camel
Read the full article here
Bitterne Park School alumnus, author and BBC TV wildlife expert Chris Packham signed the petition opposing cuts to Cobbett Road Library’s opening hours, describing the idea as “short-termist lunacy” – and suggested library resources should instead be strengthened and hours extended.
Photo under CC3 by Waggers based on an original photo by Humphrey the Camel
Read the full article here
