Agenda item

Report DRR15/024

Following a meeting of the Renewal and Recreation PDS Committee on 18 November 2014, the Portfolio Holder agreed the strategic approach in relation to proposals for the development of community managed libraries and agreed that market testing of the core library offer be carried out.  Officers were also authorised to undertake formal consultation with library users and staff on the agreed proposals.

The current report updated Members on the outcome of the completed formal consultation and provided further recommendations for the implementation of the Library Strategy.

The Chairman emphasised to members of the public that at the present time there was no proposal to close any of the libraries.  Legally, the Council was fulfilling its obligation to provide library services.  The current proposal related to the development of six community managed libraries and to identifying ways in which the buildings could be saved and the facilities improved. 

In response to correspondence received from Bromley Unite, the Chairman read out a statement which can be viewed at Appendix 2 to these Minutes.

The Chairman reported that libraries were community hubs which did more than just lend books and this was something the Council wished to continue by working in partnership with community groups and organisations. 

Referring to the vulnerability of the public sector equality duty at Mottingham, St Paul's Cray and Southborough, (para.6.6.2, page 78), one Member asked if these three libraries could be transferred into the core library service if the current proposals were not achieved and volunteers were not forthcoming.  The Head of Culture confirmed that the preferred option was for the Council to continue to provide a degree of support whilst allowing access to community management provision.  Sufficient time would be spent with groups to develop business plans for the long-term running of the libraries.

Counsel had advised there was no court guidance pertaining to a limit on travelling distance to libraries; this was a matter for the Council to decide.

Members were provided with a copy of an advertisement placed in local newspapers by the London Borough of Bexley seeking to procure community groups and organisations to manage libraries.  Bromley Council proposed to do the same.  A report on the outcome of this would be submitted for consideration in June (as opposed to July as stated in the report).

Visiting Ward Member for Mottingham, Councillor David Cartwright, thanked officers for providing a comprehensive report and for clarification of certain aspects in which he had concerns.  Councillor Cartwright stated that whilst this was not an easy situation, he understood that the Council was in a difficult financial situation.  Mottingham Library was a community hub which provided an essential service to residents and schoolchildren benefited immensely from the library's IT services.  Community events, activities for the elderly and a plethora of other professionally-run activities regularly took place.  There was significant doubt locally that a community managed library would work i.e. difficulty in finding volunteers and concerns around child protection.  Many residents felt they were given no alternative choice.  Whilst issues could be overcome, Councillor Cartwright emphasised the need for caution and careful consideration.  The lack of professional librarians would be a great loss and in this regard Councillor Cartwright urged the Council to ensure that proper staffing support was made available.  He was pleased to note that further local consultation would take place.  Councillor Cartwright ended his representations by emphasising that the Council still had a statutory responsibility under the Libraries and Museum Act to provide a robust library service to local communities.

The Chairman responded by saying if the Council did not do something then there would be no library.  Community libraries were run by professional bodies of people and were supported by the existing library system.

The number of visitors to libraries had not dropped dramatically.  There had been no negative reaction to the reduction in the hours of operation.  Biggin Hill, Orpington and Penge libraries had improved in terms of performance. 

There was a misconception that the consultation paper had not asked whether members of the public were opposed to the proposals however, the question was clearly included and people did have a choice to register their disapproval.

Councillor Cartwright sought clarification as to whether officers had met their counterparts from the London Borough of Greenwich to discuss Greenwich taking on the running of Mottingham Library given that a significant number of users resided in Greenwich.  In response the Assistant Director thought this unlikely as all boroughs were in a position of identifying savings and it was therefore unlikely that another borough would seek to take on additional costs.

It was reported that seeking volunteers and deciding what skills were required would be the responsibility of the management companies.  Not all members of staff would be volunteers, some would potentially be paid.  The Council would continue to seek creative solutions for running library services including the identification of diverse activities to fit the needs of individual communities.

The procurement process would be taken slowly as the Council could potentially be dealing with non-professional services.  The required criteria and the process involved would be shared with Ward Members at the time each individual library was developed.

To date, informal expressions of interest had been received for four out of the six libraries however, until the consultation period had ended, no further comment in this regard could be made.  Over 100 people, including two Councillors, had indicated a willingness to volunteer to work at libraries.

In discussing Hayes Library, it was reported that when drawn up, the lease may include the top floor of the building in order to provide an opportunity for the management company to subsidise the ground floor by renting the space for events and activities.

Referring to paragraph 5.2 (page 77), it was reported that if the community libraries were set up as commissioned community library models, there would be less savings as some libraries were energy inefficient and high maintenance buildings.  If the Council were to rebuild, they would be modern, energy efficient and secure.  It was necessary to wait until the consultation period had ended to ascertain whether or not the stated £250k savings could be achieved.

The general consensus was that the proposals should go ahead.  Members were informed that detailed individual business plans would be made available to Members as they were developed.  Councillor Tickner moved that the recommendations in the report be supported.

RESOLVED that:-

1)  the report be noted; and

2)  the Portfolio Holder be recommended to agree that:-

  a)  the procurement process for the Community Management of the six community libraries as detailed in Section 3.7.3 of the report be commenced;

  b)  discussions be undertaken with the London Borough of Bexley to develop a joint procurement strategy for the Library Service; and

  c)  officers undertake a soft market testing exercise for the library service and undertake further consultation on the results of the soft market testing with library staff, library users and residents and bring a further update report back to the Renewal and Recreation PDS Committee.