Agenda item - Development of Library Services in Hove and Hollingbury

Report of the Acting Executive Director for Economy, Environment & Culture (copy attached).

1)            That the Committee authorises officers to proceed with the moving of Hollingbury Library to Hollingbury and Patcham Children’s Centre and the Old Boat Community Centre, in accordance with the adopted Libraries Plan 2016-2020.

 

2)            That the Committee authorises the Acting Executive Director Economy, Environment and Culture, Assistant Director Property and Design to market the current Hollingbury Library building widely on the open market to support the library service

 

3)            That the Committee (a) approve the ring fencing of the capital receipts from the sale Hollingbury Library to fund  the physical move of Hollingbury Library service into the Hollingbury and Patcham Children’s Centre and the Old Boat Community Centre; and (b) agree that the surplus receipt from the disposal of the building will be reinvested into the capital resource for the library service.

 

4)            That the Committee approve the allocation and use of up to £0.100m proposed for Restructure & Redundancy Reserve as part of Agenda item 9 Targeted Budget Management (TBM) Provisional Outturn 2015/16, Section 3.4 be used towards what would have been financial savings and possible maintenance cost for 2017/18 to retain the Hove Library service at the Carnegie building.

 

5)            That Officers bring a report to a future Policy, Resources and Growth Committee with options for Hove Library and Hove Museum and the 4 year financial savings plan.

 

6)            That the Committee note that none of the proposals in the above resolutions result in the closure of any libraries in Brighton and Hove.

7.1         The Chair noted there were two public questions that related to this item as listed in the agenda. He called forward Mr Christopher Hawtree to put his questions to the Committee.

 

7.2         Mr Hawtree asked, ‘Would Councillor Morgan please tell us who owns the Hove Carnegie Library?’

 

7.3         Councillor Morgan replied, ‘Brighton & Hove City Council own Hove Library and this is confirmed by the property register.’

 

7.4         By way of a supplementary Mr Hawtree asked, ‘Can we be assured henceforth that Hove residents will be given more open and tenable information about this crucial subject as it develops?’ Councillor Morgan noted that this would be picked up in the debate on the item.

 

7.5         The Chair then invited Ms Ninka Willcock to put her question to the Committee. Ms Willock asked, ‘Was the option of localised repairs to the existing concrete-tiled roof of the Carnegie Library considered and costed?’

 

7.6         The Chair replied, ‘The professional Building Surveyor’s opinion, who undertook the condition survey in 2014, was that the existing concrete tiles were in poor enough condition to warrant replacement within a 3 year period from the survey date. The Building Surveyor would have assessed the possibility of ongoing patch repairs but considered that this would not be the right solution for the Grade 2 Listed Building.’

 

7.7         By way of a supplementary Ms Willcock asked, ‘The current libraries report to this Committee states that were the Hove museum and art gallery to be closed and relocated the Heritage Arts Council and Arts Council England might request a refund on their investments. Would you kindly clarify the evidence base for this as well as details of the financial risk?

 

7.8         The Chair replied, ‘I’m happy to ask Officers to respond to that in the course of their dealings in the debate.’

 

7.9         The Committee considered a report of the Acting Executive Director for Economy, Environment & Culture in relation to Development of Library Services in Hove and Hollingbury. The report set out in summary the proposal costs, savings and funding sources following business case reviews for these service changes and developments and sought approval for the disposal of the existing Hove and Hollingbury Library buildings.

 

7.10       The Chair noted there was a proposed amendment from the Labour & Co-Operative Group and called upon Councillor Mitchell to formally propose the amendment.

 

7.11       Councillor Mitchell stated the amendment recognised the degree of unanimity between the Groups to ensure the majority of the Library Plan was implemented, but gave attention to the difference in opinion of how the service in central Hove should be provided. The proposed amendment would give provision to retain the current service for a year whilst the issue could be considered further. This would not have an immediate budgetary implication and would allow the outcome of any review to feed into the 2017/18 budget setting process. It was the aim of the Administration to provide a good and accessible library service to the public; whilst acknowledging the sensitivities of the site in central Hove. Councillor Mitchell asked that the Committee support the proposed amendment.

 

7.12       The Chair formally seconded the amendment.

 

7.13       The Chair noted there was a proposed joint amendment from the Conservative & Green Groups and called upon Councillor G. Theobald to formally propose the amendment and Councillor Sykes to second.

 

7.14       Councillor G. Theobald moved the amendment.

 

7.15       Councillor Sykes seconded the amendment.

 

7.16       In response to Councillor Sykes the following information was given in response to questions. As part of the budget savings every department needed to make a full year needs analysis was undertaken and Officers had come to the view that the proposed changes to Hove Library service were a sensible means to achieve the savings. The business case related to savings projected to be made in the 2018/19 financial year. The specification for the works to Hove Museum included the costs of compliance and health and safety. The previous report, that had been deferred from the April, had highlighted borrowing to meet the funding gaps for works; however, since then further financial information suggested that this would no longer be necessary.

 

7.17       In response to Councillor G. Theobald the following information was given in response to questions. The projected annual running cost savings associated with the move included a range of measures such as a greater shift towards self-service. It was clarified that any planning permission would likely to be the subject of a S106 agreement.

 

7.18       In response to Councillor Miller the following information was given in response to questions. The reasons for lateness were set out in the report and these complied with the legislative requirements for the publication of agenda papers, such that they could be late with good reason. The proposed savings on staff budgets were not only linked to the moving of the Hove Library service, but instead referenced a restructure that also linked into the wider plans around the Libraries Extra project. The book fund was outlined in the business case and reflected the historic position, as well the changing nature of customer demands in libraries; this allowed the book fund savings to be made ahead of other savings.

 

7.19       In response to Councillor Mac Cafferty the following information was given in response to questions. The Workstyles business case provided the rental income of the ground floor of Hove Library; this income would be lost if Hove Library was disposed of. A list of items and works that the proposed fund of £142K would be used for was set out in appendix 1 of the business case.

 

7.18       Councillor Daniel stated that the service was not automatically connected to a specific building, and she felt the proposals to move the library would offer a better service for the central Hove area. The proposals were in line with the position from Central Government and would allow the library network in the city to be reinvigorated and become community hubs. Combining a modern wing at the museum would offer tourist benefits, as well as an outside learning space for the library. The majority of residents supported the plan, and had asked for libraries to be multi-purpose spaces. The service was a successful one, and Councillor Daniel felt that the case before the Committee was robust and justified, creating a fit for purpose, modern service.

 

7.19       Councillor G. Theobald stated his view that the proposals would not create a better library service for the residents of Hove; the building was much loved and well used. He went on to reference literature that had been distributed by the local Labour Party and argued that this had been misleading, creating unnecessary worry and concern for residents. Councillor G. Theobald felt the literature had sought to scaremonger residents by suggesting it would be necessary to close several branch libraries across the city, if the proposals before the Committee were not carried – he asked that the Chair apologise to the Committee for the literature.

 

7.20       Councillor G. Theobald went on to thank Officers for the time and information they had given to Members; he noted that 80% of the proposed savings would be achieved by reducing staff at the new site and that the book fund would be reduced regardless of the decision taken by the Committee on the future provision of Hove Library. He stated that it was difficult to argue that the Council could not afford to maintain and operate the service from the existing Carnegie building, when the budget for 2015/16 can come in significantly underspent. The costs of repair and maintenance to the Carnegie could be as low as approximately £300k and the costs for the works to Hove Museum could be much higher. He reiterated his view that the proposals would create a reduced library service for central Hove, and whilst the Conservative Group supported the vast majority of the Library Plan they were not willing to support the proposed move.

 

7.21       Councillor A. Norman stated she was distressed to have seen the literature that had been circulated on the matter, and she did not support any of the claims it made. She noted that she had received a number of emails from concerned residents, but highlighted that it was not the position or intention of the Conservative Group to close any libraries in the city.

 

7.22       Councillor Miller stated that the consultation had not been explicit about the proposal to close the Carnegie building, and he felt the provision in central Hove should be more than a wing of Hove Museum. He felt the claims made in the distributed literature were misleading and that the actions of the local Labour Party had made it increasingly difficult to pursue a cross-party consensus on this matter.

 

7.23       Councillor Sykes stated his view that the proposed joint amendment offered a better temporary solution and urged the Labour Members on the Committee to agree it. He was of the view that the proposed costs to maintain the Carnegie building would be lower than estimated and the works to Hove Museum would be higher. He added that the report before the Committee was not consistent, the Administration needed to come back to the matter and work in a much more cross-party manner to achieve consensus.

 

7.24       Councillor Mac Cafferty made reference to his petition that had been included in the agendas papers; he thanked all those that had signed it and noted that it had now received over 5,000 signatures. He noted that the Green Group had consistently opposed any move to close the Carnegie building, and added that despite the amendment the Labour & Co-Operative Group had not attempted to engage opposition Members to reach a consensus. He noted that both Opposition Groups had expressed concern in relation to proposed maintenance and renovation figures at the March 2016 Council meeting and they were now in agreement on the matter. He highlighted that the proposed joint amendment was a victory for residents who had fought to save the building.

 

7.25       Councillor Janio thanked Officers for their work on this and asked that the Administration accept the joint amendment and go forward working with both Opposition Groups.

 

7.26       Councillor Mitchell noted that it was the aim of the Administration to work with the Opposition Groups to ensure that the Council keep all libraries open. She noted that branch libraries were a lifeline in some communities and there was no desire to pursue the closure of any library in the city.

 

7.27       Councillor Hamilton noted that it had the previous Green Administration that had been responsible for closing the mobile library service in the city. He noted that no comments had been made in the debate about how the revenue savings would be achieved if this scheme were not seen through. He noted that the underspend in last year’s budget had been earmarked, and it would be poor financial planning to set a budget on assumed underspends each year. He highlighted that the running costs of over £500K each year were not sustainable, and he was concerned that without a permanent solution, this matter would have to keep coming back before the Committee. He hoped that all Groups could now move forward and work on a solution together.

 

7.28       Councillor Morgan stated that the financial context was forcing the Council to modernise, rationalise and run services more effectively and he was of the view that the agreed Library Plan would do just this. He noted that the budget had been agreed in February and within that context Officers had been able to find a means to continue the service with longer open hours, whilst retaining the service in public ownership. He argued that faced with a politically difficult decision the Opposition Members had rejected the information put forward in the report by Officers. The Administration was fully committed to finding a cross-party solution.

 

7.29       The Chair then put the proposed amendment from the Labour & Co-Operative Group to the vote, this was not carried.

 

7.30       The Chair then put the proposed joint amendment from the Conservative and Greens Groups to the vote, this was carried.

 

7.31       The Chair then put the amended recommendations to the vote.

 

7.32       RESOLVED:

 

1)        That the Committee authorises officers to proceed with the moving of Hollingbury Library to Hollingbury and Patcham Children’s Centre and the Old Boat Community Centre, in accordance with the adopted Libraries Plan 2016-2020.

 

2)        That the Committee authorises the Acting Executive Director Economy, Environment and Culture, Assistant Director Property and Design to market the current Hollingbury Library building widely on the open market to support the library service

 

3)        That the Committee (a) approve the ring fencing of the capital receipts from the sale Hollingbury Library to fund  the physical move of Hollingbury Library service into the Hollingbury and Patcham Children’s Centre and the Old Boat Community Centre; and (b) agree that the surplus receipt from the disposal of the building will be reinvested into the capital resource for the library service.

 

4)        That the Committee approve the allocation and use of up to £0.100m proposed for Restructure & Redundancy Reserve as part of Agenda item 9 Targeted Budget Management (TBM) Provisional Outturn 2015/16, Section 3.4 be used towards what would have been financial savings and possible maintenance cost for 2017/18 to retain the Hove Library service at the Carnegie building.

 

5)        That Officers bring a report to a future Policy, Resources and Growth Committee with options for Hove Library and Hove Museum and the 4 year financial savings plan.

 

6)        That the Committee note that none of the proposals in the above resolutions result in the closure of any libraries in Brighton and Hove.

 

7)        That the Committee note the petition referred from Council on 24 March 2016.