Council’s libraries consultation accused of being unlawful

CROYDON IN CRISIS: The council’s penny-wise and pound-foolish proposals for library closures could end up costing it more money after a badly-organised consultation, according to a national campaign group.
By STEVEN DOWNES

Libraries should not pay the cost for the bungling of Brick by Brick say campaigners

The council’s latest consultation, over the proposed closure of up to five of the borough’s public libraries, may be unlawful, according to a national campaign group.

The public consultation is set to close tomorrow night, having sought residents’ input on the fate of libraries in Broad Green, South Norwood, Shirley, Sanderstead and at Bradmore Green, in Old Coulsdon.

But The Library Campaign, in its submission to the consultation, has warned Croydon that it may be in breach of established legal precedent for the conduct of such consultations and determining the future of public libraries, which local authorities have a statutory duty to provide.

“Offering citizens nothing but the option to comply. the council are open to challenge under the legally binding Gunning principles (1985 (R (Gunning) v Brent (London Borough Council), endorsed by the Supreme Court in 2014 (R (Moseley) v LB Haringey)” say the campaign,” The Library Campaign states.

“The first two principles are: ‘Consultation must be at a time when proposals are still at a formative stage’; and: ‘The proposer must give sufficient reasons for any proposal to permit of intelligent consideration and response.

“The Supreme Court endorsement further specifies: ‘Fairness may require that consultees are given information on possible alternative plans, even when a council does not favour them, to enable the consultees to make an intelligent response in respect of the scheme on which their views are sought’.”

Oliver Lewis: has been kicking around library closures for three years

The closures would save the bankrupt council relatively little in operational and staffing costs, but they could save the borough considerably more on the maintenance costs on the buildings, as well as freeing the sites up for possible money-spinning sales to property developers.

The council’s proposals are an adaptation of a plan that the cabinet member for arts, culture and shit, Oliver Lewis, has been kicking around for almost three years, from a time when the council was looking at redeveloping library buildings by handing them over to Brick by Brick to build flats.

South Norwood was supposed to be the template for that plan – now, that new library could be closed before it is ever opened, the £900,000 bill to fit it out the poorly-finished build too costly for the cash-strapped council.

Selling the five sites to third-party developers, however, under the government-approved asset-disposal plan, could generate a significant amount towards repaying the borough’s debts.

The Library Campaign, however, believes that because of the bungled consultation, Croydon’s plans could be blocked.

Many residents depend on libraries for internet access, printing and copying facilities – as this letter-writing campaign demonstrates

In a lengthy submission prepared by chair Laura Swaffield and Andrew Coburn, they state that the Croydon consultation “shows no almost no understanding of libraries or even of the law”, “the projected savings are very small within the council’s overall budget – and are in any case most unlikely to be achieved”.

And they add that, “The social and educational damage from the current plan would be far more expensive than any savings made.”

In South Norwood, residents have started a campaign to demonstrate the need for libraries from those people who depend on their library for access to broadband, computers, printers or photocopiers by sending meticulously drafted, hand-written letters to their Labour councillors.

The Library Campaign describes the council’s proposals in the consultation as “sabotage”.

They say that the council has failed to carry out an Equalities Impact Assessment, as it is legally required to do.

They also suggest that, by conducting a consultation during the coronavirus lockdown, paper versions of the consultation document have not been as widely available as they would need to be to satisfy the council’s legal obligations, “thus excluding large numbers of people and in particular those most likely to need the library”.

And the council has failed to provide the consultation in any community language.

Swaffield and Coburn are also critical of the way the consultation was structured, limiting the options that respondents can say they “value” to just three. Missing from the list of options to be “valued” by the council is… staff, which The Library Campaign states “consistently score very high in all surveys”. Of course, not mentioning professional and trained librarians might be one way that the council could skew the outcome of its consultation towards the volunteer-run “community hubs” it is hoping to be able to foist on to residents – together with the bills for building maintenance.

Shirley is one of the public libraries which has been targeted for closure since 2018

“This final flaw in the consultation will draw particular criticism, as the council seems to have decided, without consultation, to exclude staff from the five libraries in question,” the Campaign states.

“Local libraries offer much, at a very small price. They are a bargain for any council. Croydon simply cannot afford to lose them, or to dump them on to communities that are ill-equipped to run them.”

And they note, “When Croydon is paying £10million to attempt to salvage Brick by Brick, cutting essential frontline services will not be popular with voters.”

The council consultation, and Lewis, have repeatedly referred to “cost-neutral” option of allowing the volunteers to run their local libraries.

The Library Campaign dismisses this notion entirely. “The council is sadly misinformed if it thinks ‘the community’ is in a position to take over any library service.

“This has already become apparent in the council’s webinars, where invited ‘community-managed’ libraries have consistently said that the workload is enormous, that a fully council-run staffed service is preferable, and that survival depends on considerable council input, including stock, library management system, IT support and partial use of council librarians.

“They are not a ‘cost neutral’ option. They save very little money, if any, and would be a drain on the council’s other library staff at a time when they will be needed more than ever post-lockdown.

We would add that such “community-managed” libraries usually take years to set up, as council officers grapple with the needs of multiple different buildings, and communities with different needs and different resources. In the short term, setting them up adds to the council’s costs.”

Croydon, the council that wants to close libraries, is London’s “Borough of Culture” in 2023.

Read more: Libraries are our long-term investment. Don’t squander it
Read more: South Norwood library needs £900,000 more to be fit to open
Read more: Lip-service webinars fail to consider libraries’ community future


  • If you have a news story about life in or around Croydon, want to publicise your residents’ association or business, or if you have a local event to promote, please email us with full details at inside.croydon@btinternet.com
  • Inside Croydon is a member of the Independent Community News Network
  • Inside Croydon works together with the Bureau of Investigative Journalism and BBC London News
  • ROTTEN BOROUGH AWARDS: Croydon was named the country’s rottenest borough in 2020 in the annual round-up of civic cock-ups in Private Eye magazine – the fourth successive year that Inside Croydon has been the source for such award-winning nominations
  • Inside Croydon: 3million page views in 2020. Seen by 1.4million unique visitors
  • Content on this site is also licensed via Ping! News. To access content for copying in full or in part,  please visit https://pingnews.uk/

About insidecroydon

News, views and analysis about the people of Croydon, their lives and political times in the diverse and most-populated borough in London. Based in Croydon and edited by Steven Downes. To contact us, please email inside.croydon@btinternet.com
This entry was posted in Brick by Brick, Broad Green, Community associations, Coulsdon, Croydon Council, Libraries, Old Coulsdon, Sanderstead, Shirley, South Norwood and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Council’s libraries consultation accused of being unlawful

  1. Lewis White says:

    I just sent in my responses to the Library Consultation. Surely it is much better to have an opportunity to be consulted, and let councilllors and council officers know our thoughts, than have no consultation at all, and find that decisions are just inflicted on us?

    There were several key, good things about the consultation.

    Filling out a consultation response in any detail takes time. Who ever devised the consultation did a pretty good job– the questions included simple yes /no and tick a box type answers, but also gave some big boxes posing open questions, whcih gave the opportunity to give our own thoughts, and the promise that these will be properly considered.

    Another — vital thing– you could save your response at any time and come back to do more on it later. They gave a reference number–which– marvellous to say– actually opened the saved response back up, with all my carefully crafted response intact.

    This is marked contrast to the “Purley Way Area regeneration” on-line consultation, which is very long, and gives NO facility to save the responses and come back to complete them…. More of that at the end of my response on the Libraries…..

    Back to the library consultation—-
    the amount of information about each shortlisted library was initially good, albeit that the “energy costs” for each library, was shown as £38,000, which surely cannnot be the case, with buildings of such varying sizes.

    It seems that more useful “bar chart graphs” have recently been added to the consultation pages as a result of the public webinars held for most or maybe all of the libraries.

    These really showed how actual borrowings of books has held up better over the last 5 years in many of the threatened libraries than in other, currently non-threatened ones.

    It was also clear that some libraries have small memberships, but that they borrow a lot of books, while others have high use of IT, which seems to me to suggest the importnace of thiose libaries for study. Other branches have a high footfall, but low borrowings and low IT use. Why?. Maybe these are refuges for people who are unemployed, or cold and lonely at home, or who bring their own laptops in and work in the safety and warmth of the library, or come in to read the newspapers and non-borrowable periodicals . That is an intangible, or more truly, unquantifiable value of libraries.

    I don’t envy the task of those who have to decide whether / how to make humane and sensible cuts to the library service.

    Whilst some sites will have a reasonable land value as redevelopment sites, one hopes that this is not the real reason for the consultation.

    I took the opportunity provided to make suggestions such as twinning low-usership libraries, and share staff, and volunteers.

    What I would say is that I am happy that the consultation as not been a phoney one. If it is, it is a damn fine one. By the way–it closes tonight at close of play persumablty one minute to midnight? on Sunday 14th March.

    Coming back to the Purley Way Consutation — it closes on the 16th March, just 2 days away.
    As mentioned above, perversely, this consultation, by the same borough (Croydon), but perhaps prespared by a highly paid “consultation consultant” firm, has NO such useful ” save your response part way and come back to do more / complete and submit it” facility. No such button.

    Which is not only a really serious, fundamental omission, and indicative of a bad design of a consultation, but is also totally disrespectful to all those residents who care about what ends up being built, and want to comment.

    If you don’t want the pubic to respond, this is the cynical way you do it. You muck up their response. You put them off.

    The Council has a section on its website called “Have your say -current consultations”.

    I am wondering who is responsible for managing and checking all of these consultations. Perhaps nobody checks them all out before they go “live”. Do they put themselves in the place of the public trying to comment?

    Sadly, seemingly not.

    In my book, EVERY consultation needs to have a “How to complete this questionnaire” note, plus a mention of the “Save and come back to complete” button at the beginning of the consultation page, PLUS– the actual button at the end– PLUS a contact in the council for further information–PLUS an automatic word counter, that tells you how many words you have typed when there is a limit placed.

    Consultation is one of two things-
    genuine, or fake. Genuine means that the responses will be properly considered by decision makers.

    The public deserve that key respect.

    I felt that the Library consultation will be considered properly. Who knows, interesting thoughts might arise as a result. Good might come out of it.

    I will be hitting the keyboard again tonight to have a second attempt at the Purley Way Consultation. (Teeth gritted, determined, chin-out emoji.)

Leave a Reply