Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
WOLVERHAMPTON CITYWIDE LIBRARIES AND
COMMUNITY CENTRES ACTION GROUP
RESPONSE TO THE COUNCIL'S VISION
TO CREATE COMMUNITY HUBS
On this page and above these comments, we see the motto of the City of Wolverhampton
Out of darkness cometh light
Along with our schools and our university, there are no greater contributors to the realisation of this motto than our libraries and community centres. Over the years these have been built, paid for, supported and enjoyed by generations of Wolverhampton citizens. Yet they are now under the most severe threat in our history. The Council’s proposals to change our library service and our community centres strike at the heart of what makes our city a rich, vibrant and human place to live and bring up our children. As it has to, the Council has asked our citizens if they share its vision, and those citizens have returned a resounding ‘NO’. The extent and strength of their reply has been unprecedented. Spontaneous independent petitions with over 17,000 signatures and the practically unanimous response in the many, heavily attended meetings can have left councillors and their officers in no doubt that when the people of Wolverhampton say “NO” they mean they want nothing of these plans.
This document is the story of how those people have spoken.
2
CONTENTS
Page
Summary 3
1. Introduction 6
2. What is a library? 8
3. Understanding community 11
4. Financial 14
5. Consultation or advocacy? 16
6.Individual perspectives 20
7. Conclusions and observations 36
3
SUMMARY
1. The Citywide Action Group
Wolverhampton Citywide Libraries and Community Centres Action Group (referred
to in this document as the Action Group) was formed at the behest of petition
leaders. The Action Group's membership has representatives from libraries,
community centres and campaigners across the city. We are aware that the Council
is under pressure to save money; however, we believe the Council could have done
more to lessen the impact of these cuts on our libraries and community centres.
(See Section 4: Financial)
2. What is a library?
The Action Group rejects Wolverhampton Council's 'vision' for our city's library
service. The Council's vision will see a reduction in book stock, a reduction in
librarians and a loss of easily accessible libraries. In short the Council's vision will
reduce our libraries to sterile, lonely places, marginalized from their local
communities.
Blakenhall Library is a welcome addition to Wolverhampton's library family.
However, clear evidence shows that Blakenhall cannot be used as a model for the
successful future delivery of library services in Wolverhampton.
The Action Group's definition of our city's libraries is as follows:
• our libraries are easily accessible human places full of the widest possible range
of books
• our libraries are places for the educational and cultural development of our
children
• our libraries provide information and IT support for those who are unemployed
and seeking work or benefits advice
• the role of librarians is to provide skilled assistance in providing access to a
range of information and I.T.
• our libraries are havens for some of the most vulnerable and isolated citizens in
our city including families living in poverty, the elderly and those with mental
health problems.
4
Wolverhampton's libraries are a source of pride to our city. During the recent
consultation residents have demonstrated their support for the current service. The
Council's plans to transform the library service jeopardise the existing excellence we
treasure.
3. Understanding Community
Communities define themselves. Existing communities can include any combination
of geographical, social and cultural features. Wolverhampton's libraries and
community centres have evolved organically in response to need.
The Council have hijacked the concept of a 'community hub' and are using it to force
through the co-location of services to satisfy their need to make savings. Not enough
consideration has been given to understanding how communities will be affected.
4. Financial
Although there is a need for budget reductions, the hubs proposals do not
demonstrate any evidence regarding short, medium or long term benefits.
The proposed capital investment of £3 million is new borrowing and will attract
interest which will need to be added to the overall community hubs budget.
Given the lack of supporting evidence and detail, it is reasonable to suggest that £3
million will not be enough to cover the requirements of the hubs proposals.
The Council's ambitious plans for the Civic Centre will involve significant prudential
borrowing which will mean additional pressure on the revenue budget. The Council
should revisit these plans to see if there are cheaper phases or options.
More emphasis should be given to assisting community centres in order that they
achieve sustainability.
Given the potential inequalities arising from the community hubs 'vision' , the Council
should consider allocating part of their equalities and diversity fund to library and
community centre services.
The Council need to provide clear evidence of how they have investigated potential
savings.
5. Consultation or Advocacy?
The Council say people have agreed to the concept of community hubs but wished
to see more detail before giving unfettered support. The Council's response is a
community hubs consultation exercise which is designed to provide justification for
their own purposes. The consultation document and meetings do not provide
enough detail to enable people to make informed decisions. The consultation does
not allow people to say 'no' to the plans to create community hubs. It does not give
5
enough opportunity for participants to evaluate counter-arguments, or evaluate the
costs involved in the options, or to compare existing services with those proposed by
the Council.
The main purpose of the Council's consultation appears to be advocacy and
implementation.
6. Individual Perspectives
The Action Group has amassed information and concerns from individual libraries,
community centres and communities. The 'Individual Perspectives' show just some
of the concerns and issues that have been expressed. The main concerns can be
summed up as follows:
• lack of access under the Council's proposals
• lack of capital to deliver on the Council's proposals
• prioritisation of investment which will result in some areas losing out
• reduction in library book stock, floor space and staff
• lack of adequate consultation
• lack of understanding how community centres function within their existing
communities
• some communities will lose their access to a local service
7. Observations and conclusions
The Council has not provided the level of detail needed for people involved in the
consultation to make informed decisions. In this, the Council has failed to live up to
its own statement: we've now set out in detail how the proposals will work
neighbourhood by neighbourhood.
The 1964 Public libraries and Museums Act requires Wolverhampton Council to
provide a full and efficient library service for all those desiring to make use thereof.
The Act therefore contains an implicit requirement to assess local need. It is clear
that local need in relation to the library service did not form a key consideration of
the vision for Community Hubs.
There is currently no strategic vision for delivery of Wolverhampton's library service.
Any 'vision' for the future of the library service that does not have as its
starting point a thorough review is fundamentally flawed.
6
1. INTRODUCTION
Wolverhampton Citywide Libraries and Community Centres Action Group
1.1 In June 2012 Wolverhampton Council put forward a vision to create a series of
Community Hubs across the city. The Council's vision involves the forced co-location
of youth, community and library services. On 21st July the Council's Scrutiny Board
met in order to subject the Community Hubs vision to scrutiny. Members of the
public attending this meeting included library petitioners and representatives of
community centres. The majority of members of the public attending the meeting felt
that the Council had failed to adequately scrutinise the decision to create Community
Hubs. It was consequently decided to form a citywide campaign group in order to co-
ordinate a response. A public meeting was held at which it was agreed to form a
management committee to co-ordinate the campaign. At a further meeting a
committee was elected and a statement of intent produced.
1.2 The Action Group consists of library petitioners, community centre representatives
and individual campaigners from across Wolverhampton.
1.3 The Action Group believes that:
• the Council's proposals for Community Hubs are vague and ill-conceived
• there is a need for Wolverhampton to develop a comprehensive library strategy
• library services should remain at the heart of any proposals for Community Hubs
and should not be downsized or treated as add-ons to other service provision
• there is a need for the Council to understand and take into account the added social
value that libraries and community centres provide
• there should be a thorough assessment carried out regarding the needs of individual
communities
• the present libraries and community centres already act as community hubs; they
are safe, vibrant, active places where all groups of the community (including
vulnerable groups) meet. They are key to community cohesion and a sense of
identity
• some communities should not be deprived in order to provide for other communities.
7
• the present branch library service should not be reduced in respect of its present
quality of buildings, staff, book stock, floor space, services and
convenience/accessibility to communities
• libraries and community centres provide added social value that has neither been
understood nor taken into account by the Council in their proposals
• the Council has demonstrated in its proposals that it lacks understanding of natural
communities and pays little regard to physical community barriers such as main
roads
1.4 The following 'Statement of Intent' was agreed by the Action Group's members.
The Action Group has committed itself to:
• raise awareness within Wolverhampton of our concerns regarding the Council's
vision for Community Hubs
• ask that the present library provision in Wolverhampton is not reduced either in
quality of buildings, librarians, floor space, book stock or services and that it
continues to be safe and accessible to all members of communities
• support community centres in raising their concerns about the proposals for
Community Hubs
• look into the proposals for Community Hubs regarding feasibility and cost
• look into the validity of the consultation process
• look at alternative savings proposals
• raise our concerns at national level with relevant government departments
• present our concerns, findings, questions and proposals to the Council in whatever
form is felt appropriate.
8
2. WHAT IS A LIBRARY?
One of the more interesting aspects of the argument over the future of the Library Service
in our City is that the protagonists on both sides claim that their objective is to safeguard, or
even to enhance its future. Usually when this happens in politics it indicates an argument
only about means: that is about differing ways of achieving a common objective.
In this case, however, that is not so and the overwhelming impression one has of the
arguments, for example at the main ‘consultation’ meetings, is that the two sides are not
talking about the same thing at all. One notes how the proposers of change keep on
quoting Blakenhall as a wonderful, successful example of what they are talking about, while
their opponents, quoting accurate and undisputed statistics, demonstrate that it is not
successful. The fact that the proposers carry on, meeting after meeting, saying that
Blakenhall proves their case despite their opponents’ actual figures showing it doesn’t, can
mean only one thing: the two sides don’t agree on what a library is.
This is the most depressing aspect of the whole controversy. And we have, almost from
the outset of the debate, a definition from the main proposers of change of what they think
a library is. They say, ideally it should have:
• not too many books (I think the figure quoted was 3,000)
• as few librarians as possible (the bulk of their proposed savings come from cuts in
library staff; they actually referred to their ideal library having a solitary
‘minder/manager’, not necessarily an experienced librarian at all)
• machines to take over some of the most important opportunities for interaction
between librarian and reader, that is at the taking out or the bringing back of books
• primarily lonely, digital means of providing information.
In short they consider librarians are little more than caretakers in a book warehouse.
The great majority of Wolverhampton citizens attending consultation meetings or signing
petitions see things very differently.
• Mothers see libraries and their librarians as their greatest allies in the mental and
cultural development of their young children
9
• Schoolchildren see them as a wonderful source, not only of the information they
require for their homework or study, but also of the advice and navigation provided
by librarians in finding, accessing and sometimes even understanding that
information.
Alan Bennett, one of our greatest living writers, puts it like this: “A library has no
honours board and takes no credit for what its readers go on to do, but I feel as
much a debt to that library as I do to my school”.
Anita Anand, the BBC presenter says “as a child I would show the library my
membership card and it would show me the world”.
A very recent graduate emphasised how vital her local library and librarians had
been to her in getting her degree. “I would never have made it without them”.
• The unemployed can find suggestions, help and encouragement
• The elderly see them as a haven, a place to go, to catch up on the news, to meet old
friends. Sometimes, simply to assuage their loneliness.
• Above all, everyone sees them as local. A splendid City Library or a Community
Service Hub per constituency does not discharge a local authority’s obligations. For
a child or an elderly person a library needs to be round the corner. As Bennett says,
it shouldn’t need an expedition.
The proposers of the changes claim that they share an understanding of all the above. It is
hard to say which is worse: whether, with the admitted pressure they are under to save
money, they are simply dissembling, as politicians and bureaucrats are known to do, or
they cannot see how their proposals will irreparably damage our City’s Library Service. It is
no use - in fact it insults the citizen’s intelligence - simply to claim we’re retaining the same
number of libraries. You cannot savagely cut the number of librarians, create major access
(including travel) problems for the most vulnerable and seriously query whether local
libraries should contain reference books, without having the most terrible consequences.
In many of their answers to the people’s questions, the change proposers appear to think
everyone is like them, computer literate, and with money to buy books on Amazon. For
those for whom a computer or shelves of books at home represent a luxury to be dreamed
of, the nearby free public library, up there with the NHS, represents the most vivid reason to
10
be proud of our country. If these changes go through, will we continue to be proud of our
City?
In some ways it is the attack on the librarian, the lack of understanding of who they are or
what they do, which most disfigures these proposals. Seth Godin writes “A librarian isn’t a
clerk who happens to work in a library. He or she is a guide, a Sherpa, a teacher. A
librarian is the interface between data and the untrained but motivated user. The library is
a house for the librarian as connector and impresario”. And, one would add today, as
entrepreneurial mentor, coach and guide.
Let us leave Caitlin Moran, The Times correspondent and brilliant author, with the last
words:
“The only alma mater I ever had is Warstones Library, Pinfold Grove, Wolverhampton. A
library in the middle of a community is a cross between an emergency exit, a life raft and a
festival. They are cathedrals of the mind; hospitals of the soul; theme parks of the
imagination.
“A public library is a potent symbol of a town’s values. What happens in X years time,
when the cuts have happened and the economy gets back to normal? Do we re-open
libraries, knocked down, turned into flats or coffee shops? No, they will have been lost for
ever. And in their place, we will have more public spaces where you are simply the money
in your pocket, rather than the hunger in your heart. The shelves of Warstones Library
were loaded with books – but they were, of course, doors. Now, a trillion small doors
closing."
11
3. UNDERSTANDING 'COMMUNITY'
3.1 Good consultation demands clear use of language. The Council officer responsible
for the hubs 'vision' states that the words 'community', 'neighbourhood' and 'area' are
interchangeable for the purposes of the hubs proposals. The same officer has also
stated that the word 'community' as used in the their term 'community hub' will mean
the catchment area surrounding the hub building.
3.2 Communities can be seen to be geographical, social or communities of interest.
They can be heterogeneous, homogenous or a combination of both. For example:
geographical communities can be diverse in interest and culture; communities of
interest can be made up of people who share a common characteristic but not
necessarily a common geographical community.
3.3 Residents refer to their community first and foremost as the area they live in.
In the hubs consultation document, residents are asked to comment on proposals to
create community hubs which will provide 'easily accessible services in the heart of
their communities'.
3.4 And yet, the community being consulted with will, in a number of cases, see their
current service closed and placed in a different community thus making the service
less accessible. For example:
• The community currently using East Park Library will see the service closed and
removed from them.
• The community using Whitmore Reans Library will potentially see the service
closed and placed in Dunstall.
• The community using Penn Library will see their service closed and moved to
Warstones/Penn Fields.
• The communities using Daisy Bank and Lunt Community Centres will see their
centres closed and services moved to less accessible (some say inaccessible)
site.
etc...
3.5 Existing communities and their services, which have evolved organically in response
to need, will lose the heart of their communities in order to provide for an artificially
created community that the Council wishes to impose. A recent 'best practice' report
on the qualities of a successful community hub states:
12
The central argument and conclusion in the 'Communities First – A Way Forward' report
was that success has come where good community development has resulted in
communities identifying their own priorities and acting upon them. In general, communities
succeed when they are in control, as this sense of ownership increases participation,
improves prioritisation of local problems, creates community spirit and builds trust and a
belief in the delivery vehicle for community change.1
3.6 The Council's use of the term 'community hub' is a cynical hijacking of a 'community
friendly' concept.
3.7 The proposals document states that the vision involves creating 'one large
Community Service Hub in each of the three recognised Local Neighbourhood
Partnership (LNP) team areas'. Recognised by who? Each LNP area consists of
numerous geographic communities. The lack of engagement by the LNP teams
means that the vast majority of residents are not even aware of the existence of
LNPs.
3.8 The Council's failure to identify local needs prior to consulting on their vision has
resulted in communities objecting to what are vague proposals with no evidence
base. The Council's consultation document is not adequate for seeking to reach
either an understanding of specific needs of communities or their current use of
services.
3.9 Wolverhampton's libraries and community centres are already successful community
hubs. The hubs proposals clearly demonstrate that the Council does not understand
the importance of existing services to the communities they serve; in particular, they
do not seem to appreciate their added social value. This is ironic in light of the Public
Services (Social Value) Act which will require the Council consider how the services
they commission and procure might improve the economic, social and environmental
well-being of an area. The Council should look at the added social value of its in-
house services and statutory provision; our libraries and community centres in their
current form make a significant and proven sustainable contribution to improving the
social, environmental and economic well-being of our communities. The Council has
provided no evidence that their proposals will sustain the same level of added social
value.
3.10 The Council's current vision will result in the loss of a number of highly successful
existing community hubs across our city i.e. libraries and community centres. The
1 Community Hubs in Practice: A Way Forward Final Paper, 27 July 2011
13
Council do not appear to have taken on board the tension between their need to
administrate and make financial savings, and the needs of people to reside in
human-scale living communities. The Public Enquiry into Wirral MBC's proposals to
re-vision their library service concluded that 'The Council's approach to re-visioning
the service was fundamentally flawed because their approach focussed specifically
on the issue of asset management and cost saving'.
14
4 Financial
There is a tension between the climate of budget reductions and the continued policy
emphasis that community hubs will create service improvements. There is a requirement
on the local authority to deliver statutory services, one of which is the library service. By
rolling the library service inside community hubs there is a clear inference that there will be
shared costs between the statutory and non statutory services. There is no formal business
case or financial plan for any of the consultation proposals – which makes them difficult to
challenge from a financial point. The proposed service improvements have not been
properly identified and there is no evidence of short, medium or long term benefits to
residents.
The Council say that they can achieve their vision by a budget saving of £850K and a
capital investment across the City of £3 million. The capital investment, will be new
borrowings – but there is no information on how much interest those borrowings will attract
each year and what the annual repayments might be, which would have be added into the
overall Community Hubs budget.
Many communities groups believe it most unlikely that the vision can be achieved by a £3
million investment – they suspect it will cost far more. It could end up costing more than
the target savings.
Despite difficult times, the Council has an ambitious capital programme, in which it plans to
borrow prudentially about £25 million pounds to repair, re-model and upgrade the Civic
Centre. The borrowing will create annual repayments putting pressure on the revenue
budget.
• The Council could revisit their Civic Centre plans and see if there are cheaper
phases or options available based on a criteria of critical, essential, necessary or
aspirational.
• The Council should place more emphasis on assisting the voluntary sector to
achieve Community Centre sustainability and break-even running costs.
15
• The Council has not as yet carried out an equalities analysis on their proposals – but
it is clear from the feedback gained during the consultation process that many
communities feel the hub proposals may seriously disadvantage vulnerable,
disabled and elderly groups – creating inequality. The Council should consider
allocating part of their equalities and diversity funding to the services allowing them
to thrive and prosper in their current form.
Residents, when trying to balance their bills within the household budget, are advised to
look closely at where all their money is going, change suppliers, shop around and hunt out
the bargains.
The Council needs to evidence they are doing exactly that. They could compare spending
within and across different councils to find opportunities to drive down costs. In particular,
they could focus spend analysis in areas where there appear to be opportunities for a
further £500K savings.
16
5. Consultation or advocacy ?
5.1 The Council claims that residents support the development of the vision for
community hubs. They base this claim on evidence obtained during the course of
the budget consultation 2012-13. Whilst the budget consultation acknowledges
cautious support for the concept, it also raises concerns over the following:
• accessibility and the need for public transport links to be considered
• physical access to buildings
• compatibility and appropriateness of co-locating youth services (with a
suggestion to co-locate youth services within existing services and facilities)
The budget consultation report concludes:
Cautious acceptance probably best describes the general feeling - the proposal would
receive support and not much in the way of opposition if service levels were maintained.2
5.2 The Council's cut of £600 000 to the library staff budget, plus the cut to the book
fund of £225 000, plus the forced co-location of services means that it is impossible
for service levels to be maintained. It is reasonable to conclude that the cautious
acceptance of the concept of community hubs claimed in last year's budget
consultation cannot therefore be used by the Council as justification for their present
proposals.
5.3 The hubs consultation document states that residents agreed to the concept of
community hubs but said they 'wanted to see more details'. The Council's response
to this is their present community hubs proposals which, it is claimed, sets 'out in
detail how the proposals will work'.
The Council will now be aware that their consultation document has been heavily
criticised as being full of vague proposals lacking in detail. One correspondent to the
Express and Star summed the situation up as follows:
My wife and I attended a public consultation meeting at Springdale Junior School.
The hall was full and there was obviously great interest from those present. The
problem was that the main (cabinet member) councillor present could not
satisfactorily answer the questions as nothing had been decided at that juncture. In
2 Wolverhampton Council 'Outcome of Budget Consultation' 2012 - 13 Pg 7 Para 3.14.3
17
our opinion, this made a mockery of the meeting. It was not exactly democracy in
action.
The above comment has been echoed across Wolverhampton where at meeting
after meeting residents have asked pertinent and probing questions only to be met
with the stock reply of, 'No detail has been developed yet.' At one meeting, a
member of the Action Group asked a question of a senior council officer whose
immediate reply was: 'I'm sorry, I can't answer questions on libraries'.
5.4 The council's questionnaire has been the subject of intense criticism from residents
who have described it as misleading, flawed, disingenuous and confusing.
From the first question, the document is open to abuse by the Council who can
interpret the answers to suit their own ends. For example, residents are asked to
agree or disagree with the statement: 'I would like to be able to use services in my
area rather than travelling all over the city'. In contrast, neighbouring authorities,
such as Walsall, have carried out consultation on their library service by asking
questions on specific distances users were prepared to travel.
5.5 Regarding Question 1 - the seven statements alternate between positive and
negative. This has caused confusion for some respondents as they rapidly have to
switch between either agreeing in order to disagree, or disagreeing in order to agree.
Questions 2, 3 and 4 do not include an option of 'None at all' or 'None of these'.
Regarding questions 2 and 3 there is no question regarding frequency of use.
5.5 A member of the Action Group requested information about the creation of the
questionnaire. This request for information was passed on internally within the
Council to the relevant department but has never been acknowledged. This, and
other requests by two members of the Action Group, have been so
delayed/lost/mishandled that they are now being dealt with by the Information
Commissioner.
5.6 Cllr Mattu has, on a number of occasions including in the press, been quoted as
saying that following his meetings with groups, 'People are coming round'. Since
when was the role of consultation to generate agreement to the proposals? During
one consultation meeting (Springdale) the Chair twice requested those attending
'come up with some positive thoughts' - this type of attempt to exert influence over
the outcome of consultation is inappropriate.
5.7 Cllr Mattu and Mr Willoughby have attended 14 meetings with 'local groups' in order
to gain 'local knowledge'. These meetings have been held behind closed doors and
no information is available as to who attended these meetings or how they can
18
demonstrate they are representative of the local area. Minutes have not been taken.
NB Wolverhampton Council's 'Engagement Guidance' states: All discussions with
stakeholders about the scope, methods and issues related to any consultation
should be recorded and defensible.
In addition, it should be noted that the Action Group's repeated requests to meet with
Cllr Mattu were refused on his behalf by Mr Willoughby. Action Group members
stressed repeatedly the positive contribution they wished to make to the consultation
and also explained their wide canvassing of opinion had highlighted a need to
consider the library service from a citywide as well as local perspective. In addition,
the Action Group's membership contained lead petitioners who had been canvassing
opinion in their local areas for many months; not all members wished to arrange a
local meeting, wishing instead to meet with Cllr Mattu within the context and security
of the Action Group. Cllr Mattu was made fully aware of this situation and yet
continued to refuse to meet. This is particularly ironic in light of the fact that Cllr
Mattu is a Compact Champion.
5.8 The council has a statutory duty to provide a 'full and efficient' library service. Any
proposals to alter this service should be informed by a specific consultation on the
needs of the service users. This has not been the case.
5.9 The recommendation's of the 2009 Scrutiny Review 'Libraries Task and Finish
Report' have not been taken into account in order to inform the present consultation.
This report was tasked with answering the question: Are libraries in Wolverhampton
in the right place offering the right service? It is reasonable to assume that
demographics have not changed significantly since the report was written. Therefore
the report's recommendations and observations are relevant to the current plans to
transform the library service. Three examples illustrate the nature of the
recommendations. Firstly, involving using service users in decision-making:
Work should also be undertaken to develop and facilitate a city-wide library service-
user forum which can be regularly used as a sounding board for proposed strategic
and operational developments within the library service.
Secondly, an example of conclusions regarding the location and accessibility of
specific libraries:
[ Whitmore Reans Library is ] well-used by the local community and is perceived by
the local community as a community-based facility where there is regular and up-to-
19
date information which publicises community-related events/activities and which is
easily accessible.
Right Place – the library is in the right place as it used by the local community and is
close to shopping facilities (page 44)
Thirdly, the role of librarians as valued, qualified, experienced professionals:
Evidence from our site visits and feedback from partners and service-users clearly
shows that they are a very-much valued resource and we feel that they should be
empowered to play a stronger role in community-engagement activities both inside
and outside library buildings (i.e. outreach work) and that they should have a greater
role in determining how to make the best use of resources for their particular branch
/ community library. Furthermore, during our visits, there were a significant numbers
of staff who had dedicated their lives to working for the library service and who have
considerable expertise in their area of work. (Page 9)
It was suggested that librarians should have a greater role in choosing book stock at
the library as they were the professionals in knowing what kinds of books would best
service the needs for their customers and meet community profiles. (Page 44)
5.10 A two stage consultation was initially proposed for the community hubs consultation.
Feedback from consultation meetings has clearly shown there was a need for two
stages of consultation: in the first instance to obtain an understanding of local
needs/service use to inform the 'vision'; and secondly to consult residents on their
preferences when faced with detailed evidence-based proposals.
5.11 The report indicates that those participating in the budget consultation 2012-13 were
asked to comment on proposals regarding the youth service which were included as
a specific item. The library service will be significantly affected by the proposals to
create community hubs and should have been included as a specific item: it was not.
20
6. Individual Perspectives
The Action Group's members have contributed to and approved the content of this section.
The concerns and issues listed below do not constitute an exhaustive list.
6.1 Ashmore Park Library
Wolverhampton Council's Proposal
Relocate the library into Youth Centre (Youth Centre re-designated as a Community Hub).
6.1.1 Ashmore Park Library has been 'double petitioned' demonstrating the high value that
is placed on it by the local community. In total, well over 2300 signatures have been
collected in favour of keeping Ashmore Park Library in its current location. During
the collection of signatures the petitions for Ashmore Park Library were
accompanied by information leaflets and posters.
6.1.2 Concerns voiced by residents and library users include the following:
• co-locating the library in the youth centre will create a conflict of interest
• there is not enough space in the youth centre for the present book stock and level of
service to be accommodated; dumbing-down of the library service is inevitable
• the building it is proposed to move the library into will need significant amounts of
investment in order to provide conditions in which heating and lighting are suitable
for a library
• the footfall for local shops would decrease if Ashmore Park Library was moved away
from the immediate vicinity of the shopping parade
• there is a problem with parking at the Youth Centre
• the cost of the Council's proposals would take a very large portion of the £3 million
capital budget. A plan to link the Youth Centre and Community Centre buildings was
abandoned several years ago as being too expensive (approx £1 million), the cost of
re-roofing the 'barn' is quoted by a council officer as being £75 000. Added on to that
is the cost of fixtures and fittings e.g. the Council proposes to use bookcases on
wheels that can be moved out of the way in the evening so that other activities can
21
take place. This is in conflict with the Council's repeated assertion that one of the
benefits of Community Hubs will be a library service open until 10pm at night
• residents have been told that volunteers will be used to staff Ashmore Park Library
in the future and that volunteers already work in Wolverhampton's libraries. The
response from residents is that they will refuse to take the job of a dedicated
librarian and that present volunteers give their time because they wish to do so NOT
because they are forced to do so
• Mr Willoughby has stated that the number of reference books will be decreased
because people use computers for reference rather than libraries. This comment is
presumptive. In any case, many people do not have computers hence the high
demand for them at Ashmore Park Library
• Proposals for Ashmore Park Library are far too vague for meaningful consultation to
take place
• The 2009 Task and Finish report stated that Ashmore Park Library had the highest
number of elderly users of any branch library - have their needs been specifically
addressed by the hubs proposals?
• Flooding problems at the current library have been used as an excuse for closing
Ashmore Park Library. Residents state that the library has been flooded only 3 times
in 38 yrs. Only on the first occasion was this due to a problem with the building. The
second time was from the flat above. The third time was recently when monsoon
rain hit all of Wolverhampton and large parts of the city were affected because the
drains couldn't cope with the unprecedented volume of water
Residents have concerns over the future of the library building if the service were to
be co-located. Conflicting answers have been given by the Council leading to an
understandable anxiety on the part of residents. The two flats above the library have
recently been renovated as part of the decent homes programme - if the library was
to be pulled down a significant amount of money would have been wasted.
6.2 Blakenhall Library
Wolverhampton Council's Proposal:
Further develop new library
6.2.1 Blakenhall Library has been criticised at a number of consultation meetings. The
Action Group's stance on Blakenhall Library is that any new library provision is
22
welcome and that Blakenhall Library is a welcome addition to the 'library family'. It
will be good to see this service continue to grow. However, to use Blakenhall Library
as a successful pilot on which to base a vision to transform Wolverhampton's library
service is not acceptable for the following reasons:
a. The library at Blakenhall has not been open for long enough to demonstrate
sustainability or claim success
b. Blakenhall library's book stock is significantly less than that provided at other
libraries
c. Councillor Mattu has stated that 1000 new people have a library ticket since the
service at Blakenhall opened. This is indeed good reason to celebrate. However,
having been issued with a library ticket is only the first step in a lifelong relationship
with libraries. A comparison between Blakenhall Library and Collingwood (our
smallest branch library) shows the following3:
Number of books issued per hour
Blakenhall 5.14
Collingwood 17.18
It should be noted that issues at Blakenhall fall to 2.71 when taken over all the hours
that the library is open to the public. This demonstrates clearly that people prefer to
use the service when a librarian is present. The Action Group can produce detailed
evidence demonstrating that there is very little demand for the Blakenhall Library
service either before 10am or after 6pm. On some days, for example, 15th and 22nd
July 2012 not a single book was issued at Blakenhall.
d. Blakenhall Healthy Living Centre was a new build costing £5.7 million of external
funding. There is only £3 million set aside for capital investment in the community
hubs vision.
6.2.2 The Action Group looks forward to Blakenhall's lending rates increasing as the
service is developed in the future.
3 Figures based on issues per hour April/May 2012
23
6.3 Collingwood Library
Wolverhampton Council's Proposal:
Option: Create a self-service library as part of a community facility or organisation (location
to be determined as part of consultation)
6.3.1 Collingwood Library is an excellent example of a community library located within a
shopping area. Issue figures for April/May 2012 show that Collingwood Library
issued 17.18 books per hour compared with the Council's 'successful' hub pilot at
Blakenhall where only 5.14 books were issued per hour. These figures demonstrate
a great success for Collingwood Library especially when during the period they were
calculated Collingwood Library was open for 114 hours compared to Blakenhall's
359.5 hours. Added to this is the fact that significant marketing was carried out for
the Blakenhall Pilot. The obvious conclusion to be drawn is that Collingwood Library
should be used as a model for delivering a successful community library.
6.3.3 A petition of over 450 signatures was raised in favour of keeping Collingwood Library
'precisely where it is now - at the heart of our local community's retailing centre and
that it not be made into a self-service facility at another address'. There is a fear that
removing Collingwood Library from its present location in a row of shops will result in
loss of trade.
Residents and library users have described Collingwood Library as 'vital' for the
community; they have explained that it fits into the fabric of life for the local area.
6.3.4 Despite the limited opening hours Collingwood Library still manages to run a well
attended, popular Saturday morning children's activity session. This is just one of the
reasons why library users do not wish to see the librarians removed.
6.4 East Park Library
Wolverhampton Council's Proposal:
Re-locate library into Eastfield Community Centre (Community Centre building re-
designated as a Community Hub)
6.4.1 East Park Library is a successful and vibrant library embedded in the heart of the
East Park Estate. In recent years an extension costing over £250 000 was added to
24
the library in order to create a 'Neighbourhood Centre' with the intention of providing
a multi-use facility for the local neighbourhood.
6.4.2 The Council's plans to close East Park Library and move the service to Eastfield
Community Centre have not been welcomed by residents of the East Park estate. A
petition of over 1000 names has been raised asking for East Park Library to remain
at its present location.
6.4.3 Residents of East Park Estate have stated that there will be significant problems with
accessibility if their library moves to Eastfield. The physical barrier of the Willenhall
Road is a natural division between East Park and Eastfield areas. The distance from
East Park Library to Eastfield Community Centre is 1.3km which equals a 50 minute
round trip walk4 from the current library position to the proposed location. Those
currently using East Park Library state that this is too far a distance for them to walk
especially if they are elderly, have health problems or have young children.
6.4.4 Next door to East Park Library is East Park Primary School. The latest OFSTED
report for this school states : 'whatever their starting point, background or needs,
pupils have made accelerated progress in their reading and writing'. This progress is
aided by the inspirational leadership of Mr Sullivan the headteacher whose strong
commitment to encouraging local children to use East Park Library is noted and
praised by residents. East Park Library has the highest number of children using the
service of any branch library in Wolverhampton. East Park Primary School and
Library are not trying to involve children in reading - they have clearly succeeded;
the results speak for themselves.
The importance of East Park Library to local children was demonstrated on 8th
October at the consultation drop-in where at 5 minute intervals throughout the
afternoon classes of children from Wolverhampton's largest primary school queued
in East Park Library to hand individual letters to council officers in order to explain
the importance of East Park Library to them. The regular school visits to the library
will be significantly reduced as a result of Wolverhampton Council's proposals.
6.4.5 At present approximately over 1800 community members (children and families of
East Park Primary School) are able to access the library on a daily basis on 38
weeks of the year on the weekdays that East Park Library is open. East Park
Primary School's diverse catchment area draws in potential library users from a wide
area including Ettingshall, Stowheath, Bilston and Portobello.
4 Source: Walk-it Wolverhampton
25
6.4.6 Mirroring the inspirational leadership of the local head teacher is the commitment to
the community of East Park shown by the library staff. The branch librarian's
dedicated years of service have resulted in East Park Library being considered a
vibrant and precious resource by the local community. The library has never fallen
victim to any significant act of vandalism.
6.4.7 Residents are concerned that closing East Park Library and opening a service at
Eastfield Community Centre would definitely mean less floor space available. One
resident has seen the room that is proposed for a library service at Eastfield and
describes it as completely inadequate.
6.5 Finchfield Library
Wolverhampton Council's proposals:
Option 1: Re-locate library into Bradmore Community Centre (Community Centre building
re-designated as a Community Hub)
Option 2: Refurbish/extend Finchfield Library to provide flexible accommodation for
community activities and possibly outreach Children's Centre services.
6.5.1 Finchfield Library is situated in the heart of Finchfield Estate. It issues the most
number of books per hour of any branch library in Wolverhampton5. The Number 3
bus links the library to the larger estate at Castlecroft and also to communities at
Bantock and Merridale.
6.5.2 Children from the following schools at present have easy access to Finchfield
Library: Westacres, Uplands, Smestow, Castlecroft Primary and Bhylls Acre. 3 of
these schools also participate in class visits to the library and receive visits from the
librarians. Finchfield Playgroup is situated next door to the library and receives
regular storytime visits from the librarians.
6.5.3 A strong campaign has been carried out to retain Finchfield Library in its current
location. A petition of 1300 names was raised describing Finchfield Library as 'an
essential and accessible community hub' and asking for 'Finchfield Library and its
staff to remain at their present location and for the library to continue providing our
community with the present services that it delivers so well'. In June this year FECH:
5 Figures from April/May 2012
26
Finchfield Estate Community Hub (a resident led community association) produced a
52 page report of their findings6.
6.5.4 One of the most common comments made by local residents and Finchfield Library
users has been to stress the value that they place on the librarians who know the
local community and give a caring personalised service.
6.5.5 Finchfield Library is situated in the Tettenhall Wightwick ward which in common with
the south west of Wolverhampton has a higher than average population of older
people - residents and library users have expressed their concerns about the impact
of the hubs proposals on this sector of the community.
6.5.6 Option 1 has been rejected overwhelmingly by the community as being completely
impracticable as it would place many people in Finchfield and Castlecroft out of
reach of an accessible library. The journey from Castlecroft/Finchfield to Bradmore is
hazardous due to the busy junction at Bradmore and the lack of public transport
which would mean having to walk up Broad Lane.
6.5.7 Residents of Finchfield have highlighted the fact that Finchfield Library is the only
community building in the area. In the words of one resident, 'If they took the library
away, they may as well drop a bomb on Finchfield because we've got nothing else'.
6.6 Low Hill Library
Wolverhampton Council's Proposal
Option 1: Relocate library into Low Hill Community centre (Community Centre building re-
designated as a Community Hub)
Option 2: Extensive re-modelling of site to incorporate library, community centre, youth and
Children's Centre provision on one single site.
6.6.1 Low Hill Library - is an iconic listed building. It was opened in 1930 as
Wolverhampton's first branch library. The library has been described as: a logical
and inspired answer to the requirement for a branch library at the heart of an
estate..... a beacon of light, cultural but also physical, for the new and experimental
community around it. Deliberately or otherwise, this would be a perfect realisation of
the Borough’s motto: "Out of darkness cometh light".7 Low Hill Library has stood the
test of time and still provides an essential service to the area.
6 http://www.fech.btck.co.uk/HandsOffFinchfieldLibrary/Documentsandlinks
7 http://www.localhistory.scit.wlv.ac.uk/listed/lowhill%20lib/lowhillib.htm
27
6.6.2 Like all other branch libraries across Wolverhampton, Low Hill Library is a highly
visible building providing an essential service to its community. Bushbury South and
Low Hill ward has a higher than average percentage of the population claiming out
of work benefits. The use of computers within the library is a vital aspect of the
library service both for those seeking work and for children to research homework.
Low Hill Library is a safe place for children to visit. Concerns have been raised about
the vulnerability of children using a co-located library service in the community
centre building.
6.6.3 The amount of room available should Low Hill Library be co-located would not in any
way be comparable to the present provision. The present book stock simply would
not fit. The library service would be significantly reduced.
6.6.4 Concerns have been expressed regarding disabled access to a co-located library
service. At present residents can visit the library in mobility scooters and library staff
are on hand to select books. Reducing the library staff budget would jeopardize this
high quality customer-facing service NOT improve it as the Council claim.
6.6.5 The cost of the hubs proposals for Low Hill Library seem to be disproportionate to
the benefits that would be achieved e.g. why spend money on linking the library
building to the community centre - what would this achieve?
6.7 Whitmore Reans Library
Option 1 Re-locate library into Dunstall Community centre (Community centre building re-
designated as a Community Hub)
Option 2 Explore options of creating new Community hub in Whitmore Reans area and re-
locate library into it.
6.7.1 Whitmore Reans Library is situated in the heart of the Avion Centre. It is highly
accessible by public transport. The 2009 Libraries Task and Finish Report states:
the library is in the right place as it used by the local community and is close to
shopping facilities
6.7.2 A resident has described how Whitmore Reans Library is placed at the centre of the
Whitmore Reans area. Moving it to Dunstall would remove the library from its central
accessible location.
6.7.3 A petition is currently on-going to keep Whitmore Reans Library at its current
location with the current level of service. A campaign has been started to publicise
28
the Council's proposals to local residents. One residents was so concerned about
the inadequacy of the consultation meeting that she requested and publicised a
second drop-in session for residents.
6.7.4 At present parents are happy to allow their children to visit Whitmore Reans library
independently after school. This would be jeopardized by a move to Dunstall.
6.7.5 Residents have commented that Dunstall Community Centre is also valued
resource. They are concerned that a situation could arise where the community
turns on itself in a fight for services.
6.7.6 Parking at Dunstall would be a problem especially on football match days.
6.7.7 Whitmore Reans library is a key feature of the local community. It has variously been
described as 'an oasis' which 'makes you feel proud when you go past on the bus
and think 'Yes, we've got that'. To remove the library from the heart of Whitmore
Reans would break the vital link between residents and library service.
6.8 Penn Library
Wolverhampton Council's proposals
Option 1: Relocate Penn Library to Warstones Community Service Hub and provide a new
enhanced service from Warstones Community Service Hub (location to be determined).
Option 2: Consideration of Penn Library as part of Penn/Penn Fields Community Hub
6.8.1 Penn Library is one of the most successful branch libraries issuing 34.89 books per
staffed hour. Under both the current options Penn Library will close. The hubs
proposal for Penn Library is completely unacceptable: the first option places the
library out of accessible range for many of its current users; the second option does
not contain enough detail to be a serious proposal for consultation.
6.8.2 Penn Library is on a regular bus route on a main arterial road and is situated in the
heart of a community adjacent to local shops. Footfall for the shops would suffer if
the library was closed.
Penn and Warstones Libraries are too far apart to merge successfully. There will be
no doubling of provision, with the danger that Penn Library will disappear and its
users with it.
6.8.3 Residents have carried out an inspirational campaign to save Penn Library from the
hubs proposals. As a result the Save Penn Library petition soared rapidly to 3300
signatures earning organisers the right to be heard at full council. The
29
Penn/Warstones consultation meeting was attending by 200 people who were
unanimous in their refusal to accept the hubs proposals. The Penn Library drop-in
was very busy with queues of people all speaking out against the hubs proposals. A
number of people had to leave the drop-in before giving their comments as the
queues were too long.
6.8.4 Penn Library has many visits from local schools, pre-school nurseries and voluntary
groups such as Rainbows. This will end under the hubs proposal as children will not
be able to walk to the library. The plans to cut library staff will mean that outreach
work with local schools could not continue at the same level.
6.8.5 Residents and library users in Penn believe that the level of cuts being carried out
on the library service will result in fewer books, fewer librarians and less floor space
for libraries. In their own words, 'Our library is already the hub of our community. It
has served Penn wonderfully for the last 40 years. After meetings with the Council
we are told that the emphasis is on cost cutting. Without doubt we are going to be
left with an inferior service'.
6.9 Spring Vale Library
Wolverhampton Council's proposals
Library to merge with Education Library Service, delivered from Parkfields Community Hub
6.9.1 Spring Vale Library is popular and successful. A petition to retain Spring Vale Library
(and its services) in their present location has been carried out by residents and has
collected over 1000 signatures.
6.9.2 The Council's plans to co-locate Spring Vale Library in Parkfields School and merge
it with the Education Library Service (ELS) are not welcomed by residents/library
users. It is believed the amount of floor pace would be significantly reduced with a
consequent loss of service. It is believed that co-locating Spring Vale Library into a
much larger building would mean that the library service was sidelined.
6.9.3 Spring Vale Library was purpose built and is a 'human scale' building with a distinct
identity. The Parkfields site is not as easy to access as Spring Vale Library. The
large metal fence around the Parkfields site is a psychological barrier off-putting to
library users. This is a prime example of the many natural barriers that
Wolverhampton Council have not considered in their proposals.
30
6.9.4 Merging Spring Vale Library with the ELS has not been thought through. At the
Lanesfield Consultation meeting the issue of the returning ELS 'book boxes' was
raised and the significant amount of floor space needed was highlighted. The
Council claims that ELS staff will double as Spring Vale Library staff on days when
Spring Vale Library would currently be closed thus giving longer opening hours. The
question has to be asked whether Wolverhampton Council understand the nature of
the ELS service? ELS staff already have a full work schedule and spend significant
periods of time in schools. How can they be in two places at once? The ELS service
is bought into by headteachers across Wolverhampton. Have they been consulted
on whether they wish the ELS service to be merged?
6.9.5 Spring Vale Library has strong links with pre-school groups and local schools. Class
visits are carried out. This will not continue if the proposals to cut staff were to go
ahead. Schools served by Spring Vale Library include: Springvale, Hill Avenue,
Goldthorn Park, St Theresa's, Parkfield Primary School, Lanesfield.
6.10 Tettenhall Library
Wolverhampton Council's proposals:
Library remains in current location. Consideration to be given to expand community
activities.
6.10.1 Tettenhall Library will remain in its present location. However, the lease for the
building can be reviewed after two years. This has led to concerns that the ultimate
plan for Tettenhall Library is to re-locate it elsewhere in the future. Current library
users have also raised concerns about what 'expand community activities' actually
means. No detail has been forthcoming from the Council.
6.10.2 Self-issuing technology was hailed as a great success by the Council when they
carried out a trial at Tettenhall. The self-issuing machine was imposed on the library
and its users - they were not consulted. Figures show that 90% of users (especially
older people) continue to use the services of a librarian to return/issue books for
them.
6.10.3 Residents and councillors have complained about Tettenhall's seeming 'escape'
from the hubs proposals. One councillor's comment was, 'And Tettenhall's not even
been touched - it's one rule for them and one rule for the rest of us'. The Action
Group's response to this ill-informed attitude is that there is not a single library in
31
Wolverhampton including Central Library and the Education Library Service that
escapes the council's current plans to cut the library service. The Action Group
would also counsel those attempting to set community against community - this is a
foolish, parochial position and is entirely unproductive.
6.11 Warstones Library
Wolverhampton Council's proposals
Library to merge with Penn Library and provide a new enhanced service from Warstones
Community Service Hub (location to be determined)
6.11.1 Warstones Library is situated at the heart of a busy community which includes
shops, health centre and Platform 51. Warstones Resource Centre and Langley
Court Care Home are nearby. Warstones Library is on a regular bus route.
Warstones Library is one of the highest issuing libraries in Wolverhampton.
6.11.2 In common with Ashmore Park, Warstones Library has been 'double-petitioned'.
This demonstrates the high value placed on it by residents and library users. In total
over 2500 signatures have been collected on the two Warstones petitions.
6.11.3 At the Springdale Consultation meeting it was revealed by a care worker that
Warstones Resource Centre was to be redesignated as a Community Hub. If this is
true then it appears decisions have already been taken that will affect the future of
Warstones Library. In common with other libraries threatened with co-location there
are concerns from Warstones that library staff will be lost, book stock will be reduced
and a the community will lose a precious resource.
6.11.4 The plans to create a Community Service Hub at Warstones have been met with
scepticism by residents and library users. It has been commented (and precedents
have been cited) that the SW of Wolverhampton comes bottom of the pile or loses
out completely when funding is being allocated.
6.12 Bradmore Community Centre
Wolverhampton Council's proposals:
Option 1: Retain and invest in site to include library provision and improved car parking as
part of a re-designated Community Hub
32
option2: Retain and invest as existing Community Centre and refurbish Finchfield Library to
provide flexible accommodation for community activities and possible outreach Children's
Centre
6.12.1 Bradmore Community Centre is a well -used community facility. The centre and
Bradmore Snooker Club have been in operation since 1945. Bradmore sewing group
is attended by a 90 year old lady who can remember attending school on the site in
the 1930s. The age of current users at Bradmore ranges from 5yrs - 90yrs.
6.12.2 The range of activities taking place at Bradmore includes historical and cultural,
health and fitness, charity fundraising and groups for elderly people. The following is
just some of the current activities taking place at Bradmore Community Centre:
• West Midlands Transport
Circle
• Penn Gardening Club
• Wolverhampton Adult
Education Services
• Friendship Singers
• Sai Baba Group
• Astronomical Society
• Midlands Animal Rescue
Monthly Jumble
• Blind Society
• Staffordshire and Worcester
Canal Society
• Wulfruna Ladies Choir
• Ladies' Needlework Group
• Over 50s Friendship Group
Yoga and Choir
• Bradmore Snooker Club
• Zumba Fitness
• Mehfil Women's Group
• Scottish Dancing
• Adult Education Keep Fit
• Yoga Zone
• Karate Club
• Community Meeting Space
• 40s Knees-up
• American Square Dance
• Ballet Class
• Bill's Lindy Hop
• carer Support
• Child's Home Education
• Connect in Threads
• Elizabethan Cycling Club
• Tusco Dance
• Wolves racing Cycles
• Wolverhampton Ramblers
• Wombourne Quilters
• Word of God Ministry
Bradmore Community Centre draws groups from the immediate local area, citywide
and throughout the West Midlands.
33
6.12.3 A dedicated committee of volunteers is responsible for taking bookings and day to
day management of the site. Income from room hire has increased yearly.
6.12.4 The Council state that Bradmore Community Centre is presently under-utilised as it
is available for 325 hours out of which it is actually used for 90 hours (28%)
Bradmore Community Centre's committee disputes the way in which room usage is
calculated by the Council. At present, groups wishing to book rooms at Bradmore
cannot always be accommodated due to the popularity of the venue.
6.12.5 Bradmore's committee books rooms on a three session basis i.e.
morning/afternoon/evening. For example a room could be used between 9am-
11.30am for a playgroup, 2pm-4pm for a tea dance, and 7pm-8.30pm for an
exercise class. It is reasonable to class this as 100% fully booked but the Council
would class this as 46%.
The 'Community Hubs Consultation Supplementary Data Pack' that has been
circulated to councillors does not give a true reflection of the current high usage of
Bradmore Community Centre. At present Bradmore's committee estimates a 50%
usage - this is equal to Wednesfield Community Centre's usage which is the highest
percentage of any community centre included in the supplementary data pack.
6.12.6 The 'Condition Survey' for Bradmore Community Centre shows a backlog of repairs
of £153,729. Annual revenue is in excess of £20 000. However, historically, the
Council have failed to maintain the Bradmore Buildings. The current repair bill is a
shameful reflection on the lack of value that the Council places on a well used
community facility.
6.12.7 The future of Bradmore Community Centre is currently uncertain. Mr Willoughby has
stated that if Finchfield and Penn Libraries both remain in their present location he
would have to consider the viability of Bradmore. Bradmore Community Centres high
usage means that it could still be designated as a community hub without needing to
include Finchfield Library
6.13 Daisy Bank and Lunt Community Centres
Council's proposals for Daisy Bank:
Dispose of site and relocate provision to Lower Bradley Community Centre
Council's proposals for Lunt Community Centre:
Decommission the site and either redirect provision to Lower Bradely Community Hub or
consider asset transfer to community group or organisation.
34
6.13.1 Users of Daisy Bank Community Centre feel that the Council's proposals have not
been researched enough. They have a number of concerns about the proposals to
close Daisy Bank Community Centre including the following:
• The Lower Bradley site does not have adequate space to accommodate all
groups which currently access Daisy Bank and Lunt Community Centres
• The Lower Bradley site does not offer easier or better access because of
shortage of space, inadequate parking, lack of outside space and reduced
public transport access
• There is no room at Lower Bradley for development or expansion.
• Lower Bradley is undesirable to a number of users of Daisy Bank who have
expressed they will not feel safe using the proposed site, particularly older
people.
• There is currently a GP surgery operating at the proposed relocation site
which is having an extension built. The GP has no intention of moving (as
was stated at the first meeting when the draft proposals were put forward).
6.13.2 The Daisy Bank site has the space, facilities and potential to offer solutions to all of
the above concerns. However there has been no alternative option offered in the
proposals, the centre also had a library provision which was closed and relocated as
a self-service facility. This space is still vacant as the Council have refused requests
for it to be used for alternative uses other than storage.
6.13.3 Representatives of Daisy Bank Community Centre have attended both a public
consultation meeting and also an individual meeting with Councillor Mattu. They
have also met with their MP. At each of these meetings the message was indicated
loud and clear that the members and users of Daisy Bank are opposed to the
proposals as they currently stand regardless of any statements issued in the press
that people in communities are "coming round to the idea".
6.13.4 The Lunt Community Centre
The Lunt Community Centre is an example of the findings of the report on
community hubs in practice mentioned in Section 3 of this paper: success has come
where good community development has resulted in communities identifying their
own priorities and acting upon them. In general, communities succeed when they
are in control, as this sense of ownership increases participation, improves
35
prioritisation of local problems, creates community spirit and builds trust and a belief
in the delivery vehicle for community change8
The Lunt Community Centre has developed in response to need. Those involved
with the centre feel passionately about its high value to the local community.
At a consultation meeting for the Lunt, young people explained how the centre had
helped them overcome difficulties and move on in life. Moving services to Lower
Bradely was not a viable option for them.
People involved with activities at the Lunt have explained how they have been
building something for and with the local community; they cannot understand why
the Council would be planning to jeopardise this.
In particular, the workshops at the Lunt contain heavy machinery which it will not be
possible to co-locate at Lower Bradely Community Centre. Closure of the Lunt
Community Centre or co-location of its services at Lower Bradley would mean the
end of the woodworking and furniture renovation class currently held there.
8 Community Hubs in Practice: A Way Forward Final Paper, 27 July 2011
36
7 Observations and Conclusions
7.1 The Council's 'vision' is a desktop exercise informed neither by local knowledge
nor assessment of local need. The Council claim that the consultation document
is sufficient to inform the proposed changes to Wolverhampton's library service - the
Action Group disputes this.
7.2 Before the consultation started, the Council did not carry out a separate review of
the library service and the needs of local communities in relation to it. There is
no evidence whatsoever that the 2009 Task and Finish report 'Libraries in the right
place with the right service' has been consulted in order to inform the Community
Hubs proposals.
7.3 Accessibility of services whether by foot, by public transport, or by private
transport has not been taken into account in the creation of the vision for
Community Hubs. Neither has the cost of public transport been considered, yet the
hubs proposals mean that a four bus journey will be necessary to access services in
some cases.
7.4 The Council claim that longer opening hours will be a benefit of their Community
Hubs. They have no evidence to suggest that this is what people want.
However, the Blakenhall pilot shows very clear evidence that there is no demand
for the library service outside of the hours 10am to 6pm.
7.5 The Council claim that the self issuing pilot carried out at Tettenhall has been
successful yet only 10% of issues/returns were made using the self-issue
machine. Older people in particular have shunned the technology.
7.6 There are a number of points of grave concern with regard to the consultation
process including:
• The consultation document has been heavily criticised by residents who feel
it contains leading questions and does not give an option to disagree
with the vision to create Community Hubs.
• A FOI request for information about the generation of the questionnaire has
been delayed and mishandled by the Council - it is now in the hands of the
Information Commissioner.
• Councillor Mattu has repeatedly refused to meet with the Action Group
despite their strenuous efforts to put forward the positive contribution they
wished to make to the consultation. The Action Group has explained that they
37
hold both detailed local knowledge and have a citywide perspective which
would be a positive contribution to the consultation.
• Residents of East Park Estate's repeated requests for a meeting to be held
in their community were continually refused; they were told they had to
travel to Eastfield Community Centre which they had already stated was out
of their community and inaccessible to many. It was only on the day before
the end of the consultation that Cllr Mattu eventually agreed that a meeting
could be held for residents at East Park.
• Meetings have been held by Cllr Mattu and Mr Willoughby with 'local groups'
across Wolverhampton. There is no indication how these meetings will fit
into the consultation process or whether the groups met with could
demonstrate how they were representative. Cllr Mattu has claimed that as a
result of his meetings with these groups 'people are coming round'. The
Action Group was not aware that consultation had the purpose of persuading
stakeholders to 'come round' to any particular point of view. NB
Wolverhampton Council's 'Engagement Guidance' states: All discussions
with stakeholders about the scope, methods and issues related to any
consultation should be recorded and defensible.
7.7 Specific needs of local communities should have informed the decision to co-locate
library services in Community Hubs. For example:
• strong links between libraries and local schools
• higher proportion of elderly residents in certain communities
• low levels of car ownership
• low levels of computer ownership and broadband
The 1964 Public libraries and Museums Act requires Wolverhampton Council to
provide a full and efficient library service for all those desiring to make use thereof.
The Act contains an implicit requirement to assess local need. It is clear that local
needs in relation to the library service did not form a key consideration of the
vision for Community Hubs.
7.8 The Council's claims its vision to create 'Community Hubs' will 'protect and improve'
the library service yet there is no clear evidence that this will be the case. In fact, the
converse could be argued i.e. that the Council's plans do nothing but threaten to
destroy the library service.
7.9 The vision for Community Hubs is a smokescreen behind which lies a heartless
decision to cut the library service budget.
38
7.10 The library service is one of three services involved in the vision yet bears a
disproportionate level of cuts.
In the 2012-13 budget consultation a proposal was put forward to cut the Youth
Service budget by £500 000. The Youth Service was consulted with and objected.
The proposed Youth Service cut was reduced in order to protect services. Why has
the library service not been given the same opportunity to object to a cut of £825
000? The Council Officer responsible for the 'vision' has a background in the Youth
Service. It has been questioned whether this has influenced the disproportionate cut
to the library services.
7.11 The provision of a library service is a statutory requirement, but one of the greatest
aspects of branch libraries i.e. their added social value and contribution to
community cohesion is outside the scope of the 1964 Public Libraries Act.
Nonetheless, the Action Group believes that this contribution to identity and sense of
place is so valuable that it should be considered as part of the vision for Community
Hubs. The most common metaphor used across the city in response to the Council's
proposals for branch libraries is 'they will rip the heart out of the community'.
7.12 The role of the librarian has not been appreciated by Wolverhampton Council with
the result that library staff feel demoralised and de-valued. Some are taking up the
offer of voluntary redundancy not because they wish to leave the library service, but
because they cannot bear to stay and see their libraries destroyed.
7.13 Wolverhampton Council has pointed out on a number of occasions that the majority
of current library staff are 'not qualified'. The Action Group begs to differ: a
dedicated librarian of many years service and experience is extremely well
qualified indeed.
7.14 Wolverhampton has no strategic vision for the future of the library service.
There is no evidence that the need for financial cuts has been balanced against a
strategic vision for the library service that meets local needs in accordance with
statutory requirements. Any 'vision' that includes the future of the library service
but does not have as its starting point a thorough review of that service is
fundamentally flawed.
