Waltham Forest News RSS Feed Send your news, pictures & videos


WALTHAM FOREST: Cabinet agrees to library closure consultation

7:10pm Tuesday 14th June 2011 in Waltham Forest News By Daniel Binns

Live updates from tonight's key meeting on the future of Waltham Forest’s libraries.

7PM: After a brief introduction by council leader Cllr Chris Robbins, Tory opposition leader Cllr Matt Davis has opened proceedings with an attack on the council's plans to close two libraries.

Earlier, a large crowd of between 100 to 200 union members gathered outside the town hall to protest against both council and government cuts.

7.10PM: After a brief row between Cllr Davis and Robbins, the cabinet has approved the plans to launch a consultation into the library closures.

It will ask the public if they agree with proposals to shut branches in Hall Lane, south Chingford, and Harrow Road, Leytonstone, as part of a borough-wide shake-up.

The proposal includes extending opening hours and improving computer facilities at libraries in north Chingford, Walthamstow Leyton and Leytonstone.

The Conservatives say the council’s proposal is flawed, but the council leadership insist change is necessary to save money and improve the library service.

Cllr Davis accused the council's Labour leadership of being irrational over which branches it had earmarked for closure.

He said the decision to shut South Chingford library was politically motivated because there are few Labour voters in the area.

Cllr Robins denied the claims. He hit back and said the Conservatives had not objected to an overall cut of £1million to the borough's library service which had been included in its March budget.

The Tory and Labour leaders also blamed each other's parties for the scale of cuts nationwide.

Let us know what you think of the proposals. Leave a comment below, or contact Daniel Binns on 07795 476 625

Click here to follow the Waltham Forest Guardian on Twitter

Comments(12)

Sam Hain says...
6:57pm Tue 14 Jun 11

The Labour Council must hold it's nerve on this one - ignore the Tories, who've never had to make a tough decision locally in many a year. When services to vulnerable people are being cut as a result of the Tory-led government's vicious policies, the library service will have to bite the bullet. If you don't like it, blame the Tories!

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Frank Leigh says...
7:56pm Tue 14 Jun 11

Glad to see both the Guardian and the unions turned up tonight. A better showing than on the night the budget was agreed, or the night hundreds of job cuts were agreed.... Still, better late than never, eh.....

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

dbinns says...
9:12pm Tue 14 Jun 11

Frank Leigh wrote:
Glad to see both the Guardian and the unions turned up tonight. A better showing than on the night the budget was agreed, or the night hundreds of job cuts were agreed.... Still, better late than never, eh.....
http://www.guardian-
series.co.uk/your_lo
cal_areas/8896819.WA
LTHAM_FOREST__Budget
_approved___but_resi
dents_denied_entry/

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Walthamster says...
10:40pm Tue 14 Jun 11

Sam Hain wrote:
The Labour Council must hold it's nerve on this one - ignore the Tories, who've never had to make a tough decision locally in many a year. When services to vulnerable people are being cut as a result of the Tory-led government's vicious policies, the library service will have to bite the bullet. If you don't like it, blame the Tories!
No Sam, Waltham Forest council closed St James Street Library in 2007, long before the financial crisis, and under a Labour government. The Tory-led government is as bad as expected, but you can't blame them for this council's attitude to libraries.

At the same meeting in 2007, the councillors awarded themselves nearly 30 per cent pay rises, taking the total bill for their allowances to a million pounds a year.

We're now supposed to applaud them for taking a five per cent cut. Give us back the other 25 per cent, councillors!

Small libraries are very cheap to run, as well as being a "service to vulnerable people" themselves. St James Street cost £70,000 a year. That's nothing in a council budget. Closing libraries will not save other essential services.

The council could save all the money it needs by cutting waste and following correct practice in areas such as awarding contracts and auditing its finances. That way, the council might not have millions of pounds 'disappearing' unaccounted for.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Robert19 says...
11:13pm Tue 14 Jun 11

Once a library (or indeed any other service within a specific location or building) is closed then it is very unlikely that it will ever reopen. Whilst it is worth looking at each site to see if it is viable, I would look at reducing hours across the board in the hope that, when this government inspired madness has passed, services can be built up again. That will not happen to any of those if they were to close.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

changfert says...
11:38pm Tue 14 Jun 11

Losing the library in South Chingford will be the final nail in the coffin for the area.
Considering how much the shopping area has gone downhill in the past 10 years, ie lack of shops and trees/greenery.
Its now simply a cut through to the more affluent North Chingford area.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

mdj says...
11:56pm Tue 14 Jun 11

Sam, the last time you tried to blame the Tories, I was able to come up with £40 million of money, lost (some possibly stolen), given away, wasted or left uncollected by this Labour-led borough over the last four years, without resorting to notes. People with access to more detailed information could no doubt easily beat that figure. Your line really won't wash: I'm no fan of this government, but after the heroic fecklessness of fiscal policy over the last 12 years or so, which the electorate resoundingly rejected, what else was likely to happen?
You obviously care about this borough, and good governance in general: how can you support a party that cuts its own allowances by 5% while cutting libraries by 30%, and gives away valuable assets to its cronies?

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Redfox says...
1:36am Wed 15 Jun 11

Still labour supporters continue to sweep their own decisions under the carpet!
Who was in control when St Modwen gave us (sic) the state-of-the-art library at the Arcade site? Who is still in control now we STILL have the vacant space at the Arcade site?
Who made the decisions to trim down the books on the shelves at the Central Library - and then send hundreds, if not thousands to the Edmonton Incineration Plant ?

Get real Sam, look at the comments from employers and the armed services who don't want hoards of illiterate, incompetent schoolchildren who have never learnt to read. How can they ever be expected to comprehend an instruction manual?

How on earth is the 2012 games going to get these 20,000 of these erks to act as guides (volunteers) for the visitors from around the World when they can't even read a map or know which way is North, South, East, or West at any given point in the street?

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Sam Hain says...
8:29am Wed 15 Jun 11

Some good points above. I'm no apologist for the current Labour Council or previous government, some of whose decisions have been regrettable, if not downright bizarre. But I will never yield to lectures from the Tories (who, if they ever held the moral high-ground, lost it decades ago) on any issue, local or national. And I don't happen to include the decision to close St James Street branch library amongst Labour's mistakes. It was the right decision in 2007 and remains so now - as are the latest library proposals. However, with the help of a local Labour Ward Councillor, Clare Coghill, a grant was secured by a community group and the building is shortly to re-open as a community centre, The Mill. If the Council had pushed ahead with asset transfers of this kind we would all be in a better place right now. The fact that it didn't I suspect is down to bad officer advice. But then, who controls the officers? My report at the end of the new Labour Council's first year would be, "tries hard, must do better". Of the Tories it would be, "continues to disappoint - see me"!

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

mdj says...
10:38am Wed 15 Jun 11

'But then, who controls the officers?.'

Well Sam, if you recall that the report advising the free gift of five acres of land (my rough valuation: £5 million minimum) to a private interest group with close links to the Labour leadership was presented to the Council by an official who was a former Labour Leader of that Council, that question pretty much answers itself.
As for the Mill project, Clare Coghill looks like being an excellent addition to the Council, but the crew you insist on defending wanted to turn the building into a drug treatment centre, against the wishes of local residents. The small library was a popular and low-cost social resource: why do you think closing it without warning was a good decision? (And by coincidence, who was the official in charge of that department at the time?)

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Sam Hain says...
8:44pm Wed 15 Jun 11

Re-reading my comment, mdj, Ithink we're pretty much in agreement, save for the issue of closing the branch library. It may have been a popular resource, but with a tiny minority of local residents - as I rather suspect The Mill may prove to be (all power to its elbow nonetheless as it won't come out of the rates). And as for the drug rehabilitation centre, of course local residents didn't want it. I'm nimby enough to admit that I wouldn't have wanted it in my back yard either. The fact remains that these facilities have to go somewhere and the fact also remains that the council paid heed to local protest and changed it's plans, as it did over the William Morris Gallery. At least it shows that community activism is alive and well in the borough and that the council is not deaf to commonsense entreaty - albeit reluctantly and belatedly. Hopefully they'll learn as time goes on, and it's up to we, the electorate, to be ever-vigilant and ensure that they do.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

mdj says...
11:50am Thu 16 Jun 11

'Up to we', Sam? Tut tut!
You're right about the vigilance, but often I wonder why we all have to pay for a dog and then do our own barking.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

click2find

Most popular






About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree