Decision details

Further to the representations made under Minute No. 70 above and Minute No. 22 of the meeting held on 18 July 2013, the Cabinet considered the report of the Director of Older People which provided details of the second gateway assessments undertaken by Officers on the Community Library proposals submitted by the Aintree Library Action Group (ALAG), Bridge Inn Community Farm and the Friends of Carnegie Library (FOCAL). The report identified the process of assessment together with the advantages and disadvantages associated with each proposal for consideration by the Cabinet.

The report also indicated that the proposal submitted by the Consortium led by Sefton Council for Voluntary Service in respect of Birkdale Library had been withdrawn by the Consortium as they were considering a number of alternatives; and that no other interested parties had come forward in the timescale set by the Council for the receipt of Community Library proposals.

The Chair referred to the advice previously given to community groups who wish to run library services in locations where closure had previously been agreed by the Council, that the proposals had to be feasible and sustainable, meaning that the proposals would not have recourse to funds from the Council in the medium and long term.

The Head of Health and Wellbeing advised that officers had applied the approved assessment criteria to the proposals submitted by the three community groups and the assessments set out in the report were based on all the information supplied by the groups. He indicated that there was a typographical in the table in paragraph 3.4 of the report and that the total score for FOCAL should read ‘360’ and not ‘365’. He also indicated that an expression of interest had been received since the publication of the report from the Friends of Birkdale Library but the expiry date for the submission of proposals had expired.

The Head of Health and Wellbeing referred to the basis of each proposal and the advantages and disadvantages of each proposal, set out in the report. He indicated that one of the key concerns with the proposals submitted by ALAG and FOCAL was the financial sustainability of the proposals over the long term. In particular the reliance upon an annual revenue grant from Aintree Parish Council that could not be guaranteed as an on-going commitment for the ALAG proposal. He went on to state that the proposal from FOCAL could not demonstrate financial sustainability, and in order to succeed both proposals    required capital investment from the Council. He also indicated that during the period from 13 March to 26 November 2013, officers had held 20 meetings with various community groups, dealt with a large volume of email correspondence and telephone calls. He also indicated that numerous meetings had taken place with trade union representatives and staff on the community library proposals, and the whole process of acting upon the Councils budget decision to close 7 of its libraries, which demonstrated that officers had been actively engaged with the whole the process.

The Chair commented that the various officers on the assessment panel had acted in a professional manner during the process and they had examined each proposal in an objective manner. This had been the first time that the Council had actively sought community proposals for the operation of services following a decision taken by the full Council to close the operation of part of a service.

Members of the Cabinet raised questions on the following issues referred to in the report and officers responded to the Issues as indicated below:

The Chair in his summary of the discussions, referred once again to the need for the proposals to be feasible and sustainable over the medium to long term, the support and guidance given by officers to community groups during 20 meetings, to the professional and objective assessment of the proposals by officers and the assessment challenge by the Chief Executive.

Decision Made:

That:

(1)       it be noted, that following the scoring assessment undertaken by officers based on the approved assessment criteria, the proposals from Aintree Library Action Group and Friends of Carnegie Library had failed the second gateway and the proposal from Bridge Inn Community Farm had passed the required standard;

(2)       it be noted that officers have sought additional information and clarification from the two Groups where the assessment was below the required score and this had not resulted in any change to the assessment;

(3)       following the consideration of the officer assessment, it be accepted that the proposals submitted by the Aintree Library Action Group and Friends of Carnegie Library had failed the second gateway and are therefore not approved; and that the proposal submitted by the Bridge Inn Community Farm had passed the second gateway and officers be authorised to enter into formal contractual discussions; and

(4)       the Community Groups be thanked for all of their efforts in putting together the Community Library proposals, and for making themselves available to meet with Officers of the Council.

Reasons for Decision:

Following the consideration of the officer assessment, the Cabinet had determined that two proposals had failed the second gateway and one had passed the second gateway.

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected:

The Council had previously approved the library closure implementation plan and this was ongoing. The only options to be considered were whether or not the proposals submitted met the approved criteria.