Dear Bellman
When is consultation not a consultation? There are, of course, many answers to that question but in Aberdeenshire, it seems, it is when Council Officers use it to provide evidence for a decision that they’ve already taken.
Such was the decision in 2025, to close Mearns Court sheltered housing complex in Laurencekirk and re-house those who lived there. The decision was initiated by Officers and only after pressure from local councillors did they even consider consulting the residents. First through an online questionnaire and then, reluctantly, after more pressure from councillors, in hard-copy format.
Except that the questionnaire neglected to mention the earlier decision to close Mearns Court. Instead, it asked the residents to list any improvements or repairs that their homes needed. The residents, very willingly as you can imagine, listed these in great detail hoping to see their lives improved as a result.
The result of this ‘consultation’ a repair bill which the officers could say was unaffordable and which was then used to confirm the closure decision that had already been taken. Some would call this sharp practice but I couldn’t possibly comment.
Now consider January’s ‘engagement sessions’ on the plan to relocate Stonehaven Library to Viewmont. In a recent communication the LLA Libraries Team describe how those sessions operated. They say that: ‘A floor plan showing the space within the Viewmount building was available at the engagement sessions, alongside an illustrative layout for how public PCs, study areas and related facilities could be arranged. Potential flexible spaces were also highlighted that could be used by the community for a range of activities of different sizes.’
They also claim that: ‘The floor plan was intended to prompt discussion and feedback.’ What they do not say was that no discussion of the proposal was allowed at any of the sessions, that none of the questions asked by the session facilitator related to the relocation and that the plan outlined a size for the new library less than one quarter that of the existing building.
They then claim that: ‘It was clear from the engagement sessions that the library is highly valued locally.’ And, in an attempt to justify the nature of the ‘engagement’ process, that: ‘The intention remains always for services and resources currently provided through the library service to continue to be available to local users.’ But this will be impossible in a library reduced in size by some 75% and moved to a building that will be completely inaccessible to a large proportion of those who wish to use it.
Four months on and there is still nothing from the Officers on how all this is meant to work. No information on how much it will cost to move the library to Viewmount and how savings can be affected, no indication on what work will be needed to make Viewmont fit-for-purpose or any timescale for when all this will happen. Another example of taking the decision first and then trying to justify it later. No thought. No planning. No idea.
This is simply not good enough. Help make sure it doesn’t happen. Sign the petition
Yours etc
Kirby Porter, Save Our Library Coalition