As frustration grows over the Council’s silence on the future of Stonehaven Library, Kirby Porter, Lead Petitioner for the Save Stonehaven Library Coalition, delivers a clear and uncompromising message on behalf of the thousands who signed the petition. Speaking for a community that has made its position unmistakably clear, he sets out why the delays are unacceptable, why answers are overdue, and why Stonehaven’s stand‑alone library must be protected. His article follows in full.
Stand-alone libraries
It is over eight months since the Council held the first of its four ‘engagement
sessions’ to discuss the future of Stonehaven library and we are still waiting for the
promised report detailing what should happen next. There is a meeting of the Area
Committee on September 1 st and the Communities Committee meets on the 3 rd but
both of these meetings have now published their Agendas and neither include any
report relating to the relocation of our library.
The next meeting of the Communities Committee after the September one is
scheduled for November 5 th and there is no guarantee that the report will be ready
then. Meanwhile, the fabric of the building continues to deteriorate and there is no
work planned for that either. I wonder what is going on. A cynical observer would be
forgiven for believing that this is a deliberate ploy on behalf of Council Officers to
take the sting out of the widespread opposition to any relocation of the library and to
make the cost of the repair work even more unaffordable. I couldn’t possibly
comment.
While we wait, I thought it would be useful to consider one of the other main drivers
of the desire to relocate the library to Viewmount; the Council policy on reducing the
number of ‘stand-alone’ library buildings.
Of course, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with such a policy if it is being applied
to enhance and improve library services. Indeed, there are a growing number of
public libraries in Scotland which are now based in shopping centres, leisure
facilities, art galleries, museums, community hubs and medical centres. All of which
help the library reduce costs and reach potential users it might otherwise have had
difficulty connecting with.
But it is a policy which must be adopted with care and should not be the main driver
for change in all circumstances. In particular, it should never be used:
- As a means to reduce the size and scope of an existing library.
- To make it more difficult for the public to access library services.
- To disguise bad management in maintaining an existing building.
- To prop up other poorly used Council buildings.
- Without proper consultation and before conducting a proper equality impact assessment.
- In the face of widespread community desire to keep the library where it is.
To my mind, this particular Council policy should not apply to Stonehaven, which
already has a central, accessible library, which also acts as a community hub. I only
hope the Council report endorses this view. When it eventually appears.