Agenda item

4.1

Petitions

4.1.1

Rebecca Gransbury reported on the petition she had submitted to the Council meeting on 7^th December 2016, which, in the light of the number of signatures, had triggered a debate at that meeting.  Following the debate, the Council noted the receipt of the petition and referred the petition to this Committee, to be considered in conjunction with the call-in of the Cabinet decision on the China Economic and Civic Programme Update.

4.1.2

Ms Gransbury stated that the petition, which was calling on the Council to keep the beautiful, purpose-built Central Library building as a library, reject any plans to re-purpose the building and invest in the upkeep of the building as a full public resource, was continuing to attract online signatures.  She made reference to the heritage of the building, stressing that such heritage did not simply relate to the bricks and mortar element of the building, but also related to its history.  Ms Gransbury stated that she had been informed by an officer in the Library Service at Manchester City Council that the Grade II rotunda building was their “jewel in the crown” of their library service, and that the decision to keep the library in the same location was due to the fact that, before the renovation, it attracted 1.25 million visitors. This equated to approximatley 50% of Manchester’s population.  Sheffield’s Central Library had attracted 546,982 visits during 2015, which equated to approximately 97% of the City’s population, and she stated that these figures provided good grounds for the option of renovation to be considered.  Ms Gransbury then went on to question whether the Exclusivity Agreement would prevent the Council from exploring other options, whether, if the hotel development progressed, the Council would commit to create a new library building as attractive and iconic as other buildings in the City Centre and what would the costs of renovation be, in contrast to the cost of a new building.

4.1.3

Councillor Jack Scott, Cabinet Member for Libraries and Community Services, stated that there were no doubts about the iconic nature of the Central Library building and that, if any funding became available, the Council would give consideration to renovating the building.  He added, however, that given the scale of the renovation works required, with a major redevelopment (modernising the layout and uses) expected to cost in excess of £30 million, and the increasing problems for the Council to identify this level of funding, it had been decided to explore the option of the agreement with Guodong, in connection with the development of a 5-star hotel and improving the Art Gallery at the Central Library building on Surrey Street.  Councillor Scott also stated that if the proposals progressed to the development of a new 5-star hotel, the Council would receive around £1 million a year in business rates, in respect of the building, which would be used to further boost the City’s economy.  He stressed that there were no firm proposals at the present time, and that this was one of a few options being considered by the Council.

4.1.4

In response to questions raised by Members of the Committee, in connection with the petition, with reference to the new central library building in Birmingham, it was stated that the new building, which comprised a number of other elements as well as the library service, cost approximately £180 million, financed through a Private Finance Initiative deal.  The running costs of the building alone amounted to around £20 million and when compared with the cost of running the entire library service in Sheffield which was around £8 million, this highlighted the problems facing the Council.  Although the exact figures in terms of the required repair and refurbishment works in connection with the building had not been finalised, Councillor Scott had given a commitment that he would provide a breakdown of such figures, publicly, when they became available.  In addition, as there had only been preliminary discussions with Guodong at this stage, there were no details in terms of the costings involved in connection with the development of a 5-star hotel and a new art gallery within the building. 

4.1.5

The Committee noted the comments now raised by Ms Gransbury in connection with the petition, and agreed that the issues raised be considered as part of the consideration of the call-in.

4.2

Public Questions

4.2.1

The Committee received the following questions from members of the public:-

(a)     Helen Glazier

Why did the Council consider it cheaper to build a brand new building, rather than refurbish the existing building?

(b)     Unnamed Member of the Public

Why isn’t refurbishment given as much weight as rebuild, particularly due to the important nature of the building?

(c)     Nigel Slack

(i)          Can the Cabinet Member or relevant officer clarify the ‘leasing’ arrangement that this proposed deal would lead to?  Who would own the land?  Who would own the building?  What is the envisaged period of any lease?

(ii)        Can the Cabinet Member or relevant officer clarify the comment by the presenting officer at the Cabinet meeting on 30^th November 2016, which indicated that bedrooms for the 5-star hotel would be “outside the main Surrey Street building, as in an annexe or related to…” Where might such an external annexe be located?

(iii)       Councillor Jack Scott has commented that any new Central Library facility will be within a quarter of a mile of the Surrey Street site.  That appears to suggest a perimeter ranging approximately from Cathedral to City Hall to Furnival Square to Sheaf Street, almost to Ponds Forge and to Castle Square.  Can this be confirmed now or at the earliest possible opportunity?

(d)     Michael McColgan

(i)          Has the Council an Ethical Procurement Policy?  If so, how was it put into effect in the negotiations with Guodong Construction?

(ii)         Does the Company welcome Trade Unions among its workforce?

(iii)        Has the Council investigated whether the Trade Unions are truly independent? 

(iv)        Why is the Council appearing now to deal with Mr Wong’s private company, when initially it was due to negotiate with the PLC?

(v)         On what basis does Councillor Leigh Bramall claim that the Company is “one of the best partners out there”, or that it will lead to thousands of jobs?

(vi)        What is the proposed composition and competence of the “decision-making” body?

(vii)      Precisely how will a 5-star hotel help Sheffield?

(viii)     Precisely how will a private residential scheme in the West Bar area help Sheffield?  Will it be “affordable” housing?

(ix)        Why has the Council taken so long to determine that the Central Library is not “fit for purpose”?  Did nobody ring the alarm bells sooner?

(x)         What kind of City Centre library is Councillor Jack Scott promising?

(xi)        Why was no consultation undertaken with the people of Sheffield on such an important matter?

(e)     Jackie Jones

(i)       Please can you breakdown or explain why it will cost £30 million to make repairs/refurbish the library and gallery.

(ii)      What avenues have been explored, if any, to find alternative funding to maintain the building?

(iii)        Why were we not told about problems the library building was having?  The first I heard about it, it had already been sold to the Chinese.

(f)      Antony May

If the investment is given the green light, is it paid in the form of monies or is there investment in the form of building and infrastructure?

(g)     Karen Platt

(i)       There appear to have been consultations that have not been made public - at least the 2013 one if not more.  Please could these be made public as quickly as possible, certainly long before the 12-month period is up.

(ii)      In all fairness, no-one can decide what is best for the City until all options are explored.  This Committee should seek to explore the options of renovation of the current building.   A prime example of a renovated library is Liverpool - at a cost of £50 million.  Funding was available for this avenue - one that is supported by over 10,000 people in the City.   This would appear to be the cheaper option.  What can a new build offer that a renovation cannot? 

(iii)     The Graves building is a public building that would be accessible to all if it were refurbished.  It is currently not accessible and that has been a Council choice.  To turn it into a hotel is to take away the public access for private enterprise even if the hotel contains the gallery.  Who would access it?

(iv)     Could the Council suggest other sites to Guodong for their valued investment – sites that are more suited to private enterprise?

(v)      Could the Committee consider the heritage of the building, and preserve it for the people of Sheffield as a library that anyone can access.

(h)     Nick Fleischmann

(i)       Why were conservative options for the Central Library not considered following the announcement in 2014 after the previous review that the Library was safe, before now granting exclusivity to Guodong?  There are trust schemes that should have been examined by the Council during the intervening two years with ample opportunity to engage with the community and other stakeholders.

(ii)      Why did the Council not at least allow an equal and parallel consultation on conservative options eg a trust during the current 12 month period and the possibilities of obtaining alternative funding?

(iii)     Where has the figure of £30 million for refurbishment of the Library come from?  Are there supporting costings?  Will these costings be made available as soon as possible?

(iv)     Can there be an assurance that the Council will not move towards concluding any further agreement with Guodong until the results of their feasibility study have been made public and independently assessed, and an agreed consultation process is on the table for full consideration of alternative options?

(v)      What is the Council's assessment of the costs of providing equivalent new-build library facilities elsewhere?

(vi)     Has consideration been given to offering Guodong another site in the City Centre and leaving the Library in its current situation, preserving all historic features, including theatre and gallery, reference and local studies, with appropriate and sensitive remodelling to remedy some defects of the existing provision, such as situation of the gallery, disabled access, catering, etc?

(vii)    What planning case is there for another large hotel in the Conservation Area right opposite the existing one?

(viii)   Does the Council believe that a redevelopment proposal to convert a Grade 2 listed building, which will involve almost total gutting of the historic features and insertion of mezzanine floors, can meet the requirements of an Historic England Heritage Statement for the purposes of listed building consent?

(ix)     Does the Council not agree that the historic Central Library is an architectural treasure, both externally and internally, a nationally-significant cultural asset and an irreplaceable centrepiece of Sheffield's cultural heritage and the City Centre Conservation Area, which the Council itself draws attention to on its own website?

(x)      Does the Council agree that all 10,000 signatories to the protest petition should be given a full opportunity to voice their detailed objections to the proposed scheme?

(xi)     How can the Council justify permitting and encouraging a foreign developer to float a speculative commercial venture through the preferential acquisition of one of Sheffield's greatest cultural assets?

(xii)    If there is to be a tender for the Library from Guodong, how could this be described as competitive given that they have basically been given a preferential option to acquire the building without consideration of any other possible bids?

(xiii)   If there were an application to register the Library as an asset of community value, what would the Council's attitude be?

(xiv)   Does the Council consider that it has acted fairly and openly with the community and other stakeholders in moving straight to a preferred commercial bid without any consideration of the feasible alternatives?

(i)      Sheffield Communities Against Library Privatisation

Can the Council guarantee that any upfront costs from the City that may be associated with the relocation of the Central Library will be recouped should funds from the developer, or those that may be available from Central Government, fail to materialise, perhaps due to austerity, financial difficulty or economic recession?  Will there be a guarantor?

(j)       Peter Fagerlind

Should the Council not be consulting the public on all the various options for the building now rather than pursuing the one option of leasing the building to Guodong UK Ltd for use as a 5-star hotel?

(k)     Stephanie Hulstaert

(i)       Could the Council carry out a survey of its library users to ask for their views on the possibility of the Central Library becoming a hotel?  I believe this is an appropriate way of engaging with those who will be most affected by any change in use of the building.

(ii)      Could Members of the Council look at the good and bad examples of library renovations in the country, such as Birmingham, which built a library in 2013, but then couldn’t afford to maintain its opening hours, and Liverpool, whose library was renovated in 2013 as a tourist attraction, as well as serving the City’s citizens, giving everyone something to be proud of for many years to come.

4.2.2

The Chair stated that written responses would be provided to all the questions raised at the meeting.