Very many thanks to all who have signed, and brought the petition past the 2000 mark.

But this morning the County Council's Assets and Procurement Committee unanimously agreed the sale of the former Library to "Bidder 1" who has offered to complete the sale within 30 days. This in spite of impassioned pleas from 3 public speakers, two of whom had made the 30-mile trek to New Shire Hall. I went with them to Alconbury but was not allowed to speak, either to present the petition or as a public speaker, on the grounds that I would be speaking on behalf of a bidder – even though I had been allowed to speak on precisely the same basis when the disposal of the Library was first considered in 2023.    For gluttons for punishment, the video of the meeting is at https://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/council/meetings-and-decisions/council-meetings-live-web-stream

The County Ward Councillor, Richard Howitt spoke eloquently on behalf of his constituents (and praised the petition - see text of his speech below) but after debate the members of the Committee agreed unanimously to sell the building to Bidder 1.  

The councillors talked about both a quick sale and involving the public – aims which are mutually exclusive.   Many questions have been left unanswered, including what the County mean by “deliverability”, and who Bidder 1 is. Until Bidder 1’s name is known, and there has been dialogue between him and the community, it is impossible to assess whether his proposals have synergies with community aims, are viable and realistic in terms of meeting community needs, or are feasible and compatible with the historic character of the building.  

So there is a high risk that the one and only significance of the decision taken today is that it clears the way for the County Council to rid itself of the building, while leaving it to Bidder 1 and the City Council to solve its challenges. This leaves a clear risk that the City and the community will have to pick up the pieces if Bidder 1’s proposals hit insurmountable difficulties.   

Please keep circulating the petition. This will show Councillors and officers that we are still on the case, and pressing the community interest. 

County Cllr Richard Howitt’s speech:

Thank-you for giving me the opportunity as local member, for speaking on the County Council's proposed sale of the Old Library Building in Mill Road in my division. 

I respect the difficult and important job which this Committee undertakes, but today I respectfully ask you not to sell-off this building, but to seek an alternative course. 

It is wrong to sell this building because:

It is of great architectural and historical significance, which should keep pride of place in the Council's property portfolio.

It has immense social value well beyond its financial value, which offers a long-term return to the Council by staying in Council ownership.

It is a building which has been used by generations of local people in the local area which I serve - and who want it to continue to serve them and future generations. 

It is a building which was originally bequeathed to this Council to stay in the public realm and - although the Council's lawyers have deemed it legal to sell - I submit councillors should see that it is morally and ethically wrong for the Council to do so. 

And Chair. 

Today, more than 2,000 people, a large number of my constituents, have signed a petition asking the Council not to sell. 

As you know, I respect our officers and thank them for their courtesy and professionalism, but I believe that the process which we have allowed them to follow, has been deeply flawed. 

From the outset, the only option taken forward was one of sale.

There was no attempt at local consultation despite my representations and it seems my own efforts to do so seem to have been disregarded. 

All along my constituents have been treated only as potential bidders or as no-one, with a complete unwillingness for the Council to engage with local residents in a community development or place-making approach, at what is an iconic site in our community.

This was wrong.

To my councillor colleagues, if you had such strong feeling in any of your own divisions - like me - you would celebrate and champion local community involvement not dismiss it. So it is only right that I ask you to do the same for the residents in my division. 

I place on record that I have not and will not breach confidential information, nor do I believe it is my role as local member to say I can come to a better view on financial papers put before you. 

However, I can say it is the wrong choice. 

That alongside sale, the Council should seriously consider a leasehold or other partnership arrangement, in which it actively works with the community to pursue a community use, with the County Council remaining as a partner at the table. 

On the choice before you, I do not know better if an entrepreneur unknown to the local community will be as good as his own words?

But if Councillors genuinely believe the assurances given and are determined to proceed with this option, why don't you build in the strictest terms in the deed, so that the Council retains real power to enforce the assurances given about the building's future use?

The suggestion this be left to planning powers or to restricting residential use alone, is not serious. 

And, as I think you may do, why don't you also invite this bidder - if selected - to undertake public consultation in partnership with myself in my division as soon as practicably possible, so that local people can begin to be more fully involved, as they have wanted all along? 

Chair.

I am not here to advocate on behalf of any of the other bids, including the one known as the 'community or arts bid' - Bidder 2 in the report - as I have chosen to represent local residents in the process, not any one specific bid.

However, I have found it difficult to answer questions:

Why Council officers have visited and spoken to the preferred bidder, as part of their due diligence, but not this second credible bidder, who has been seeking to meet our officers precisely to update them on progress on their fundraising?

Why officers and members appear to be dismissive of the progress they have made, including in relation to a £1/2m grant from the Architectural  Heritage Fund?

Why the preferred bidder appears to have been scored higher based on the lack of further internal works required to the building, when its current state is that of a shell and it is difficult to envisage any serious use, without further substantial works?

And - above all - why the Council's processes are too inflexible to be able to recognise that this was not just one external bidder amongst others, but an attempt to build 'bottom-up' proposals through community consultation and the setting up of a social enterprise of local people to realise them? 

In my place councillors, you would say the same as me. Our processes have let local people down and this is your last chance to put right that wrong.