This is the text of the letter as published on Wednesday:

Decision to sell library is scandalously flawed 

I would like to amplify Alex Spencer’s excellent article (“Sale of former library to private bidder is a kick in the teeth”, 16-22 October). 

The brutal fact is that what the Committee agreed, unanimously, was to sell the Library out of community ownership and control within 30 days.  There have been scandalous flaws in the County Council’s approach and decision. I, as author of the petition, was not allowed to present it and represent the views of over 1000 Cambridge residents, 128 more from Cambridgeshire, and now over 2100 in total. This shocking denial of community voices was totally consistent with the way County officers have tried throughout to present the sale as a purely commercial transaction, with no community involvement (it took them 2.5 years to arrange community viewings!!). 

Both decisions, the one in relation to the petition and the other to sell the building, disregarded the Council’s own approved Land and Property Strategy 2024-2029. This specifically mentions (P17) “working closer with Communities and Partners”, including “supporting communities by listening to our residents and businesses” and “where it is the best outcome discuss with communities the opportunities for them to control assets through the Community Asset Transfer and Asset of Community Value processes”. On page 15 the Strategy includes “Support Community Asset Transfer when it delivers the best outcomes”.   Neither the Strategy nor these highly relevant elements of it were mentioned in the officer report to Committee, nor were they mentioned by either Councillors or Officers during the meeting.  

The officer report did not mention the learning of lessons from experience with the previous approved bidder.  This was in stark contrast to what Michael Hudson, Executive Director for Finance and Resources said earlier in the meeting in relation to Shire Hall: “key lessons had been learned from earlier bids”.  The report noted that the previous preferred bidder Centre 33 had pulled out due to estimated construction costs exceeding their budget, but said nothing about the many physical and regulatory challenges (including the occupancy limit to 60 due to lack of a secondary means of escape) that any bidder has to overcome for their project to be viable. 

The county’s press release on 8th October said “Councillors are set to review not only the financial bid made but also whether the offer delivers wider benefits for the local community.”  But the officer report recommended Bidder 1 - “considered the most deliverable as it is an unconditional bid. The bidder is strongly motivated to preserve the architectural features of the building and has sufficient resources to do so.”. 

An unconditional bid should have rung loud warning bells, given the experience with Centre 33 (who made their bid conditional, as would any prudent bidder given the challenges of the building).  Well before the meeting, I asked the County for their definition of “deliverability”, and on what possible basis Bidder 1 could have been scored 145/150 for this and the Community Bid only 25/150; I have had no reply.  

If Bidder 1 is “strongly motivated” as the County claim, why has he not yet approached the architects who oversaw the repairs for the County Council, and who have the greatest understanding of it and its challenges? 

Once the building is sold, as the meeting absolutely confirmed, neither officers nor councillors will have any means whatever of holding bidder 1 to his promises and claims. So how they can have concluded that Bidder 1’s proposals are deliverable and will deliver wider benefits for the community is totally beyond me. 

This has been a failure by county councillors and officers over many years. The previous administration was responsible for leasing the property to the ICCA, and for allowing its decline over the many years during which the terms of the lease were not enforced. The current committee paid lip service to trying to retain some community interest, but no member of the committee mentioned the opportunity the Community Bid presents to heal a community deeply divided by the recent decision to close the bridge, in which Councillors were swayed by just 2155 voices. 

If this sale goes ahead, it means that this building built for the community in perpetuity is now lost to that community for ever. 

John Preston   

Petition author, local resident and historic environment consultant

Cambridge