Laura Swaffield, chair of a national charity supporting library users, gives her verdict on Enfield Council’s move to close eight branches in the borough

The objectives of The Library Campaign are to advance the lifelong education of the public by the promotion, support, assistance and improvement of public libraries through the activities of friends and user groups.

While we are fully sympathetic to the financial plight of local authorities, we are alarmed at the sheer scale of the losses proposed by Enfield Council – for a comparatively small revenue saving [of up to £630,000 annually]. This is in many ways the most drastic proposed cut we have seen.

The sums only really make sense if the buildings are to be disposed of entirely. Any real capital gain is far from guaranteed, while all hope of restoring the service in time is lost.

We also wish to point out that revenue savings from closures tend to be smaller – and much slower in coming – than councils fondly imagine, with higher costs in the short term.

There will also be human damage and stress on other council departments in many areas, including public health, individual physical and mental health, social care, child welfare, family support, education, digital access, social isolation, partnerships and income generation. 

There are methods of calculating the cost of such damage. These the council does not appear to have attempted, apart from mentioning Enfield’s poor scores in extremely relevant areas such as employment, literacy and the need to foster pleasure in reading.

Multiple factors have rightly been taken into account, but nearly all the chosen closures would leave extremely large gaps in geographical cover, with a huge desert area around Oakwood, Southgate, Bowes Road and Winchmore Hill and one almost as large around Enfield Highway and Enfield Island Village.

It is thus particularly regrettable that we see no attention paid to actual public transport journeys (and fares) in the calculations. We would also want to see some understanding of the importance of having libraries near schools and nurseries.

We applaud the council’s multiple consultations, but are unable to judge the quality of engagement as so little of the feedback has been published.

The revenue costs of all this need to be set against the supposed revenue savings from closures.

The consultation feedback, as quoted, seems to put very high value on libraries as buildings. As is normal, the highest demand is for borrowing books. Without further clarification, we must assume this means print books and a place to choose them.

It is not quite fair that current usage figures are set against those for the pre-Covid period. The Covid dip in physical usage is steadily being made up, nationally and in Enfield. 

All the other factors mentioned – by individuals and organisations/groups – highlight things that happen in buildings. This is reflected in consultation findings, consultation comments, Enfield’s own analysis of recent developments in the service (including very successful community hubs), all the case studies, its list of key services and even its ongoing priorities.

Distance factors, and being able to walk to the library, are also seen as important by many consultees. It is thus with extreme concern that we turn to the equality impact assessments (EIAs).

In brief, Enfield clearly acknowledges disadvantage to a large number of protected groups (including old, young, disabled or socially isolated people, those on low income, those with mobility problems). The proposed mitigations seem both very limited and astonishingly staff-intensive and expensive. 

The council seriously seems to propose sympathy and tailored information for every person and group affected, with familiarisation visits and individual sign-posting to other libraries and to alternative local facilities (in eight separate areas).  

There is no mention of the plight of people who have no internet access at home, or the need to train people to use digital resources in the library.

As a sort of last resort the council offers the home library service – surely the most expensive possible way to get books to people, and without any likely supply of extra volunteers or vehicles.

A further round of EIAs is promised after the current consultation.

Enfield unfortunately seems open to handing over buildings to any organisation willing to take them. We are at least relieved to see that it is aware that any such process would be elaborate, demanding of time and intense supervision, prolonged negotiation and considerable expense. We do not recommend it.

We repeat that we entirely sympathise with Enfield’s need to make savings of some kind. We fear that it has over-emphasised the possible savings, and very severely under-estimated the probable costs. 

For more information about The Library Campaign:
Visit librarycampaign.com

No news is bad news 

Independent news outlets like ours – reporting for the community without rich backers – are under threat of closure, turning British towns into news deserts. 

The audiences they serve know less, understand less, and can do less. 

If our coverage has helped you understand our community a little bit better, please consider supporting us with a monthly, yearly or one-off donation. 

Choose the news. Don’t lose the news.

Monthly direct debit 

Annual direct debit

£5 per month supporters get a digital copy of each month’s paper before anyone else, £10 per month supporters get a digital copy of each month’s paper before anyone else and a print copy posted to them each month. £50 annual supporters get a digital copy of each month's paper before anyone else.  

More information on supporting us monthly or yearly 

More Information about donations