Southchurch Library to be demolished by Southend Labour - what does it mean for the rest of Southend’s libraries?

While Southend Labour’s decision to blindly follow their national party’s policy of destroying the countryside - which is going swimmingly to plan unless the country is able to act as one and stand against them - little old Southchurch Library remains under very real threat from the same belligerent administration.

The Southend Labour-led Cabinet were forced to debate their reckless decision to demolish Southchurch Library because almost 400 residents signed an e-petition launched on by the Confelicity Party on behalf of Southend residents.

Following the meeting, Cllr Dent raced to social media with footage of himself attempting to myth-bust the truth about situation. Rather than addressing the substance of the campaign, his main claim was that I had not launched the petition in “good faith” and that it was simply a political ploy ahead of the local elections that took place in May.

It was an effective way of deflecting attention from the real issue and I commend his political instinct because he and Labour have, in my view, successfully turned local residents trying to save an underrated but highly valued community facility into a group of some kind of political swindlers.

Cllr Dent is much better than me at politics and it is to Southchurch Library’s cost. He knows what to say and how to say it. He is at least two pawns ahead of me when it comes to controlling the narrative - I just assume truth would be enough!

And the truth is Confelicity is nothint more than a group of independent, free-thinking local residents who have stumbled into politics because we are sick and tired of watching our town being inflicted with so many poor decisions and want to do something about it.

We are not looking for power, status or money (if we are elected we have pledged to do the role voluntarily). We want to improve our area, and when decisions like this are made, an e-petition is one of the few ways residents outside elected councillors can force the issue onto the Cabinet agenda. Thanks to the those residents who signed it, that is exactly what happened.

“Moving the provision” - the old trick

As a child I used Thorpedene Library and it now sits derelict. Where the service provision was moved to, does anyone know? And so I am very concerned that all the other libraries in Southend are at risk because of Southend Labour’s smoke and mirrors trick of “moving the service provision” into some far away building never to be seen again.

Many of us remember what we have already lost in Southend, which is why we are determined not to lose Southchurch Library too. It is, after all, a very well used library with almost 30,000 visits per year.

What disappointed me most during the Cabinet meeting was the blatant mis-representation of the facts as read out by Cllr Robinson.

He stated that the report showed “about a quarter of a million pounds of just remedial works to the timber structure and windows without even considering what was inside.”

This is an outright lie.

The 2023 Condition Report put the estimated £250,000 against all recommended repairs, not just external works. The report is there for anyone to read (https://www.southendconfelicityparty.co.uk/post/no-mention-of-beyond-repair-and-the-only-time-the-report-mentioned-the-end-of-it-s-life-was-in-r)

It does not say the £250,000 only covers the outside of the building before further internal costs are added. Yet that is exactly the impression given to the public.

The cost of repairing the building is one of the fundamental arguments for demolition and they have lost the argument on this point.

Cllr Robinson also stated that Southchurch Library had “reached its useful life.”

Again, nowhere in the 2023 Condition Report does it say that. What does that even mean? I’m pretty sure the residents using it would disagree.

The only reference to the building reaching the end of its life relates to the water cooler. Yet once statements by Cabinet members like these are made during an official Cabinet meeting, they quickly become accepted as fact.

He also referred to “some low-risk asbestos”. Once again, there is no asbestos survey confirming this because no survey has been carried out. The Condition Report actually recommends that further investigation should take place, but for reasons that are quite clear now they have allowed tens of thousands of residents to continue using their facility with this risk.

Later he claimed the report concluded that refurbishment would not represent value for money or secure the building’s long-term future.

That statement does not appear anywhere in the report either. This is an opinion - not fact.

So where has it come from?

The Cabinet has based one of its most significant decisions on claims that are either unsupported by the Condition Report or simply not contained within it.

For the thousands of people who use Southchurch Library, repairing it would represent value for money.

Even if the full £250,000 were required, it is only a small fraction of the Council’s overall budget.

There are also unanswered questions about the costs of demolition. A Freedom of Information response obtained by Peter Lovett, Chair of the Shoeburyness Residents’ Association, estimated demolition at around £40,000, depending on future plans for the site and the outcome of a proper asbestos survey, raising further questions about the figures presented during the debate.

Confelicity will continue to support repairing Southchurch Library rather than demolishing it. We will continue to challenge statements that do not stand up to truth and continue asking questions until residents are given clear and accurate information.

Finally, thank you to Cllr Stephen Aylen for presenting the petition, Peter Lovett for his continued efforts to uncover the facts, and the 400 residents who stood up for Southchurch Library.