Mill Road Free Library

The first of two articles tells the story of how the listed former Mill Road Free Library in Cambridge has suffered from years of failures by the county and city councils.

The former library in 2019 (Photo: John Preston).

The Crooked House demolition and Sycamore Gap tree felling have raised national outcries about the adequacy of statutory protection. But what about the duties on, and actions (or inaction) of local authorities as owners, developers and planning authorities? Here is a saga which has seen a public listed building (and potential community centrepiece) become at risk and blighted due to county and city councils scandalously neglecting responsibilities, notwithstanding the best efforts of conservation officers. This is the first of two articles.

The former Mill Road Free Library in Cambridge is the only listed building on what has been called England’s most diverse street, a mile-long stretch of conservation area. The library was built in red brick and Mansfield stone for the Borough of Cambridge to the design of Frank Waters. It opened in 1897 and was listed Grade II in 1972, after which its ownership passed to the county council in 1974. In 1992 I held the conservation area designation consultation in the library, but in 1996 the county council closed it, let it on a short-term lease as a night shelter, and boarded up the windows. The library’s centenary in 1997 saw an intense local campaign to reopen it as a community resource, with proposals including an arts centre. In 1999 the county council let the building to the Indian Community and Cultural Association (ICCA) on a 25-year repairing lease.

The former library has many challenges. It fills its entire site at the entrance to the city council’s former depot. It has windows only on the south and west elevations, only one door, and just two pay-and-display parking spaces outside. The lack of secondary means of escape restricted occupancy to 60. The only potential access solution (given ownership, architecture and levels constraints) was through the north gable into an adjacent council building, but the ICCA installed a Hindu shrine across the whole north wall. By the time they opened the building for the 2006 Mill Road Winter Fair, they had removed the county council’s inserted ceiling, revealing the full grandeur of the interior. A new permanent shrine with beautiful carved stones from Rajasthan was being installed at the north end, and a new kitchen and WCs to the south. A fundraising poster said that ‘all the internal work will be completed by March next year... we will start work to the outside to replace the eroded stone and brickwork sometime in May next year’.

The ICCA ran out of funds and did not repair the outside as promised. The building continued to deteriorate. In 2011 the updated conservation area appraisal described it as a ‘Building at risk – the former Free Library, Mill Road: the building is in very poor condition despite being in use as a (non-city council) community centre.’ In 2013, following further chasing by the conservation officer, the ICCA submitted a listed building application, which was approved. The listed building situation was now regularised, but the city council’s 2013 draft local plan showed proposed housing on the depot site, while omitting the listed building. I successfully challenged this.

Visiting the former library in January 2016 for a workshop on the planning and development brief (supplementary development document, SPD) for the depot site, I was shocked to see serious water penetration through the roof and walls. In July, a city council officer responding to my representation claimed in a local plan hearing that the former library was not a building at risk. I responded with a summary building-at-risk report. Neither the draft SPD, nor July 2017 proposals by the Cambridge Investment Partnership (CIP, the city council and local developers Hill Residential), mentioned the listed building at risk. Challenged at a city strategy and resources meeting, the director responsible said that ‘when submitted, the application would need to include listed building consent for the old library’. Later the council leader told my wife and me that he shared our love of the library and the area and our concern to get it right. Details would be in the report to the committee on 13 November, he said, but the aim was to retain the former library and look to see how it could be used. The CIP’s Phase 1 planning application for 184 dwellings on the depot site did not even mention the listed building as a building at risk. The former library was excluded from the application site; no listed building application was submitted.

No consideration was given to site constraints and potential impacts on future viable use of the listed building, or how its significance might be sustained and enhanced through the proposals, as required by paragraph 131 of the NPPF. Historic England and the conservation officer objected to the height of proposed apartment blocks on the depot site and their impacts on the conservation area, but the committee report concluded that the public benefits of the scheme outweighed the impacts on heritage assets. The city council as planning authority (as opposed to developer) should have complied with statutory obligations regarding the listed building, but neither consultees nor the officer report mentioned the Section 66(1) duty to ‘have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building… or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.’ My wife and I were among objectors at the council’s planning committee which approved the application on 28 March 2018. Because the application was by the Cambridge Investment Partnership (so technically not by the local authority), it did not go to the secretary of state.

The county did nothing for 18 years to enforce the repairing lease, until July 2017 when I pointed out the water penetration to a county council property manager at the CIP exhibition. I sent a detailed building-at-risk report to both councils highlighting condition and planning challenges. The city conservation officers inspected, prompting the county to commission a condition survey. BWB’s report was submitted (but not published) in February 2018. It identified £200,000 worth of repairs and remedial work, but ignored vital issues for future viable use, including access, means of escape, parking and servicing. The CIP’s Phase 1 planning application was then ‘live’, but the county officers dealing with the former library did not comment on it. The city granted planning permission on 28 March 2018. County officers did not report the matter to their councillors until 25 May, two months later.

That July the Petersfield Area Community Trust (PACT) nominated the former library as a community asset under the Localism Act. In November, building control emailed the county identifying the building as a dangerous structure. This was followed by a letter from the planning director, and another inspection and report by conservation officers. When I chased both councils for an update, the county council responded: ‘The council is liaising with ICCA, the conservation officer and building control to resolve the problems.’ An officer of the city council wrote that it was ‘concerned about the condition of the building and has now requested the county to undertake limited works to maintain the safety of the building and we are also pressing for a wider programme of repair.’

The CIP’s Phase 2 planning application was submitted in February 2019. This comprised 49 affordable apartments and a new community centre adjoining the former library to the north and east. The heritage statement noted the former library’s ‘high level of architectural and artistic interest’ and ‘considerable historic interest’, without mentioning its at-risk status. I wrote to city and county councillors: ‘The current proposals involve a new community building virtually adjoining the former library, while eliminating virtually all possibility of viable use of the county’s asset.’ At my suggestion, Cambridge Past Present and Future sought a meeting with city and county councillors. This took place in June. We were told that the county had commissioned Insalls; it was hoping for a resolution of a way forward ‘within months’; and it wanted any future use to be by the community. It was blindingly clear that the planning application was premature, given this progress and pending resolution of the many issues, but six days later the city’s planning committee approved it. My wife and I did our best in our allotted three minutes. As before, the Section 66(1) duty regarding the listed building was not mentioned.

The county’s negotiations with the ICCA led to them vacating the building in January 2020. The building was returned ‘in a state of disrepair due to the tenant’s neglect and inability to fund repairs’. In July 2020, the county’s commercial and investments committee was told that the city’s conservation officers were considering taking repairs action against the county if urgent works (now estimated at £330,000) were not carried out.

I promise some good news in the next article.

This article originally appeared as ‘The battle for Mill Road Free Library’ in the Institute of Historic Building Conservation’s (IHBC’s) Context 179, published in March 2024. It was written John Preston, a conservation officer for Cambridgeshire County Council (in the days when it had three), then conservation officer and later historic environment manager for Cambridge City Council, until his post was cut in 2012. He is now a historic environment consultant. A local resident, he cycles past the former library several times a week.