The battle for Cambridge's Mill Road Free Library, part 2

This final article about a listed former library shows what can happen when heritage comes low in local authority priorities, despite the best efforts of conservation officers.

Part 1 of this article (Mill Road Free Library) concluded with Cambridge City Council’s depot site development in progress, next to the former library, a listed building at risk ‘due to lack of maintenance’ by the county’s tenants, the Indian Cultural and Community Association (ICCA). The cost of carrying out full restoration works was estimated at around £200,000.

The county engaged Donald Insall Associates, who submitted a listed building application for repairs, and internal removal of timber boxings and blown plaster to allow inspection and drying out. The county had offered to undertake the repairs, with costs spread over a 25-year lease, but the ICCA declined this. The city conservation officers threatened formal repairs action. The county invited tenders for the consented works and the removal of various fittings installed by the ICCA. None of these removals had been mentioned in the listed building application. In March 2021 the county’s group asset manager told me that the repossessed former library was being considered for ‘delivering services in Cambridge’, but no provision was made for reinstating heating and services. Shell-and-core repairs started with the removal of everything inserted by the ICCA. The carved stones of the Hindu shrine were destined for the skip until an inspired intervention by local hairdresser Piero D’Angelico. Exemplary repairs to the former library proceeded under the direction of Insalls.

Gutters, rainwater goods and windows were repaired, cement render was replaced with lime, and natural slate was reinstated on the lowest courses of the roof. In October 2021, the county issued a misleading press release: ‘Renovated former Mill Road Library brought back into use… Cambridgeshire County Council has carried out a comprehensive renovation… Nearly £500,000 has been spent on the six-month project… council exploring all options including a leasing agreement or sale’. But the renovation was not comprehensive. The building was only in temporary use, as site office for the city’s developer partners, with toilets and heating brought in. This helped the building to dry out but did nothing to secure its future. It was confirmed as surplus to county council requirements in November 2021; there was no public consultation or discussion of what its future use might be. The public was not allowed to see the magnificent interior, left as an empty shell.

The county took credit for a commendation in the 2022 Greater Cambridge Design and Construction Awards, but disregarded the judges’ comments that ‘the building… urgently needs a viable future to ensure it does not deteriorate again… too early to reach final judgement until an appropriate tenant is found to secure its future’. That August, county officers put the former library up for sale or lease, asking for offers over £700,000. The asset of community value status under the Localism Act gave community groups four weeks in which to express interest. PACT (Petersfield Area Community Trust) did just that, securing a six-month moratorium on open market sale. This gave a very short time for preparing bids.

PACT could not take the old library on as it was fully committed to running the city’s adjacent new community centre, so it facilitated a public meeting. Over 50 people brought great interest and ambitions, varying degrees of realism and potentially conflicting requirements. Ideas included an 80–90 seat cinema, a base for the Cambridge Literary Festival and potential arts, music venue and cafe uses. Viewings did not allow the space to be fully appreciated as it had not been vacated.

I offered to help interested community groups. Sophie Douglas and Francis Maude of Insalls briefed me on the repairs and challenges, including that the artificial slates on most of the roof were asbestos-containing Chrysolite. The prospective cinema operator had his specialist architect, and a proposed House of Literature joined the potential mix. Most wanted to insert an extra floor, potentially fraught with problems given the lowness of the ties. The library floor level was 600mm above the external level, but the city’s development had left no external space for a ramp.

After a further big meeting, with pro bono input by Insalls, the community initiative coalesced into an arts bid (https://millroadlibrary.com) supported by 750 organisations and individuals, which (after heroic efforts by its convenor Matthew Webb) was submitted by the deadline. It proposed initial lease followed by purchase, conditional on obtaining planning and other approvals. It was impossible, within the time available, to have any pre-application discussions with council officers.

In March 2023 the Cambridge Independent reported ‘Former Mill Road Library sold with ‘no consultation’’. The county officers’ report on the sale had recommended Bidder A, on a confidential matrix. No public details of the eight bids were given. None had been subject to pre-application discussions with the city. County councillors agreed the recommendation. Bidder A was Centre 33, a young people’s charity. Centre 33’s architects worked to develop a viable scheme, but no planning application was made.

The former library stood empty and forlorn amid the crowds of the 2023 Winter Fair. In January 2024, county councillors were told that Centre 33 had withdrawn, due to the more than £1 million cost of refurbishment. The asset of community value status expired, but PACT persuaded the city council to renew it. The county put the former library back on sale, again for £700,000. Two community groups expressed interest, triggering a second moratorium. Previous bidders were invited to viewings. At four days’ notice, with no publicity, the county held a public open day. The 50 people who came were able to see the full grandeur of the interior for the first time.

It seems that two ‘credible’ commercial bids of over £1 million had been received by late March. Whether they are realistic in planning terms is another matter. The current moratorium runs until July, but the county announced on 17 April that the deadline for community bids would be 1 May, and that councillors would consider offers in June. While just within the letter of the asset of community value process (no sale can be completed until the moratorium ends), the new timescale was a hammer blow to community bids. The county’s stated firm preference for unconditional offers disregarded the complexity of the practical, planning and funding challenges. Finally, though, it seems that common sense may have broken out: the bid process may now last until August.

This saga shows what can happen when heritage comes low in local authority priorities, despite the best efforts of conservation officers. It has seen a catalogue of failures: by the county’s officers to monitor the repair lease and ensure timely compliance; by the city and county to see the listed building as a potential centrepiece of community provision; by the city’s lip service only, as developer, to retaining it; and by the county officers’ failure to safeguard their listed building within the city’s development proposals, to repair it fully into a usable state, or to consider its sale as anything other than a purely commercial transaction.

All this has been compounded by the county’s secretive approach and the city’s disregard of its statutory duty to the listed building. Councillor involvement has been equivocal at best. The county ward councillor intervened far too late to influence the sale decision. External pressure might have gained traction with the councils, but neither Historic England nor the Victorian Society was willing to get involved.

When will Historic England include Grade II buildings in its heritage-at-risk purview? Surely local authorities should be required to act, in their own dealings, in accordance with statutory responsibilities for the heritage? The county says that it will consider whether offers for the old library deliver environmental and social benefits, but it does not mention cultural benefits. The county’s new Land and Property Strategy 2024–29 does not even mention the historic environment or listed buildings.

This article originally appeared in the Institute of Historic Building Conservation’s (IHBC’s) Context 180, published in June 2024. It was written by John Preston, a historic environment consultant, who was a conservation officer for Cambridgeshire County Council, then conservation officer and later historic environment manager for Cambridge City Council.

--Institute of Historic Building Conservation

Related articles on Designing Buildings Conservation.

• Heritage.
• Historic environment.
• IHBC articles.
• Institute of Historic Building Conservation.
• Mill Road Free Library.
• Our Town Hall, Manchester.
• Oxford College Gardens and Cambridge College Gardens.
• Significance and heritage protection at Cambridge Market.
• The landscapes of Cambridge.
• The repair and restoration of Manchester Town Hall.
• Trinity College Library.