1

APPENDIX A

Title of Report Feedback from the ‘Inspiring Libraries’ public consultation 2014

Report Author Michele Murphy (With data supplied by Chris Bann and LHS Performance Analysis Team)

Date 21 January 2015

Summary of feedback

In all the libraries proposed for Tier 1 and Tier 2, and in five of the libraries proposed for Tier

3, the majority of respondents think the proposals are reasonable.

In the other 12 libraries proposed for Tier 3, the majority of respondents think the proposals

are unreasonable. These are Bovingdon, Buntingford, Chorleywood, Cuffley, Goffs Oak,

Kings Langley, Knebworth, Leverstock Green, London Colney, Sawbridgeworth, Welwyn

and Woodhall.

Local feeling is particularly strong in Buntingford, where 94.4% of respondents think the

proposals are unreasonable. (87.6% at Sawbridgeworth, 82.9% at Chorleywood).

A significant majority of respondents who currently use the mobile library service think the

proposals for mobile services are unreasonable.

Key themes Analysis of the detailed comments made during the consultation make it clear that there is considerable public anxiety about two areas of the proposals:

The proposal to withdraw paid front-line library staff completely from the Tier 3 libraries.

Respondents are concerned about the capacity within the community to recruit and retain

volunteers, they fear that volunteers will lack the knowledge and expertise to deliver the

service effectively, and they do not see the development of self-service technology as

providing an adequate substitute for library staff. In many cases, respondents suggest that

they would be happy with the idea of volunteer support if some paid staffing could be

retained.

The proposal to withdraw the mobile library service – whilst there is some

acknowledgement that this is an expensive service, there is a strong feeling that we should

retain some reduced or alternative service to mobile users over and above the proposal to

extend the Home Library Service for people with disabilities and mobility problems and

carers. In particular, there is a feeling that mobile library users who would not qualify for the

Home Library Service – the active elderly and young families without transport – would lose

their access to libraries altogether if the service was withdrawn.

2

1.0 Purpose of the report To inform Members of the feedback from the 2014 public consultation on ‘Delivering

Inspiring Libraries’ proposals. This was the second phase of consultation. 2.0 Background In the autumn of 2013, more than 15,000 residents participated in an extensive public

consultation on ‘The Future of the Library Service’. The results of this consultation informed the development of the ‘Inspiring Libraries’ strategy, which was adopted by Cabinet on 14 July 2014. This strategy is designed to ensure that we can continue to deliver a high quality library service that is sustainable into the future and remains relevant to the diverse and changing needs of Hertfordshire communities. It provides the direction for the development of the library service for the next 10 years and is based on three main themes:

The library as a vibrant community asset – shaped with local people and partners to reflect local need, support sustainability and enrich communities.

The digital library – exploiting technology and digital formats for the benefit of residents

The library as an enhanced gateway to reading, information and well-being In September 2014, a paper on ‘Delivering the Inspiring Libraries Strategy’ was presented

to the Customer Service, Performance and Libraries Panel. This outlined proposals for change over the next three years, which will begin to deliver the ‘Inspiring Libraries’ objectives, while contributing £2.5 million to budget savings. These include improving library buildings; investing in the development of technology; creating more volunteering opportunities; increasing income generation; and promoting the service more effectively.

A second public consultation took place between 29 September – 7 December 2014 to

seek views on these service developments and particularly on two specific proposals, namely:

1. To brand and promote Hertfordshire libraries in three distinct Tiers 2. To replace the existing mobile library service with an expanded Home Library Service

for vulnerable and isolated customers 3.0 Consultation methodology 3.1 Promotion of the consultation The consultation was promoted by library staff and by displays in every library and

posters distributed to other local community venues. The Council’s Corporate Communications issued press releases publicising the consultation and responded to further requests for information and local media interviews throughout the ten week period. This resulted in 49 articles appearing in the local press. There was an article promoting the consultation in the Council’s publication ‘Horizons’ delivered to every Hertfordshire household.

Social media (Facebook and Twitter) was used throughout the period to maintain

awareness of the consultation and it was also promoted via the library e-newsletter “What’s On in Libraries” in October and November. It also featured prominently on the library pages and the Herts Consults pages of the council website for the full 10 week period and as a news feature on the front page of the website 3 times during the consultation.

Background information and contextual data was made available to customers at every

library and via the library webpages on the council website.

3

3.2 Questionnaire Views were sought via individually completed questionnaires containing a mixture of

options to select and free text boxes to capture respondents’ comments. Copies of the questionnaire were printed and distributed via library buildings and mobile libraries. The questionnaire was also available for online completion via the library web pages on www.hertsdirect.gov.uk .

An Easy Read version of the questionnaire was developed for people with learning

disabilities. A Large Print version was also produced and telephone support was arranged for assisting severely sight impaired customers.

5,702 completed questionnaires (online, paper and large print) and 67 Easy Read

versions of the questionnaire were returned during the consultation period (combined total of 5,769 completed questionnaires).

3.3 Library ‘Drop-in’ sessions ‘Drop-in’ sessions took place in every library building and at seven mobile library locations

(54 sessions in total) throughout the consultation period. These provided customers with an opportunity to discuss the proposals with senior managers and Members. Either the Executive Member or the Deputy Executive Member for Libraries attended 20 of these sessions. A total of 1,098 customers came to these ‘drop-in’ sessions over the ten week consultation period.

3.4 Contributions from stakeholder organisations Documents were e-mailed or posted to over 1,150 stakeholders (including schools;

borough, town and parish councils; faith groups; partners and other local societies and organisations) inviting them to comment on the proposals and asking them to publicise the consultation as widely as possible. A second mailing to stakeholders took place before the consultation closed reminding them of the opportunity to take part. Responses were received from 30 stakeholders.

3.5 Contributions from children and young people Discussions were held with children and young people attending nine Chatterbooks

groups and two Teenage Reading Groups during the consultation period to give them an opportunity to give their views on the proposals. A total of 70 children and young people took part in these discussions.

Children and young people also engaged as individuals by completing a questionnaire, in

some cases preferring to use the Easy Read version. 51 of the 67 Easy Read questionnaires were completed by children from Buntingford.

4.0 Campaigns and petitions. During the consultation period a number of local campaigns and petitions were started by

local residents in response to the proposals. The specific wording of petitions appears in Appendix 1 to this report.

In Buntingford residents formed ‘The Buntingford Library Supporters Club’ and

organised four public meetings to object to the tiering proposal and any potential future relocation of the library. A petition containing 2,216 signatures and a full stakeholder response was presented by representatives of the group to the Customer Service, Performance and Libraries Cabinet Panel on 12 December 2014.

Residents of Chorleywood also raised a petition, gathering 2,250 signatures which they

presented to the same Cabinet Panel meeting.

4

Residents of Sawbridgeworth raised a petition containing 1209 signatures, including 120

signatures collected from local Brownies, Guides, Scouts and Cub groups. This was presented to the Executive Member for Libraries at Sawbridgeworth Library on 30 January 2015.

All parents of children at Bovingdon Primary Academy received a letter from the school

attaching an abridged page from the official questionnaire and encouraging them to object to the tiering proposed for Bovingdon Library with suggested wording. We received 23 copies of the single sheet from parents and two letters from children asking us not to close the library.

5.0 Proposal for tiering libraries Section 1 of the questionnaire invited respondents to comment on the proposal to

organise libraries in three distinct tiers based on the criteria of size of catchment population; a deprivation score within this population; and performance data for issues and visits. The tier for each library would dictate the length and pattern of opening hours, the extent of self-service opening hours, the range of stock and services available and the extent of volunteer involvement in supporting local services.

The wording of the proposal for Section 1 appears in Appendix 2 Respondents were invited to answer the question:

“Thinking about the future development of the library service and the county council’s need to save money, please specify which library or libraries you use most regularly and give your opinion about the proposed tier for each.”

The choices available were ‘Reasonable’, ‘Unreasonable’ or ‘No Opinion’ and a comment

box was provided for respondents to write anything they wished to write to explain the reasons for their opinion.

5.1 Feedback on the library tiering proposal The comments received throughout the consultation both written on the questionnaires

and made during library ‘drop-in’ sessions demonstrated that respondents value their library and the services already available within it. They regard the library as an important social centre in their community. There was also overwhelming support for front-line library staff and the high standards of customer care that they provide on a daily basis.

There were some respondents who were opposed to the general principle of tiering

regardless of which tier had been proposed for the library or libraries that they use. They felt that all libraries should be equal and treated as a single tier, with the same service everywhere.

5.2 Majority view on the library tiering proposal Respondents had the opportunity to give an opinion on up to five libraries in their

response and the opinion of the proposed tier was counted each time a library was mentioned. The majority of respondents selected the option of reasonable for the proposed tier for 34 out of the 46 libraries.

Tables showing the results are included in Appendix 3 of this report.

5

Proposed Tier 1 and Tier 2 libraries The majority view was that it is reasonable for all the libraries proposed to be in Tier 1

and Tier 2. These are: (Tier 1) Bishop’s Stortford, Borehamwood, Harpenden, Hatfield, Hemel Hempstead, Hitchin, Hoddesdon, St Albans, Stevenage Central, Watford Central, Welwyn Garden City. (Tier 2): Abbots Langley, Baldock, Berkhamsted, Bushey, Cheshunt, Croxley Green, Hertford, Letchworth, Marshalswick, North Watford, Oakmere, Oxhey, Radlett, Rickmansworth, Royston, Tring, Waltham Cross, Ware.

Themes from the Tier 1 & Tier 2 Feedback There is broad support for the tiering proposals in general and agreement that the

proposed tier is appropriate for these libraries. The main themes emerging from proposed Tier 1 & Tier 2 libraries are:

General comments that the Tier 1 or Tier 2 proposal is fair, reasonable and sensible Reflects the status of the library in the community appropriately Means little change to the library and the services it provides Appropriate for the size of the town and catchment area Appropriate for the size of the library, the scope of the facilities and range of services

available at the library Appropriate for the usage of the library Use of volunteers will add value and extend the service available Although the majority view was that the proposal for all the Tier 2 libraries was

reasonable, there were respondents who felt that their library should be Tier 1 rather than Tier 2. The main reasons given for this across all the proposed Tier 2 libraries were:

All libraries should be in Tier 1 and that Tier 1 is created at the expense of libraries in Tier 2 and Tier 3

Size of the existing catchment area Potential population growth and future development of the town High level of use of the library Objection to the increased use of volunteers replacing library staff Concerns that it will lead to reduced range of stock or services Dissatisfaction with current opening hours and clarification required as to what ‘core

hours’ will mean in the future Respondents using the following libraries also raised the additional points when

suggesting that their library should be in Tier 1 rather than Tier 2: Hertford Library – Some respondents felt that as Hertford is the County Town, Hertford

Library should be Tier 1. Letchworth Library – Some respondents say that the library is comparable to Hitchin

Library (proposed Tier 1) and feel that Letchworth Library is in a better location to serve the Letchworth, Baldock and Hitchin catchment population.

Royston Library – Some respondents drew attention to the distance from Royston to the

nearest proposed Tier 1 libraries. They also felt that there was a large amount of use of the library by Cambridgeshire residents due to the position of the town on the county border.

Rickmansworth Library – Some respondents noted that there was not a proposed Tier 1

library within the Three Rivers District and that Rickmansworth Library is located in a public services hub alongside the Three Rivers District Council headquarters.

6

5.3 Proposed Tier 3 Libraries There are five libraries where the Tier 3 proposal was also considered reasonable.

These are: Adeyfield, Brookmans Park, Redbourn, Stevenage Old Town and Wheathampstead.

The remaining 12 libraries where the majority of respondents felt that the proposed Tier 3

is unreasonable are: Bovingdon, Buntingford, Chorleywood, Cuffley, Goffs Oak, Kings Langley, Knebworth, Leverstock Green, London Colney, Sawbridgeworth, Welwyn, and Woodhall. Section 5.5 of the report summarises the objections to the proposal in these libraries.

Themes from the comments made by respondents against the Tier 3 proposal The comments that respondents made when they were explaining why they considered

the tiering to be unreasonable were often similar. There were a number of themes that emerged consistently. The same concerns were often voiced at the drop-in sessions at these libraries. These themes are:

Importance and value of knowledgeable and helpful library Role of the library as a valued social centre in the community may be eroded Size of community served by library (including plans for future expansion) Levels of deprivation within particular communities Impact of the changes on children and elderly people Relocation away from the centre of the community Capacity within the community to recruit and retain volunteers Reliability and lack of specialist knowledge of volunteers Suitability of the ‘virtual librarian’ and other technological developments, such as

swipe-card access to self-service Difficulty accessing services at other tiers of library due to inadequate public transport

or lack of parking facilities nearby Questioning the methodology used to determine the libraries that are proposed in

each tier and comparison to other libraries in different tiers View that HCC is prioritising the services in towns over the services in more rural

areas Inadequate current opening hours and a fear that these would decrease further Questioning whether it is necessary to find savings from the library budget at all Fears that the library is going to be closed as part of the existing proposal or will be

earmarked for closure in the future Comments that the questionnaire asked leading questions and was difficult to

complete Assumption that the decisions have already been made and that the consultation will

make no difference to the outcome 5.4 Alternative suggestions made by the respondents to the proposal. Some respondents offered alternative solutions for reducing the cost of the service whilst

retaining staff in Tier 3 libraries and these also fell into broad themes: Use volunteers but have some periods in the week when staff are available in the

library to support with specific queries Reduce the amount of time staff spend in Tier 1 and Tier 2 libraries and use this to

share them with their nearest Tier 3 libraries Reduce opening hours in Tier 3 libraries but have library staff there when the library is

open Increase Council Tax to cover the cost of staffing all libraries Find the required savings from efficiencies elsewhere in the county council Replace the Tier 3 libraries with an expanded mobile library service

7

5.5 Individual summaries for libraries where the majority view was unreasonable. 5.5.1 Bovingdon Library (69.8% unreasonable) The library has close links to the Bovingdon Primary Academy and there is a door to

which the school has exclusive use to enter the building. Volunteers from the school currently support self-service access for library customers one morning a week during term-time.

The special relationship with the school and the need for the pupils to maintain their

access to the library resources was a particular theme of the comments. Respondents valued the work of library staff and did not want the library to be run exclusively by volunteers. Respondents were concerned about elderly customers being unable to cope with a ‘virtual librarian’ link for assistance from library staff elsewhere. The library was seen to be an important venue within the village and respondents commented that it was a focal point for people coming from surrounding villages too. Comments were made about the increasing population due to new homes being built in the area.

5.5.2 Buntingford Library (94.4% unreasonable) The largest number of responses came from Buntingford Library (625 individual

responses excluding petition). A majority of respondents felt that the size of the town and the 28 surrounding village communities it serves have been under represented in the proposal, and all the comments made reference to the future expansion of the town following planning approval for building several thousand new homes. Links were made to the proposal to replace mobile libraries with an expanded Home Library Service and the impact that this would have on Buntingford Library which is in the centre of the largest rural area in Hertfordshire. The distance between Buntingford and the nearest neighbouring libraries compared to other proposed Tier 3 libraries was a factor in many comments and the difficulties posed by accessing any of these by public transport was highlighted as a particular obstacle.

Some respondents commented on the library as a community hub and several cited the

library as one of the reasons for choosing to live in the area. The need for knowledgeable library staff was a recurring theme linked to the services required for children and elderly customers. Some respondents were against the principle of volunteers being recruited to support the library on the grounds that they would not have the technical expertise or knowledge to do this adequately. The accountability and long-term commitment of volunteers was questioned. Comments were made about HCC prioritising services in large towns rather than in the rural communities and it was considered unfair for communities like Buntingford to be “held to ransom” by being made to find volunteers to provide services whilst the libraries in larger towns would be staffed.

Some respondents interpreted that Tier 3 allocation was the precursor to closing the

library completely. The wording of the campaign literature led many respondents to mistakenly think that the current proposal included closing the library down and they phrased their opposition accordingly. There was also opposition to any potential move of the library from a High Street location.

A report was submitted on behalf of Buntingford residents by the ‘Buntingford Library

Supporters Club’ along with their petition. This outlines some of the issues above and makes suggestions for adapting the current library building and working with the library staff to deliver the Inspiring Libraries strategy more effectively. We received a letter from the local MP, Oliver Heald, supporting Buntingford constituents in their campaign for the library to be moved into Tier 2.

8

5.5.3 Chorleywood Library (82.9% unreasonable) Some respondents felt that Chorleywood Library should be made a Tier 2 library because

of its catchment area, citing that several of the proposed Tier 2 libraries have smaller catchment areas than Chorleywood. They said that it was not a village but was a small town with a population of over 9,000 residents. Some respondents also said that it should be Tier 2 due to its level of business, particularly the number of book groups that it serves. The fact that the Chorleywood & Loudwater Children’s Centre currently operates from premises within the Chorleywood Library was also a reason given by some respondents against the proposed tier.

Some respondents felt that the library must be staffed at all times due to the large elderly

population that use the library. The ‘virtual librarian’ was not considered to be an adequate substitute to meet the needs of elderly customers and respondents felt that being designated a Tier 3 would exclude a large number of customers from accessing library resources properly. There was a concern that this would lead to elderly residents becoming more isolated as they rely on the library as a social hub. Volunteers were not seen as an acceptable alternative due to lack of capacity within the community. There was a fear that it would divert volunteers from supporting other worthwhile causes and charities in the area. There were also several concerns about the training required to deal with practical issues and problems that could arise within the library.

Three Rivers District Council agreed a motion at a meeting on 25 November to oppose

the proposed reduction in the service at Chorleywood Library on the grounds that “This is a much valued community facility and local residents do not accept that a self-service operation with a "virtual Librarian" service will be adequate or acceptable.” Chorleywood Parish Council also provided a response querying the catchment population used for Chorleywood in comparison to Croxley Green (proposed Tier 2). The parish council feels that the vision of a volunteer led library service is not practical for the community and refers to the vital role the library plays in the community and the wealth of knowledge and information provided by the staff. The parish council strongly objects to the proposal and formally requests that the tiering for Chorleywood library is reconsidered and changed to a Tier 2.

5.5.4 Cuffley Library (56.0% unreasonable) Some respondents were concerned about nearest libraries (Brookmans Park and Goffs

Oak) also being designated Tier 3 meaning a longer journey to Cheshunt or Potters Bar to visit a staffed library.

Self-service options like swipe card access were not considered to be a reasonable

alternative to a staffed library as there were concerns about security and fears about vandalism. It was felt that the elderly population would not cope with the technology, particularly in relation to the ‘virtual librarian’ link.

There was a view that it was a planned tactic of Hertfordshire County Council to close

libraries by reducing services using volunteers who want to “play at being a librarian” whereas the council should be investing in libraries because literacy levels are declining.

5.5.5 Goffs Oak Library (55.9% unreasonable) Some respondents pointed to the fact that the nearest alternative library (Cuffley) was

also proposed as a Tier 3 and that this was not a good idea given the amount of elderly people in the area. There was also a view that the catchment population was increasing and linking with other expanding and developing communities nearby.

9

Some respondents felt that the library was an important centre for the community with

plenty of activities taking place. Library staff are seen as key to the success of the library and it was felt that use would decline without that staff input. Volunteers were not seen as a reasonable alternative because they wouldn’t be reliable or knowledgeable. The reliability of the technology to operate the ‘virtual librarian’ link was also questioned and it was considered unsuitable for elderly customers.

Broxbourne Borough Council has concerns regarding the number of hours the library will

be able to remain open if it is reliant on volunteers and the impact this may have on childhood literacy in particular. It is also concerned about the distance that Goffs Oak residents will need to travel in order to access a Tier 1 or Tier 2 library.

5.5.6 Kings Langley Library (64.5% unreasonable) Some respondents say that it has a comparable catchment area and services to Abbots

Langley Library which is proposed to be a Tier 2 and that Kings Langley has better stock and facilities. There is a view that it should be a Tier 2 due to the expanding catchment area that is becoming a “sprawling conurbation linking Watford and Hemel” although other comments were made about the distance that Kings Langley is from other Tier 1 and Tier 2 libraries if travelling on public transport. The deprivation score was questioned as it was felt it should be higher given Kings Langley’s proximity to Apsley.

The need to retain trained experienced staff was a key theme, particularly to support and

deliver children’s activities (such as Toddler Tales and the Summer Reading Challenge) and the adult book club. There was a view that volunteers would be difficult to recruit in Kings Langley and that the lack of staff input would lead to a decline in use and opening hours and then to closure of the library altogether.

There were some concerns that there would be plans to move the library away from its

current premises. This was not welcomed as the current building is close to convenient parking facilities.

5.5.7 Knebworth Library (54.8% unreasonable) Some respondents said that it should be a Tier 2 because Knebworth is a small town not

a village and that it is a well-used library serving neighbouring villages. There was a view that additional savings should be made from Stevenage Old Town in order to make Knebworth a Tier 2 library.

Some respondents felt that no library should operate solely on volunteers and that it is

immoral to ask local people to volunteer to support a service that they already pay for in taxation. There was a fear that once a library is operated by volunteers it is easier to close down in future. Respondents felt that elderly people and children in particular need the support of library staff and the ‘virtual librarian’ was an inadequate replacement. There were concerns about the security risks involved in operating self-service library although it was felt that the library should be open in the evenings to cater for commuters.

5.5.8 Leverstock Green Library (58.0% unreasonable) The objection to the proposed tier for Leverstock Green Library centred on the importance

of maintaining library staff delivering the service. Some respondents are concerned that the library is currently well used by elderly people and families with young children who want to be able to speak to someone. There is a concern that the ‘virtual librarian’ will not have the capacity to respond to enquiries from Tier 3 libraries at peak times and will be difficult to use for elderly people and people with disabilities. Respondents fear vandalism and other security problems if there were no staff present.

10

Some respondents were concerned that volunteers would not have the knowledge to be

able to provide the same level of service as library staff and would cost money to recruit and manage.

Parking at the nearest Tier 1 library (Hemel Hempstead) was seen to be a barrier to using

that as an alternative service. 5.5.9 London Colney Library (60.0% unreasonable) Some respondents compared London Colney to other proposed Tier 2 libraries such as

Radlett, which they believed was smaller and a more affluent community, and Marshalswick which they said was closer to the Tier 1 library in St. Albans. Some respondents said that London Colney should be a Tier 2 library due to the size of its current population which was continuing to expand.

Some respondents wanted the library to retain its current staffing in order to support the

diverse population including children, elderly people and people who did not have access to the Internet in their homes. They felt that reliance on volunteers would lead to a poorer service and a reduction in opening hours. They were against the idea of a self-service library due to concerns around vandalism and they thought that the ‘virtual librarian’ would not work for elderly people.

London Colney Parish Council welcomed some of the Inspiring Library proposals such as

the use of shared buildings but also raised concerns about the loss of library staff, the introduction of the ‘virtual librarian’ and the criteria for being a proposed Tier 3 library. The Minister of the Baptist Church felt that the proposals will have detrimental effects on an already needy community and that the lives of the most vulnerable people would be hit the hardest. The local WI Book Club wrote to express concerns that they would no longer be able to operate without the support of library staff.

5.5.10 Sawbridgeworth Library (87.6% unreasonable) Some respondents disagree that Sawbridgeworth is a village and say that it is a small

market town equal in size to Royston (proposed Tier 2) with a growing population set to expand further due to the amount of new homes proposed. There is a view that it suffers in terms of services because it is on the county border and that public transport links to Bishop’s Stortford (proposed Tier 1) are poor. Some respondents also felt that the county council was hoping to close the library in order to sell the land that it currently occupies. They were against any potential for relocating the library building away from its current site opposite one of the local schools although there were also comments about the age and condition of the current building.

Some respondents point towards it being a well-used library in the heart of the

community. They value the knowledge and expertise of library staff who support children and elderly customers to use the service. There is a concern that insufficient volunteers would be recruited to cover existing opening hours and that would lead to the service being further reduced or closed entirely. Volunteers were seen as a potential support for library staff but not as a substitute for them.

Some respondents did not trust that the ‘virtual librarian’ technology would work reliably

as some had experienced problems using the existing self-service machines. It was felt that increasing use of self-service technology would ‘scare off’ elderly customers.

11

5.5.11 Welwyn Village Library (70.3% unreasonable) Some respondents said that Welwyn Village Library should be a Tier 2 because it is

bigger than other villages, with a population of over 9,000 which is currently expanding due to new homes being built in the area. Some respondents said that the library is used by people from other villages in the area and that elderly people can’t get to Welwyn Garden City Library easily using public transport. It was suggested that the library should operate a tourist information service to generate income. There was also a view that services should be equal for all and that the county council is penalising villages.

There was support for the local library staff in the responses, particularly for the

assistance given to book groups and children. Some respondents felt it was the library staff that made the library into a social community hub and that providing a ‘virtual librarian’ would de-personalise the service leading to permanent closure. Some respondents felt that elderly customers would be put off from using the library if it meant using self-service technology and there were fears of vagrants, drinkers and anti-social behaviour if there were no staff on site. Some respondents said that volunteers would not come forward from the community to support the library if that meant that local staff would lose their jobs. There was also a view that the proposals would not save money because it would be costly to train and manage volunteers.

Welwyn Parish Council (responsible for the building in which the library is located) raised

a number of concerns regarding Health & Safety procedures if the library opened without a member of staff on site and questioned the arrangements regarding insurance. It also raised issues relating to modifications that may be required to the building to operate on a self-service basis. They also made reference to the houses being built in walking distance from the library and are concerned that the proposed Tier 3 library would lead to a downgrading of the service whilst they are trying to promote increased use.

5.5.12 Woodhall Library - Welwyn Garden City (66.4% unreasonable) The methodology for calculating the deprivation score for Woodhall was questioned as

respondents felt that the proposal is penalising one of the most deprived areas in the county. There was a view that libraries in lower socio-economic areas are being sacrificed at the expense of the more affluent areas. Some respondents also felt that the wider catchment area had not been included in the calculations. Other reasons respondents gave for believing that Woodhall should be in Tier 2 were: its comparison in size to Marshalswick (proposed Tier 2); that the population is expanding due to 12,500 new homes planned for the Welwyn/Hatfield area; and that staff should be retained to deal with anti-social behaviour experienced in the area.

Some respondents felt that it was vital to maintain library staff to provide assistance to

people with disabilities, unemployed people, people with English as a second language and young mothers. Some respondents felt that it was wrong to depend on volunteers to run public services and that they would be less reliable due to a lack of accountability. There was also concern that it would be a struggle to recruit volunteers from poorer communities such as Woodhall. The ‘virtual librarian’ and increased self-service technology were not seen as a substitute for staff, particularly for elderly people.

6.0 Proposal to replace mobile library service with an expanded Home Library Service

for vulnerable and isolated customers. Section 2 of the questionnaire focussed on the proposals affecting the mobile library

service. The previous public consultation in autumn 2013 had demonstrated that 77% of respondents who said that they used the mobile library service also said that they used other library buildings. The main reason given for using the mobile library in that consultation was convenience (72%) but there were also 14% of respondents in 2013 who said that they used mobile libraries because they had a disability or other mobility difficulties.

12

The results from the 2013 public consultation, combined with the performance and cost

data for the mobile library service, were the basis for the proposal to withdraw the current mobile library service and to concentrate resources on the vulnerable and isolated customers who cannot access library services in any other way.

In the 2014 consultation respondents were asked a number of questions about the

difference that the replacement of the mobile library service would have on them. They were also asked: “Thinking about the future development of the library service and the county council’s need to achieve value for money, do you think that replacing the mobile library service with an expanded Home Library Service for customers who are unable to access library services in any other way is: Reasonable, Unreasonable or No Opinion. (tick one box)” There was also a space provided for respondents to give reasons for their opinion.

6.1 Feedback on the mobile library service proposal The comments received from respondents who currently use the mobile library service on

their questionnaires, at ‘drop-in’ sessions and in written correspondence during the consultation were extremely supportive of the value of the service in general and the of the mobile library service staff in particular.

6.2 Majority view on the proposal 6.2.1 The majority view of the total number of respondents (5,769) is that the proposal to

replace the mobile library service with an expanded Home Library Service is reasonable. See table below.

Reasonable Unreasonable No Opinion Not answered

Total Respondents (5,769)

% No. of

responses %

No. of responses

% No. of

responses %

No. of responses

39.3%

2,279

24.4%

2,772

22.4%

1,295

13.8%

797

6.2.2 4,109 respondents stated that they do not use the mobile library service. Of these

respondents 43.4% thought the proposal was reasonable, 18.4% thought it was unreasonable, 27.8% said that they had no opinion and 10.5% did not answer this question. If the respondents who said that they do not use the mobile library service are excluded from the data, the majority view of the proposal changes to unreasonable. See table below.

Reasonable Unreasonable No Opinion Not answered

Responses excluding those who stated that they do not use the mobile library service (1,651)

% No. of

responses %

No. of responses

% No. of

responses %

No. of responses

30.2% 498 38.8% 640 9.6% 158 21.5% 355

13

6.2.3 410 respondents indicated in their comments that they currently use the mobile library

service. If the views of these respondents are analysed independently from the rest of the data, the size of majority view of unreasonable increases to 65.6%.

Reasonable Unreasonable No Opinion Not answered

Responses confined to those who indicated that they currently use the mobile library service (410)

% No. of

responses %

No. of responses

% No. of

responses %

No. of responses

20.5% 84 65.6% 269 4.6% 19 9.3% 38

Therefore it is clear that respondents are more likely to think that the proposal is

reasonable in the context of library service provision as a whole if they don’t currently use the mobile library service. Conversely, respondents who currently use the mobile library service are more likely to consider the proposal to be unreasonable.

6.3 Themes from the comments made by respondents against the proposal to replace

the mobile library service with an expanded Home Library Service There were a number of themes that emerged consistently from the comments made on

the questionnaire and in ‘drop-in’ sessions. These were:

Rural Council Tax payers are getting less council services in comparison to residents in towns

Importance of the role of the mobile library as a social focus within the rural community and in avoiding social isolation

Importance of having knowledgeable mobile library staff to assist with enquiries and suggestions for reading choices

Young families use the mobile service as well as elderly people but there is no provision in the proposal to replace services for these families

Convenience is an important factor in busy lives

Lack of public transport from rural locations to towns to access other libraries

Time it would take to use public transport (where it does exist) to visit a library in a town

Cost of travelling into towns and parking if you have private transport

Importance of being able to browse for oneself from a choice of titles

Capacity to recruit sufficient volunteers from the community to deliver the Home Library Service for everyone that will need it

Queries over the criteria needed to meet in order to benefit for the Home Library Service

As residents will have to apply to receive the Home Library Service, individuals who may be in most need may not request it if they do not wish to be seen as “a burden”

There is a need to provide both the expanded Home Library Service and maintain the existing mobile library service

Insufficient detail had been provided about what an expanded Home Library Service entailed or how much it would cost to run

Misunderstanding as to what the cost of £14 per visit meant. It is the current cost to Hertfordshire County Council of running the mobile library service. Many respondents interpreted this as the cost that would be payable by individuals to receive the proposed new service.

Questionnaire contained leading questions, was confusing or difficult to complete

Concerns that the decisions have already been made and that the consultation will make no difference to the outcome

14

6.4 Themes of comments in favour of the proposal Many comments were in favour of the proposal. Some of the positive comments were

made by respondents who currently used, or had previously used mobile libraries. Others were made by respondents currently receiving the Home Library Service. The remainder were respondents who were considering the impact of the need for savings across the whole library service. These positive comments broadly fell into the following themes:

Better to target taxpayers money where it is needed most

The mobile library is underused and the expanded Home Library Service will be better value for money

The expanded Home Library Service sounds like a better and more personal service than the mobile library service

Praise for the Home Library Service from current Home Library Service customers 6.5 Barriers to accessing libraries in towns We asked respondents to indicate the reasons why they are unable to access any other

library. Respondents were able to select a multiple response using options that we had identified as emerging themes from the consultation in 2013. Respondents could also indicate any other reason why they were unable to access other libraries and were invited to explain this in the comments box provided.

Mobility problems were a large factor in the responses. This could be due to a disability or

other physical problems associated with increasing age. Some respondents were still able to drive or cycle short distances now but were aware that they may not be able to continue to do so in the future as they got older. The difficulty of carrying heavy books any distance means that using public transport is not seen as a viable option and can also be a barrier for those currently able to drive if there is not adequate parking adjacent to a library building. If there is not a bus stop outside or very near to the destination library this poses another problem for customers with limited mobility. Some respondents stated that they would be dependent on other people to assist them with transport to a town library and that would depend on the availability of the third party.

Lack of suitable public transport operating at times that respondents felt comfortable

using it was another common reason given. For other respondents the main barrier was the time they have available to make a trip to

a town library, whether by public or private transport. Respondents who are working during the day or have caring responsibilities (for an adult or young children) found it difficult to include a trip to a town library in their schedules.

Travel and parking costs were also a factor for some respondents. For others it was a

preference or choice not to make additional journeys for environmental reasons. 6.6 Alternative suggestions to the proposal made by respondents The following alternatives to replacing the mobile library service were suggested by

respondents:

Reduce costs by reducing the frequency that the mobile library visits each location but don’t cease the service completely

Don’t go to the places where residents aren’t using the service but maintain service to popular locations

Use volunteers to drive the mobile library and to serve the customers

Close Tier 3 libraries and maintain the mobile library service instead

Charge a membership fee

Increase Council Tax to maintain the service

Make efficiencies elsewhere in Hertfordshire County Council

15

6.7 An expanded Home Library Service Many respondents were not aware that the Home Library Service already exists and has

been delivered by volunteers for decades. As a result of completing the questionnaire, 345 respondents said they wanted to know more about the service and filled out their contact details in Question 4 on the form. The Outreach Services Team attempted to make contact with all of these respondents to discuss their current need for this service or their likely need if the mobile library service ceased operation. The team received no replies to their repeated attempts to contact 174 of these respondents and 12 had left incorrect or incomplete contact details.

Of the remaining respondents:

67 said they would like to be contacted again to discuss receiving the Home Library Service if the mobile library ceased operation.

9 said that they would like to start receiving the Home Library Service as soon as possible

3 said they might need the Home Library Service sometime in the future and would contact us then

11 said they were already receiving the Home Library Service

1 was already a Home Library Service volunteer

3 offered themselves as future Home Library Service volunteers

65 said that they did not need the Home Library Service or had filled their details in on the form in error.

One of the main concerns regarding the Home Library Service that was expressed by

respondents is that they prefer to be able to browse and select from a range of titles on the shelves rather than have a delivery of items that someone has selected on their behalf. Some respondents also feel that delivering to individuals in their own homes removes an element of independence. They comment that the social interaction from visiting a mobile library, even if only for a few minutes, contributes to an isolated individual’s health and wellbeing.

Some respondents were concerned about the criteria that would be used to determine

who would be eligible for the Home Library Service. They also wanted to know how we would identify people in need of the service in the future.

There was a common misunderstanding that the council was proposing to charge Home

Library Service customers £14 per visit for the expanded service. This led some respondents to condemn the proposal as it was seen to be hitting the most vulnerable customers the hardest.

Another recurring theme was that some respondents thought the service which would

replace the mobile library service under the proposal would end up costing the council more than the current service does. Other respondents felt that insufficient information about the costs of the replacement services had been provided and therefore it was not possible to judge whether the proposal would deliver better value for money.

Some of the respondents who understood that the Home Library Service operates using

volunteers questioned the ability to recruit the number of volunteers that would be required to expand the service. Some respondents linked this to the proposal for volunteers to support Tier 3 libraries and suggested that there wouldn’t be capacity to do both.

16

Some respondents are current Home Library customers or had relatives who had been

recipients of the service. A large majority of these respondents were positive about the service, with some describing it as ‘a lifeline’ and praising their visiting volunteer. Some respondents told us that they are currently Home Library Service volunteers. They had concerns about the capacity to take on additional customers themselves or how we would recruit sufficient new volunteers to sustain an expanded service.

Many respondents commented that they thought the Home Library Service sounded an

excellent service that would be more personal than the mobile library service. Some saw the visit from the volunteer as an important way to combat loneliness and isolation.

Many respondents commented that the Home Library Service was not an acceptable

alternative to the mobile library service as it made no provision for use by young families. These respondents said that they would be unable to access libraries in towns due a variety of factors (lack of time, lack of convenient parking, cost of travel, lack of public transport etc.) and would be ineligible to receive the Home Library service as this was aimed at elderly people and people with disabilities or mobility issues.

We received ten responses from District, Town and Parish Councils in relation to the

proposal to replace the mobile library service with an expanded Home Library Service. Nine of these raised objections to the proposal but Ickleford Parish Council was supportive and saw it as an excellent way to ensure vulnerable and isolated residents still have access to the library service.

The councils that raised objections to the proposal were:

Three Rivers District Council

Ashwell Parish Council

Great Munden Parish Council

Little Hadham Parish Council

North Mymms Parish Council

Pirton Parish Council

St Stephens Parish Council

Welwyn Parish Council

Ware Town Council Some of these councils made specific reference to the amount of use made of the mobile

library in their parish or area, particularly by young families. None of them wanted to see a reduction in rural services and they all considered the mobile library to be an important local facility, in some cases the only social meeting point in the area. There were concerns about the lack of public transport for residents to access other libraries in towns and that there were many residents currently using the mobile library service who would not qualify for the replacement offered by the expanded Home Library Service and that it provided no opportunity for browsing. Some suggested alternatives to the proposal which were: reducing the frequency of the mobile library visits, charging a membership fee for the service, using volunteers to run the service and using vacant shops or businesses to provide an alternative collection of books.

6.8 ‘Home to Library’ transport We asked respondents to comment on whether they were likely to be interested in using

a service that provided ‘home to library’ transport as part of an expanded Home Library Service. 11.8% of all respondents said that they would be interested in using such a service, 49.7% said they would not be interested and 38.5% of all respondents did not answer the question.

17

When examining the comments that were made about ‘home to library’ transport it

became clear that some respondents were in favour of this being developed even if they did not see it as a service that they were likely to use in the near future.

Respondents who were against the idea of developing ‘home to library’ transport made

comments about the importance of routine to elderly people. They felt that the people that the service would be aimed at would not want to travel on minibuses if they had health conditions that made this uncomfortable whereas they could get to the mobile library if it was parked nearby. The time taken to visit a library in a town compared to making a quick visit to a mobile library was also an issue, particularly for carers who did not want to leave the person they were caring for alone. There was also a view that the people who might benefit most from such a service would be the people who wouldn’t want to sign up for it due to it stigmatising them in some way or making them feel beholden to others.

Some respondents thought this service should not be developed because it was not the

responsibility of the library service to provide a taxi service and that it would be a waste of money. Some respondents felt that this should be paid for from the social care budget or that families or friends should perform this function. Many respondents felt that this would be a more costly service than providing the mobile library that could be accessed by everyone.

Others felt that this was an excellent opportunity for the library service to link with existing

‘good neighbours’ schemes to facilitate visits. They saw potential for activities to be organised within the town library that would enhance a visit from isolated individuals and contribute to their health and wellbeing. Some respondents also thought that a visit to a town library would provide more choice for browsing than was currently available on a mobile library.

6.9 Loan of e-book readers We asked respondents to comment on whether they were likely to be interested in using

a service that provided the loan of e-readers as part of an expanded Home Library Service. 13.7% of all respondents said that they would be interested in using such a service, 46.7% said they would not be interested and 39.6% of all respondents did not answer the question.

There were fewer comments made about the potential development of a service to loan

e-book readers to customers as part of an expanded Home Library Service. Both negative and positive views were expressed.

Some respondents commented that an insufficient choice of titles was currently available

in e-book format for this to be a reasonable alternative to browsing in a mobile library. Some respondents felt that elderly people would not be able to manage the new

technology and would not be interested in learning how to use it. There were comments from respondents who were elderly which agreed with this view, and others (some in their 90’s) that seemed willing to try. Some saw e-book readers as a positive addition for them as they were no longer able to hold heavy books due to health conditions. There was a concern that this technology would require customers to have computers and broadband internet connections in their home which they did not currently have. Other respondents commented that many people already own readers and use e-books and saw e-book technology as an important component of an expanded Home Library Service in the future.

18

6.10 Improved provision to support ‘Reminiscence’ We asked respondents to comment on whether they were likely to be interested in using

improved provision to support ‘Reminiscence’ as part of an expanded Home Library Service. 6.8% of all respondents said that they would be interested in using such a service, 48.1% said they would not be interested and 45.1% of all respondents did not answer the question.

Some respondents felt that there was insufficient information provided on the

questionnaire to comment about the development and provision of reminiscence support. The remaining comments were balanced between positive and negative views.

Some respondents felt that replacing services with reminiscence boxes is not an

alternative to having access to fiction and non-fiction books or that it was ‘dumbing down’ the service. There was a view that this was an unnecessary expense and that this was not a role for a library service and should be provided by social care instead. Those in favour of developing this service saw it as an increasing need that would be welcomed, particularly by those caring for someone with dementia. Some respondents made the connection with a service that could provide transport to the library from a central collection point within communities and saw this as an opportunity to add value to library visits and improve the health and well-being of isolated people.

7.0 Other ‘Inspiring libraries’ service developments The final section of the questionnaire provided a space for respondents to make any

comments they wished about the Inspiring Libraries strategy including proposals for improving library buildings, developing technology, increasing income generation and more effective promotion of services.

7.1 Improving library buildings There were contrasting views regarding proposals to improve library buildings. The

majority of comments were positive and contributed views as to how library space should be used more creatively. However, many respondents expressed concern over how this would be financed during a time of reduced budgets and some felt that expenditure on improving buildings was not a priority over other areas of the service such as staffing and stock.

7.2 Income generation Most comments were supportive of income generation and the added value of income

generating services such as refreshment facilities and the hire of library space. There was some cautious positivity towards refreshment facilities supporting the idea in principle but noting the associated problems such as cleanliness and the risk of damage to books and computers. However, many respondents were completely opposed to the idea of cafes/refreshments in libraries for those reasons.

As in the previous consultation, respondents made suggestions of ways to generate more

income, such as events, courses and charging for additional and current services. 7.3 Increasing the use of volunteers There were contrasting views on increasing the number of opportunities for volunteers.

There were many respondents who were concerned about the limitations of volunteers and that they cannot replace library staff. Many respondents were opposed to using volunteers as a way of reducing staff. Children and young people who took part in discussions about the proposals also had concerns about how long volunteers would stay

19

if they were currently trying to find a job. They felt that if the volunteers were elderly they

wouldn’t be able to use the ‘tech’ properly. Some children and young people said that they would feel less safe dealing with volunteers in the library compared to the library staff who were friendly and knew them.

Alternatively many respondents acknowledged the valuable role that volunteers play in

providing many library services and that their numbers and scope should be increased. Some respondents included offers to volunteer or asked for more information about how they could help in the future.

7.4 Developing technology There were many respondents who were positive and supportive of the proposals to

invest in technology and many suggestions were put forward to achieve this. There were also many comments criticising the current technology offer at libraries and respondents expressing their concerns over the reliability, feasibility and cost of developing technology. There was also concern that technology would ultimately replace physical books and alienate many customers who may be unable or unwilling to use new technology, although some respondents saw the need for both formats to continue into the future.

The children and young people who took part in discussions about the proposals were

very concerned about personal safety in relation to technological developments. They were concerned that swipe card access may allow ‘suspicious’ adults access and shared the concerns of adults about potential theft and vandalism. However, the older young people wanted libraries to be available from 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. (or even 24 hours) and saw swipe card access as a way to achieve this. Children and young people were not keen on the concept of a ‘virtual librarian’ and many of them were uncomfortable about the concept of communicating with a stranger over the Internet.

7.5 More effective promotion of library services There was broad support for improving the promotion of library services. Many

respondents spoke of services of which they, as existing library customers, had not previously been aware. Some respondents made suggestions about better use of online promotion via social media and the Internet. Others favoured more traditional approaches such as adverts in local papers and the council magazine ‘Horizons’. Some respondents felt promotion of the expanded Home Library Service in particular was vital to ensure that the people who needed it most would be aware that it existed and knew how to access it.

8.0 Conclusion The 2014 ‘Inspiring Libraries’ consultation was a very helpful indicator of a range of views

from residents and will be used to inform the proposals going forward. There was a great deal of support for the ambition demonstrated by the “Delivering Inspiring Libraries” proposals, particularly as the county council has no plans to close library buildings. A majority of respondents understood the need for the library service to save money and saw the set of proposals as a whole as a reasonable way to achieve this, particularly in the libraries proposed to be in Tier 1 and Tier 2. There was a great deal of support for improving our current technology in libraries and for finding innovative ways to generate additional income for the service. There was a huge amount of support for the services that libraries currently provide and appreciation of the professionalism of front-line library staff.

20

Specific communities had greater concerns relating to the impact of the proposals on

them. A majority of the communities where their library was proposed to be in Tier 3 were against the loss of paid staff from these libraries and doubtful that the proposed alternative measures would compensate adequately for this. A majority of current mobile library service customers felt that the proposal to replace the mobile library service with an expanded Home Library Service was unreasonable because it would fail to meet the needs of the customers who were ineligible for that service, particularly children in rural communities.

List of Appendices APPENDIX 1 – Specific wording of petitions APPENDIX 2 – Proposal for library tiers APPENDIX 3 – Table showing % of responses to tiering proposal for each library APPENDIX 4 – Equalities monitoring data

21

APPENDIX 1 Campaigns and Petitions Specific wording of petitions presented to Hertfordshire County Council 1. Buntingford (2,216 signatures)

Save Buntingford Library Hertfordshire County Council are proposing through their “Inspiring Libraries” strategy, to make Buntingford a Tier 3 Library. This means that Buntingford will be self-service, run by volunteers and possibly relocated. The mobile services will cease. “Save Buntingford Library” object to these changes, which will not benefit our community. Please sign the petition now. We the undersigned oppose the relocation of Buntingford Library from 77 High Street premises, and the loss of experienced staff.

2. Chorleywood (2,250 signatures)

Chorleywood Library Petition Chorleywood Library is a crucial and much needed resource at the heart of our community. The Library not only provides access to essential library services, it is also a hub for many and diverse voluntary activities for all age groups in the community. Without core regular support from the Library Service, both library access and these activities would be at risk. We the undersigned, urge the Hertfordshire Library Service to regrade Chorleywood into the Tier 2 category under the 10 year proposals for ‘Inspiring Libraries’.

3. Sawbridgeworth (1,209 signatures)

Sawbridgeworth ‘Save the Library’ Campaign Sawbridgeworth is a growing town. Our main concern is that we will end up with a library that will not serve, or grow with the town and will remain stagnant, potentially meaning that services will not meet demand if the library is given a Tier 3 status.

4. Bovingdon

Suggested form of words provided by Bovingdon Primary Academy in letter to all parents along with sheet abridged from full version of questionnaire: Bovingdon Library has a special relationship with Bovingdon Primary Academy and children need access to it during school hours on a weekly basis. Bovingdon should be staffed during current core hours to facilitate this (Tier 2).

22

APPENDIX 2 Wording of the Proposal for Library Tiers included in the questionnaire: “Hertfordshire’s 46 library buildings will be branded and promoted in three different tiers in order to clarify the services available. Tier 1 – centrally located in large towns, these libraries will offer the broadest range of stock and services, and will be open for the longest hours. They will be staffed by library staff, and we will continue to invite volunteers to support the delivery of some services and activities. Tier 2 – located in smaller towns, these will provide core library services and offer a wide range of popular stock. Additional services will be tailored to meet local need/demand. They will be staffed during current core hours, and we will seek to extend access through volunteer supervised self-service, building on the success established arrangements at a number of Hertfordshire libraries. Tier 3 – In smaller communities and villages, we will maintain our libraries and provide self-service access to library services, including the issue and return of book, access to computers/technology and study space and staff assistance via a ‘virtual librarian’ service (video link to another library). We will invite local communities to add value to these self-service facilities through volunteer support and the provision of additional activities and services as decided by the local community.” Recommended Library Tiers Here is a list of all the libraries (excluding mobile libraries) in Hertfordshire grouped under the proposed tiers. Tier 1 Bishops Stortford Borehamwood Harpenden Hatfield Hemel Hempstead Hitchin Hoddesdon St Albans Stevenage Central Watford Central Welwyn Garden City Tier 2 Abbots Langley Baldock Berkhamsted Bushey Cheshunt Croxley Green Hertford Letchworth Marshalswick North Watford Oakmere (Potters Bar) Oxhey Radlett Rickmansworth Royston

23

Tring Waltham Cross Ware Tier 3 Adeyfield Bovingdon Brookmans Park Buntingford Chorleywood Cuffley Goffs Oak Kings Langley Knebworth Leverstock Green London Colney Redbourn Sawbridgeworth Stevenage Old Town Welwyn Village Wheathampstead Woodhall (Welwyn Garden City)

24

APPENDIX 3

Table showing % of questionnaire responses to tiering proposal for each library

ALL LIBRARIES USED Reasonable Unreasonable No Opinion Not Answered Total

Abbots Langley 81.7% 98 10.0% 12 3.3% 4 5.0% 6 120

Adeyfield 58.1% 43 32.4% 24 4.1% 3 5.4% 4 74

Baldock 73.9% 136 21.2% 39 2.2% 4 2.7% 5 184

Berkhamsted 70.5% 206 24.0% 70 1.7% 5 3.8% 11 292

Bishop's Stortford 89.5% 187 4.3% 9 2.4% 5 3.8% 8 209

Borehamwood 80.3% 94 6.8% 8 4.3% 5 8.5% 10 117

Bovingdon 26.5% 43 69.8% 113 3.1% 5 0.6% 1 162

Brookmans Park 54.2% 45 38.6% 32 1.2% 1 6.0% 5 83

Buntingford 3.4% 23 94.4% 640 1.0% 7 1.2% 8 678

Bushey 75.5% 71 16.0% 15 3.2% 3 5.3% 5 94

Cheshunt 79.5% 89 10.7% 12 4.5% 5 5.4% 6 112

Chorleywood 12.9% 31 82.9% 199 1.3% 3 2.9% 7 240

Croxley Green 79.4% 158 14.1% 28 2.5% 5 4.0% 8 199

Cuffley 36.0% 18 56.0% 28 2.0% 1 6.0% 3 50

Goffs Oak 35.5% 33 55.9% 52 2.2% 2 6.5% 6 93

Harpenden 89.5% 222 6.0% 15 1.2% 3 4.0% 10 248

Hatfield 88.4% 167 4.2% 8 3.7% 7 4.8% 9 189

Hemel Hempstead 88.2% 359 4.2% 17 3.9% 16 4.2% 17 407

Hertford 59.3% 146 32.9% 81 5.7% 14 2.8% 7 246

Hitchin 86.9% 232 5.6% 15 1.9% 5 6.4% 17 267

Hoddesdon 86.8% 151 3.4% 6 2.9% 5 6.9% 12 174

Kings Langley 26.3% 57 64.5% 140 2.8% 6 6.5% 14 217

Knebworth 39.4% 41 54.8% 57 1.9% 2 5.8% 6 104

Letchworth 58.5% 165 34.0% 96 3.5% 10 3.9% 11 282

Leverstock Green 38.7% 46 58.0% 69 0.8% 1 2.5% 3 119

London Colney 27.1% 19 60.0% 42 4.3% 3 8.6% 6 70

Marshalswick 78.6% 147 13.9% 26 2.1% 4 5.3% 10 187

North Watford 77.9% 109 13.6% 19 2.9% 4 5.7% 8 140

Oakmere 85.7% 36 7.1% 3 0.0% 0 7.1% 3 42

Oxhey 70.0% 42 23.3% 14 3.3% 2 3.3% 2 60

Radlett 84.5% 71 8.3% 7 2.4% 2 4.8% 4 84

Redbourn 47.3% 44 45.2% 42 3.2% 3 4.3% 4 93

Rickmansworth 63.2% 192 28.0% 85 3.9% 12 4.9% 15 304

Royston 71.0% 125 23.3% 41 2.3% 4 3.4% 6 176

Sawbridgeworth 8.8% 17 87.6% 169 0.5% 1 3.1% 6 193

St Albans 88.7% 502 2.8% 16 2.5% 14 6.0% 34 566

Stevenage Central 90.0% 305 2.9% 10 2.4% 8 4.7% 16 339

Stevenage Old Town 46.8% 36 35.1% 27 5.2% 4 13.0% 10 77

Tring 82.2% 120 8.2% 12 4.8% 7 4.8% 7 146

Waltham Cross 75.0% 39 17.3% 9 1.9% 1 5.8% 3 52

Ware 80.6% 150 12.9% 24 3.2% 6 3.2% 6 186

Watford Central 87.7% 315 4.2% 15 3.9% 14 4.2% 15 359

Welwyn 25.7% 26 70.3% 71 2.0% 2 2.0% 2 101

Welwyn Garden City 88.6% 411 2.4% 11 2.6% 12 6.5% 30 464

Wheathampstead 49.1% 28 45.6% 26 3.5% 2 1.8% 1 57

Woodhall 25.5% 28 66.4% 73 0.9% 1 7.3% 8 110

25

APPENDIX 4 – Equalities monitoring data

Age Count %

Under 18 113 2.1%

18 - 24 85 1.6%

25 - 34 260 4.8%

35 - 44 724 13.2%

45 - 54 696 12.7%

55 - 64 873 16.0%

65 - 74 1208 22.1%

75 - 84 794 14.5%

85 - 89 242 4.4%

90+ 91 1.7%

(Not Answered) 384 7.0%

Grand Total 5470 100.0%

Gender Count %

Female 3182 58.2%

Male 1574 28.8%

(Not Answered) 714 13.1%

Grand Total 5470 100.0%

Ethnicity Count %

Bangladeshi 5 0.1%

Chinese 18 0.3%

Indian 68 1.2%

Pakistani 11 0.2%

Any other Asian Background 22 0.4%

Black African 26 0.5%

Black Caribbean 14 0.3%

Any other Black Background 1 0.0%

Mixed White and Asian 17 0.3%

Mixed White and Black African 5 0.1%

Mixed White and Black Caribbean 12 0.2%

Any other Mixed Background 24 0.4%

Traveller 2 0.0%

White British 4406 80.5%

White Irish 92 1.7%

Any other White Background 150 2.7%

Arab 0 0.0%

Any other ethnic background 12 0.2%

Prefer not to say 139 2.5%

(Not Answered) 446 8.2%

Grand Total 5470 100.0%

26

Do you consider yourself to have a disability? Count %

Yes 776 14.2%

No 3980 72.8%

Prefer not to say 239 4.4%

(Not Answered) 475 8.7%

Grand Total 5470 100.0%

Is English your first language? Count %

Yes 4825 88.2%

No 164 3.0%

Prefer not to say 66 1.2%

(Not Answered) 415 7.6%

Grand Total 5470 100.0%

Do you have a caring responsibility for an adult and/or child with a disability?

Count %

Yes 484 8.8%

No 3888 71.1%

Prefer not to say 43 0.8%

(Not Answered) 1055 19.3%

Grand Total 5470 100.0%