IN RESPONSE to letters printed in last week's Guardian regarding the planned extension of the library, I would like to point out that the 'very vocal minority' were voicing opinions of the majority of 46 people who put in submissions to council.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Rather than being 'negative' we have concerns based on the experience of the Nambucca Community Arts Centre Committee (NCACC) and major hirers of the halls.The NCACC comprises a group of volunteers who have run, maintained and improved the halls to a standard now attracting many hirers.
Funding for these projects has come from income from the two halls, grants obtained by the NCACC and donations from the Nambucca Valley Arts Council. When income from hiring out the Small Hall is lost will the council provide extra funding for maintenance and improvements for the Main Hall?
By incorporating the Small Hall into library space it becomes part of the State Library Service provision so the responsibility of hiring the hall space will go to Nambucca Valley Council. The council has decided on an online bookings system. This needs to be considered carefully. It is not straight forward and personal contact is essential.
I am well aware of the importance of libraries. It is unfortunate the council has not considered other architectural plans which use some of the courtyard to build an extension adjoining the library, the space easily viewed from inside the current library, and leaving the Small Hall intact to be run by the NCAC Committee.
Celia Ramsay, Nambucca Heads
It's a takeover
I WAS saddened by some of the tone and content of last week's letters (12.3.20) relating to the library extension proposals.
The funding agreement between Nambucca Valley Council and Create NSW (the grant funding body) specifically states that the small hall will be incorporated into the library, that the library service will assume responsibility for hiring the hall to the current 20+ users, and that the needs of the library service will take precedence over those of current users. That, by any definition, is a takeover.
At the recent public meeting with the architects, just six people were afforded the opportunity to raise questions about the proposals. None of their contributions could properly be described as negative. I, for example, raised the issue of inadequate storage in the concept design. The architect agreed, and thanked me for my observations.
Other speakers raised specific and constructive issues about the plans, which hopefully will be taken on board and incorporated into the final design. Let's remember that the whole purpose of the meeting was to allow members of the community, many of them with years of experience in both using and managing the facilities, to express their views. It is disappointing that one of your correspondents felt the need to make such disparaging comments.
As for all those "unused" hours, the reality is rather different. In the main, there are slots for hiring the premises in the mornings and the afternoons, Monday to Friday, as hardly anyone wants to book the facilities at weekends. There are, of course, some unused slots each month. We have to hope that the library staff will make use of these times, and that they will ensure that current users, who contribute so much to the cultural and social life of the town, are not disadvantaged in any way by the new arrangements.
