Report and letters in The Oxford Times, 16th March 2001

Staff at the Bodleian are bitterly disillusioned by the library's "cynical and opportunist" plans to attract paying visitors, it has been claimed.

The library is accused of trying to turn "a centre of scholastic excellence into a theme park" in a damning letter sent to the Oxford Times by a Bodleian a staff member. The writer, who has asked to remain anonymous, says anger about plans to cut a doorway through the library's Great Gate is widespread among staff.

The letter says: "In addition to the physical damage to be inflicted on the library's 400-year-old buildings, the wilful closure of the Old Schools Quadrangle, a national treasure if ever there is one, to all except holders of Oxford residents' passes or a suitably fat wallet, is offensive to all of us who believe in the library as an institution for the wider world." The writer also criticises the library's attempt to to attract money from the Lottery Heritage Fund for a "cynical attempt at restricting access to a national institution".

A spokesman said the new planned entrance to the Bodleian, which recently received a conservation award from Prince Charles, was essential to its plans to bring in more paying visitors, while keeping tourists away from readers. The new entrances would match other doorways around the Old Schools Quad.

Sir, It is gratifying to learn of John Goddard's disquiet at the planned Bodleian visitor programme (report, 9th March) as it is entirely shared by a large number of Bodleian staff, who regard the project as cynical and opportunist.

In addition to the physical damage to be inflicted on the library's 400-year -old buildings, the wilful closure of the Old Schools Quadrangle, a national treasure if ever there is one, to all except holders of Oxfordshire residents' passes or a suitably fat wallet, is offensive to all of us who believe in the library as an institution for the nation and the wider world. The pro bono arguments put forward in the project's favour by the University are specious in the extreme; they claim, for instance, that they need to protect their readers from tourists, yet impose a scheme that will require 60,000 visitors a year just to break even.

To add to the insult for library staff, who object to a centre of scholastic excellence being turned into such a theme park, large numbers of us will have to be moved to a new location in the wasteland of Osney Mead, some two miles away, to make room for this and other projects. The vast inefficiencies this will impose on an already enfeebled service, and the dangers it will impose on the large numbers of staff, the majority female, who will have to negotiate the remote ill-lit area deprived of any public transport, had escaped the minds of those hatching these bizarre plans.

A further irony to all this is that the library is looking for money from the Lottery Heritage Fund to fund it; this fund exists, in the words of its website, "to safeguard and enhance the heritage of buildings... to assist people to appreciate and enjoy their heritage" and assesses projects by the "access and extra public benefits" they provide. An attempt to appropriate lottery money to fund such a cynical attempt at restricting access to a national institution for the sake of fleecing wealthy tourists is not exactly in keeping with the spirit of the good causes it is meant to support.

I hope those who agree will write to the Lottery Heritage Fund as well as the city council's planning committee, to make their thoughts known.

Bodleian staff member

Sir, The Bodleian plans for "visitor management" are controversial on two points.

First, how to get people to pay on entry - does this really necessitate making a hole in the Great Gate? Are there other possibilities which would avoid damaging the fabric of this listed building - smart cards, a sentry box for a porter?

Second, the exclusion of non-paying visitors from the quad. This seems perfectly reasonable. The Bodleian is not a lending library, so people have to read books in the building. To do that, they need a decent ambience of quiet and, at some times of the year, some ventilation (proximity to massed shelves of books, especially old leather-bound ones, can be soporific). They do not need to have noise coming up from raised voices of the visitors who have for years disregarded notices asking for quiet in the quad.

Hopefully, visitors who pay will be informed firmly of the need for quiet in what is a place of work, not a theme park. Surely for the casual walker, it is not a major deprivation to use Catto Street to get from Broad Street to Radcliffe Square.

Eileen Davies, Oxford

Sir, I was appalled to read about the Bodleian's proposals to cut a hole in a historic and beautiful gate and (to add insult to injury) to spend public money on preventing public access to the Bodleian Quad. Even the Taleban did not go so far as to ask for money to carry out their vandalism of historic artefacts! Luckily there is little chance that the council will permit this.

However, the fact that this scheme was proposed at all, let alone that it got as far as the planning application, raises serious questions about the competence and judgment of the senior management at this, one of the country's most important libraries. Someone in charge at the Bodleian is so out of touch with reality that they came up with this scheme; and the rest of the senior management are either powerless, uninformed, or apathetic - because they did not stop this early on, as obviously they should have done.

Have other dangerous and ill-judged ideas already been put into action because they do not need outside permission and funding? For once, let us not wait until there is some national scandal and it is too late to undo the damage. There needs to be an investigation into how the Bodleian is run - right now.

Maria Hamilton, Abingdon,

Sir, it is extraordinary that officials of the Bodleian Library are proposing to knock a new door into the library building, but it is outrageous that they should propose to close the Old Schools Quad to all but paying customers.

The architectural significance of Oxford does not just consist of some random star buildings, but... etc. etc.

This vandalism, apart from anything else, gives the lie to OUP's trumpeted £30 million Bodley 'donation' of July 1999 (see The Times 17/7/99 and Oxford Times 30/3/01). - A. M.

Click for Bodleyworld's next item or for the Underwater Library Sub-index.