Key Points
- The Anfield Library campaign is opposed to proposals to make a large proportion of the former Breck Road Library building into a betting establishment.
- BoyleSports (UK) Ltd has submitted an application to Liverpool City Council to create two buildings on the premises – one will contain the betting business, while the other may contain facilities of a community nature.
- The library has been closed since November 2025 because of disagreement over rent and funding issues between the lease of the building and its former provider, Alt Valley Community Trust.
- Ruth Knox of the Anfield library campaign said that library services were still required in north Liverpool and that a betting shop would provide no advantage to the local community.
- According to planning documents, the smaller part will be promoted for rent at a nominal or reduced cost to a community organisation for a period of 12 months.
- Liverpool City Council has yet to rule on the planning application.
Anfield (Liverpool standard) October 09, 2026 — Campaigners are urging planners to protect the former Breck Road Library from becoming mainly a betting shop, arguing that the need for library services in north Liverpool “hasn’t gone away”. BoyleSports (UK) Ltd has submitted proposals to divide the long-shuttered building on The Mall, Breck Road, with most of the site intended for a bookmakers and a smaller unit reserved for possible community use. Liverpool City Council has not yet made a decision on the application.
The “Books not Bookies” appeal centres on what will happen to a local building that served residents before closing in November 2025. Birkenhead News reports that the dispute is not only about the proposed business use: campaigners also say the closure left people in the area without a neighbourhood library service.
The planning proposal would split the former library into two units. Documents submitted to the council say the smaller unit would be offered at a nominal or discounted rate to potential community-focused users, including Alt Valley Community Trust (AVCT), which previously managed the library. If a suitable organisation cannot be found after 12 months of active marketing, the documents say the unit could then be offered to the wider market.
Why are campaigners opposing the plan?
Ruth Knox, of the Save Liverpool Libraries campaign, has argued that repurposing most of the site as a bookmakers would do little for the surrounding community. BBC reporting quoted Knox saying there was a “surplus” of betting shops locally and described her view that the library had provided a place for different groups, including parents and toddlers attending baby groups, children using books for schoolwork, and people looking for work.
Knox has also called for Liverpool City Council to find funding to restore library provision for people in Everton and Anfield. Her criticism is focused on the contrast between a closed public facility and the possibility of another betting outlet in an area she described as economically deprived.
The appeal reflects concern about access to practical and shared community services, not only book lending. Campaigners’ examples of former library users point to the building’s role as a place for activities, study and support. However, the available reporting does not establish what replacement services, if any, would be provided at Breck Road if the planning application were approved.
How did the library close?
Breck Road Library and Dovecot Library were managed by AVCT from 2015, after Liverpool City Council said it could no longer sustain their operation directly. The council later stopped funding the services. BBC reporting says the council alleged that AVCT owed a “substantial” debt accumulated over many years; AVCT disputed that account and said it had run the libraries at a fraction of the cost previously incurred by the council.
After the parties failed to reach a new agreement, the council invoked a break clause in its head lease with the building’s owners and took possession of the Breck Road premises. The library then remained closed. Reporting identifies the rent and funding disagreement as part of the circumstances behind the closure; it does not suggest that the current planning application itself resolves the underlying dispute.
The circumstances at Dovecot differ. Birkenhead News reported that Liverpool Council and AVCT had agreed to reinstate funding for that library, with £55,000 allocated over two years for operational costs, subject to clear targets. Payments were set at £13,750 per quarter in advance, for a maximum period extending to 2027/28. The report also noted a risk that AVCT might not secure revenue funding after the council support ends in April 2028.
What have local representatives and the council said?
Councillor Ellie Byrne, whose ward includes the library, said she had opposed its closure and argued that the community needs the space. In comments reported by Birkenhead News, Byrne recalled visiting the library as a child and questioned why children growing up in Everton East should have fewer opportunities. She urged residents to make their views known by submitting objections to the planning application.
Birkenhead News also reported Byrne’s call for the promise of alternative provision to be honoured. Her comments underline that the debate includes both the proposed new use of the building and the broader question of what public or community provision will be available to local residents.
Liverpool City Council said no decision had yet been made on BoyleSports’ application, according to the BBC. The BBC also reported that it contacted BoyleSports (UK) Ltd for comment. The report did not include a response from the company.
BoyleSports is described in Birkenhead News’ earlier report as an Irish firm founded by John Boyle in 1989, with almost 400 shops in Ireland and the UK. That same report says the application seeks a betting shop alongside a smaller unit that could be used for community purposes, subject to the marketing arrangement described in the planning documents.
What happens next in the planning process?
The application remains for Liverpool City Council to determine. Its decision will establish whether the proposed split and betting-shop use can proceed under the submitted plans. The council’s planning service allows people to search applications and comment on them.
The community-use element is conditional rather than a confirmed replacement library. The planning documents described in the local reporting propose marketing the smaller unit at a nominal or discounted rate, first to potential community users, for 12 months. They state that if no appropriate community-focused end user is found during that period, the unit could be offered to the wider market.
That distinction matters to the campaign. A unit being made available for community use does not, by itself, confirm that it will reopen as a library, that a suitable operator will take it on, or that funding will be available to run services there. The reported documents do not specify a confirmed community tenant or a guaranteed library service at the site.
Background: library services in Liverpool
Liverpool City Council’s decision to transfer management of Breck Road and Dovecot libraries to AVCT in 2015 followed the council’s position that it could no longer sustain their direct operation. The later funding and lease dispute led to the closure of Breck Road Library, while a separate agreement restored council funding for Dovecot for a limited period.
The two sites therefore have different immediate prospects: Dovecot has a reported funding arrangement through 2027/28, while Breck Road remains shut and is the subject of BoyleSports’ planning proposal. The latter includes an offer to market a smaller unit for community use, but the reporting does not say that this offer guarantees the return of the library.
What could this mean for Anfield residents?
For people in Anfield and nearby Everton, the council’s decision could affect whether the Breck Road site becomes principally a betting shop or whether a community-focused organisation secures the smaller unit. If the application is approved, the planning documents’ marketing period could create an opportunity for a community user, but residents should not interpret that as a confirmed reopening of the library.
The immediate question for residents is whether a replacement community service can be secured in practice: who might operate it, what services it would provide, and how it would be funded. Those details remain unresolved in the reporting available so far. The planning decision will address the proposed use of the building, while the wider issue of restoring consistent library provision in the area remains central to campaigners’ concerns.
