To consider the Notices of Motion submitted in accordance with Procedure Rule 34, in the order they were received as detailed below. 

The text of the Motions can be found in the agenda pack.

i)     Deterioration in Economic Viability of Market Town High Streets - Councillor Tony Mathias/Councillor Alan Walters.

ii)    NHS Proposal to close the congenital heart unit at UHL Trust (Leicester) – Councillor Gale Waller/Councillor Marc Oxley

i)    The Notice of Motion submitted by Mr T Mathias in accordance with Procedure Rule 34 was received.

Mr Mathias introduced the motion and moved the recommendation below.  Mr Walters seconded the recommendation.

This Council is requested to support the submission of a letter to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government expressing our concern about the deterioration in the economic viability of our Market Town, High Streets. This could include the following issues:

• The lack of influence we as a Council are able to bring to bear
• The impact of the current discretionary rate relief arrangements
• The increasing number of Charity Shops

During his introduction, Mr Mathias highlighted that during the consultation period he had stood with the bus in Oakham Market Place and the reoccurring theme raised by residents and users of the town was that there was too many charity shops in Oakham.  There was a misconception that RCC were able to control the number of charity shops setting up business in the town.  The motion could be worded so as to request that charity shops be required to apply for change of use when taking over premises and for RCC to formulate a policy which would restrict the number of charity shops in the Town Centre.

During debate points raised included:

·         Mr Conde pointed out that charity shops were a good way of recycling used goods and this should be supported.  Also it would be useful to be able to also restrict the number of Betting Shops and Estate Agents;

·         Mr Callaghan was concerned that changes in policy could result in Landlords having empty shops which did not seem fair.  Some people liked charity shops and used them regularly and care should be exercised when restrictions might affect the free market environment;

·         Miss Waller commented that many people relied on charity shops as they were not able to afford buying from new and charity shops also raised money for their respective causes.  It was clear, however, that a large amount of charity shops did not make for a very attractive Town Centre;

·         Mr Oxley supported the idea, but felt it was better to have shops occupied rather than empty;

·         Mr Clifton highlighted that charity shops did a lot of good, they employed at least two people to run the shop and also provided volunteering opportunities for the local community which enabled people to contribute to the community, in turn having a positive impact on Health and Wellbeing.  A broader motion focusing on place shaping may be an improvement;

·         Mr Cross was in support of ideas that would help improve Town Centres and supported increasing powers regarding discretionary rate relief arrangements;

·         Mr Mathias gave the following figures for businesses in Oakham – Out of 220 businesses; 119 paid no rates, 76 paid full rates and the rest paid partial rates;

·         Mr Baines made a distinction between Oakham and Uppingham town Centres.  The problems experienced in Oakham were not the same for Uppingham which did not have any problems with vacant premises;

·         Mr Lammie believed that a reduction in charity shops may lead to an increase in vacant premises and in turn that could lead to a reduction in the footfall in the town with shoppers choosing to shop at bigger stores on the outskirts of the town;

·         Mr Bird agreed that members of the community were complaining about the number of charity shops and that charity shops were able to obtain voluntary staff and with reduced rates this did not create equality for other businesses, especially as charity shops were also able to sell new goods;

·         Mr Begy felt that the High Street would be improved if bigger retailers could be encouraged to have shops on Oakham High Street, or by improving the Market Place;

·         Mr Walters confirmed that there was currently 9 Charity Shops in Oakham and they were in primary locations.  In order to ensure that Oakham town centre remains viable charity shops should be given their own planning category and changes made to the right to discretionary relief; and

·         It was agreed that contact would be made with other Local Authorities in order to obtain support from neighbours which may strengthen the request to change national policy.

Mr Mathias Proposed an amendment to the wording of the motion in order to request that Charity Shops be subject to change of use for planning purposes when taking over premises.  This was seconded by Mr Walters.

RESOLVED

Council AGREED to support the amended motion that a letter be submitted to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government requesting:

• That Charity Shops should be subject to change of use for planning purposes.

--o0o--

In accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 11, paragraph 2 –

Recording of Votes – Mr Gale and Mr Cross requested that his votes against the above resolution be recorded.

--o0o--

Mr S Della Rocca left the meeting and did not return

Mrs A Grinney left the meeting and did not return

--o0o--

ii)     The Notice of Motion submitted by Miss G Waller in accordance with Procedure Rule 34 was received.

Miss Waller introduced the motion and moved the recommendation below.  Mr Oxley seconded the recommendation.

1.    That this Council resolves to respond to NHS England’s consultation on the closure of the congenital heart unit at Leicester opposing the closure for the following reasons:

      i.        The 120 “standards” identified by NHS England as the key to their rationale are not standards but measures and the singling out of number of operations per surgeon as the single most important “standard” is arbitrary.

    ii.        NHS England propose keeping open Newcastle yet Newcastle has fewer operations per surgeon than Leicester and a less robust plan for achieving the target.

   iii.        NHS England argue Newcastle is a special case because of the heart transplant work undertaken there but refuse to accept Leicester is equally a special case because of its position as national specialist in offering Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (ECMO) on a mobile basis.

   iv.        There is no guarantee that Leicester will be able to offer Level 2 services (the Trust feels they will not, without the Level 1 provision) and as NHS England are also proposing closing services in Nottingham the entire East Midlands will be left without specialist CHD services as services will only be offered in Newcastle and London.

    v.        The modelling undertaken by NHS England on travelling times is seriously flawed being based on present patients and not geography (i.e. where future patients might live). 

   vi.        Additional travelling time, and few overnight accommodation options near Birmingham Children’s Hospital in particular, will put enormous pressure on families, especially siblings, and will disrupt schooling of these children even further.

  vii.        NHS England have produced no plan to show how the additional capacity will be created at centres which remain open if the proposals to close centres, especially Leicester, are taken forward. 

viii.        NHS England have taken no account of quality.  Leicester’s CHD Unit has been rated outstanding by CQC (the only one in the Country) and has the best survival rates of anywhere in the Country.

2.     That this Council respond by letter before 17 July which is the closing date for the consultation.

During her introduction Miss Waller highlighted the following:

·         Both Leicestershire and Leicester City and the LLR Joint Health Scrutiny had responded separately;

·         The proposals would affect Rutland residents;

·         No hospital currently satisfies all 120 “standards”, Newcastle fell well short, but had been given further time;

·         ECMO was a specialist area in the same way that Transplant was for Newcastle, Glenfield was a world leader in ECMO;

·         Specialist nursing was in short supply; and

·         If Nottingham closed the whole of East Midlands would have no cover – some patients had to attend hospital monthly and for babies who suffer from heart disease it could mean regular visits their whole life, which can present very real difficulties for parents especially where they have other children that also have (special) needs.

During debate points raised included:

·         Mr Clifton confirmed that he had written to NHS England as Chair of Rutland Health and Wellbeing Board and they had come to one of the meetings, but he was not convinced that comments were taken on board, particularly regarding calculations around travel times and the availability of public transport;

·         Mrs Stephenson highlighted that it could take 20 years to build the level of expertise in ECMO that had been achieved at Glenfield at Birmingham; and

·         Mr Cross thanked Miss Waller for bringing such an important subject before members.

RESOLVED

Council AGREED to respond to NHS England’s consultation on the closure of the congenital heart unit at Leicester by letter before the deadline of 17 July 2017, opposing the closure for the reasons set out above.