Agenda item

Motion A

Proposed by: Councillor Clucas

Seconded by: Councillor Harvey

That this Council, mindful of the distress, concern and inconvenience to Cheltenham residents, that would ensue should Cheltenham A&E close, reiterates its opposition to any proposed closure or downgrading of A&E facilities at our local hospital. Council recognises the high esteem in which residents hold the Accident and Emergency Department and the staff who work there.

 

It further calls on the Chair of the Trust to confirm that any proposals in relation to the future of Cheltenham's A&E will be discussed with the Council and shared with the people of Cheltenham to ensure that their voice is heard.

 

In addition, Council thanks the Accountable Officer at the CCG for her prompt response in ensuring that questions raised by councillors in relation to recent reports, were answered.

 

It further calls on the Member of Parliament to support the retention of a full range of A&E services at Cheltenham Hospital.

 

Motion B

Proposed by: Councillor Savage

Seconded by: Councillor Harman

This Council notes with concern the widely reported harassment, abuse and intimidation during the recent General Election campaign, including incidents of vandalism and arson here in Cheltenham.

 

It condemns all and any harassment, abuse or intimidation of election candidates, volunteers and those involved in the democratic process.

 

This council will work proactively to ensure that members of the public who wish to stand for public office are given the full support of this council and its partner organisations in exercising this fundamental right.

 

This council will ensure that all duly nominated electoral candidates are made aware of appropriate channels to ensure that any future incidents of harassment, abuse and intimidation can be reported and investigated.

 

Motion C

Proposed by: Councillor Wilkinson

Seconded by: Councillor Hobley

This Council notes that:

 

Delivering the right mix of housing is a key part of Cheltenham's economic prosperity;

 

Ensuring young people are able to live and work in the town is vital for the future prosperity of the town, in line with the aspirations of the council's place strategy;

 

House prices to buy and to rent in Cheltenham are unaffordable for many younger people;

 

Short term tenancy agreements, at a standard of one year, reduce stability for the majority of young people who our town must retain for its future prosperity;

 

This discourages many younger people from moving here and remaining here in the longer term;

 

This promotes inbound commuting, leading to congestion and other associated problems such as poor air quality and economic inefficiency;

 

This is making it more difficult for businesses to recruit the right employees; and

 

The issue is identified by key stakeholders, including those at the recent Civic Society conference, as a key factor for the future prosperity of the town.

 

Council resolves to:

 

Explore all possible methods for delivering more affordable housing for younger people to buy, including influencing house sizes and types in new developments;

 

Take opportunities to work with developers to deliver shared ownership schemes;

 

Take opportunities to work with private sector companies that would provide longer term rental security;

 

Work with third sector partners on shared ownership schemes;

 

Explore and develop local planning policy and guidance reflecting these concerns for inclusion in the Cheltenham local plan; and 

 

To recognise the issues of long term security in the private rental sector and affordability for first time buyers as key challenges to meet in the Cheltenham Local Plan.

 

Motion A

 

Councillor Savage left the room for this item.

 

The following motion was proposed by Councillor Clucas and seconded by Councillor Harvey:

 

“That this Council, mindful of the distress, concern and inconvenience to Cheltenham residents, that would ensue should Cheltenham A&E close, reiterates its opposition to any proposed closure or downgrading of A&E facilities at our local hospital. Council recognises the high esteem in which residents hold the Accident and Emergency Department and the staff who work there.

 

It further calls on the Chair of the Trust to confirm that any proposals in relation to the future of Cheltenham's A&E will be discussed with the Council and shared with the people of Cheltenham to ensure that their voice is heard.

 

In addition, Council thanks the Accountable Officer at the CCG for her prompt response in ensuring that questions raised by councillors in relation to recent reports, were answered.

 

It further calls on the Member of Parliament to support the retention of a full range of A&E services at Cheltenham Hospital.”

 

In proposing the motion Councillor Clucas advised that from 19 October acute orthopaedic cases requiring surgery would be referred to Gloucester hospital.  This was a further example of the ongoing loss of specialism from Cheltenham which made it difficult to attract medical staff to work in Cheltenham where there would be limited opportunities to develop their specialist skills. She provided some statistics from A&E which illustrated that both hospitals were struggling to provide the necessary facilities during the day and after 8 p.m. each evening when Cheltenham patients had to be diverted to Gloucester until 8 a.m. in the morning. Currently any gaps in the service were being filled by agency staff. These problems would only increase as Cheltenham had an older population than the average in England and countrywide there was an increasing demand for A&E services as pressure on GP services increased. She did not consider the urgent care centre staffed by nurses and GPs was an adequate substitute. She urged the people of Cheltenham and Gloucestershire to understand what was going on and to make their voice heard to the CCG. A recent report from the Care Quality Commission had highlighted concerns about patient safety, bottlenecks in A&E, shortage of staff and medical care at night. She concluded that Cheltenham had a strong medical team and the people of Cheltenham needed to have access to those services in Cheltenham 24 hours a day. She urged members to support the motion.

 

Councillor Harman indicated that his group would support the motion but he would abstain as a Cabinet Member at the county council.

 

Councillor Nelson proposed an amendment that the two words “continue to” be added to the fourth paragraph before the word “support”.

This was accepted by the proposer and therefore this became the substantive motion.

 

In the debate that followed all members supported the motion and made the following points:

 

-       this was a countywide issue and the A&E services must be effective for everyone not only in Gloucester and Cheltenham but also in the outlying districts

-       more use should be made of technology to enable specialist skills and advice to be shared across locations. Glos. NHS Trust had not invested in the latest technology which would facilate this and the sharing of patients electronic records

-       it was important that staff were not degraded by feeling they were being used as a political football

-       there appeared to be an ongoing downgrading of services and Cheltenham which was a cause of concern and possibly a topic for the health scrutiny committee to look at

-       the proposals for an urgent care centre overnight at Cheltenham was still a downgrade from full A&E services

-       what plans does the CCG have to ensure that it can provide adequate services to meet the increased demand from new housing developments?

-       the elephant in the room was the crisis of staffing in the NHS and the difficulty in recruiting and retaining doctors, nurses and GPs. It was no good requesting more A&E services without calling for these staffing issues to be addressed. 

-       The Cheltenham General hospital building was a disgrace and not an attractive place to work

-       A new hospital located at junction 10 to replace both Cheltenham and Gloucester would be the best solution to support the JCS plans for 2031 and this would also support the increasing number of accidents on the M5.

 

In seconding the motion Councillor Harvey suggested that the A&E department at Cheltenham supported not only the population of Cheltenham but also a catchment area east of Cheltenham with a total population in the order of 250,000. Any proposals for an urgent care service would represent a downgrading of services. He was concerned that there may be deliberate under resourcing at Cheltenham and although miiddle grade doctors had been recruited they were being sent to Gloucester rather than Cheltenham. There was a strong campaign in Cheltenham to maintain A&E services championed by the local MP but it appeared that decisions were being taken by unaccountable bureaucrats.

 

In her summing up Councillor Clucas thanked members for their support and they had echoed her feeling that the people of Cheltenham required a fully fledged A&E service with a consultant in charge and appropriate levels of staff and expertise.

 

Upon a vote on the motion as amended was CARRIED unanimously.

 

 

 

MOTION B

 

The following motion was proposed by Councillor Savage and seconded by Councillor Harman :

This Council notes with concern the widely reported harassment, abuse and intimidation during the recent General Election campaign, including incidents of vandalism and arson here in Cheltenham.

 

It condemns all and any harassment, abuse or intimidation of election candidates, volunteers and those involved in the democratic process.

 

This council will work proactively to ensure that members of the public who wish to stand for public office are given the full support of this council and its partner organisations in exercising this fundamental right.

 

This council will ensure that all duly nominated electoral candidates are made aware of appropriate channels to ensure that any future incidents of harassment, abuse and intimidation can be reported and investigated.

 

In proposing the motion Councillor Savage said that as a newcomer to politics he was finding that national politics was becoming cruder, coarser and more aggressive and vitriolic with an increased tendency for abuse and insults rather than disagreement and political debate. The reasons were complex but the rise in social media had led to the ability to behave online with anonymity in a way which would be unacceptable in real life. He noted the reference in the briefing note by the Chief Executive circulated in advance of the meeting to the fact that the House of Commons Committee on Standards in Public Life were considering this issue and hoped that it would produce robust recommendations which would apply to politicians in Cheltenham. Cheltenham was not immune to the phenomenon of abuse and intimidation and during the general election the MP had received death threats and online incitements of violence and at a lower level there had been criminal damage to property. In standing for public office to serve communities and represent the people they serve, most candidates accepted considerable professional and personal sacrifice but they should not have to accept abuse and intimidation. Politics should be for discussion and debate and disapproval but with threats and intimidation it was now running the risk of discouraging people to stand thereby undermining the integrity of the democratic system. He urged the Council to take a clear stance against this abuse and intimidation at election time and send a clear and unambiguous message that this would not be tolerated.

 

Councillor Savage advised Members that he had accepted an amendment to the original motion which now read as follows :

 

This Council notes with concern the widely reported harassment, abuse and intimidation during the recent General Election campaign, including incidents of vandalism and arson here in Cheltenham.

 

It condemns all and any harassment, abuse or intimidation of election candidates, volunteers and those involved in the democratic process.

 

This council will ensure that all duly nominated electoral candidates are made aware of appropriate channels to ensure that any incidents of harassment, abuse and intimidation can be reported and investigated.

 

 

In the debate that followed Members raised the following points :

 

·         They agreed that intimidation was outrageous and unacceptable and the way politics was conducted was of concern. Party machines did have an important function and at times they should think more about what they were doing. The easiest passion to provoke was hatred and persistent character assassination and slogans did create excitement. If the parties did not address this issue there was a danger to democracy and the language used would put people off from voting.

·         It was recognised that the growth in social media allowed people to criticise anonymously and triggered abuse from a wide variety of people. It was important to ensure that democracy in Cheltenham thrived and that people were involved in debates and that the best candidates for public service were not lost.

 

Councillor Savage thanked Members for their input and for the Chief Executive for the briefing note provided. He acknowledged the limits in statutory powers to influence a complex issue but this motion should send a clear and unambiguous message.

 

Motion C

The following motion was proposed by Councillor Wilkinson and seconded by: Councillor Hobley:

This Council notes that:

 

Delivering the right mix of housing is a key part of Cheltenham's economic prosperity;

 

Ensuring young people are able to live and work in the town is vital for the future prosperity of the town, in line with the aspirations of the council's place strategy;

 

House prices to buy and to rent in Cheltenham are unaffordable for many younger people;

 

Short term tenancy agreements, at a standard of one year, reduce stability for the majority of young people who our town must retain for its future prosperity;

 

This discourages many younger people from moving here and remaining here in the longer term;

 

This promotes inbound commuting, leading to congestion and other associated problems such as poor air quality and economic inefficiency;

 

This is making it more difficult for businesses to recruit the right employees; and

 

The issue is identified by key stakeholders, including those at the recent Civic Society conference, as a key factor for the future prosperity of the town.

 

Council resolves to:

 

Explore all possible methods for delivering more affordable housing for younger people to buy, including influencing house sizes and types in new developments;

 

Take opportunities to work with developers to deliver shared ownership schemes;

 

Take opportunities to work with private sector companies that would provide longer term rental security;

 

Work with third sector partners on shared ownership schemes;

 

Explore and develop local planning policy and guidance reflecting these concerns for inclusion in the Cheltenham local plan; and 

 

To recognise the issues of long term security in the private rental sector and affordability for first time buyers as key challenges to meet in the Cheltenham Local Plan.

 

In proposing the motion Councillor Wilkinson was concerned that previous generations had been able to buy their own property but this was not an option for young couples in Cheltenham today and generally life chances had diminished for young people. There was a consensus across all political parties that renting was not a good long-term solution but with current house prices in Cheltenham at eight times the local average salary, generally young people were renting for longer or were forced to move out of the town where house prices were cheaper.

 

Councillor Wilkinson suggested there were a number of ways in which the council would help. One way was to work with housing associations to provide housing which would not be subject to write to buy and can be rented out on a long-term basis. He had made a number of other suggestions in the motion.  The consequence of not taking these actions was that young people would move to Gloucester and Cheltenham would lose momentum as a result and suffer a brain drain of young people.  Businesses were already commenting that they were finding it difficult to recruit and retain staff in Cheltenham.

 

He observed that councillors round the chamber were not representative of the population in Cheltenham and indeed the consultation on the local plan had demonstrated a lack of responses from the under 25 age group. Therefore it was for this council to be the voice of young people and put in place what they knew young people wanted.

 

In the debate that followed several members felt that the central issue was the lack of social housing and that central government should require and enable local authorities to build more social housing which would then relieve pressures in the private sector.  A member referred to the £2 billion of government funding for council and social housing that had been announced and urged CBH to get a share of this. Another member felt it was disgraceful that a home sold under right to buy could not be replaced on a one-to-one basis.

 

Members also referred to the issue of affordable housing and the importance of having a good supply of affordable homes in the town. As a planning authority a member suggested that the council should be able to influence and force the issue of affordable housing with developers whilst recognizing that they still need to make a profit. Another member suggested that young people prefer to live in the centre of town and the council should be encouraging development of brown field sites for affordable accommodation for young people.

 

Other members referred to the number of empty properties often bought up by developers and then left empty. One cause could be low interest rates making property a better investment than savings.One member thought it was disgraceful that a number of three bedroomed houses were left empty on local army bases. Another member suggested a possible cause could be developers waiting for planning consent and one solution would be to lobby central government to look seriously at planning legislation and how the process could be speeded up.

 

Councillor Wilkinson raised a point of order that in his motion he had deliberately not mentioned social housing. His motion was specifically targeted at young people in the age group 25 to 35 on a reasonable income who would never qualify for social housing.

 

The Cabinet Member Housing said it was great from him to have had the opportunity to work with the council's ALMO. He referred to the decades of housing shortages and a generation which had now been priced out of the market. He felt the suggestions in the motion were a good start.

 

Several members referred to the types of employment available to young people. There was a strong service industry in Cheltenham which often experienced difficulties in recruitment as zero hours contracts were not attractive. Fixed term contracts were also becoming more frequent and these would not support mortgage applications.

 

In seconding the motion Councillor Hobley emphasised that social housing was not the solution to young people's needs. He himself had moved 10 times in the space of five years and he would never be eligible for social housing.  Moving frequently between rented accommodation also incurred a high volume of letting fees and used up young people's savings for a future deposit on a house.  In his ward, St Paul’s, there were a significant number of buy to let properties, many rented out to students and local people could not afford to buy their first or second house in the area.

 

In his summing Councillor Wilkinson thanked members for all their support and encouraged the council to write to government and encourage them to take some action and for the council to incorporate some solutions to the problem as part of the development of the Local Plan.

 

Upon a vote the motion was carried unanimously.