Agenda item

(1)  By Councillor Ray Wootten

“(1)  To seek full council approval in condemning the closure of local

Post Offices within the boundary of South Kesteven.

(2)  I further request that a letter written by the Leader on behalf of

this council be forwarded to the Post Office outlining our objections.”

DECISION:

(1)                                   That the Council condemns the closure of local post offices within the boundary of South Kesteven;

(2)                                   The Leader write a letter on behalf of the Council to the Post Office outlining this Council’s objections and that copies of this letter be forwarded to the Government and the Local Government Association to emphasise the detrimental effect these proposed closures would have upon the community.

In presenting his motion to the Council, Councillor Wootten said the words “despicable”, “outrageous” and “barmy” had been used by residents about the threatened closure of the Brook Street post office in Grantham.  He referred to a particular elderly resident who would have extreme difficulty in getting to the nearest post office if this one was closed.  The impact on residents in rural areas whose post offices were similarly under threat was potentially even worse.  Councillor Wootten referred to the earlier presentation about the future growth for Grantham and accordingly sought support for his motion from all members of the Council.

In seconding the motion, a member referred to his experience when he and his late wife ran the Brook Street post office.  He said that many people needed to collect and make payments in cash and this was still the case.  The ward that he and Councillor Wootten represented could be seen as two areas; predominantly younger residents in the Manthorpe estate and mostly older residents in the east who used the Brook Street post office on a daily basis.  He urged members to support the retention of this facility.

Several members spoke expressing strong support for this motion, pointing out that a similar situation was being faced by residents in Stamford.  Whilst the motion referred to the whole district, the Chairman highlighted that this was affecting the whole county.  A number of members who represented rural wards spoke of the sub post offices which had been earmarked for closure in their villages. The Access & Engagement portfolio holder advised members to fight for their own post offices as and when they came under threat; he urged them to get campaigns going within the community.

A member asked that when the Leader writes to the Post Office, copies of her letter also be sent to the Government and the Local Government Association, emphasising the detrimental impact these closures would have on the communities who relied on the post offices.

The Leader referred to the cuts in the subsidies made by central government to the Post Office for these services; this issue was much more than the sub post offices themselves – it was about people’s lives.  Closure of sub post offices in village shops would inevitably affect the viability of that shop; it therefore struck at the very heart of the community.  Both the mover of the motion and the Leader agreed to accept the amendment that the letter is also sent to central government and the LGA.

The Chairman reminded members that a joint meeting of the Scrutiny Committee and the Engagement PDG was to be held on 2^nd November further to debate this matter.  The Deputy Leader urged all members to keep up support for the threatened post offices stating that such battles could be won.  The Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee advised that the actual loss by the Post Office was £3m per day; the Government subsidised some of this loss so if the subsidy was being cut then the battle was also with the Government.  He posed the question that it depended on how much the taxpayer was prepared to cover the Post Office loss in order to keep these facilities for the rural and outer urban communities.

In his summing up, Councillor Wootten thanked the Council for its support and referred to a poster that was currently on display in the Brook Street post office which urged support for “The People’s Post Office”.  The motion, as amended, was then put to the vote and unanimously carried.