Letter from David Lepper MP
Thank you for your letter of 6 December about
your Committee's Inquiry into local area consultations for Post
Office Network Change programme.
I have attached a copy of the full response
which I sent to Gary Herbert, the Network Development Manager,
on 19 December as part of the consultation accompanying petitions
with some 4,000 signatures (not printed here).
I welcomed the attempt by Post Office Ltd to
give MPs prior notice some days before the public announcement
of proposed closures although the two members of staff who briefed
me had no knowledge at all of either Brighton in general or the
parts of my Constituency which will be affected by the four closures
being unable to answer quite straightforward factual questions
from me about information included in the Area Plan. This did
not inspire confidence.
I believe that the information in the Area Plan
documents and the Branch Access Reports was often inaccurate,
incomplete and inconsistently presented The most glaring examples
are references to two alternative branches which do not exist
and to another alternative branch being in a Co-Op "superstore"
most departments of which were closed in February 2007 and where
the future of the Post Office branch is uncertain.
There is insufficient analysis of the impact
of the closure of Post Office counters on those businesses in
which they are located. There is no attempt to assess the capacity
of alternative branches, often in very cramped locations, to cope
with the potential increases in customers.
Descriptions of routes to alternative branches
are often incomplete or inaccurate. There is no assessment of
the impact of increased car traffic and parking in areas around
alternative branches.
In the case of two branches, there is no attempt
to assess the impact of recently completed or proposed regenerations
schemes in the area in which they are located.
Underlining these criticisms is my concern that
the Area Plans and Branch Access Reports do not pay sufficient
attention to the criteria which the Post Office argued had been
taken into account in drawing up its proposals, and, indeed, are
so poor that it is hard to accept that the plans and reports had
been drawn up on the basis of visits to the areas affected.
Finally, there has been a great deal of controversy
locally about the status of petitions and the suggestion that
Post Office Ltd will regard each petition however many signatures
are on it as only one objection. No indication was made in consultation
documents that this would be the case and I have urged Post Office
Ltd to reconsider this point.
I hope these comments are helpful to you and
your members in your inquiry.
8 January 2008
| 
