Archived decisions

Appendix

Dear Sir

Hampshire County Council

Network Change Programme consultation - Proposed response to Post Office Ltd

At its meeting on 22 November members of Hampshire County Council unanimously resolved that:

`This Council strongly criticises the Post Office's current proposals for post office closures in Hampshire as symptomatic of a consistent failure to recognise the needs of Shire counties; where in rural villages, suburbs and towns the Post Office is not only an important service in its own right but often is a crucial factor helping in the retention of a local shop.

We urge the Government instead of managing decline of the Post Office network, to seek to bring new business opportunities to the network thereby increasing the financial viability of business.

Post Offices have a vital role in community cohesion and place shaping, which Government says it is committed to developing.

This Council further resolves to develop a strategy to do everything we can prudently do to save Post Offices in Hampshire, including the investigation of opportunities to provide County Council services through Post Offices in order to help keep as many of them as viable as possible.

This Council is also dissatisfied with the lack of detail received during consultation on proposed Post Office closures in the county and requests that further information be given, and the consultation period be extended, to allow for more informed decisions. This information should include basic information on each affected Post Office, such as the average weekly number of transactions, evidence of the claimed lack of need and the attitude of individual Postmasters to the proposals'.

General Comments:

The Council considers the current consultation exercise flawed because:

The criteria assumes that anyone living up to 3 miles from a Post Office can physically make the increased journey to use it. In practical terms this is often not the case, public transport to other Post Office facilities in most of these threatened localities is very limited, if not non-existent. Non car users, who are often those already with low incomes, will be disproportionately affected due to increased need and cost of travel.  Closures will lead to increased car journeys, which will lead to increased traffic congestion and greater CO2 emissions & pollution; all of which are contrary to Government policy.

As plans for proposed closures in our neighbouring counties have yet to be publicly released, the reduced network cannot fully be assessed against the accessibility criteria in Hampshire under the national figures at this stage. Any challenges will not be able to be made until all Post Offices plans have been produced which will not be for up to 15 months time, 12 months after closures would have already been carried out in Hampshire. As such, later areas to be considered are in an advantageous position.

Assessment of alternative provision, especially for the outreach branches has been hindered by the reluctance of Post Office Ltd to release information regarding types of usage, turnover, costs and whether a post office is profitable or able to operate with little or no subsidy. The plan does not comment on community demand for a post office nor the aspirations of postmasters who may or may not wish to continue offering the service. We ask that, where an existing business can submit a viable business case, the Post Office should reconsider any decision to close. 

Closures will impact on the local authorities ability to develop sustainable communities and will result in the loss of any related shopping facilities thus reducing the vitality and vibrancy of these communities which are predominantly rural  with already fragile economies.

Local Responses

The following responses have been drawn up by local county councillors in respect of their communities and areas. Other local Hampshire Action Teams will be considering the proposals and comments will be passed to Post office Ltd as soon as they are available.

East Hampshire Action Team

The Members of the East Hampshire HAT wish to put on record their very strong and unanimous support for such opposition to closures. The reasons being:

· Closures will be demonstrably harmful to the Government's stated aim of achieving sustainable communities.

· Public transport to other PO facilities in most of these threatened localities is very limited, if not non-existent.

· Closures will lead to increased car journeys, which will lead to increased congestion and greater CO2 emissions & pollution; all of which are contrary to Government policy. For example, a survey of a proportion of the customers of the Passfield Post Office showed that its closure would lead to an extra 124,800 car miles being driven every  year..


· PO Closures will no doubt result in the loss of any related shopping facilities thus endangering the vitality and vibrancy of these communities which are predominantly rural with already fragile economies.


· Increased usage of other dedicated or main post offices, e.g. Petersfield, will require a commitment to upgrading of facilities

We most urgently request that the Post Office Ltd  reconsider its proposed closures in East Hampshire District which will be very damaging to the quality of life in these communities. We also urgently require details of the upgrading proposals for dedicated Post Offices in East Hampshire whose usage will increase dramatically should nearby closures take place.

Havant Hampshire Action Team

While the Members acknowledge that change is necessary for more sustainable, flexible and efficient services, we are concerned about these closures in the Havant Borough and the potential impact this would have on the residents within the respective areas. Two of the proposed closures are in the Leigh Park area of Havant and in two of the most deprived wards in Hampshire.  The areas served by these facilities also have high level of older and disabled persons and the highest levels of people receiving incapacity benefits and pension credit claimants in the county. Residents within this area currently rely on the post office to collect their benefits and allowances. The absence of banks and ATMs within the area means that residents would have no alternatives should these post offices be closed.

We are also concerned about the manner and depth of the consultation prior to the presentation of the proposals.  Post Offices are essential to the local community and proximity to them is linked to the quality of life.  We are not convinced the consultation was sufficiently robust to determine the needs of the local community and the potential consequences of the closures.  We therefore request that Post Office Ltd, consider the above and conduct additional research and consultation before a final decision is made. 

New Forest Hampshire Action Team

We recognise that there needs to be change to the Network in order to make it sustainable, and it generally welcomes the fact that outreach services are being made available in some places where post offices are being closed.  However, there are some concerns about the consultation process, the business case for some post offices, and the closure of some specific post offices.

During the development of the area plan proposal, the report states that a variety of sources have been consulted, including local authorities.  However, we find it strange that the consultation did not include any of the County Councillors -  people who have excellent local knowledge of the communities they were democratically elected to serve.  The  report also fails to provide adequate evidence of the lack of need and whether local residents are content with the decision.  As such we can only conclude that the research is flawed through these omissions.

The analysis took into consideration the number of customers at each of the post offices. There is no further information on types of usage, turnover, or whether a post office is profitable or able to operate with little or no subsidy. It does not comment on community demand for a post office nor the aspirations of postmasters who may or may not wish to continue offering the service.

We are especially concerned about the impact of the closures of services at Tiptoe, Boldre, Abbots Ann and Bramshaw. Bramshaw is a particular cause for concern.  The local Councillor, Kathy Heron, has received a number of letters from residents expressing their dismay at the proposed closure.  A petition has been raised and the Post Office has the support of Julian Lewis MP. The nearest post offices are at least 4.5 miles away and across a dual carriageway.  The village has no bus service and no village hall and, as such, the post office is seen as critical to the vitality of the village. 

Test Valley Hampshire Action Team

Individual members of the HAT have received letters of concern from residents and would like  the Post Office to consider further their proposals to close the following post offices:

· Bournemouth Road Post Office in Chandler's Ford

· Old Winton Road, Andover Post Office

· Anna Valley Post Office

· Goodworth Clatford Post Office

· Lockerley

· Leckford

· West Tytherley

We firmly believe that the closure of these post offices would have a significant negative impact on the local communities.

We are also concerned that the consultation was not adequately inclusive.  We do not think it was sufficiently widely advertised in places where there were likely to be closures and we feel that the heavy reliance on the internet for consultation served to exclude many of those most likely to use post office services. 

We would also like information on usage, turnover, profitability and the actual cost involved in keeping open each post office earmarked for closure. Where there is community demand would it not make more sense to explore options for partnership arrangements and / or alternative sources of funding?

In addition, the failure to consult with the local member in areas affected by the closures is a glaring omission in the research and as such we believe improved analysis and consultation needs to be undertaken before any final decisions are made.

Yours sincerely

Ken Thornber

Leader

cc:        Paddy Hillary, Policy

            Kirsty Gunner, Press Office