Petitions

Tuesday 13th January 2015

(9 years, 3 months ago)

Petitions
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
Tuesday 13 January 2015

Acocks Green Post Office (Birmingham)

Tuesday 13th January 2015

(9 years, 3 months ago)

Petitions
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Petition of residents of Acocks Green and customers of the Post Office in Acocks Green and others,
Declares that the Petitioners oppose the proposed move of Acocks Green's Post Office branch from 1100 Warwick Road to 1131 Warwick Road; further that the proposed new location has fewer serving hatches, a significantly narrower pavement and, unlike the current location, no canopy above the pavement for when customers have to queue; and further that the Petitioners are concerned about the viability of the new host company and its store, and therefore the long term security of the branch.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to listen to calls for the Post Office to reject the current proposals for the movement of the Acocks Green Post Office and seek alternative, more appropriate proposals.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by John Hemming, Official Report, 3 November 2014; Vol. 587, c. 628.]
[P001394]
Observations from the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills:
The Government note the views of residents who access Post Office services at Acocks Green Post Office, 1100 Warwick Road, which is currently directly operated by Post Office Ltd and is known as a Crown branch.
The Government note that the implementation of the Post Office’s Crown Transformation Programme is an operational matter which is the responsibility of senior management at Post Office Ltd. The Government, as shareholders, do not play any role in decisions relating to individual post office branches. In considering the future provision of Post Office services at Acocks Green, it is important to note the wider context of Post Office Ltd’s proposals to franchise 58 Crown post offices and to merge or relocate a small number of other Crown branches.
The Government note that the 2010 spending review contained a clear commitment to modernising the Post Office network and safeguarding its future, and the Government have allocated £2 billion of funding since 2010 to provide for significant investment across the Post Office network. A condition of this funding package requires Post Office Ltd to continue to maintain a network of at least 11,500 branches, to comply fully with the access criteria, and with no programme of branch closures.
The Government note that the branches of the Crown network have incurred heavy and historic losses, totalling £26 million in the company’s last reported full financial year. Eliminating these Crown losses is a key element of Post Office Ltd’s strategy to provide for the long-term sustainable future of the network, and the Government support the business in delivering that strategy.
The Government note that the current losses incurred by the Crown network contribute heavily to the losses sustained by the network as a whole and this is not sustainable. No business, including the Post Office, can continue with a situation where some of its high street branches cost substantially more to run than they generate in revenues. In the case of the Acocks Green branch it costs £1.70 for every £1 of income it generates.
The Government note that within its broader strategy for eliminating these unsustainable losses and achieving break even for the Crown network by 2015, Post Office Ltd has identified a group of branches where it sees no prospect of eliminating the losses at a local level under the current operating and cost structure. The precise reasons will vary from location to location but commonly include factors such as high property costs and sub-optimal location to attract the necessary increase in custom and business to make them profitable.
The Government note that Post Office Ltd has however made it clear that, under each franchise proposal, the full range of post office services would continue to be available in close proximity to the existing Crown branch; and, in the event that a suitable new retail partner cannot be found, Post Office Ltd has given a commitment that post office services will be retained within the area. Furthermore, before any changes are made to the existing service provision, Post Office Ltd undertakes a local public consultation under the terms of a code of practice agreed between the Post Office Ltd and Citizens Advice. The public consultation process focuses on specific and detailed proposals for relocating the service provision, including such matters as ease of access, and responses are carefully considered by Post Office Ltd before a final decision is reached. It is noted that Post Office Ltd held a local consultation on its proposals regarding Acocks Green post office, which was open for comment between 24 September and 5 November, in accordance with the code of practice. Post Office Ltd is considering the responses received before making a decision.
The Government note that Post Office Ltd’s proposals for Acocks Green post office would see opening hours extended by over 20 hours a week providing greater accessibility and enhanced convenience for customers in a fully modernised retail environment.

Railway line adjacent to North Werrington (Peterborough)

Tuesday 13th January 2015

(9 years, 3 months ago)

Petitions
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Petition of residents of Peterborough constituency,
Declares that Network Rail have upgraded the continuous railway line adjacent to North Werrington; further that Network Rail estimate that there will be substantial increases in freight traffic through the village of up to 23,360 additional trains per year; further that no mitigating measures have been offered to reduce the significant increases in noise, vibration and pollution created by the increase in freight traffic; and further that a local petition on this matter was signed by 582 residents of North Werrington.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to enter into discussion with Network Rail to discuss and agree plans to introduce noise mitigation measures such as the erection of acoustic timber fencing and plans to fit secondary glazing and/or acoustic trickle vents where required for properties adjacent to the train line which runs through North Werrington; further request that the House urges the Government to encourage Network Rail to put in place plans to plant an evergreen tree belt to help absorb particulates emitted by diesel locomotives; and further request that the House urges the Government to ask Peterborough City Council to consider a reduction in council tax for those properties which will be directly affected by increases in freight traffic through North Werrington.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Mr Stewart Jackson, Official Report, 9 December 2014; Vol. 589, c. 840.]
[P001408]
Observations from the Secretary of State for Transport:
I recognise the concerns that local residents may have about the prospect of increased rail freight traffic through North Werrington. However, the developments that Network Rail is undertaking on the Great Northern/Great Eastern Joint Line through Lincoln will benefit both freight and passenger services, by reducing the need for rail freight services between Peterborough and Doncaster to use the East Coast Main Line. This will provide scope for increased, and more reliable, passenger services on the East Coast Main Line while retaining the ability of the rail freight sector to compete effectively with road haulage—in turn reducing congestion and pollution on the road network.
The Joint Line is, of course, already in daily use for both passenger and freight rail services and there is therefore no automatic obligation upon Network Rail to introduce noise or particulate mitigation measures for increases in service levels. Nonetheless, if, over time, the development of the line leads to a demonstrable increase in noise, vibration and pollution for local residents, there is guidance available on Network Rail’s website at http://www.networkrail.co.uk/aspx/1030.aspx on how to raise concerns. The Department will, however, write to Network Rail to ensure that the company is aware of local residents’ worries about the possible impacts.
I am afraid that the responsibilities of the Department for Transport do not run to the determination of council tax levels. This is a matter for Peterborough City Council. In line with the Coalition Government’s commitment to localism, Ministers and officials have no remit to intervene in the day-to-day affairs of local authorities except where specific provision has been made in legislation.

Railway line adjacent to Peakirk (Peterborough)

Tuesday 13th January 2015

(9 years, 3 months ago)

Petitions
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Petition of residents of Peterborough constituency,
Declares that Network Rail have upgraded the continuous railway line adjacent to Peakirk; further that Network Rail estimate that there will be substantial increases in freight traffic through the village of up to 23,360 additional trains per year; further that no mitigating measures have been offered to reduce the significant increases in noise, vibration and pollution created by the increase in freight traffic; and further that a local petition on this matter was signed by 170 residents of Peakirk.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to enter into discussion with Network Rail to discuss and agree plans to introduce noise mitigation measures such as the erection of acoustic timber fencing and plans to fit secondary glazing and/or acoustic trickle vents where required for properties adjacent to the train line which runs adjacent to Peakirk; further request that the House urges the Government to encourage Network Rail to put in place plans to plant an evergreen tree belt to help absorb particulates emitted by diesel locomotives; and further request that the House urges the Government to ask Peterborough City Council to consider a reduction in council tax for those properties which will be directly affected by increases in freight traffic through Peakirk.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Mr Stewart Jackson, Official Report, 9 December 2014; Vol. 589, c. 840.]
[P001409]
Observations from the Secretary of State for Transport:
I recognise the concerns that local residents may have about the prospect of increased rail freight traffic through Peakirk. However, the developments that Network Rail is undertaking on the Great Northern/Great Eastern Joint Line through Lincoln will benefit both freight and passenger services, by reducing the need for rail freight services between Peterborough and Doncaster to use the East Coast Main Line. This will provide scope for increased, and more reliable, passenger services on the East Coast Main Line while retaining the ability of the rail freight sector to compete effectively with road haulage—in turn reducing congestion and pollution on the road network.
The Joint Line is, of course, already in daily use for both passenger and freight rail services and there is therefore no automatic obligation upon Network Rail to introduce noise or particulate mitigation measures for increases in service levels. Nonetheless, if, over time, the development of the line leads to a demonstrable increase in noise, vibration and pollution for local residents, there is guidance available on Network Rail’s website at http://www.networkrail.co.uk/aspx/1030.aspx on how to raise concerns. The Department will, however, write to Network Rail to ensure that the company is aware of local residents’ worries about the possible impacts.
I am afraid that the responsibilities of the Department for Transport do not run to the determination of council tax levels. This is a matter for Peterborough City Council. In line with the Coalition Government’s commitment to localism, Ministers and officials have no remit to intervene in the day-to-day affairs of local authorities except where specific provision has been made in legislation.