SIR,

I feel strongly that the Post Office management have not fully considered the economic and environmental implications of what appears to be a paper exercise based more upon the need to show that cuts are being made rather than on actual and factual cost savings.

Indeed, it appears that given the ramifications of staff having to travel 100,000 extra miles per year, the likely event of an increase in new housing stock, the possibility of a move by Monmouthshire County Council into the area and most importantly the future needs of the Post Office's biggest local customer, BAE Systems, who have not been consulted on the matter, that the proposed relocation may in fact lead to cost increases.

To date, the Post Office management have not offered their costings for such a decision for scrutiny.

As in so many cases of this kind, those who are most affected – the customers and the workers – have not been fully consulted.

I am informed that the sorting office in Usk is unmanaged. By that one assumes that the workforce is self managed – thus cutting out a costly layer of personnel.

The health and safety record of this 'unmanaged' site is far superior to the health and safety record of the 'managed' site in Pontypool, rendering the idea that management improves the situation to the outmoded dustbin of history. It is the layers of management which cost the money.

When assessing the worth of a commercial business, a figure is always included for the value of 'goodwill'.

From the many comments made at the public meeting on 4th November, there was a clear case of excellent customer relations and service, built up over many years.

I very much doubt that this factor has been part of the costings put forward in the closure scenario.

The Post Office has wisely signed up to the 10:10 agreement, committing the entire organisation to reducing carbon emissions by 10 per cent by the end of this year.

I hardly think that adding at least 100,000 annual miles to the journeys of the workforce will contribute to this undertaking.

Furthermore, with the projected increase in fuel costs as the era of easy oil leaves us, let alone the extra wear and tear on vehicles and associated costs, I believe the decision to close Usk flies in the face of acknowledged need for carbon reduction.

The closure of Usk Sorting Office does not appear to be a future-proof scenario. Localisation is the way forward, not centralisation.

Pippa Bartolotti

(Newport Green Party)