A new health centre is proposed for Victoria Park Road. Representatives from the developer and architect will be present to give details of the proposals and get feedback from residents.
Minutes:
Residents received a presentation from Dr. Pratima Khunti and Jim Hart from the West Hart Partnership architects.
Pratima made the following points:-
- The 9 doctors and five nurses had difficulties operating successfully from the existing premises.
- There was a great deal of demand for health services in the local area which weren’t being met – the patient list size was being restricted.
- Several sites had been considered over the past 10 years.
- This site, on Victoria Park Road was the only feasible site, one on Freemens Common turned out to be unviable.
- She hoped that residents would see the benefit of moving to new premises where better services could be provided and better disabled access.
- The ‘air-raid’ bunkers were the site of the new centre and it was intended to design the new building to be ‘in keeping’ with the local area.
Jim made the following points:-
- His main role was to mitigate the visual impact of the new building, but it was also an opportunity to invigorate the area.
- The tennis courts to the south of the site would be improved ecologically.
- The building would be as small a ‘site take’ as possible and a restricted amount of parking.
- The design of the building would take advantage of the differing ground levels of the site to restrict its visual impact.
- Car parking would be on the first floor roof of the building and a land bank would surround the building.
- A ‘suds’ wetland would be created to take the water run off from the building in an ecological way.
- There would be considerable focus on the landscaping of the site to further reduce visual impact.
Questions on the following areas were asked:-
The site currently had a lot of mature trees which would need removing, the building design looked ‘plastic box’ like others in the area and there would most likely be a growth in traffic / parking and access problems as a result of the development.
Jim Hart commented that the landscaping and the design of the building aimed to maintain and improve the quality of the area, the services of a good quality landscape architect had been employed. The ‘seeded’ trees would be removed from the site, but they would be replaced. With regard to parking, a survey of users of the surgery had shown that only 16% of existing users drove to the site and only 7% intended to drive to the new facility which meant on average, 1 car every 15 minutes. Access would be through the university, details on this did need working out, but this was found to be preferable to an access from Victoria Park Road which would have created bottle neck problems.
It was queried what was meant by ecology, in terms of improvements to the site?
Jim explained that there would be surveys (ie wildlife survey, bat survey) undertaken of the site and measures would be put in place to allow these to develop and preserve what was already there.
How many car spaces were planned?
There would be approximately 18-20. This would allow for staff and disabled parking. It was also planned to include a drop off point.
What would happen to the current site, could compensatory green space be provided?
This wasn’t possible as the site was owned by the University. Green space was being developed on the site of the currently unused tennis courts to the south of the new site.
How was the new surgery being paid for, would the Practice be paying rent, what was the cost comparison between the old and new site?
The Primary Care Trust funded the majority of health centres and for the premises this usually meant paying rent to a third party owner, the University own the current premises. The new site would be owned by a third party, but the development of the site was undertaken at risk by another organisation. The cost of the new site was as yet unknown, costs of the existing could be provided to the next meeting. The District Valuer oversaw these processes to ensure value for money for the public.
Was this a relocation of services or would more be provided at the new site?
The same services would be provided but there would also be more. Patient numbers and services had to be restricted at the existing site therefore more people could be served from the new premises.
What was the role of Assura in the development of the new site, were they providing new services or simply looking for profit?
Assura were the developer of the site and wouldn’t receive any payment if the development did not go ahead. The PCT or GPs did not have the capacity to undertake site development, therefore companies like Assura did this. The District Valuer ensured the public received value for money.
It was felt that other public building projects such as Building Schools for the future had been disappointing from an environmentally friendly point of view. What efforts were being made to ensure this building was environmentally friendly?
The proposed building would be built to the ‘Excellent’ level of BREEAM which was the highest possible environmental rating according to the industry standard. This would include 14% of the energy used by the building would have to be generated on site, which could include solar, ground source heat pump or a biomass boiler.
How big would the building be and what materials would it use?
The building would be 1500 square foot. The materials were yet to be fully decided but it was expected that they would as natural as possible, probably including timber and render. The building would not have a pitched roof to enable it to fit into its surroundings better.
Would the surgery only be for students and university staff?
This was definitely not the case, it was a community facility and patients who were non-students were strongly welcomed.
The site on Freemens Common would have been more appropriate as it was a brownfield site and was due to be developed as a Fire Station.
This site was part of the University estate and was not available for use as a health centre. The health centre would have taken up the whole of the site.
It was felt that the car parking requirements had been underestimated and that there was definitely a need for a drop off point for elderly / infirm people.
Jim agreed with the need for a drop off point, there may even be two, one with access through the university and another on Victoria Park Road. There were currently national planning restrictions on the amount of parking which could be provided in developments, this would guide how much would be provided. He also noted that of the demographic which would use the surgery, there would be a low level of car ownership.
Councillor Kitterick thanked the architects, developers and representatives from existing Health Centre for attending the meeting. The Health Centre would need to go through the planning process and representations on the planning application could be made to the Planning Management and Delivery Section of the Council, contact details below.
Jim Hart also encouraged people to get in touch if they had any further comments on the design of the building which he could see if they could be incorporated.
Contact details for comments on any future planning application.
Planning Management & Delivery
Leicester City
Council
New Walk Centre A8
Welford Place
Leicester LE1 6ZG
(0116) 252 7249.
|
Action |
Officer Identified |
Deadline |
|
Provide details of rental costs of exising premises. |
Samantha Rogers |
March 2009 – see below |
|
Provide contact details for residents to make further comments on the design of the building. |
|
|
Cost of rent for current health centre premises
Samantha Rogers, Practice Manager provided the following information:-
The rental that was currently paid was for a building that was far too small, was not fit for purpose, was poorly maintained, was inadequately cleaned, didn’t meet Disability Discrimination Act requirements and was discounted as it was historically part of the University. This needed to be considered when comparing with any future rental costs. Unless the rental for all practices could be placed alongside with the number of patients they served it didn’t bear any relation.
Contact details for further comments on design of building
Please forward any comments to:
matthew.reeves@leicester.gov.uk
Matthew Reeves
Town Hall
Town Hall Square
Leicester
LE1 9BG
Any comments will be forwarded to the developers.