Agenda item

Representatives will be present from the architects and representatives from the proposed health centre and the Primary Care Trust.

 

Residents will be able to find out the current situation with regard to the proposed health centre.

Councillor Kitterick started off this item by explaining his position in relation to the development of the Health Centre. He explained that he had changed his position and had come to the decision to represent resident’s wide range of views, but mostly those who were opposed to the new Health Centre.

 

Simon Gould, from Assura gave a presentation on the proposed health centre. He covered the following areas:-

 

-          Why a new centre was needed – mainly because the existing building was not suitable for current needs.

 

-          Why this site – it was a good location which would be central for both students and residents.

 

-          Why other sites were not possible – they were either too out of the way or due to land values, it wasn’t possible to compete with housing developers.

 

-          How the centre would be funded – Assura were a private developer who would purchase the site and build the centre. The Health Centre would then pay a regulated level of rent to Assura.

 

-          Other facilities on the site – there would be an ancillary pharmacy and no other commercial activity at all. The site would have a restricted covenant which would prevent any kind of other use of the site in future.

 

-          Car Parking – the Council had requested an increase in parking spaces from 16 -22. Reconfiguration of double yellow lines on Victoria Park Road was also being considered.

 

-          Sustainability – the building would be built to the BREEAM (the industry sustainability measurement standard) level of ‘Excellent’ which was the highest possible measure.

 

Residents raised a number of questions on the following areas:-

 

Would the building meet the One Leicester aim of being carbon neutral?

 

It wouldn’t be carbon neutral, but meeting the BREEAM excellent standard would mean that it would address a wider range of sustainability issues such as ecology, energy use and sustainability. Plus the new building would be more sustainable than the existing building.

 

Was there a report available which gave more details about the unsuitability of the existing health centre site?

 

Laura Norton from Leicester City Primary Care Trust explained that a survey of all GP surgeries had been undertaken considering 9 issues, such as physical condition, environmental impact and potential for development. This had shown that the existing Freemans Park health centre was in the worst condition of all health centres in the city. Laura offered to provide the report.

 

Is the existing health centre and would the new one would be just for students?

 

Practice Manager, Samantha Rogers explained that of the current 15000 patients just under 50% were aged 18-24, the rest were outside of this age group. It wasn’t monitored whether they were students or not. Students did not receive preference. The health centre was currently not taking any new patients as it been given clearance not to do so because of its lack of capacity.

 

It was queried whether other surgeries in the local area had open lists and whether new patients could be diverted to them?

 

Laura Norton said that mainstream GP practices had to accept patients that requested to be on their lists. There was only a limit at Freemens Common because of capacity. Details were also provided of all the GP practices in the Clarendon Park area, it was noted that there were particular capacity pressures in the London Road area.

 

A question was raised about the business plan for the new health centre, what numbers of patients it was expecting over the next five years?

 

Samantha Rogers commented that the assumption was that patient numbers would remain the same.

 

A number of people contested this response – it was felt that there would be more detailed analysis in the health centre’s business plan and it was noted that there were public documents which stated that 1500 more patients were expected.

 

Simon Gould explained that the 1500 figure referred to additional capacity that was built into the new health centre. It was usual to build in more capacity when a new facility was built.

 

In view of this extra capacity it was suggested that other surgeries could leak patients.

 

Laura Norton explained that it was the current government’s policy to remove catchment areas to allow for competition. However currently most practices were either full or close to full, an excess of capacity was unlikely.

 

It was asked why the health centre could not be built on a brownfield site, rather than a greenfield one?

 

David Cotton said that when considering a planning application, this would be one of the many factors for consideration and balance of all these factors needed to be achieved. It was not a foregone conclusion that the application would be approved.

 

Councillor Kitterick explained that this application was not being led by the Council. The Planning Department would respond to the application. The applicant would be responsible for considering which site they proposed to use.

 

Simon Gould also commented that this site was favoured due it’s suitable location between residents and students, also that a number of other sites had been considered, but had not been feasible. Housing developers were able to pay greater amounts for available sites. It could take another five years before another suitable site became available. He confirmed that details of other sites considered was in the planning application.

 

A query was raised about whether it was Council land that was being used for the health centre.

 

Simon Gould informed the meeting that there would be some tree felling on Council owned land, but these would be replaced. There would be no building works on Council owned land.

 

It was felt despite the planned increase in parking spaces, there was still not enough being provided. Further it was felt to create drop off bays on Victoria Park Road would ruin the ‘avenue’ feel of the area. There would also be increased parking in residential streets.

 

Simon Gould agreed that parking and access was one of the big challenges with all developments like this.

 

The red line on the overhead photo shown in the presentation of the site area showed that considerable space would be designated as land D1 uses (non residential institutions such as health centres, crèches). Was this all necessary?

 

Simon Gould commented that the site area needed to cover all areas where any work was taking place, ie including work such as landscaping as well as building developments. It was intended to undertake a wide package of environmental improvements. 

 

David Cotton confirmed that all of the area within the red line could, in theory be built on for a D1 use (non-residential institution). The best way to address this would be to put a condition on the planning application to restrict the area which could be built on.

 

Was the pharmacy strictly necessary as there were already local ones? if it wasn’t included the health centre would take up less space? The pharmacy seemed to be rather big in size?

 

Laura Norton commented that it was good practice to include a pharmacy in health centres now. It would mean that unwell patients would have easy access to a pharmacy. A local pharmacist could run the pharmacy.

 

With regard to the size of the unit, Simon Gould commented that it would need a sales area, storage and preparation area as well as a consulting room. Further he commented that it was the intention for the pharmacy to be closed, when the medical centre was closed.

 

A resident commented that they were in favour of the health centre being built.

 

Councillor Kitterick thanked him for his comments, but said that at the Planning and Development Control Committee he would be taking up the objectors points of view as this was the majority opinion which had been expressed to him. This would however cover a wide spectrum of opinions from those who opposed out of principle and those who just felt that changes were required.

 

David Cotton said that all representations, for or against would be reported at the Planning and Development Control Committee.

 

Residents raised concerns about a discussion they had attended with the Primary Care Trust, which it was thought suggested that the premises could be used, out of hours for commercial activities such as a botox clinic.

 

It was confirmed that this would not be the case. It would only be NHS services provided at this site.

 

If the development went ahead, would there be training opportunities for young people as part of the construction of the health centre.

 

Simon Gould said that he would be very happy to explore opportunities with the City Council, if they had existing schemes running which could involve training / employment opportunities for local people.

 

Action	Officer Identified	Deadline
Provide copies of the survey report into the state of the existing Freemens Common Health Centre.	Laura Norton	As soon as possible.
Raise with the Council’s economic regeneration team about potential training / employment opportunities for young people in the construction of the health centre.	Francis Connolly / Trevor Mee	September