Plans for a new Alderley Edge Medical Centre were revealed at a public exhibition yesterday.
GP's have been trying to provide a new premises for the surgery for the past four years. They have been met with several obstacles along the way but are now in a position to submit a planning application.
Plans were available to view at the festival hall on Thursday, 26th January, where the new medical centre could be sited. Local doctors and parish councillors were on hand to answer questions.
The intention is for the medical centre to be located at the front of the building, with a new side entrance providing access to the community hall.
The new medical centre would bring the front of the building closer to the road than it currently is and extend the width of it, whilst the height would be marginally increased.
Plans for the ground floor include five consulting rooms, a meeting room, interview room, reception, waiting area, lift, WC with baby changing facilities and a pharmacy, which I understand will be occupied by Cedrics.
On the first floor there will be two treatment rooms, three more consulting rooms, a District Nurse office, medical store, recovery room, sub waiting room, staff room, Practice Manager room, office, finance office, utility, record store, comms rooms and WC's. The second floor will provide space for let, probably to health related businesses.
Dr Edwin Thompson told me "Feedback today has been very positive. I think everyone I have spoken to is a patient of ours and can see what we're working with at the moment and what we could be working with."
The future of the George Street practice could be at risk because of its lack of access for disabled and elderly patients. An inspection by the Care Quality Commission is due in April 2013 and the GP's feel that the current premises could be a problem.
Dr Thompson added "The main benefit for patients is access to all facilities as the lift will provide access to all floors. Macclesfield Hospital is looking to come into the community with their services and they cannot do this with the current facilities.
"For the doctors it will provide modern facilities and more space which we are very short of now. Being a training practice we will also have more space for training and be able to attract the best trainees."
Whilst I was at the public consultation there was a steady stream of visitors who were all given comment forms to complete. These were collected by Nicola Kent, Primary Care Projects Manager at Central & Eastern Cheshire PCT, will be typed up and submitted with the planning application.
Nicola told me "We are going to go through all the comments and incorporate what we can before we submit the plans so we can suit as many people as possible."
The GP's are hoping to submit a planning application in the second week of February and be in a position to commence building works in June, after the Alderley Festival has taken place.
Dr Thompson added "The work really needs to be completed before the next Alderley Festival so we are looking at a nine month build."
I spoke with several local residents who attended the consultation and the response to the plans was generally very positive.
Allan Brown, of Trafford Road, commented "The plans are first class, very professional - just as I would expect from the medical profession."
However, a few people who I spoke with were not inspired by the design of the building, which Dr Thompson told me had been through many incarnations and "originally looked like a row of houses, to fit in with the street, but the Parish Council requested that it look like a public building".
Melinda Lowe, of Heyes Lane, said "I think it's an opportunity to build something of the 21st century and the plans show no imagination. They should knock this down and build something new and modern which can win architect's awards."
Explaining about the financing, Dr Thompson told me "The way it works nowadays is doctors rent the premises and the PCT (Primary Care Trust) reimburse the rent. Shortly after the project was approved by the PCT in October 2010 all increased expenditure on premises was suspended so they will only pay the existing rent for the George Street surgery.
"As a result we have scaled down and taken all the surplus rooms out to make it as lean as we can. We have the rent we had received so far from George Street, plus the extra rent from the pharmacy and office space (on the second floor) which provides space for us to expand into in the future.
"This still leaves us with a shortfall of £500,000 but we are making a formal application for an Improvement Grant from the regional health authority in March. We should receive a decision in May."
Whilst at the consultation a couple of parish councillors commented that a key benefit of the project is that the development of a new medical centre would be at no cost to local residents.
Emerson has agreed to carry out the building work, in return they will receive the rents for an unspecified amount of years until the costs are recovered. After that period the rent will be paid to the Parish Council who own the building.
Dr Thompson told me "The doctors don't want to borrow the money and the Parish Council don't want to borrow it. Emerson are funding the build and will rent the space to us, but once the loan is paid off it will revert to the Parish Council. Without the Parish Council we couldn't do this, we couldn't afford it and in the long term it provides an asset for the Parish Council and the village.
"This is the best way to protect the long-term future of a medical practice in the village because it will be in the hands of the Parish Council, in other parts of the country medical centres have been built by developers and then sold on as an asset."
Speaking about the rest of the Festival Hall, Cllr Frank Keegan told me "We want to see this go through planning and then work out what we can afford to do with the rest of the hall. Our priorities though will be to build a new side entrance and toilets fairly quickly."
Above are some photos taken of the public exhibition. Once the planning application is submitted we will let you know and more detailed plans will be available to view, with dimensions.
If you attended yesterday's public consultation, or have an opinion on the information provided, please do share your views on the planning application via the comment box below.
Alternatively, the doctors would be happy to accept your comments, both positive and negative, in writing. These can be sent to Dr Thompson, 16 George Street, Alderley Edge, SK9 7EP.
Photo: Dr Edwin Thompson and Dr Helen Hall, click next photo, or play the slideshow, to see images of what the proposed new medical centre will look like.
Comments
Here's what readers have had to say so far. Why not add your thoughts below.
I sat on the committee which studied all the proposals from the original list of tenderers and there were some excellent examples of thoughtful design - some modern, some traditional, but none that displayed the lack of imagination of this scheme.
This is one of the worst examples of re-development since Emerson were allowed to replace the Institute with the new library. It's made worse when one considers that we're losing the facade of the Festival Hall which has some considerable merit. I find it staggering that Alderley Edge is to be subjected to more cheap, nasty and formulaic 'architecture' perpetrated by Emerson. Are there not enough examples of their 'Wilmslow office block' house style dotted around AE and Wilmslow to serve as a warning that they shouldn't even have been invited to tender in the first place, never mind found themselves as the sole tenderer, just when the PC should be ensuring that both great design and value for money is delivered?
Frank - could you explain how the PCT and PC have got themselves so intertwined with Emerson that they're now the only game in town? I think a re-think is called for.
I so agree with all the comments about Emerson. I personally like the design but just wish they had nothing to do with it. Are they not to busy creating their landmark building to mark the new visible boundary of Alderley Edge to be bothered with the new Doctors Surgery.
I find YOUR comments utterly staggering, and insulting.
You say you were on the committee which sifted through the tenders and selected two to go forward.
I excluded myself from the tender process, because I always exclude myself from any decision relating to the Emerson Group. I did not know until recently that the panel selecting the tender winners were Parish Councillors AND the Parish Plan group. Presumably you were part of the Parish plan group. Out of that process came recommendations; I presume that you had your say at the original meeting, and that you have now changed your mind, for some reason.
For the avoidance of doubt, the tender process is an OJEU, which means conducted by the rules of the EU. It is not legal to ban people from bidding. The rules presume that the panel making the decision will consider all applicants and choose one.
You say the present facade of the Festival Hall has some considerable merit, but when the hall was first under threat, the first thing we did as a Parish Council was to ask English Heritage to list it. THEY LAUGHED AT US, and they said there was nothing of merit. Macclesfield Council, when they were listing buildings of note in Alderley Edge, had to be forced by AEPC to add it to the list. The Conservation Officer said there was nothing worth keeping, re the building.
You say that Emerson is the only game in town, because the PCT and the PC is so intertwined with Emerson. I presume you are so blinded by some personal issues here that you have taken leave of your senses, albeit, perhaps, on a temporary basis.
The Parish Council does not issue contracts, therefore, by definition they cannot be intertwined with anyone.
The PCT was handed two tenders, by a panel which consisted of a mix of parish councillors and villagers who had given a great deal of time to produce a Parish Plan. Dr Thompson explains, above, that for business reasons, one of the parties moved away to the South of England. The PCT were left with one tender, from a process which was independent of the PCT. I don't think any rational personal would describe that as the PCT being intertwined.
As an Architect, and a developer, you could have submitted a tender originally. The tender process was published in the trade press and was found by other developers. I presume you chose not to submit a tender.
Now you state that some of the designs were thoughtful; an example of a thoughtful one was put on this site recently and people were appalled by the design.
So, to sum it all up:
o you chose not to submit a tender, but you could have done
o you were part of the group which chose the winners
o I was not part of the group which was choosing
but suddenly it is my fault that you didn't get the work and we should start again?
I don't make the rules; I reckon I am elected by the people of Alderley Edge and I should be accountable only to them. But the system put in place by Westminster means that I am constrained. Needless to say I do not accept your view of life in Alderley Edge. Petition Eric Pickles MP and ask that local councillors are able to speak on any matter to do with their area.
I'm disappointed that an elected member of the council should choose to respond so personally (and pejoratively) in an open forum. I gave up my time to assist on the Built Environment committee (as part of the Village Plan) and to study the proposals for the Festival Hall re-development because I care about Alderley Edge. I'm beginning to wonder why I bother.
I have no intention of responding on a point-by-point basis to your inaccurate (and potentially libelous) posting. I'm sure in the cold light of day you may well regret your choice of words. I would invite you therefore to study your reply again and retract those parts that have no basis in fact.
Two issues still remain:
1. The proposed design is crude, and insensitive to its context.
2. The public perception (whether right or wrong) is that the procurement process hasn't necessarily delivered quality design, or even necessarily value for money, and that a fresh ITT would address this issue.
i am also curious to learn what my view of life in alderley edge is according to you.
Just because I am an elected member doesn't mean it is OK for you to express an opinion without me having the right to express my opinion. If you choose an open forum, I will respond in an open forum. You have a personal view on the design; it is not an unanimous view, but you behave as if it is.
You talk about value for money; I don't know what that means, because I do not have the figures. But the text of the article says, and I paraphrase "the building will be built to PCT Standards, the inadequate rent will pay down the debt, and when it is paid off the Parish Council will receive the rent".
That doesn't feel like poor value for money; the Parish Council has facilitated this much needed surgery, the future tenants are happy with the building, and ultimately a future generation of taxpayers in Alderley Edge will have an income stream.
At the risk of being called pejorative, I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer would swap a deal like this for all the PFI deals he has inherited.
"I excluded myself from the tender process, because I always exclude myself from any decision relating to the Emerson Group", vs.
Cllr Frank Keegan told me "We want to see this go through planning and then work out what we can afford to do with the rest of the hall. Our priorities though will be to build a new side entrance and toilets fairly quickly." without any other potential contractors cited, I find these odd unless there is an affiliation between Cllr Keegan and Emerson.
And then, apologies perhaps for mis-representing by cutting a quote from responses above but to say "But the system put in place by Westminster means that I am constrained" etc. why can't this be resolved, simply, by:
Citing those who have been invited and then tendered for the work
Publish their proposals
Present the criteria for selection
Justify selection including any special circumstances which would support a preferred supplier.
Correspondence above doesn't convince me anything like this has happened. Apologies if I am mis-informed.
Point 11 may explain Mr Keegans reasons behind his self exclusion.
It would appear to me that they are using Emerson as they are the only game in town. Lisa's article states, "The doctors don't want to borrow the money and the Parish Council don't want to borrow it. Emerson are funding the build and will rent the space to us, but once the loan is paid off it will revert to the Parish Council." How many other contractors would do this? It comes across to me as an act of philanthropy by Peter Jones for the village in which he lives. Something we should all be thankful for.
Do I like the design of the medical centre? No. It is boring and without any degree of architectural merit. The simple truth is that nine times out of ten building something with architectural merit means spending a hell of a lot more money! In these austere times I think it is right to focus on what the building will provide to the community through its function rather than its external aesthetic design - especially considering it is not some prominent landmark building.
The village does without doubt need a new medical centre and from that perspective Keegan and the rest of the Parish Council, along with the doctors at George Street, are to be applauded for their persistence. Although I must say the whole process should have been conducted with more transparency and communication with the electorate.
It is quite natural, now that it is passing into the control of the parish council, that it should evolve and find new purpose. I like the idea that the public function of the hall should be combined with a new GPs' surgery for the village.
However, I was disappointed by the GPs' exhibition of their proposals which showed an over large, pumped up, grandiose building of little architectural worth barely able to squeeze into the site.
The consultation was woefully short of facts and comparisons. I have no doubt that the doctors would like to confine debate to the size of the consultations rooms.
It is something of a provocation to learn that the entire third storey is being built as a speculative venture and will remain empty unless or until they can find some tenants. Plainly, the building does not have to so big to accommodate the needs of the surgery alone. They simply prefer it that way.
In short, it appears that they have gone for the biggest possible building at the cheapest possible price. It seems they have the connivance of the parish council in this.
Alderley Edge is not blessed with so many wonderful public buildings it can be cavalier about the future of the Festival Hall. Villagers and residents in nearby streets deserve better, much better, something more considered, less blandly civic than this first effort. It is not good enough.
Interested parties should get together under an independent chairman to talk about the issues before the plans ever reach the planning committee stage.
My inclination is to assume that the plans to convert the Heyes Lane allotments to a carpark, which everyone knows will be under-utilised, is a smoke screen. How valuable would that land be for housing development? Once that green space has been tarmac-ed over, and a safe period of time has passed to demonstrate that the car-park is superfluous, then it would be easy to sell it to Emersons and get planning permission (just like the Royal Oak was proven to be 'not viable' as a business).
Frank Keegan's personal outbursts on this site and in other local press only serve to fuel my suspicions that he is reluctant to share his full agenda and is treating the electorate of Alderley Edge like ignorant dullards. We are an irritant that won't go away.
Thanks to the internet, however, we now have a permanent record of objections and speculation around Cllr Keegan's longer-term MO. Mike Barry's comments above about transparency (or lack of) are well made, in my opinion. Russell Jenkin's comments are eloquently expressed and I thoroughly agree with him.
Like several other contributors to this thread, I'm a bit confused about how we got to this point and the fact that there doesn't appear to be much transparency but can't see much in the way of alternative options if we want to keep our doctors and a surgery in the village...
So many people knock the Emerson Group in this village, but they have built some nice looking buildings and have been very generous to the village and it's esidents.
We need a new Medical Centre (and the plans seem reasonable) so let's get on and deliver it, or otherwise the consequences for Alderley will be disastrous and people will then have a great deal more to complain about.
How ironic that he criticised people for hiding behind the web when he, unlike those members he criticised, wasn't prepared to take responsibility for his post by using his real name, but we know who he is :))
i also feel a bit let down that the larger picture was not viewed before cottage hospital,garage, and institute were wiped off the face of the village . all would be very useful to have around still .
so i'll leave you to it . the bees are livening up slowly and they are easier to understand than the workings of councils and their agendas .
I hope the bees understand you better than I do. The Cottage Hospital was sold by the Health Authority, in order to fund the centre in Handforth, so that Consultants could see patients in Handforth and refer them to MDGH. Personally I didn't like that decision but their honest view was that they were trying to keep MDGH open; Handforth residents were largely Manchester originally, and they preferred to go to Wythenshawe.
The Institute was sold because the Trustees had no funding, and they had a very poor income stream and they could not afford the maintenance costs. AEPC helped out a few times with reasonable sums, because AEPC were Custodian Trustees. Originally, the Trustees put up an "UNDER OFFER" notice where the price being accepted was £200k. It was the BAD PARISH COUNCIL which took action and required the Trustees to widen the marketing and eventually the sum realised was over £600k. The Institute has made grants from the Trust Fund set up - see the Charity Commission for details - but my gut feeling is that grants have been over £200k so far and the Capital sum of £600k is there plus a bit more.
AEPC wanted the Medical Centre built, and we want to have enough provision for the future expansion of the Centre - hence the 3rd floor. Strangely enough we anticipated a future debate if the Centre was not big enough where Mike Norbury was on saying "ho hum, you couldn't make it up, I ALWAYS KNEW IT WAS TOO SMALL"
Wallworks garage was a Commercial decision; they owned the site, they wanted the a good price and I presume they took the highest price on offer. I am sorry if they didn't consult either you or the Parish Council.
The land down Lydiat Lane is a scare story manufactured by people with an interest in the allotments who pretend to be interested in not having more residential build down there. The surest way not to have residential build down there, is to convert that land into Statutory Allotment Land from the current use as Playing Fields.
The Allotment Committee know that the Parish Council is willing to provide facilities to make that land an improved Allotment facility, but they keep supporting this story about residential land. Where is the transparency in their actions?
I am sure if you just go and read this out to your bees they will come to the conclusion that, even if you don't like change, the stuff here has been done for the public good, and it has all been in the public domain and reported at the time of each event. They might even say that they approve of the Parish Council and ask you to give them a rest from listening to this stuff.
as i said bees are easier and less ridiculing
I have no doubt you work and try really hard to do what you believe is best for the village with 'shells and missles' flying everywhere; something that I'm not brave enough to do. And yet despite 'Diablo' commenting "why not speak to the chap when he is out and about in the village?" I suspect those most 'vocal' would wish to do so in a small forum, say, you and 5 others, over a cup of tea.
That said, and I don't know Mike Norbury from a lamppost to a footballer, for him to receive such a public response from a councillor, elected I presume, is appalling. Yes, I agree, Mike N has been forthright, lacking in factual detail in his argument, very personal at times, lives in the golden age of Alderley Edge etc. and, as a consequence, has become 'a pebble in a shoe' that one just needs to remove. Irritating. But, his comments right or wrong, that's called democracy.
As someone who managed 800+ people, of whom at least 200 were forthright and untrusting on what I did, I would accept. But never would have I responded in such a way.