REF: SHA/16911
APPEAL AGAINST NOTTINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY PCT DECISION TO REFUSE AN
APPLICATION BY WR EVANS (CHEMIST) LTD FOR MINOR RELOCATION OVER 500M
FROM 97A MELTON ROAD, WEST BRIDGFORD, NOTTINGHAM NG2 6EN TO THE NEW
HEALTH CENTRE, WITHIN THE VICINITY OF THE JUNCTION OF WILFORD LANE AND
BRUCE DRIVE, NOTTINGHAM
REPORT OF AN ORAL HEARING HELD AT THE OFFICES OF NOTTINGHAM CITY PCT,
PARK ROW, NOTTINGHAM ON FRIDAY 23RD NOVEMBER 2012
1 The Application
th
By application dated 7 February 2012, WR Evans (Chemist) Ltd (“the Applicant”) applied to
Nottinghamshire County Primary Care Trust (“the PCT”) for minor relocation from 97A Melton
Road, West Bridgford, Nottingham NG2 6EN to the new health centre, within the vicinity of
the junction of Wilford Lane and Bruce Drive, Nottingham. In support of the application it was
stated:
1.1 Along Melton Road cross at Loughborough Road onto Wilford Lane to the vicinity of the
junction with Bruce Drive.
1.2 There are alternative side roads which are also available and enable easy access.
1.3 Move to purpose built premises within the new Health Centre to meet the needs of the
Applicant’s patients.
1.4 Both sites are within the same neighbourhood.
1.5 Both sites are a short distance apart.
1.6 There are no barriers between the two sites.
1.7 The majority of the Applicant’s patients are registered with the doctor’s surgery further
south on Melton Road and the surgery located on Musters Road. Both these surgeries
will be moving to this site, so it is self evident that the same population will be served.
2 The PCT Decision
The PCT considered and decided to refuse the application. The decision letter dated 19
June 2012 states:
th
2.1 The PCT can confirm that following consideration, the application has been refused for a
Minor Relocation over 500m.
2.2 The reasons for this decision are:
2.2.1 The Committee recommends the refusal of this application as it doesn’t conform to
the criteria for a minor relocation over 500m.
2.2.2 The proposed pharmacy would not be serving the same neighbourhood and
therefore doesn’t meet the criteria for a Minor Relocation over 500m.
3 The Appeal
In a letter to the Family Health Services Appeal Unit of the NHS Litigation Authority, dated
th
13 July 2012, the Applicant appealed against the PCT’s decision. The grounds of appeal
are:
3.1 The Applicant firmly believes this application meets the requirements of a minor
relocation over 500m.
3.2 The decision letter from NHS Nottingham County dated 19 June 2012 fails to indicate
that the PCT considered every aspect of the regulations. In addition there is no
indication in the decision letter that a site visit was undertaken.
3.3 The Applicant believes the existing and proposed premises to be in the same
neighbourhood as one another within West Bridgford.
3.4 With regard to distance the move is over a distance within this area of West Bridgford
which meets the test required under Regulation 6.
3.5 The same services are to be provided at the new premises as are currently provided at
the new premises [sic] and there shall be no break in service provision.
3.6 There are no barriers between the two sites and the roads have crossing points.
3.7 With respect to the final criteria of “the population served in the new location is
essentially (that) served in the existing location”. The majority of the patients utilising the
pharmaceutical services at 97a Melton Road are registered with the doctor’s surgery
further south on Melton Road and the surgery located on Musters Road. Both these
surgeries will be moving to the new Health centre which is planned for the Applicant’s
proposed site, so it is self-evident that essentially the same population will be served.
3.8 In conclusion the Applicant does believe this application meets the requirements for a
minor relocation 500 meters and they respectfully request the Appeal Unit to uphold this
a.
4 Summary of Representations
This is a summary of representations received on the appeal.
4.1 L P PHARMACY
4.1.1 L P Pharmacy respectfully request that the original decision of the PCT be upheld
for the reasons stated in their original response to the application. The pharmacy is
clearly not in the same neighbourhood as the proposed new location and patients
would need to make 2 bus journeys to get to the new location. Permission has also
now been granted for 5 new 100 hour pharmacies on Wilford Lane.
Letter to PCT dated 2
4.1.2
nd
April 2012
LP Pharmacy oppose the application on the following grounds:
4.1.3 The proposed premises are not in the same neighbourhood as the existing
premises.
4.1.4 The neighbourhood from Melton Road up to the A52 will be deprived of
pharmaceutical services.
4.1.5 The neighbourhood into which the applicant intends to move (the new
neighbourhood) is well served by existing services and there have been no
complaints about pharmaceutical services in the area.
4.1.6 There are 3 current applications for 100 hour pharmacies in the new
neighbourhood.
4.1.7
There is going to be a new pharmacy in the proposed new doctor’s surgery in
the neighbourhood.
4.1.8 There are plans for a new supermarket in the area along with another
(presumably 100 hour) pharmacy.
4.1.9 An application has been granted for a pharmacy just outside the neighbourhood
in Silverdale. A pharmacy is not viable in this location and only be able to exist by
trying to provide services outside of its .
4.1.10 With such a proliferation of pharmacies in an area already adequately in respect
of pharmaceutical services and with no major or major increases in population
planned or even possible.
4.1.11 How can you possibly justify another pharmacy in the area?
4.1.12 Does Wilford Lane need a SIXTH new pharmacy? [emphasis added]
4.2 BOOTS UK LTD
4.2.1 Boots agree with the PCT decision to reject the application and their reasoning.
4.2.2 There are two existing pharmacies within the PCT’s defined neighbourhood,
providing patients with a reasonable choice of both provider and services, over
seven days a week.
4.2.3 With local knowledge, Boots believe that the proposed location is not as easily
accessible for those living in the vicinity of their current site. Boots believe that the
distance of approximately one mile between the two locations is not insignificant
within the context of the neighbourhood.
4.2.4 In conclusion, Boots submit that the above application does not meet the
required criteria of regulation 12(1), and respectfully urge the Appeal Authority to
dismiss this appeal accordingly.
5 Observations
5.1 THE APPLICANT
5.1.1 The Applicant firmly believes this application meets the requirements of a minor
relocation over 500m.
5.1.2 Both NHS Nottinghamshire County PCT and the interested parties have failed to
consider the neighbourhood in the context of this minor relocation over 500m. This
area of West Bridgford and Wilford is undergoing a great deal of change as five
West Bridgford GP practices have worked with NHS Nottinghamshire County PCT
and the Local Clinical Commissioning Group for the last three years to develop the
site adjacent to 42 Wilford Lane to provide a modern spacious new medical centre.
st”
The new multi-million “fit for the 21 century health centre will be the largest
medical centre in the area.
5.1.3
The following surgeries will relocate to the new health centre:
5.1.3.1
Ludlow Hill Surgery, 152 Melton Road
5.1.3.2
Trent Bridge Family Medical Practice, 68 Bridgford Road
5.1.3.3
Compton Acres Medical Centre, Compton Acres
5.1.3.4
Southview Surgery, 178 Musters Road
5.1.3.5
Musters Medical Practice, 214 Musters Road
5.1.4 The Applicant wishes to reiterate that with respect to the criteria of “the population
served in the new location is essentially (that) served in the existing location”. The
majority of the patients utilising the pharmaceutical services at 97a Melton Road are
registered with the doctor’s surgery further south on Melton Road and the surgery
located on Musters Road. Both these surgeries will be moving to the new Health
centre which is to be located at our proposed site, so it is self-evident that
essentially the same population will be served.
5.1.5 With regard to distance the move is over a distance within this area of West
Bridgford which meets the test required under Regulation 6. This distance involved
within the minor relocation is not dissimilar to a number of other minor relocations
approved by the NHS Litigation Authority recently.
5.1.6 In conclusion the Applicant does believe this application meets the requirements
for a minor relocation over 500 metres and they respectfully request the NHS
Litigation Authority to uphold this appeal.
6 Preliminary Consideration
6.1 The Pharmacy Appeals Committee appointed by the Family Health Services Appeal Unit
of the NHS Litigation Authority (“the Committee”) had before it the papers considered by
the PCT, together with a plan of the area showing existing pharmacies and doctors’
surgeries and the site of the proposed pharmacy.
6.2 It also had before it the responses to the Authority’s own statutory consultations.
6.3 On the basis of this information, the Committee considered that it was necessary to hold
an Oral Hearing, before determining the appeals.
6.4 The Committee does not wish to inhibit the Oral Hearing Panel’s consideration of this
case, but requests the Panel to particularly look at the following:
6.4.1 The Panel are requested to recommend with reasons, the most appropriate
neighbourhood for the existing pharmacy.
6.4.2 The Panel are requested to advise the distance between the proposed and
existing premises.
6.4.3 The Panel are requested to advise if the proposed move is a minor relocation in
accordance with the Regulations.
7 Decision
Defer pending receipt of the oral hearing report.
8. The Hearing
I was appointed to conduct an Oral Hearing, to take evidence and to make recommendations
rd
to the Appeal Committee. The Hearing was held in Nottingham on Friday 23 November
2012. A list of those in attendance is attached at Appendix 1.
I had not found the plans submitted with the papers particularly clear, so I had obtained maps
via Google Maps. I had also obtained some additional information about the area from the
Rushcliffe Council website, and some information from a medical practice.
Site Inspection
8.1 On the preceding afternoon and on the morning prior to the Hearing, I inspected the
area in question. From the papers and the application, it appeared that the
neighbourhood put forward by the applicant contained a large part of West Bridgford, as
reliance was placed on the location of the medical practices and where patients came
from. The PCT neighbourhood was more finite, using Loughborough Road (A60) as an
eastern boundary thus placing Melton Road (A606) in a different neighbourhood. From
the information I obtained from the Council, it appeared that Melton Road was in the
Trent Bridge Ward, and Wilford Road was in the Compton Acres Ward, with the
boundary being being to the west of Loughborough Road. Both wards were described
in similar terms, although Trent Bridge had lower levels of owner occupation than
Compton Acres. Both wards were described as “reasonably affluent”.
8.2 The weather on the afternoon visit was not particularly pleasant, being quite damp (but
not heavy rain) and it got quite dark by about 4.00 pm. The morning visit took place in
sunshine.
8.3 I therefore commenced the visit at 97A Melton Road (the Applicant’s present pharmacy)
having parked in the vicinity (parking on side roads was permitted). This premises was
in a small parade of shops, and was next door but one to a post office. Melton Road in
this area, contained a number of shops and offices, including a fishmongers, cafes,
takeaways or “deli” shops, beauty shops, an opticians and on the opposite side of the
road, a small Spar convenience store and a filling station. I walked up Melton Road.
noting that there was a pedestrian crossing in front of the Spar shop – there were no
other crossing points until the main junction with Musters Road, where there was a
pedestrian phase in the junction lights. I duly crossed Melton Road using this pedestrian
crossing.
8.4 At the junction with North Road, I asked a lady if she could direct me to Wilford Lane, as
the Application suggested there were alternative routes other than progressing to the
main Melton Toad/Loughborough Road/Wilton Lane junction. She directed me along
North Road, to Loughborough Road then up to the main junction, then turning left. This
route I took, and eventually turned into Wilford Lane.
8.5 I walked along Wilford Lane to its junction with Bruce Drive (as indicated in the appeal
as the location of the proposed site). Wilford Lane was quite a wide road, and clearly a
distributor road into and out of West Bridgford, although it is a Class B road. It is not as
densely developed as Melton Road/Loughborough Road although there are some
residential properties on the south side in relatively new developments. Also near Bruce
Drive, was the Beeches Hotel. This was relevant as one of the papers I had read from
the Lady Bay practice web site referred to the new centre as being “just past” this hotel,
on the opposite side.
8.6 In fact there was no obvious sign of a development, so I made enquiries in the hotel and
from a passer-by as to the site, but they expressed no knowledge of a development
(although one did suggest that there was a school being demolished, back towards
West Bridgford which might be the site!)
8.7 Doubting this, I walked on to the west and then, after a hundred metres or so, I
found notices from the planning authority advising of a planning
application for a medical centre, a pharmacy and a coffee shop, on “land opposite 97
Wilford Lane”. Consultation still appeared to be on going.
8.8 This land was a field behind a large hedge, which appeared to run up to the River Trent,
and to the west of it appeared to be some playing fields (there were actually a number of
playing fields in this area, on both sides of the road, including Nottingham Forest training
ground) and also to the west two schools. In fact, at the time of my afternoon visit, there
were a number of school children in this vicinity – some walking, some waiting for buses
whilst others appeared to have been picked up by car. The road was quite busy, and I
had to wait several minutes to cross it.
8.9 I returned to 97A Melton Road along Wilford Lane to the junction with Loughborough
Road and then into Melton Road. At this time in the afternoon, the roads were quite
busy, and I had to wait several minutes to cross. The journey was on flat, well lit roads
with reasonable pavements – indeed, many of the streets in this part of West Bridgford
seemed to be similar, with many being lined with trees. Most of the housing in this area
appeared to be privately owned, although there were a number of large residential units,
and, in Wilford Road, two large blocks of flats, in front of which was a small convenience
store.
8.10 What I had particularly noticed is that the development in Wilford Road “thinned out”
on the north (river) side in the area west of Bruce Drive and around Gresham Close ,
where there are extensive playing field facilities and, on the river side, undeveloped fields
(where the proposed medical centre was to be developed (see Para. 8.7 above)
8.11 As far as distances were concerned, the walk from the present site (via North Road) to
Bruce Drive, actually took 25 minutes and was some 1900 metres in length. To this
could be added some 200 metres to the proposed site (the exact distance being
impossible to calculate). The return journey, via the main roads, was actually shorter –
1500 metres, with a journey time of about 20 minutes.
8.12 At this time in the afternoon, all the roads were relatively busy, and it was getting dark,
so I finished the visit, aiming to return the following morning.
8.13 The following morning, the weather was fine and sunny. I again walked to the
proposed site from 97A, via the main roads. I noted the bus routes along the three main
roads – Wilford Lane, Loughborough Road and Melton Road – into and out of West
Bridgford town centre and to and from Nottingham. From the displayed timetables,
there appeared to be fairly regular services with different companies. In Wilford Lane,
there were stops near Bruce Drive and Gresham Close.
8.14 One factor struck me – whereas there were a number of shops and other
businesses on Melton Road, there were few in Wilford Lane, and the shops in Loughborough
Road were nearer the junction with Rugby Road (including a large
ASDA store, in which
there was a pharmacy and opposite, in a small parade of
shops, another pharmacy
belong to the Applicant.)
8.15
I returned to the town centre of West Bridgford, which appeared to be quite busy
(the Council website described West Bridgford as the largest retail centre in Rushcliffe).
Apart from the usual national chain shops, there were a number of independent stores.
Boots had a very prominent position in the centre. Overall, this was a typical town centre,
apparently attracting shoppers from all over the area, including a number travelling by bus,
and many on foot.
The oral evidence
9.1 Ms. Linda Ferguson and Mr David Evans presented the case on behalf of the
Applicant. She opened by referring to the proposed changes to the location of 5
surgeries from various locations in West Bridgford to a proposed new medical centre to
be known as the West Bridgford Group Practice. The practice area served by this new
centre would mirror that served by the new pharmacy.
9.2 She submitted that the neighbourhood boundaries were:
North – River Trent
East -
A52
South – A52 (Clifton Boulevard)
West - The old railway (Rushcliffe/Nottingham City Boundary)
9.3 Loughborough Road was not a boundary as their own pharmacy at 185 Loughborough
Road served patients from both sides of the road. Staff at both this and Melton Road
pharmacies did not regard Loughborough Road as a boundary. Patients arriving on foot
lived on both sides of Melton Road and generally, patients from all over West Bridgford
could access the pharmacies by car or public transport.
9.4 The new Medical Centre was being developed to accommodate 5 surgeries – two from
Musters Road, Melton Road, Bridgford Road and one in the Compton Acres Medical
Centre. Four of these surgeries were in inadequate premises, being former Victorian
Houses. A document from the West Bridgford Group Practice was submitted showing
the location of these surgeries (document ). This does show the wide catchment area
for the doctors’ practices (which apparently included the Meadows Estate in the
adjoining area!). I also received plans showing the very wide practice areas of two other
surgeries (documents and )
9.5 Extensive reference was made to traffic movement and the good public access along
Wilford Lane. A document was submitted, prepared by a firm of consultants (“bsp”)
commissioned by the doctors to prepare a travel plan for the proposed medical centre. It
refers to the catchment of patients (around 30,000) served by the 5 practices. This area
encompassed a number of wards, including West Bridgford.
9.6 The report goes into some detail on travel patterns and parking etc, with an emphasis on
sustainable transport – mentioning that the proposed site falls on numerous routes with
“stops within 20 minutes of the site” and cycle routes linked to an existing network.
There was also a prospect of the Nottingham Express Transit being extended to the
Wilford Lane area. (It was hoped that a new stop would be located near the new
Centre).
9.7 The new pharmacy was intended to have a separate entrance at the new centre,
thereby providing a service when the centre was closed.
9.8 As far as the criteria for a minor relocation were concerned, Mrs Ferguson submitted the
distance between the two sites was not excessive, on a flat terrain with good pavements
and with appropriate crossing points.
9.9 This site was chosen following an intensive search for a suitable site, and this site met
the needs of the patient community. From surveys, it appeared that over 70% of patients
travelled by car to the surgeries, with 2% using taxis, 20% walking, 2% cycling and 5%
used the bus services (not including a dial-a-ride service). Bus stops are available and
more will be available within several hundred metres of the site. There was, for
instance, a stop near Bruce Drive – some 120 metres east. It was submitted that
cycling was an appropriate for of transport and that the applicant’s neighbourhood was
all within 5km of the new site.
9.10 It was confirmed that a concessionary travel scheme applied for those qualifying,
although the Dial-a-Ride service would charge 50% fare. There was no 100 hour
pharmacy in West Bridgford.
9.11 In their submission, this application met the tests laid down in case law, as the new
pharmacy would be as conveniently available to existing patients. The population
served would be essentially (that) as served in the present location. The majority of
patients using the Melton Road pharmacy were registered with practices which were
relocating, so the same population would therefore be served.
10 For Boots, Mrs Watson (with Ms Brittain observing) submitted that the neighbourhood
for the Melton Road pharmacy should in essence be the commercial town centre, which
had two main shopping areas – Central Avenue and Melton Road.
10.1 She submitted for consideration, a neighbourhood comprising Radcliffe Road (A6011)
to the north then a line following the canal to Valley Road, to the east, the along Valley
Road/Boundary Road to the south and Loughborough Road to the west (Document
attached).
10.2
Loughborough Road, the A60, is a busy main road from the A52 into the city
centre with few crossing points. This road forms that boundary between the council’s
Musters Ward and Lutterell ward. However, she agreed a neighbourhood as defined by the
PCT, but would have extended it to Trent Bridge.
10. 3 The distance between proposed and present sites had been measured at 1431
metres, a walk taking some 23 minutes. This distance, she submitted, would constitute a
barrier, particularly for pedestrians. Indeed, Loughborough Road formed a barrier and
would have to be crossed at the junction with Melton Road – a busy junction that required
a pedestrian to navigate several sets of traffic lights and crossing nine lanes of traffic to
get to Wilford Lane. Before that junction, the junction of Muster's Road and Melton Road
was also busy.
10.4 It was noted from the patients’ surveys (already referred to) that some 20% of
patients travelled to the surgeries on foot. This large section of the patient population were
unlikely to walk to the new pharmacy – a not insignificant number of patients.
10.5 In summary, the two pharmacies were not in the same neighbourhood and that
barriers exist between the sites.
11 Consideration
11. 1 In considering this matter, I have had regard to the written evidence what I found on
the site visit and the oral evidence.
11. 2 I noted that there was no argument that the same services would be provided
without interruption. The points at issue were on neighbourhood and was the move a
“minor relocation”
11.3
Neighbourhood
11.4 This was clearly the first issue. The Applicant’s neighbourhood contained most of
West Bridgford – an area covering several local authority wards and with a population of
some 20,000 or more. It is accepted that the patient population using the five surgeries that
wish to relocate, comprised many thousands and that they came from all over West
Bridgford and the surrounding areas.
11.5 My initial problem was identifying the precise location of the new pharmacy. This
was identified on the site visit by reference to the planning application notices and
subsequently by the plan ( document ) contained in the report prepared by the consultants
acting on behalf of the doctors – a report primarily aimed at the transport links to and from
the new medical centre. This report described the site as being “bordered by Wilford Lane
to the south and the River Trent to the north, with an open Greenfield site to the west and
residential dwellings to the east”
11.6 Whilst dealing with this plan, it should perhaps be pointed out that planning
permission for the centre has not yet be given, so there is an element of conjecture about
the application, and any conditions which may be imposed (a point I shall come back to).
11.7 The PCT (and Boots) thought that the A60, Loughborough Road, was a boundary
albeit an east and west boundary respectively. This is a busy road and as mentioned, with
few crossing points. I thought it differed from Melton Road (A606) in that the latter was a
busy road, but was also a commercial centre – at least in the section leading up to the
Musters Road junction. Indeed, I consider that this part of Melton Road was a good edgeof-town centre, containing a number of shops, including a post office, petrol station, various
shops (including the pharmacy) and offices, restaurants etc. , as well as typical West
Bridgford houses. It reflected what appeared to be an affluent area. It was easy to access
the main town centre. To the east of Melton Road, north of Burleigh Road, the area was
quite developed (including what appeared to be some social housing) with a small number
of schools.
11.8 The area between Melton Road and Loughborough Road (A60) was similarly
developed with being tree lined streets with some large Victorian houses. The nature of
the development can be viewed on the aerial photograph from bsp (document )
11.9 There are houses and other buildings to the west of Loughborough Road, and
between this road and Wilford Lane. However, what was significant to me is the relative
amount of open space/playing fields that are to be found in this area. Again, the bsp aerial
plan illustrates this.
11.10 Whilst the commercial section of Melton Road had an “edge of town centre” feel
about it, the proposed site had more of an “edge of town” feel, being in an area relatively
isolated from the bulk of the population (and the town centre) although there were some
small commercial developments in the area and some residential development along
Wilford Lane.
11.11 I accept that it is not in a far distant part of West Bridgford, but it is about 1.5
kilometres away from the present location and I considered it significant that the
emphasis in the applicant's evidence, including the consultant's report, appeared to be on
transport to and from the new medical centre. Even then, the bus stops would be some
distance away from the proposed site, and for those walking from the town centre area,
the nearest pedestrian crossing across Wilford Lane would be 160m near the junction
with Gresham Close.
11.12 In Cumbria the court referred to a move being a question of geography. A short
distance may vary - “in a densely populated town a move of a few hundred yards might not
be a small distance”. In that case reference is also made to a “physical barrier .... which
would mean that the new premises are significantly more difficult to reach so far as the
population served by the old premises are concerned” In the present case, the distance is
substantially more than a few hundred yards, and involves crossing three main roads, with
not many crossing points. Whilst the terrain is flat, I do regard these roads as barriers, not
least because of the relative paucity of crossing points (even allowing for the lights at the
main junctions). A walk of some 1.5 km is also significant – particularly for the elderly or
infirm or a young mother with a pram or youngsters “in tow”, for whom vehicular transport
may not be an option.
11.12 I am aware that in Suri and Gompels, reference is made to the town of Melksham,
with a population some 13,000 being a neighbourhood. West Bridgford has a much larger
population and in my view, could consist of several neighbourhoods – and if reliance were
to be placed upon the patient numbers of the 5 relocating surgeries, then this is a
substantial number indeed.
11.13 In this case, the neighbourhood proposed by the PCT seems eminently sensible, with
Loughborough Road being a logical eastern boundary. I base this view partly on the
different nature of the areas either side of Wilford Lane, and particularly the areas to the
west, near to the proposed site..
11.14 I offer no comment on the neighbourhood proposed by Mrs. Watson but insofar as
the neighbourhood of 97A is concerned, there are several possibilities, because, as indicated,
the West Bridgford area is quite large. I am conscious of the types of road (A60 and A606)
but the housing between these is very similar and I think Melton Road shops could well
provide a service for residents of this area as an alternative to the main Town Centre e.g. for
fuel or other services.
11.15 At the risk of drawing an arbitrary boundary, it seems to me that a neighbourhood with
Melton Road near the centre could be feasible. If, therefore, Loughborough Road were to be the
western boundary, the north eastern boundary could be Bridgford Road (to the east of which
where there are open space areas) then down Gordon Road, Trevor Road to the aptly named
Valley Road and Boundary Road to its junction with Loughborough Road.
11.16 A larger area, with more distinct boundaries, would run up to the A6011 (Radcliffe Road) to
the A52, southwards to the junction with the A60. However, whilst this might be topographically
feasible, I wonder if residents of such a large area would consider themselves neighbours of
each other.
11.17 In any event, whatever neighbourhood is chosen for Melton Road, this will be
a different neighbourhood to that in which the proposed pharmacy will be located.
Minor relocation
11.18 If my recommendation as to the neighbourhood were not to be accepted, then I would
still consider that the move of the pharmacy from 97A Melton Road would not be a minor
relocation in that there will be a effect on the provision of services to the population of the
neighbourhood in and around Melton Road.
11.19 97A Melton Road is in a shopping and business area which can serve both local and
passing trade, with a main road frontage and is highly visible. A move to Wilford Road will
entail a move away from a commercial or retail area to an edge of town non-retail
development, and the pharmacy would itself have to become a destination shop for those
currently using the service , particularly if they were not patients of one of the relocating
doctors. (As a side issue, the planning position is not a matter for this appeal, but I did note
that in the bsp document it gives the proposed hours for the “facility” as being 8.am to 8 pm,
Monday to Friday (but subject to planning conditions). What hours a pharmacy could open
will be a matter for the PCT and the business, but clearly, if there is no Saturday provision,
then this might differ from what is currently available. Furthermore, if the medical centre is
closed, but the pharmacy were to be open, then because of its location, it would have to be
regarded as a destination shop, in contrast to a shop in a parade of other shops. Having
pointed this out, no weight is attached to the planning issues in the context of this appeal!)
11.20 This would become noticeably difficult for patients who may not have access to
vehicular transport with a walk taking up to 25 minutes each way. Even for those using public
transport, having regard to waiting times and location of bus stops, the journey could be quite
lengthy. There is also a cost factor for those without concessionary passes.
11. 21 These factors to my mind, illustrate that the new site will not be as “conveniently available”
at the proposed location to all its existing customers (ex.p. Gompels and Suri)
RECOMMENDATION
That the appeal be dismissed as:
1. The move would be to premises in a different neighbourhood
1. That the neighbourhood as defined by the PCT be accepted
3. The proposed location will not be conveniently available to essentially the
same population as currently have access to the pharmacy in 97a Melton Road
Eric Richards (Person Appointed)
30.11.2012
Appendix 1
Persons attending
Mr. Eric. Richards (person appointed)
Mr. David Evans and Ms Linda Ferguson (W.R.Evans (Chemist) Ltd)
Mrs Joanne Watson and Ms Claire Brittain (Boots Uk Ltd)
Appendix 2 – additional documents
1 Location plan of relocating surgeries
2 and 3 - plans showing practice area
4. Boot's neighbourhood plan
5. Extract from bsp report showing site and surrounding area
6 and 7 Submitted photographs showing main junctions