EARLY ONE MORNING.........................
Cllr Alan Dean
Liberal Democrat Councillor for Stansted North on Uttlesford District Council and former Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group Learn more
A DISHONEST COUNCIL IN DECLINE, A CHINK OF COMPASSION TINGED WITH AUTHORITARIAN RULE (PART I OF III)
AIRPORT PLANNING DEBACLE CONTINUED - WITH £££££ STILL TO PAY
EARLY ONE MORNING.........................
A DISHONEST COUNCIL IN DECLINE, A CHINK OF COMPASSION TINGED WITH AUTHORITARIAN RULE (PART I OF III)
AIRPORT PLANNING DEBACLE CONTINUED - WITH £££££ STILL TO PAY
Pay to park – and walk – at new Doctors’ Surgery
by Alan Dean on 3 February, 2015
The NHS and a health centre developer are backtracking on promised parking for patients at Stansted’s proposed health centre. Fifty parking spaces for patients and staff were promised by Hilton Group in their 2012/13 planning application. Now only 30 spaces are proposed, with NONE for patients.
Patients may need to park beyond the skateboard park; a long way from the doctors’ reception and consultation rooms.
Unwell residents from Stansted and surrounding villages who need to use their cars to see a doctor will probably have to pay to park in the adjacent council carpark in Lower Street. They will have to compete with commuters and may find themselves having to park at the northern end of the car park beyond the skateboard park; a long way from the doctors’ reception and consultation rooms.
I learned about this unacceptable arrangement only last week. Yesterday I wrote to the doctors’ practice, currently in St. John’s Road, and to their solicitor asking for an explanation. I am trying to call an urgent meeting of interested parties: the doctors, the developer, the district council.
19 Comments
I’m with you all the way on this. It is becoming all too typical of ‘big’ organisations to give their solemn word and commitment to communities and to members of the public in general and to promptly break their promises as soon as anything slightly awkward or inconvenient presents itself.
I know you and your fellow parish councillors (and hopefully district councillors) will make a thorough nuisance of yourselves until this matter is sorted to the direct benefit of the public and patients. What about the local GP practice’s patient reps.? They should be hopping mad too when they hear of this.
Parking in the district seems to be becoming an issue generally once again. Maybe Mrs Barker might have a comment to make about this situation.
I am a GP Practice Patient’s Panel rep. We met in December and nothing was said about this.
I have written on the FB post, re this. Everyone knew before the planning was even signed and Sealed that parking was an issue. Yet they chose to ignore it. I was always dubious about their promises. Before during and after. The solution mooted was another (very ugly) level in the public car park. But even that for some people will be a long walk. If the majority of of the parking spaces are long stay or rail travellers. Why can not the second story go down to the kind end of the station carpark. I’m sure that, not only would it be in a better place for the station , but long stay Parkers could use as well. Leaving the public carpark for the public, doctors, shoppers, castle and flats. Can the railway company not be brought on board to discuss this? Just a thought. Don’t like to say we told you so!
There were certainly some people who thought that demanding detail on car parking was being obstructive rather than constructive. Chickens are now coming home..,,!
Dear Alan,
As you well know Hilton Group have had only very limited influence over the parking. If there was ever a ‘promise’ to deliver a level of parking (as opposed to an aspiration and then application, which was granted) then it was not Hilton Group that made it.
The parking negotiations have been between the NHS & Uttlesford for some years (yes, years!), and to give them their credit Uttlesford have been amenable to all that the NHS have asked.
From my rather shaky memory there was a general view that the Drs staff needed parking, but patients would be able to pay, or use the disabled parking – this was a view promoted by the NHS surveyor in charge, and whilst challenged by the Drs, when they were told that to provide parking for patients would mean they had to pay from their own resources – they chose not to subsidise free parking – and since medicine is their profession, not a philanthropic vocation, who can blame them.
I’m afraid it is the NHS you need to convince, as they are the ones who will not pay for parking, or Uttlesford to provide free parking – in which case presumably there will be an increase in Council Tax to cover the loss in income.
If you could please either publish this unedited, or alternatively correct your unfair allegation against Hilton Group I would be most grateful,
Best wishes,
John Stirling
Dear John
I am grateful for your contribution as it throws some light on the issue and confirms what I have been told by council offers; that it is the doctors who are refusing to pay for patients’ parking close to their future premises. Speaking personally, the doctors are running a business and I would have thought it was in their own and their patients’ interest to provide some customer care at the cost of a few £,000 a year to their practice. This may become clearer next week.
Regards, Alan Dean
Neither of the GP surgeries in Dunmow offer free parking and I see no pressing reason for the proposed Stansted surgery to function any differently.
It would certainly be easy for UDC to institute a parking protocol that would make things easier for patients and any new administration in May would be wise to take that as an urgent matter.
Surgeries should have free parking provision. Why should patients be penalised financially for being ill and most likely are not mobile?
In the real world they don’t provide free parking, neither do hospitals as a rule, nor do dentists, oculists, optomotrists or any or the other myriad health service providers.
When I attended a chiropractor in Braintree I paid to park, when I attend Broomfield to have my head injury reviewed I pay to park. I can’t think of a GP surgery anywhere in Uttlesford that provides free parking, or the Walden community hospital.
Idealism is all very well, the NHS appears to operate on a more worldly financial basis. It would be more to the point if they sorted out the senior management and stopped the nonsense of paying people to leave then re-engaging them. Tens of millions have been squandered on this cretinous process.
Surgeries in Stansted, Saffron Walden, Thaxted and Newport have free parking facilities onsite or next to them.
Unbelievable!! Its frustrating enough now having to park down the road from the doctors surgery, especially when you have to carry a sick 5 year old in the rain!!! My concern, apart from the above mentioned, is a safety issue. Having to walk to the surgery from the overflow car park area in the dark on my own is not something i will be happy to do. Even if they put more street lights up the area is quite enclosed with no houses, shops either side to make you feel safer. Also a worry for older people. I assumed sufficient parking woukd be provided immediately outside of the surgery. If not i will consider changing to Elsenham practice (perhaps thats what they are hoping for – patients to move to another surgery. Will wait and see what happens. Cx
Would it be presumptuous to suggest that a new administration in May should address parking at the proposed health centre as a matter of urgency?
I suspect that only one group would be likely to listen to resident concerns. The incumbent Tory group have ignored residents on this and many other matters over several years so I wouldn’t anticipate anything new from them.
Apologies to Alan for politicking on his blog but the fact remains that the group I have the privilege to lead WOULD take this matter on as a priority and deal with it. I can also state with absolute surety that my group will readily work with the Lib Dems on all matters.
Bearing in mind what John Sterling has said, I’m unsure what the council can do other than ensure the developer keeps to its S106 commitments. It could zone the car park so that a short-stay section close to the surgery has a free half hour of parking and say 30p for the next half hour. Uttlesford has a sufficient year-on-year surplus to cover any relatively small loss in revenue. Or it can juggle around the parking charges so that long-stay parking charges can be increase to cover any loss with a low short-stay charge. However, this may mean patients competing with shoppers for spaces. I was under the impression following planning approval that the surgery will have its own parking spaces.
From what I’ve heard, it seems to me that the NHS has been the main problem, perhaps because of the reforms, and there is an issue of who takes responsibility for the lease when the current GPs retire. The situation has been going on far longer than needed.
A fascinating read. I am amazed at just how many people are expert at so many of the things that those paid to perform them clearly cannot do. The whole history of our medical facilities is one of politicking, lack of decision and apparent disregard of promises and hopes expressed over three decades. The NHS and local government “leaders” should hang their heads in shame. On the other hand, those who want a primrose path to a trouble-free service should try living in the real world. Now is the time for all of us to pull together in overcoming what are really minor issues arising from the frustration of one or two people.
I believe one promise was to have car parking spaces for patients. It’s not idealistic, it was what we were led to believe. It seems this issue, which I would have thought was simple to resolve, is a perplexing problem that stumps the best minds of the NHS and local government. Some flexibility on all sides would surely have led to an agreement on this after over three years.
A complete lack of communication with the public – either by the surgery or the NHS – on the stages of the health centre has caused a great deal of anxiety and uncertainty. Where there’s a lack of knowledge, people will draw their own conclusions and assumptions. I’m sure you would agree that a short monthly update in The Link by the healthcare providers may have calmed local residents.
For the avoidance of doubt as to my views on the above:
I am informed that various surgeries in the district provide an element of free parking. In Dunmow, neither of the surgeries provides parking, though charged parking is available nearby.
I do not believe there is any compulsion on GP practices to provide parking facilities and the trend across the NHS has been to charge for parking.
I do not consider that free parking is an important component of GP surgical provision, what matters is to have the doctors providing care from a dedicated building as soon as is feasible. The Lotus site appears to provide that and I was happy to support the application.
The planning application states “On site parking would be provided through a lease from the Council to provide 51 spaces with the spaces closest to the building for use by the medical centre and staff parking on the site closer to the skate park.”
I assume the NHS insisted on the parking spaces, but now won’t pay for the lease.
Of course, the most important issue is having a GP surgery as soon as possible. I supported the original application as well as the revised one because the village is desperate for this development. What worries me is that the NHS and the surgery are reneging on their commitments to the community and back-tracking on parking is an example.
How long do we have to wait for a new GP for a surgery that CQC rates in the lowest category and as a very high patient to GP ratio? Why is it taking so long for the surgery and the NHS to sign contracts? Will what we were promised be far less than what we end up with? As a community, we’re kept in the dark and all information is second and third hand with zero communication from the NHS.
The point to stress is that the problems all emanate from the NHS, all other parties to the site appear to agree.
If NHS are not prepared to negotiate in good faith it rather complicates things for the rest of us.
I’m no great friend of developers or the council, but in this case I think the developer and UDC have done all they can to get this project delivered as soon as possible. I don’t know if there is bad faith from the NHS, but the overhaul of the NHS with reforms which abolished the PCT that agreed to the plans. We can only hope that the remaining legalities are resolved as soon as possible and we get what we were promised and what Stansted and surrounding villages desperately need. I hope everyone is working towards the same goal.