Agenda item

Alterations and extensions of existing GP surgery to provide additional consulting, treatment and administration rooms and a dispensing pharmacy following demolition of existing dwelling (3 North Lane) and erection of cycle storage, new car park and improved vehicular access.[Huntington/New Earswick] [Site Visit]

Members considered a full application submitted by Mr J McEvoy, for alterations and extensions of existing GP surgery to provide additional consulting, treatment and administration rooms and a dispensing pharmacy following demolition of existing dwelling (3 North Lane) and erection of cycle storage, new car park and improved vehicular access.

In their update to Members, Officers informed the Committee that discussions were ongoing with the applicant regarding parking and a travel plan for the application. It was also confirmed that the Sports and Social Club further along North Lane had agreed in principle to allow health centre staff and patients to use their parking facilities.

Officers suggested that if Members were minded to approve the application that a number of conditions be added to planning permission such as;

·        A condition for a travel plan

·        A condition for kerbs to be reinstated at the crossing

Representations were received from Dominic Page who was in objection to the application. He was an agent who represented Lloyds Chemist. He gave a number of reasons for his objection which included;

·        That the design of the building was more suitable for a town centre location rather than a village site.

·        That, in his opinion, the plans showed that the pharmacy was not an ancillary use and would operate separately from the doctors’ surgery.

·        That the length of the operating hours was not suitable.

Further representations in objection were received from Doctor Kochhar a local pharmacist from Parkers Pharmacy. He agreed with the first speaker about the nature of the pharmacy use, which he felt would have an adverse impact on local pharmacies and other shops in the area. He also asked if there would be unlimited public access to the building.

Some Members asked questions about the percentage of prescriptions that Dr Kochhar’s pharmacy dealt with from the surgery and about the informal parking arrangements.

It was reported that currently about 70% of prescriptions from the pharmacy were processed by Parkers.

Officers in response to the question about parking arrangements also stated that there were three staff parking spaces on site, but there were also potential parking provision off site. A further comment made by a Member questioned whether this was practical for patients visiting the surgery during spells of bad weather due to the distance.

Representations in support were received from Paul Butler, the architect for the applicant. He advised Members that the reason for the alterations and extensions to the surgery was to meet the confidentiality and accessibility needs of patients. He felt that the new facility would also cater for the growing population. Members were also told that the existing surgery building would be retained to allow for the practice to continue. He also admitted that although the parking arrangements on site were not ideal but that the proposed arrangements were an improvement on the existing situation.

Questions to the architect from Members related to security arrangements, the access to the building and if there was a pharmacy within the surgery.

The architect informed the Committee that the surgery and pharmacy would have a common shared entrance foyer and that the pharmacy would have a night hatch. He also confirmed that the surgery was fully accessible due to the installation of a lift. Further to this he added that historically there had previously been a pharmacy on the surgery site.

Further representations in support were received from the applicant, John McEvoy. He shared some of the reasons for the extensions and alterations to the building which included;

·        That there had been no major investment in the building since the 1970s.

·        That there was a movement across the NHS from treating patients in hospital to treating them within Community based care.

·        That the larger building would give doctors space for non patient activities, such as training and telephone consultations.

Members asked a series of questions relating to the delivery of medicines to the site. It was noted that due to longer licensing hours that the surgery could time deliveries by request. It was suggested that there could be a possibility for two deliveries a day, but that due to the size of the proposed pharmacy that only one delivery was expected. He confirmed that the pharmacy might offer deliveries to care homes if they requested prescriptions from there but that it would be probably be processed from another site.

In response to a question about an increase in staff, the applicant confirmed that there would be a greater number working in the building at certain times but that the increase in size of the surgery would allow for more patient services to be offered.

He also added that the opening hours of the building were longer to comply with their NHS contract, of 100 hours, to improve services to patients. Finally he informed Members that the pharmacy service could also be used in place of the Accident and Emergency Department, as the pharmacists would offer a reasonable level of medical advice and assistance. In response to a Member’s question, it was also noted that the pharmacy would also sell products to the general public.

One Member shared concerns with the Committee about the level and safety of traffic accessing the surgery and asked whether the Council’s Highways Officers had assessed the traffic levels.

Officers confirmed that an assessment in relation to traffic generated by the Health Centre and pharmacy had been carried out and that it was considered to constitute a highway danger.

Some Members expressed concerns that the Health Centre parking arrangements depended on a voluntary agreement with the Sports Club which was some distance away from the site and that they had concerns about the longer opening hours. They also suggested that the times of proposed operation be amended from 8 am to 9pm to not disturb residential amenity.

Further discussion ensued about the proposed pharmacy’s detrimental effect on other pharmacies in the area, and whether there would be sufficient and viable parking provision.

Some Members felt that there was the potential for conflict to arise over a voluntary parking agreement rather than an established area for parking. Officers also reminded the Committee that competition was not a planning consideration.

Councillor King moved the motion for the application to be deferred in order for contractual parking arrangements to be arranged and agreed with the Sports and Social Club for off site parking for health centre staff, and for more information to be provided regarding the NHS 100 hour contract for pharmacy operation times, in order to see if there was a potential to reduce the hours of operation. Councillor Douglas seconded this motion.

RESOLVED:       That the application be deferred.

REASON:           To enable officers to address Members concerns on parking and operation times of the proposed pharmacy prior to a decision being made.