Burntwood Health and Wellbeing Centre. Picture: Google Streetview
The temporary Burntwood Health and Wellbeing Centre. Picture: Google StreetviewBurntwood Health and Wellbeing Centre. Picture: Google Streetview

Health chiefs have defended their decision to close a GP surgery in Burntwood before a new facility is built.

Chris Bird, chief transformation officer at the Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Integrated Care Board (ICB), faced members of Lichfield District Council’s overview and scrutiny to discuss the future off Burntwood Health and Wellbeing Centre.

The current GP provision is set to end early next year when the current contract with the GP provider ends, even though a replacement facility will not be built until 2025.

Mr Bird told councillors that there is no provision to prolong the existing deal to cover the gap between the two dates.

“This is a decision that has been long in the planning. In 2019 a time-bound five year contract was awarded with the intention that within that period we would develop facilities in the Burntwood area to reflect the growing and changing needs of the community.

“We worked in partnership with Staffordshire County Council to open Greenwood Health Centre and we are now working with them to develop what we are calling Burntwood North on Cherry Close, which is planned to be operational in 2025.

“There is no extension provision within the contract for Burntwood Health and Wellbeing Centre.

“There is a gap – we’ve been open about that – and we will need to manage that. We did engage with local practices. Salters Meadow, Boney Hay, Darwin Medical Practice have all confirmed they have capacity to take patients on.”

Chris Bird, Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Integrated Care Board

But councillors were critical over the view that additional capacity could be handled at existing practices locally, with Cllr Heather Tranter, Conservative member for Summerfield and All Saints warning that the situation would be “horrendous” for those patients already struggling to get appointments at local practices.

“I’ve had numerous complaints about the length of time to see a doctor from patients at the Darwin Medical Practice.

“On top of that you’re asking a few more thousand to go on the list to try to get appointments.

“It’s going to be horrendous.”

Cllr Heather Tranter, Lichfield District Council

Cllr Diane Evans, Labour member for Boney Hay and Central, said the lack of consultation with residents locally had created “suspicion”.

“I am astounded you haven’t been prepared to engage with patients at the centre or other patients at other practices.

“For everybody health is their number one concern – you must be aware how worried people are? It doesn’t appear you have much compassion.

“You say there will be no impact on patient care for the local population. How? It’s so stretched at the moment I can’t see how it will work.

“It’s really important that you listen to what they have to say. If you are going to make drastic changes, why don’t you think people need to know that?

“The problem is you’ve made a lot of people very suspicious because you haven’t come clean to them. People are concerned and they will continue to be concerned if you aren’t liaising with them.”

Cllr Diane Evans, Lichfield District Council

But Mr Bird told the meeting the ICB had followed appropriate guidelines on engagement with local stakeholders and that an engagement and communications plan would be in place to help manage the movement of patients to new GP providers across the town.

“We’ve engaged with representatives from the local medical committee and primary care networks and we’ve confirmed with surrounding practices that they have the estate capacity to take additional patients on, recognising that the plan over time is to establish new facility at Cherry Close.

“We have guidelines to follow with certain provisions about when we do and do not need to consult and they do not extend to when we do not intend to extend a contract.

“There are other guidelines for when some of our service proposals meet threshold for major service change such as around inpatient mental health, but it doesn’t apply to proposals around Burntwood Health and Wellbeing Centre.

Chris Bird, Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Integrated Care Board

“We’ve got a high level of confidence”

The meeting was also told that while GP provision would end at the site, the building could be kept open for other uses until the new Burntwood North site at neighbouring Cherry Close was developed.

Mr Bird explained:

“In the intervening period we’ll retain Burntwood Health and Wellbeing Centre post the end of the contract, but we want to work with practices to establish how best to use it.

“The thinking at this stage is to host back office and admin staff etc to maximise clinical patient facing space prior to relocation.”

Chris Bird, Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Integrated Care Board

Cllr Steve Norman, vice chair of the committee, said that such proposals would need an extension to the existing planning permission which would require the building to be removed in 2024.

“In 2008 the proposed development for modular building arrived. It was renewed in 2011. Are you confident you’ll get planning permission to cover the gap until 2025?

“After all documents said the new site would be here in 2012, then 2013 and so it went on.

“How confident are you for 2025 and what are you going to do to add new provision at Cherry Close?”

Cllr Steve Norman, Lichfield District Council

Mr Bird said:

“We’ve got a high level of confidence. The purchase of the youth club has gone through and we have a track record with Greenwood Health Centre that we can draw on to help us through the next couple of years.

“Our ability to continue to use the leisure centre is contingent on the extension of the planning permission – we haven’t applied for that yet.”

Chris Bird, Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Integrated Care Board

But committee chairman, Cllr Mike Wilcox, asked why provision couldn’t be extended at the site if the plan was to retain the building.

Mr Bird explained the ICB “weren’t able” to extend the contract beyond the current five year period.

“Talking to colleagues who were around at the time [the last contract was agreed], awarding with no option to extend was done to reflect local challenges around the length of time it had taken to bring forward new facilities.

“The defined contract was designed to incentivise establishment of new facilities.

“Clearly we’ve not quite got there and there’s another 12 month period we need to navigate.”

Chris Bird, Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Integrated Care Board

Founder of Lichfield Live and editor of the site.

3 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Steven Norman
2 years ago

In 2019 the second extension had this condition:

‘This permission shall be granted for a limited period expiring on the 30th of September 2024 and at the end of this period, the building shall be removed from the site and the land cleared and reinstated to its condition immediately prior to the implementation of permission [in 2008] or to any other use/condition which may be otherwise approved in respect of this site.’.

So there will be a gap that the Government’s second change to the NHS local management system – the I (don’t) Care Board – had not even realised.

John Allen
2 years ago

I thought at the time when commissioning groups were reinvented as integrated care boards that it was like rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. As for consultation, they seem to be hiding behind guidelines. Shutting any practice before a replacement is ready is crazy in view of existing problems in getting GP appointments. They intend to continue using the building after the practice has closed, but haven’t applied for planning permission yet. Am I missing something here?

Smithy
2 years ago

So a new site has been promised since 2012 and ten years on, planning permission for one hasn’t even been submitted? I fear this will rumble on. Where is our MP in all of this? He’ not made a single comment about it. I note he’s quick to defend the language used in a leaflet but neglectful of the health needs of 27k of his constituents. He’s a disgrace.

Re: Cherry Close site. Two thoughts 1. I hope that thought has been given to access to it – there’s no way that road will cope with a significant increase in traffic. 2. When the buildings housing BHWC are eventually demolished, maybe a new community facility could be built with preference given to the organisations who are having to vacate the current Cherry Close centre.