Ref: Sha/19951 Appeal Against Midlands & East
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
1 Trevelyan Square Boar Lane REF: SHA/19951 Leeds LS1 6AE APPEAL AGAINST MIDLANDS & EAST (CENTRAL Tel: 0113 86 65500 MIDLANDS) AREA TEAM, NHS COMMISSIONING Fax: 0207 821 0029 BOARD ("NHS ENGLAND") DECISION TO REFUSE AN Email: [email protected] APPLICATION BY JARDINES (UK) LTD FOR INCLUSION IN THE PHARMACEUTICAL LIST OFFERING UNFORESEEN BENEFITS UNDER REGULATION 18 WITHIN 200M OF THE PROPOSED LOCAL CENTRE, BARROSA WAY, NR WHITEHOUSE PRIMARY SCHOOL, WHITEHOUSE, MILTON KEYNES, MK8 1AG 1 Outcome 1.1 The Pharmacy Appeals Committee (“Committee”), appointed by NHS Resolution, quashes the decision of NHS England and redetermines the application. 1.2 The Committee determined that the application should be granted. NHS Resolution is the operating name of NHS Litigation Authority – we were established in 1995 as a Special Health Authority and are a not-for-profit part of the NHS. Our purpose is to provide expertise to the NHS on resolving concerns fairly, share learning for improvement and preserve resources for patient care. To find out how we use personal information, please read our privacy statement at www.nhsla.com/Pages/How-we-use- your-information---FHSAU.aspx REF: SHA/19951 1 Trevelyan Square Boar Lane APPEAL AGAINST MIDLANDS & EAST (CENTRAL Leeds MIDLANDS) AREA TEAM, NHS COMMISSIONING LS1 6AE BOARD ("NHS ENGLAND") DECISION TO REFUSE AN Tel: 0113 86 65500 APPLICATION BY JARDINES (UK) LTD FOR Fax: 0207 821 0029 INCLUSION IN THE PHARMACEUTICAL LIST Email: [email protected] OFFERING UNFORESEEN BENEFITS UNDER REGULATION 18 WITHIN 200M OF THE PROPOSED LOCAL CENTRE, BARROSA WAY, NR WHITEHOUSE PRIMARY SCHOOL, WHITEHOUSE, MILTON KEYNES, MK8 1AG 1 A summary of the application, decision, appeal(s) and representations and observations are attached at Annex A. 2 Preliminary Consideration and Site Visit 2.1 The Pharmacy Appeals Committee (“Committee”) appointed by NHS Resolution had before it the papers considered by NHS England, together with a plan of the area showing existing pharmacies and doctors’ surgeries and the location of the proposed pharmacy. 2.2 It also had before it the responses to NHS Resolution’s own statutory consultations. 2.3 The Committee held an oral hearing to determine the application. This took place on 30 November 2018 at the Mercure Hotel, Monks Way, Two Mile Ash, Milton Keynes. The Committee comprised of Mrs ## (Chair), Ms ## and Mr ##. 2.4 Jardines (UK) Ltd was represented by Mr ##, accompanied by Mr ## and Mr ##. Mr ##represented NHS England accompanied by Ms ##. 2.5 Mr ## declared that many years ago he had worked for NHS England and encountered Mr ## and Ms ## but did not consider himself conflicted. The Applicants agreed that in the circumstances, there was no conflict of interest. 2.6 Before the hearing started the Committee undertook a site visit. 2.7 The Site visit started at 10 a.m. at the venue for the hearing, the Mercure Hotel. There was virtually no traffic on the roads as the Committee travelled by car left onto Monks Way, left onto Watling Street and right onto Barrosa Way. 2.8 After 7 minutes, the Committee were at the entrance to the new development. The Committee noted that there was a large sign advertising ‘4330 brand new homes’. The Committee noted that there were a number of developers (Bovis, Taylor Wimpy, Bellway and Abbey) offering properties for sale on the Whitehouse and Fairfield sites (‘the development’). The housing on sale was a mix of apartments, terraced and large detached homes. The development 1 appeared well underway with a large proportion of the homes either occupied or displaying sold signs. 2.9 Due to a disability, only two of the members of the Committee walked around the designated ‘best estimate area’. The two members went into the Bellway information centre. The receptionist indicated that the proposed pharmacy and the community development would be to the northern side of the Barrosa Way. She said there would be retail facilities and a community centre/ community hub but no work had started on it. The Bellway development consisted of housing only and was currently approximately 75% sold. No work had yet started in relation to the community facilities. 2.10 The other member travelled by car to the Whitehouse primary school. It was noted that this was a large primary school with the majority of the plots surrounding it already occupied. 2.11 As the Committee members gathered together, it encountered the applicant and his representative Mr ##. Mr. ## indicated where the new pharmacy site was planned. The Committee stood at the corner of Longhorn Drive and Barossa Way, looking towards the planned site of the GP centre. It observed that there was an area which had yet to be developed, surrounded by wire mesh fencing. The GP centre, the pharmacy and the community buildings were to be built on one side of the wire fencing which bordered the planned new dual carriageway. It was indicated that the shopping area would be the other side of the fencing. Mr ## stated that work should have started on the GP centre on 26 November but due to weather conditions this was delayed until 7 January. He also indicated the site of the secondary school which was close to the planned site for the GP surgery. He stated that the school was contracted to open in 2020. 2.12 The Committee then set off from the proposed pharmacy location on Barossa Way. The Committee noted that the development appeared to have wide pavements and drop kerbs but much of the paving on Barossa Way had yet to be constructed. It noted the bus stop for the number 301 bus close to the edge of the development. 2.13 The Committee travelled on the Barossa Way and turned right onto Watling Street and then along Dansteed Way and then up to the Hilltop Medical Centre and pharmacy. Once the Committee left the development, it noted that that there were no pavements surrounding the White House roundabout and although there were some wide pavements and drop kerbs along the main roads, these were not continuous for the whole journey. In parts the pavement became very narrow and in some areas it disappeared completely. The Committee noted there were very few areas along the route where there was paving on both sides of the roads. 2.14 The Committee arrived at the Hilltop Pharmacy which was at the top of an incline. The Committee had requested the taxi driver to note the mileage to the Hilltop Pharmacy. It noted on arrival at the Hilltop Pharmacy that the mileometer indicated that the journey was 1.2 miles. 2.15 There was a car park in front of the pharmacy. The car park was shared with the GP surgery, a public house (the Kensington), a school and a nursery. It was busy but they were some empty spaces but no disabled spaces were free. 2 2.16 Two members of the Committee went into the pharmacy. The pharmacy had a separate access door to the left of the main surgery entrance and also an internal entrance from the surgery reception area. By the external door the pharmacy was clearly indicated with its own signage. The pharmacy was spacious and well designed and had adequate seating for the patients and customers. Disabled access was good. 2.17 The Committee noted that although there was a bus stop in the parking area in front of the surgery, the 301 which ran from the edge of the new development did not stop here but in fact stopped on the Dansteed Way at the Corn Hill bus stop. It noted that there was a foot bridge going over the Dansteed Way, linking the bus stops to the Hilltops retail area, accessible only by stairs. There was no other pedestrian crossing observed by the Committee in the immediate area. 2.18 The Committee had not attempted the journey to HiIlltop pharmacy on foot. It had noted that there were residential areas then considerable stretches of uninhabited wooded areas along the route. It had also observed that there were variety of underpasses visible from the route it had travelled by car however, it seemed to the Committee that it was unlikely that anyone would travel along these routes on foot after dark. 2.19 The Committee then travelled to Shenley Church End and the large shopping development in the middle of the residential area. There was a large Sainsbury’s and clusters of shops and restaurants. The GP surgery was surrounded by a car park and situated to one side of the main shopping area. The pharmacy was located in the main shopping area. There was two hours no return parking and available disabled spaces. Two of the members walked up to Jardine’s pharmacy. The pharmacy was viewed from the outside and was spacious and had adequate seating and disabled access. 2.20 The Committee then travelled by car to the Bradwell Boots 100 hours pharmacy. It noted this was a small pharmacy co-located with the GP surgery and it was not well sign-posted. It appeared to the Committee that there would be no other reason to travel to this area unless a patient had a prescription to collect or required other pharmaceutical services as it was in the centre of a residential area and there were no retail outlets in the immediate area. 2.21 A summary of the above observations was provided to those in attendance. They were invited to comment upon them OR indicate if any of the observations appeared to be inaccurate. 2.22 No such comments or observations were made.