Showing posts with label GP. Show all posts
Showing posts with label GP. Show all posts

Thursday 12 October 2023

New replacement 'Super GP Surgery' to open in Wembley Park providing space for 16 GPs from March 2024

 

Quintain yesterday announced a new GP ‘super surgery’ to open at the heart of Wembley Park. When operational, it will be the largest NHS GP practice in the borough of Brent, serving up to 25,000 patients.

Quintain said:

The 11,000 sq. ft space will be operated by Wembley Park Medical Centre, relocating from Wembley Park Drive to Humphry Repton Lane close to Olympic Way and Boxpark Wembley, a 10-minute walk from their old premises.

The build will create state-of-the-art general practice medical spaces including two clinical suites, 14 consult exam rooms, four treatment rooms, and an e-consult room. It has been designed with a double height reception and waiting area into the ground floor of the Repton Gardens residential development at the heart of Wembley Park.

The announcement of the NHS super surgery is a significant milestone in the delivery of the Wembley Park neighbourhood, which has been planned from the start to provide all the community facilities everyone needs within easy reach. 

The surgery will be delivered by Quintain as part of the Repton Gardens development, designed by architects The Manser Practice, a team with award-winning experience in the healthcare sector. The surgery will provide enough space for 16 GPs and is set to open to the public from March 2024.

Friday 21 May 2021

Please donate to help stop the takeover of GP surgeries by US giant Centene

Rcent Brent demonstration against takeovers

The take over of GP's surgeries by US company Centene, including three in Brent, has been covered on Wembley Matters.  LINK Now a legal challenge has been launched and I hope readers will contribute.

DONATE HERE

The Appeal

Help us to stop the takeover of GP Surgeries by the giant American corporation Centene!

Centene (through its UK company Operose Health Ltd) has taken over dozens of GP surgeries in London including eight contracts in Camden, Islington and Haringey. Hundreds of patients, councillors and members of the public have written letters, protested outside surgeries and have made their feelings clear. We do not want our GP practices taken over by large profit-seeking American corporations.

 

The decision to allow the takeover of the GP surgeries with over 375,000 NHS patients on their lists, was taken by the Clinical Commissioning Groups who are responsible for commissioning General Practice services for patients.  

 

Following public outcry, a patient at one of the affected practices has decided to challenge the decision of her local CCG (North Central London) in court. Ms Anjna Khurana is a local councillor, representing Tollington Ward, and is a patient at Hanley Primary Care Centre in Islington.

Anjna said:

“I am so afraid that our NHS is being dismantled bit by bit, with the private sector playing a bigger and bigger part.  The NHS belongs to all of us and it is wrong that it should be run to achieve private profit rather than for the good of everyone. I also worry that my personal NHS medical data will be used by Operose for purposes that I have not been informed about or agreed to.

I need to trust my doctor, and how can I do that if they work for a company like Centene? A company that has a record of fraud in the US.  I am taking this court action not only for me but for all of us, because we all feel the same about the NHS.  Please help me to make this happen.”

Anjna is right to be worried. It's clear that the Centene/Operose Health business model is built around profits not patient care. 

This statement, from public accounts of the UK parent company behind Operose Healthcare, makes it very clear :

"Position at 31 December 2019 and future developments ... Rationalisation of our business activities… Has continued into 2020, as the business seeks to divest of activities that have not met profitability targets. As a result, on 31 March 2019, Operose Health Limited exited the Surrey Borders Partnership NHS Trust CAMHS contract, and on 1 July 2019, Operose Health (Group) UK Limited divested its complex care division, including the contracts and related assets.

From this statement it's also clear this is not just about London GP Surgeries. Operose Health Ltd have already taken over twenty other GP surgeries across England. The corporate takeover of NHS services can happen anywhere in the country. 

This case affects all of us.   


HOW YOU CAN HELP

Please help to raise £25,000 - £30,000 so that Anjna can bring the case to the Court. This target is on the assumption that the judge will award 'capped costs' because this is a case of vital public interest.

£25K is to cover the 'capped costs'. When the lawyers ask the Judge for permission to bring the Judicial Review, they will ask for this limit to the amount Anjna would have to pay to NCL CCG’s lawyers, if she were to lose the Judicial Review.  

This is the only way Anjna can afford to bring the case to court.

The additional £5K is towards the costs of court fees, solicitors and barristers who are working hard already in presenting Anjna’s case for consideration.

We're sure you can see the public interest in this Judicial Review. Your support will be invaluable. Please contribute whatever you can and share this page now!

NOTE: Should it transpire that a judge says there are no grounds to proceed to Judicial Review, in accordance with CrowdJustice's Terms and Conditions, we will donate any unused funds to another similar legal challenge, via Crowd Justice or the Access to Justice Foundation.


THE DECISION SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN MADE

The hope is that the courts will judge that North Central London Clinical Commissioning Group acted unlawfully in making their decision and that the decision will be quashed. Certainly the process was carried out with little regard for public consultation and certainly no involvement of registered patients.

London GP,  Louise Irvine, of Keep Our NHS Public (KONP) said: "The NHS  Constitution demands transparency and people rightly expect transparency and accountability in NHS decision-making especially about such important matters as who runs our GP practices, and their suitability to be trusted with our health care and our personal health data."

Like Anjna, the public would hope and expect proper patient and public engagement about what kind of people or organisations should get the contracts to run our GP surgeries in the future. The public don't want to see good NHS GP surgeries taken over by companies who do not share a belief in the ethics of comprehensive healthcare for everyone regardless of wealth or status.

Cat Hobbs, CEO of We Own It agrees: "Our NHS belongs in public hands, working for patients not profit. People don't want health insurance giants like Centene taking over GP surgeries. We fully support Anjna and her incredibly important fight for our NHS."


This legal challenge is an important step in stopping more corporate takeovers of the NHS. It also demands transparency and accountability from Clinical Commissioners in the future.

Steven Carne of 999 Call for the NHS said:  “What is most worrying is that the failure of the various CCGs to carry out proper scrutiny means they've allowed a multi-million dollar American corporation to hold a major position within the NHS infrastructure. And the people who will suffer are the patients who, of course, were told nothing."  

THE PROCESS AHEAD

We are working with solicitors Leigh Day and barristers Adam Straw QC from Doughty St Chambers and Leon Glenister from Landmark Chambers.

Anjna's claim has to be submitted to the High Court and a judge will decide whether the case can continue to a full Judicial Review. We are asking for capped costs because this is the only way Anjna can bring this case. A case that is of huge public interest. 

If the Courts grant approval and agree capped costs, we will then proceed to a full Judicial Review hearing.



Saturday 20 March 2021

Imperative that Brent Scrutiny Committee seeks answers on US takeover of Brent GP surgeries at Wednesday's meeting

 

 

The main agenda items tabled for Wednesday's meeting

This blog has reported the huge concerns of local councillors, Barry Gardiner MP, Brent Patient Voice  and Patient Participation Groups over the takeover of two GP surgeries in Brent by a US company. The concerns have been echoed across London in a joint letter by London borough chiefs to Matt Hancock.

One of the main issues is the alleged lack of due diligence by Brent CCG in coming to the apparent decision to back that takeover and the fact that the decision (it it wasa decision) being made in a private session.

Surely then it is incomprehensible that the only vehicle that the Council has to holding the Brent CCG to account, the Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee, does not have  this as an item on its Agenda (above).

One can only hope that councillors will put such an item on the Agenda under Any Other Business in accordance with Standing Order 60.  

Many questions were left unanswered or unsatisfactorily answered at  Wednesday's meeting of the PPPG LINK this is a chance for Scrutiny to really do its job.

Wednesday 16 September 2020

Action promised on BAME access to GPs as Brent's Covid19 response comes under scrutiny

Melanie Smith, Brent Director of Public Health, told last night's Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee that during the early months of the Covid19 pandemic many in Brent's BAME community felt disempowered and lacking in agency. Lessons had been learnt and Brent had realised the importance of engaging with the many different BAME communities in Brent and their community leaders. They had concentrated on Alperton and Church End which had the highest number of cases.  Messages had to be consistent and make sense to the communities concerned, for example over shielding in multi-generational households.

Confirming that access to primary healthcare was a major issue, Cllr Abdi Aden, who is of Somali background, said that many in the community who had been feeling sick had problems making appointments with their GP.  They had waited for hours in a queue at the medical centre only to give up and go home without receiving any help.

Cllr Mary Daly backed up the claim. Chair of the Committee, Cllr Ketan Sheth, interjected to say that many in the BAME community still suffered from a poor GP offer.

Dr MC Patel, chair of Brent CCG and NW London NHS lead on inequalities, offered to go with Cllr Aden to the surgery to address the issue of practices not affording access. He said unnecessary denial of access should not be tolerated.  He offered to talk to groups of 5 or so from the community to listen to their experiences and take action. 

Government guidelines recently issued should mean more face to face appointments with GPs rather than on-line arrangements which discriminated against those without internet access or lacking in English language,

Earlier in the discussion the high rate of BAME Covid deaths initially had been attributed to people not going to their GPs early enough. A speaker from Brent Healthwatch said that many residents had been hesitant about going to Northwick Park Hospital and were wary about getting infected there. Cllr Janice Long asked if late admissions to hospital was the cause of the higher death rate in Brent. She pointed out that there was only one medical centre in hard-hit Church End and asked what was being done to encourage people to go to their GP.

Cllr Ahmad Shahzad pointed out the structural issues affecting the BAME community including lack of opportunity and poor housing and said the death toll must not happen again - the Council had to safeguard the population. He said Public Health England and the BMA had been side-lined by the government.

Dr MC Patel said Brent CCG and NW London NHS were looking at devising an additional shielding list for Brent, that would include more people than the government list, and give them appropriate advice. The initial list did not include ethnicity as a factor and experience of the first wave means more needs to be done to include the BAME community, especially those with underlying conditions. Once offered it would be up to the individuals concerned to decide whether to be included in the vulnerable list.

Recently elected councillor, Gaynor Lloyd, said the elephant in the room was whether people would isolate as a consequence of being included in the list. She expressed doubt about a proposal to educate landlords about Covid19 and the risks stating, 'we all know about some landlords.'

 Dr MC Patel said that this was an opportunity for the local authority and health to work together. Joint work and shared commitment were necessary to make things happen and for 'Brent to do it differently.' He cited the response on care homes as being one example of success and said local hospitals had done well.  There was now a clear message to GPs to see patients face to face if that is what they wanted and the CCG were also looking at hot hubs for Covid patients.  It was a matter of 'making the best of what we've got.'

Simon Crawford of NW London Hospital Trust said that the emergency pathway at Northwick Park Hospital was now 85% of the pre-Covid level. Segregated pathways at A&E meant there were clear pathways for non-Covid patients. Presently there were 12 Covid patients in the hospital, a slight increase compared with 8 or so recently.  Patients' temperatures were taken when they first entered the hospital. Patients due for an operation were tested 3 days before the operation was due.  He emphasised, 'We are open for business. If you have an appointment, keep to it!'

He said that Northwick Park had been the busiest hospital in London at the peak and had been supported by other hospitals There had been positive coverage recently and they had been innovative in going with oxygen treatment rather than ventilating machines.  He said that Northwick Park had never run out of oxygen, contrary to reports.

The Trust has signed private sector contracts with Clementine Hospital and the London Clinic. Cancer referrals that had dropped by 50% were now coming back.

Cllr Neal Nerva, recently appointed to the Cabinet as lead member for Public Health, Culture and Leisure, said he was going to introduce a political dimension into the discussion.  Testing had become a matter of private competition and local government had been side-lined. Cllr Shahzad had been right about Public Health England being side-lined and there was also the failings of Test, Track and Trace.

Despite this, he said, the Council could not stand back, too many people were at risk in Brent.  He expressed confidence in the NHS and said people need to be seeking help for non-Covid conditions. The Alperton and Church End meetings showed the need for a wider Brent policy on social distancing and engaging with BAME communities.  Structural issues such as Housing, jobs, co-morbidities, learning for the Covid19 experience, would feed into the Council's new Health and Wellbeing Strategy.

All in all it was a useful discussion, although much more needs to be investigated and acted upon. The trio of councillors, Daly, Long and Lloyd, looked particularly effective as scrutineers.

Wednesday 21 November 2018

“GPs are under pressure but help is at hand” says Royal College top doctor



Speaking at a Brent Patient Voice public meeting at the Learie Constantine Centre on last Thursday 15th November, Dr Pauline Foreman, Medical Director at the Royal College of General Practitioners, said that GPs sometimes felt like hamsters on a wheel. Patients were unhappy at long waits for appointments. The NHS wanted GPs to send fewer people to hospitals. Visits to practices from the Care Quality Commission were quite scary, even though 90% of practices were rated good or outstanding. NHS England targets to replace retiring GPs were not being met.

However GPs should be seen as irreplaceable specialists in the whole range of medical conditions. Being a GP offered an enjoyable career with a huge variety of challenges and the chance to interact with many different patients. “If GPs could be allocated 11% instead of 8% of the NHS budget under the new NHS Ten Year Plan they could do what they were expected to do,” she said. Help for struggling practices was at hand from the Royal College and others. “Any closure of a practice is a failure, both for patients and the NHS. It costs a great deal and is very upsetting.”

Her message was echoed by long-term Brent doctor and new Chair of Brent Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG), Dr MC Patel. He explained that in Brent there are around 2,300 patients per GP, as compared with a London average of 1,670. “We want to make Brent a borough of choice for GPs and other health professionals” he said. The good news was that after Brent took a stall at a recent nursing event 76 people expressed an interest in working in general practice in the borough. The CCG wanted to see all local practices collaborating under the umbrella of the new Primary Care Homes initiative.
“This could involve some patients going to neighbouring practices for long-term care, e.g. for diabetes, but they would still have their own GP at their regular practice,” said Dr Patel.

Questions from the audience recalled the days of the TV programme “Dr Finlay’s Casebook” demonstrating the value of the one-to-one personal relationship between GP and patient. The speakers agreed that this was still very important for long-term patients but recognised that the younger generation often wanted to access services quickly online.

Thanking the speakers for their very informative contributions, BPV Chair Robin Sharp said:
We as BPV and through our Practice Patient Groups are  keen to help practices in these difficult times. We look forward to working with the Royal College and Brent CCG to secure the best results for patients in Brent.

For further information contact: Robin Sharp, BPV Chair on 020 8969 0381 or robisharp@googlemail.com


-->

Monday 12 November 2018

The stress & strains of being a GP - 'Who would be doctor?' Brent Patient Voice Debate November 15th 7pm Learie Constantine Centre


Dear Brent Patient Voice members and friends
“Who would be a doctor?” is the topic of our public meeting and debate on Thursday 15th November next at the Learie Constantine Centre, 40-47 Dudden Hill Lane, NW10 2ET at 7pm (refreshments from 6.30)


We are focussing on the strains and stresses facing GPs. They are our first and principal port of call when we need to access NHS services. Yet

  • Practices are merging or closing;
  • Workload problems are leading to burnout or early retirement;
  • The NHS wants GPs to do more to relieve the load on hospitals;
  • Plans to boost GP numbers are way off target;
  • Few GPs welcome extra admin and new organisational structures.
What are the answers?
  • Will switching to digital help reduce workload?
  • What does Primary Care Home mean for doctors and patients?
  • How do new roles such as healthcare assistants, community pharmacists and nurse practitioners fit in?


We are fortunate to have recruited highly qualified speakers to lead our debate. They are Dr MC Patel, new Chair of Brent Clinical Commissioning Group, and long-serving Brent GP, and Dr Pauline Foreman, Medical Director for Practice Support at the Royal College of General Practitioners, and also a GP in Hertfordshire.

We look forward to seeing you on 15th November. Please take this as notice of our AGM from 7 to 7.20pm that day, including reports, minutes and elections to the Steering Group. We urgently need someone to manage our communications and mailshots like this one. Please contact me at robisharp@gmail.com if you can help. I can also supply a flyer for this meeting if you can put up one in your surgery etc.

With best wishes

Robin Sharp
Chair BPV


Friday 12 January 2018

Brent Advocacy Concerns step in to fill the PIP advice gap

Brent Advocacy Concerns are still waiting for details of their future accommodation with GPs due to move into their space at Willesden Centre in April.

Meanwhile John Healy told me that they are very much in demand:
On resuming my voluntary work after the holiday, I felt overwhelmed by over 30 emails that needed replying too. My fellow trustees  have concentrated their efforts on sorting out our office move.

I have never experienced such demand with most of the requests being from disabled people needing help with claims for PIP (personal independence payments) or help with appealing their failed PIP claims.   

Brent council have awarded several contracts for providers to undertake this work but it seems to me that disabled people in Brent are either not aware of them or they cannot access them.


Wednesday 30 November 2016

Vital public meeting on changes in GP Practices - Thursday December 1st



 From Brent Patient Voice

From cottage industry to the new world of Brent’s Accountable Care Partnership: Our GP Practices are destined for change

We look forward to seeing you at the Learie Constantine Centre, Dudden Hill Lane, NW10 2ET on Thursday 1st December from 6.45 onwards.

While commentators and the media are just waking up to the fact that the emerging NHS Sustainability and Transformation Plans are a cloak for massive and damaging cuts to services, we in BPV are attempting to shed some light on the plans for transforming General Practice.

Hence the title of our event is “From cottage industry to the new world of Brent’s Accountable Care Partnership: Our GP Practices are destined for change.” Our speaker, Dr Julia Simon, has recently left NHS England and thus is specially qualified to give an insider’s perspective on The NHS Five Year Forward View and the reasons why it promotes Accountable Care Partnerships.

What concerns us most is the NHS’s failure to explain properly what the changes to General Practice they envisage really mean so that the public and indeed doctors themselves can debate the pros and cons.

All this, of course, is against the background of the Chancellor declining to put more money into the NHS and social care when the leadership and the experts are pointing out that shortages of money and qualified staff mean it cannot deliver the service required for very much longer.

Thursday 16 June 2016

'I have been put up for sale by NHS England' - Amazing Grace petitions David Cameron

Grace demonstrates outside Monitor/NHS Improvement

Grace Balogun is seeking support for her petition LINK to save her Sudbury (Vale Farm) GP Practice from the market. She tells David Cameron why he should intervene below.


Let me introduce myself .My name is Grace and I need urgent help. I am a National Health Service patient and, along with my fellow patients of the fantastic Sudbury GP surgery in Wembley. I have been put up for sale by NHS England. The same NHS England that loves to talk about "patient choice" but all NHS England really care about is "the market in healthcare". BUT I TALK - AND CARE - ABOUT MY FAMILY DOCTORS WHO KEEP ME WELL AND GIVE ME THE CARE MY COUNTRY PROMISED ME FOR WORKING AND LIVING IN THIS COUNTRY - FOR LIFE, CRADLE TO GRAVE.

I live in the London Borough of Brent, an area where we already have a shortage of GPs, more GPs retiring , and a largely deprived population which is expected to expand over the next 5 years by about 80,000 people. I suffer from a range of major health issues which means that I live my life in a wheelchair. Don't get me wrong. I have a good and happy life – or I did until NHS England decided – without asking me – that it would be a good idea to take away from me the Family Doctors who have cared for me for the last 14 years. GP's who I would follow ,if they moved halfway across the country – but my wheelchair bound status makes that pretty tricky. To add insult to injury, I have already had one fight - alongside my fellow patients - lasting 9 years, and including threatened legal action against the NHS, to keep my Doctors from being tendered out for sale before. That fight - I thought - ended in 2013. 

 
Patients make a stand against marketisation
So WHY is Sudbury Surgery Patient List again "up for sale", and my fragile care threatened?

NOT TO SAVE MONEY. THE NEW CONTRACT WILL COST NHS ENGLAND £70,0000 A YEAR MORE. NOT BECAUSE OUR GPS AND THEIR TEAM ARE NO GOOD – although senior officials in NHS England London region (including the Boss) wrote telling my MP, my local councillors and a Brent patient group that they were not "performing" - ridiculous allegations they have since had to withdraw.

 NOT BECAUSE IT IS HARD FOR ME TO GET AN APPOINTMENT WITH MY GP – no, we are known in Brent for having fantastic service from our surgery.

NOT BECAUSE OF INADEQUATE SERVICES -We have EXTRA SERVICES, like in-house professional counselling sessions every week, a GP specially trained in mental health services, a specialist diabetic clinic and diabetic nurse, methadone prescribing service, minor surgery, acupuncture and were just about to start the practice as a GP training practice. Our practice also hosts a walk-in blood testing clinic, and the out of hours "overflow" GP appointments for our locality. Sudbury Surgery does a fantastic service for the community, IN the community. It is run by a not for profit social enterprise.

NO, I have been put up for sale because MY DOCTORS ARE JUST TOO GOOD. Since their social enterprise got the contract 3 short years ago, the patient list has grown from 5000 to 8600, and is still growing. How I wish it had stayed at less than 6000! Why, you ask me? Because, at less than 6000 patients, apparently, according to NHSE England, a "patient list" is "unattractive to the market" . Market, what market ? The market to which my surgery and the 15 other practices in "Tranche 4 London GP practices" NHS England gleefully advertised as the "greatest number of opportunities to potential providers yet" -when it held a "market engagement event" helpfully timed when our GPs were serving their patients in surgery. Bulk sale opportunity! Does it sound as though NHS England is interested in keeping the practice with our ordinary, caring, hardworking GPs?

Those companies who attended the "event" included (off-shore) Virgin Healthcare (who wanted us last time), Care UK, and The Practice Group (who have just "bulk" handed back 5 GP practices in Sussex to the NHS (meaning of course the patients in their patient lists) after taking them over, when their funding was cut - there's a reassuring precedent).

When we realised what was happening, Sudbury Surgery's patients got together, had meetings, wrote many long letters to NHSE, and to NHS (so-called) Improvement who is supposed to regulate "competition" in the NHS, demonstrated outside the Department of Health, NHS England, attracted newspaper attention and explained to and collected the signatures of over 3700 INDIVIDUAL PATIENTS to a petition saying "NHS ENGLAND PLEASE GO AWAY AND LEAVE US WITH THE GPS WHO HAVE CARED FOR US FOR OVER 14 YEARS".

We have struggled for 9 months using every avenue open to us. HAS IT MADE ANY DIFFERENCE? NO. So now I am calling on David Cameron and Jeremy Hunt and The Queen to intervene and ask NHS England to take my Doctors 'practice out of the tender NOW. I was promised cradle to grave care in the NHS - not to be a commodity patient - attractive to a "market". Not that I think a patient like me with complex health needs will be very attractive to a "provider" interested in "markets" PLEASE, PLEASE LET ME AND MY FELLOW SUDBURY SURGERY PATIENTS KEEP THE DOCTORS THEY LOVE, and save the NHS £70,000 a year .

Sign Grace's petition HERE

Thursday 1 October 2015

Have your say on Brent NHS services: October 7th

From Brent Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG)  LINK
 

You are cordially invited to attend our next Health Partners Forum, The Big Brent Health Debate that will take place on:
Wednesday, 7th October 2015 @ Sattavis Patidar Centre, Forty Avenue, Wembley Park, Middlesex, HA9 9PE
Buffet will be served from 5.15pm with the evening’s discussion starting at 6.00 – 8.30pm.
Brent CCG’s vision is to improve the quality of care for individuals, carers and families by empowering and supporting people to maintain independence and active lives.
·      How do you want NHS services to be delivered in Brent?
·      What services matter most to you?
·      Is there anything you would change if you could?

Come and find out more about our draft commissioning intentions for 2016/17 and our key priorities for next year at the Health Partners Forum.
It is your opportunity to have your say on helping to shape the healthcare priorities for the year ahead.
Your opinions will help GPs decide what services work well, what doesn’t work so well and where we need to make improvements to healthcare services in Brent.
To RSVP and for more information please email: brentccg.engagement@nhs.net  or call 020 8900 5376.
You can also register for the event by visiting: https://hpf-oct2015-brentccg.eventbrite.co.uk
Please provide own translator if required. There will be live captioning for the hearing impaired.
We therefore look forward to seeing you on the 7th October 2015.   Please share this communication with your family members, friends, neighbours and community.
Let’s work in partnership to make our 2015 Health Partners Forums rewarding events for us all.

Friday 9 January 2015

Another high-rise development for Wembley but where is the truly affordable housing?

From the planning document
Shortly after my article about the high rise 20 storey development behind the Brent Civic Centre LINK Quintain have put in their planning application (14/4931) for the South West Lands. This is the area along the Chiltern line going south from Wembley Stadium station which is crossed by White Horse Bridge (below) Full documentation for the Planning Application can be found HERE

New developments in white
This fills in the space currently occupied by shrubbery. The application leaves some options which will probably be decided by Quintain on grounds of viability (or better known as profit) in negotiation with Brent Council.

Some of the blocks are 19 storeys high, just one storey below the blocks planned behind the Civic Centre and three or so higher than the Orbis Hotel next to the White Horse Bridge.

Someone recently asked why, having demolished the tower blocks of Chalkhill and Stonebridge, the Council were now supporting the building of them in Wembley?

This is an artist's impression of the impact on the skyline:


Summary of Planning Application
A hybrid planning application, for the redevelopment of the site to provide seven mixed use buildings up to 19 storeys in height accommodating: outline planning permission for up to a total of 75,000sqm to 85,000sqm mixed floor space including up to 67,000sqm of C3 residential accommodation (approximately 725 units); 8,000sqm to 14,000sqm for additional C3 residential accommodation,
C1 hotel and/or sui generis student accommodation (an additional approximate 125 residential units; or 200-250 bed hotel; or approximate 500 student units; or approximate 35 residential units and 200 bed hotel); 1,500sqm to 3,000sqm for Classes B1/A1/A2/A3/A4/D1/D2; together with associated open space and landscaping; car parking, cycle storage, pedestrian, cycle and vehicle access; associated highway works; improvements to rear access to Neeld Parade; and associated infrastructure full planning permission for a basement beneath Plots SW03 - SW05 to accommodate 284 car parking spaces and 19 motor cycle spaces; Building 3A within Plot SW03 to accommodate 183 residential units and 368 cycle spaces at ground floor; and associated infrastructure, landscaping and open space
In the consultation last year, which got a low number of response, out of the 37 general comments the largest number on a single topic was nine (from Consultation summary):

Nine comments express ed the view that affordable housing/family housing should form part of the development and be delivered quickly.

Nine comments related to specific suggestions for provision of infrastructure/amenities as part of the development. These suggestions included schools, GPs and provision for youth, the elderly and disabled people.
So are the consultees going to get what they requested?  The application gives two scenarios for the amount and type of housing:


In Scenario 1 the proportion of social rented housing is 2.2% and in Scenario 2 5%. This is against Brent's 50% target for affordable accommodation. As usual the definition of affordable is unclear but for the developer seems to include the Intermediate category and is hedged by caveats..
-->
At present, the proportion of the affordable units is not known as this will be subject to negotiations, planning priorities and viability. Therefore, for the purposes of this assessment, a range of affordable housing provision has been considered to ensure the impacts at both ends of the spectrum are identified and,where necessary, mitigated. The range assessed is between 10% (Scenario 1) and 25% (Scenario 2) by unit. In the event that affordable housing provision falls outside these bounds, a review will be undertaken to identify any new impacts or significant changes to the impacts identified as part of this assessment.
Given the amount of housing Quintain's assessment of the number of children in the development seems low. The number of 3 bedroomed properties, a priority for many Brent families is low. Perhaps the developers are assuming most of the residents with be Dinkies (Double Income No Kids).


From this prediction they suggest there is already enough secondary school places if Gateway and  Gladstone Free Schools open (a gamble?)  and the development will have a 'negligible effect'  locally. However there they may be the need for some Community Infrastructure Levy contribution to primary school places as the development is deemed to have a 'minor adverse effect'. With GP's lists at capacity locally it also suggests a CiL contribution to health provision may be necessary.

It is worth reminding ourselves what was promised in terms of social provision for local people at the beginning of the Quintain development, aside from affordable housing:

Anticipated infrastructure is expected to include (inter alia):
· 2 x 2 forms of entry primary school; a new combined primary (2FE) and secondary school (6FE) on the Wembley Park site;

· Extensions to existing local schools; nursery places;

· At least 2.4ha of new public open space comprising of a new park (1.2ha min) and 3 pocket parks/squares (0.4ha each);

·Improvements to the quality and accessibility of existing open spaces;

·A new community swimming pool; indoor and outdoor sports facilities;

·Play areas; new health facilities with space for 14 GPs and 11 new dentists;

and  new multi-use community facilities.
I recommend that among the hundreds of documents you read the Socio-Economic Chapter of the application which covers some of these issues. LINK

Among the positives about the development are the provision of green space and play space for children although we will need to see details about public accessibility and quality. Some of the buildings will have green roofs.

However once again we have to ask, where is the benefit for the ordinary people of Wembley/Brent and what will the Council do to increase the proportion of truly affordable housing for local people?








Wednesday 19 February 2014

How to opt out of the NHS care data scheme

At a meeting last night I couldn't find anyone who had received their letter about the sharing of individual's medical data so it is good news that implementation has been delayed for six months.

There are concerns about the security of the system and its possible misuse. This was discussed in the Guardian 18 months ago: LINK

If you decide you want to opt out of the system, which is your right, Fax Your GP Com LINK have set uo an easy facility. This is what they say:

We’re a very small group of volunteers who think it should be very easy for people to opt out of the new NHS care.data centralised database of medical records.

Unless you opt out now, care.data will soon store the medical records of everyone in England, yours included, in one giant database.

Our confidential health information will then be shared with companies and other public bodies.

Some people we respect think care.data is, on balance, a good thing.
Some people we respect think care.data is, on balance, a bad thing.

What we know for certain is that the NHS hasn’t made it easy for you to exercise your right to opt out. We think this really isn’t wise.

The NHS leaflet explaining care.data says you should ‘let your GP know’ if you want to opt out.
But GP surgeries are busy. If you ring up wanting to opt out they’ll ask you to write to them instead. That’s fair enough – their priority is treating the sick.

It’s 2014. The NHS really should have made it easy to opt out via the web.
So we thought we’d help out.

First, we found the fax numbers for every GP practice (sadly, very few let you email them). After you’ve entered your details, our clever computers automatically fax your letter asking to opt-out of the care.data database straight to your GP practice.

It’s free. It’s secure. And we don’t store any of your personal data once your opt-out fax has been received by your GP. So we won’t email trying to sign you up for other campaigns.

Sadly we can’t make any 100% watertight promises that this site will always work. Your GP’s fax number might be listed incorrectly on the NHS website, for example.

So if you want total reassurance, it might be best to print out an opt out letter and pop it round to your GP yourself.

However, we have done this sort of thing before, and so know it works well. Back in 1999/2000 some of us built FaxYourMP.com, to make it easy for people to contact their MP, since in those days most MPs didn’t publish their email addresses. A bit like GPs, today, in fact.

We didn’t expect to have to resurrect a similar service nearly 15 years later. Frankly, we shouldn’t have had to, but needs must.

— Stef Magdalinski and friends.

The Keep Our NHS Public leaflet downloadable below contains an opt-out letter you can take to your GP:


Wednesday 26 June 2013

NW London NHS: If it's not an accident or an emergency, where should I go?

Guest blog by a Brent (would be) NHS user

Recently I have begun to feel that I might resemble a cod fish which has evolved to become smaller than its ancestors, so that it could slip through the holes in trawlers’ nets in order to avoid being made into fish fingers. Inadvertently I seem to have evolved into a life form that slips through the mesh of the NHS in North West London in 2013, albeit with less positive consequences that is the case for the above mentioned fish.

One of the several ailments that afflict my legs causes them to swell, then, if the skin breaks, fluid can seep out. About a year ago I had an outbreak but this problem which was effectively treated by the nurse at my local GP practice. For a while this entailed wrapping the leg in several layers of bandages which had to be changed about every two days since the leakage soon soaked through the dressings. Gradually the leg healed up and the leaking ceased, I was then able to treat myself at home with creams and a stocking bandage.
This self-medication worked well until about a month ago, when the leaking started up again. I tried to apply layers of more absorbent bandage myself, but my efforts weren’t very effective and the leg seemed to leak more and more. 

I rang my GP surgery but they couldn’t make an appointment for me for a week, but my bandages were soon both falling off and soaking wet, so I sought treatment elsewhere. I went to an NHS “Walk-in” Centre, about five miles from my home. The nurses there did what they could, but said that the “Walk-in” Centre did not keep a sufficient stock of bandages to treat cases such as mine and advised that I should be seeing my GP.

The temporary bandaging just about held out for four days until I was able to see the GP nurse again. The sopping bandages were removed and replaced with more extensive bandaging, but this too was wet through within a day, to the extent that one of my shoes was filling up with fluid whilst the bandaging was slipping down my legs, but the next GP appointment that I could now get was in six days’ time, so I decided that fresh bandaging was needed.

I looked at a full page advert from the NHS in free magazine posted to me by my local council. It was headlined “If You Are Unwell, Choose The Right Place to Go” (NHS Brent Clinical Commissioning Group  p.8 Brent Magazine, June 2013).  This ad detailed the various NHS services provided locally, but also emphasised the message: “Choose Well: Only Use A&E in an Emergency”.

I had already been to the GP and the Walk-in Centre, so I tried ringing up the Urgent Care Centre at a local hospital, (Central Middlesex), which was mentioned in the NHS advert. When I described my problem, I was told that the Urgent Care Centre was not the appropriate place for me and that I should go to the A&E in another hospital (Northwick Park in Harrow) as the local A&E in Central Middlesex was now “appointments only”.

This contradictory arrangement which might seem to imply that a patient should be clairvoyant enough to know of an emergency before it happened to them, placed me in a quandary. Harrow A&E is a fairly difficult journey, I could, I suppose, have phoned for an ambulance, but I did not consider my condition, no matter how unpleasant it was, to be an emergency and I did not want to waste the time of ambulance crews and A&E staff in dealing with it. So I was effectively house bound for about three days until my GP appointment came up. Luckily, I had enough food at my home to last out, otherwise I might have gone to the A&E for lack of groceries, rather than for any medical reason.

The GP treatment, when I got it was adequate and I have l also now been referred for specialist treatment, so I make no blanket criticism of the NHS, but there do, locally, at least seem to be some gaping holes in its net.
Recently I have seen and heard, media coverage that suggests that A&E’s can no longer meet the demand placed on them by many people presenting with non-urgent conditions, and it could be that such pleading might cover for pressure caused by A&E closures, when no adequate service for non-emergency cases, such as mine, seems to be in place.

I know that there a places in the world where there have never been ANY health services and I know that currently, in other parts of the world (like Greece and parts of Spain), previously adequate health services are being systematically destroyed by mad neo-liberal austerity policies. So my whinges, as a relatively affluent, educated British urbanite, are minor; but someone more disabled, and/or less articulate, and/or with less access to transport, might find things far, far worse than I did. Public adverts advising people to use services that don’t really exist are annoying at the best and potentially dangerous at worst.