Developers defend cash contribution

Developers defend cash contribution

Developers defend cash contribution

First published in News
Last updated

PLANS to set aside only £120,000 for healthcare improvements in Wickford have been defended by a developer.

Countryside Properties, which is behind a major development of 575 homes on the former Runwell Hospital site, has agreed to hand over the cash for being allowed to build, following talks with Chelmsford City Council.

Campaigners say the cashwould do little to ease the burden in Wickford, which has one doctor for 1,700 people.

The £120,000 will be split between four GP practices – Swan Surgery, Wickford Health Centre, Applewood Surgery and London Road Surgery.

Chris Bladon, homes and development director for Countryside Properties, said: “The funds for healthcare in respect of the Runwell Hospital redevelopment were calculated by the local NHS to provide a contribution towards improving the existing healthcare facilities.

“The local NHS prepared their own independent health impact assessment in relation to this planning application.

“The healthcare provision is part of a comprehensive package being provided by Countryside which includes affordable housing and significant improvements to the nearby A132 and Runwell Sports and Social Club.”

The developers have also agreed to contribute £1.8million towards secondary school places and £300,000 on a school bus service.

Comments (9)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

3:04pm Mon 11 Aug 14

Nebs says...

Why should the developer pay anything, healthcare is paid for out of general taxation, if there isn't enough money to treat everyone then put up the tax rates.
How much have the London Boroughs contributed? The ones who force their residents to move to Essex, thereby increasing the strain on our infrastructure and at the same time decreasing the strain on theirs.
Why should the developer pay anything, healthcare is paid for out of general taxation, if there isn't enough money to treat everyone then put up the tax rates. How much have the London Boroughs contributed? The ones who force their residents to move to Essex, thereby increasing the strain on our infrastructure and at the same time decreasing the strain on theirs. Nebs
  • Score: 7

3:32pm Mon 11 Aug 14

Ontheball says...

Of course they should contribute. They are creating the extra schooling requirements and adding to the road and medical burden whilst making millions. The London borough thing is a red herring since no one knows where the new residents will come from.
Of course they should contribute. They are creating the extra schooling requirements and adding to the road and medical burden whilst making millions. The London borough thing is a red herring since no one knows where the new residents will come from. Ontheball
  • Score: -1

4:14pm Mon 11 Aug 14

Jack222 says...

And people are getting houses, and the local economy will benefit from the people living there.

Healthcare should be from general taxation - but the compromise is that in the land being developed one large plot should be zoned for medical use only...
And people are getting houses, and the local economy will benefit from the people living there. Healthcare should be from general taxation - but the compromise is that in the land being developed one large plot should be zoned for medical use only... Jack222
  • Score: 2

4:45pm Mon 11 Aug 14

GrumpyofLeigh says...

Maybe we should ask why such a large amount has gone to education and so little to health? In theory, state funding follows the NHS patient/ school pupil so if there is a greater requirement here due to the development, there should be a reduced requirement (and hence budget funding) somewhere else. It doesnt work in practise like that of course but maybe ECC knew of a forthcoming school expense and it was convenient to get someone else (Countryside) to pay for it.
On a separate point, where have all the nutters from Runwell Hospital gone?
Maybe we should ask why such a large amount has gone to education and so little to health? In theory, state funding follows the NHS patient/ school pupil so if there is a greater requirement here due to the development, there should be a reduced requirement (and hence budget funding) somewhere else. It doesnt work in practise like that of course but maybe ECC knew of a forthcoming school expense and it was convenient to get someone else (Countryside) to pay for it. On a separate point, where have all the nutters from Runwell Hospital gone? GrumpyofLeigh
  • Score: 0

5:37pm Mon 11 Aug 14

Howard Cháse says...

GrumpyofLeigh wrote:
Maybe we should ask why such a large amount has gone to education and so little to health? In theory, state funding follows the NHS patient/ school pupil so if there is a greater requirement here due to the development, there should be a reduced requirement (and hence budget funding) somewhere else. It doesnt work in practise like that of course but maybe ECC knew of a forthcoming school expense and it was convenient to get someone else (Countryside) to pay for it.
On a separate point, where have all the nutters from Runwell Hospital gone?
They're all on Don't Care In The Community probably....
[quote][p][bold]GrumpyofLeigh[/bold] wrote: Maybe we should ask why such a large amount has gone to education and so little to health? In theory, state funding follows the NHS patient/ school pupil so if there is a greater requirement here due to the development, there should be a reduced requirement (and hence budget funding) somewhere else. It doesnt work in practise like that of course but maybe ECC knew of a forthcoming school expense and it was convenient to get someone else (Countryside) to pay for it. On a separate point, where have all the nutters from Runwell Hospital gone?[/p][/quote]They're all on Don't Care In The Community probably.... Howard Cháse
  • Score: 2

6:43pm Mon 11 Aug 14

Fab man says...

GrumpyofLeigh wrote:
Maybe we should ask why such a large amount has gone to education and so little to health? In theory, state funding follows the NHS patient/ school pupil so if there is a greater requirement here due to the development, there should be a reduced requirement (and hence budget funding) somewhere else. It doesnt work in practise like that of course but maybe ECC knew of a forthcoming school expense and it was convenient to get someone else (Countryside) to pay for it.
On a separate point, where have all the nutters from Runwell Hospital gone?
All the nutters can be found in the House of Parliament/Lords.
[quote][p][bold]GrumpyofLeigh[/bold] wrote: Maybe we should ask why such a large amount has gone to education and so little to health? In theory, state funding follows the NHS patient/ school pupil so if there is a greater requirement here due to the development, there should be a reduced requirement (and hence budget funding) somewhere else. It doesnt work in practise like that of course but maybe ECC knew of a forthcoming school expense and it was convenient to get someone else (Countryside) to pay for it. On a separate point, where have all the nutters from Runwell Hospital gone?[/p][/quote]All the nutters can be found in the House of Parliament/Lords. Fab man
  • Score: 2

6:46pm Mon 11 Aug 14

Fab man says...

Ontheball wrote:
Of course they should contribute. They are creating the extra schooling requirements and adding to the road and medical burden whilst making millions. The London borough thing is a red herring since no one knows where the new residents will come from.
Go to London & then see who moves into the new properties. You will get your answer then as the same thing happens in all new Essex housing developments.
[quote][p][bold]Ontheball[/bold] wrote: Of course they should contribute. They are creating the extra schooling requirements and adding to the road and medical burden whilst making millions. The London borough thing is a red herring since no one knows where the new residents will come from.[/p][/quote]Go to London & then see who moves into the new properties. You will get your answer then as the same thing happens in all new Essex housing developments. Fab man
  • Score: 1

6:47pm Mon 11 Aug 14

Fab man says...

Ontheball wrote:
Of course they should contribute. They are creating the extra schooling requirements and adding to the road and medical burden whilst making millions. The London borough thing is a red herring since no one knows where the new residents will come from.
Go to London & then see who moves into the new properties. You will get your answer then as the same thing happens in all new Essex housing developments.
[quote][p][bold]Ontheball[/bold] wrote: Of course they should contribute. They are creating the extra schooling requirements and adding to the road and medical burden whilst making millions. The London borough thing is a red herring since no one knows where the new residents will come from.[/p][/quote]Go to London & then see who moves into the new properties. You will get your answer then as the same thing happens in all new Essex housing developments. Fab man
  • Score: 1

7:26am Tue 12 Aug 14

abd123 says...

The people who will live there already use medical resources somewhere else. There is no extra burden on the country. They are building houses not creating people.
The people who will live there already use medical resources somewhere else. There is no extra burden on the country. They are building houses not creating people. abd123
  • Score: 2

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree