Fate of Birdsgrove House to be decided shortly by the new Council
The fate of Birdsgrove House, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s rest and recuperation facility, is to be decided shortly. The Society’s new Council will make a decision on whether to continue with the house after considering a report that the Society expects to receive by the end of this month.
The report is a feasibility study commissioned after the National Care
Standards Commission identified a considerable amount of work necessary
if the house is to meet new legal requirements. Until the report appears,
the Society has no firm idea of the expenditure necessary, although an
initial assessment put the capital cost at about £350,000.
That information was given to the discussion forum held before the Society’s
annual general
meeting on 24 May, after the issue had been raised by
Bill Brookes (South Cheshire). Mr Brookes said that the problem of Birdsgrove
House seemed to have been going on for two or three years, yet the members
had heard nothing about it until letters appeared in The Journal recently.
That was not a good sign. He asked why matters were taking so long and
when the members would be involved in discussions. The members had a
right to know what was going on.
In response, Bernard Kelly, the Society’s director of finance and
resources, referred to his recent article in The Journal (PJ, 14 May,
p596) and said that, although the matter had evolved over 2003 and 2004,
it was not until a visit by the NCSC in June 2004 that the threat to
rest and recuperation was established. All those affected by the suspension
of the service, and those who subsequently enquired, had been informed
of the suspension. But there was no general correspondence with members
because no decision had yet been made about whether the services would
be reinstated in due course.
A great deal of work was needed to comply with all the NCSC requirements.
The immediate focus was to update and improve the internal operating
procedures, so that the house could continue to operate initially both
as a rest and recuperation area, and as an addiction clinic. The implications
of complying with the Disability Discrimination Act on a longer-term
basis required careful consideration.
The initial figure of £350,000 referred to the capital costs required
to comply with the Act. It involved things like fire escapes, access
and lift issues, and even replacing the gravel paths with asphalt to
make the gardens more accessible to the infirm. Issues like that had
to be considered carefully before an answer was determined. There were
also the ongoing costs of maintaining such an old building.
A risk management assessment had been carried out to help consider all
the issues, and the feasibility study had been undertaken by mechanical
and electrical specialists and architectural and structural specialists,
in consultation with the listed building architectural department of
Derbyshire County Council, based on the Health Commission’s recommendations.
Mr Kelly said that the Society could not willingly and easily commit
to an expense of the order of £350,000. There were no easy options.
The rest and recuperation facility was not financially viable without
the addiction clinic.
He added that he was sure that the new Council members, acting in their
capacity of charity trustees of the Benevolent Fund, would be interested
in any suggestions that members may have to make on the subject.
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal