Is it a fact of life that people only get what they want by shouting and screaming? We've heard enough ranting about this proposal, some of it quite sophistucated from both sides of the fence. I'm not sure if calm consideration comes into the equation these days. There appears to be a lot of resentment about the whole affair. Perhaps it's been fuelled by the well publicised increases in doctor's salaries. It would be totally unfair for people's voices not to be heard just because someone else is screaming.The argument between green belt and public service is one in particular which needs careful consideration-and we could blather on for ages about it. One thing I do know is that we certainly need a more reasoned approach of which your communication is a perfectly good example.

Dave Halls letter may well have been a little strong in his terminology but it is in response to the PCT`s blatant disregard for not one but two rejections from a democratically elected council`s planning department who represent the interests of the constituents of Wirral. That does suggest to me that the PCT are prepared to spend large sums of public money in pursuit of a cause which has been lost twice. Maybe not illegal but certainly immoral

I would have thought an elderly population would rather have their GP's in a central location rather than on the outskirts of the catchment area?

Surely there are plenty of sites for this building to be located without encroaching on green belt?

I just cannot accept that there is not another agenda here especially given the way Mr Hesford appears to be going against the wishes of his constituents?

Reminds me of John Prescott's famous quote 'the Green Belt was a Labour initiative and we intend to build on it'

No Mr, Mrs or Miss Crick, I do not agree with you, I suspect that you may well be one of those patients who has received the manipulative, group practice letter

I refer to The West Wirral Group Practice who has canvassed every patient on their lists with a letter asking for support in the forthcoming Public Inquiry (Polyclinic appeal/The Warrens). I wish to challenge the contents of this letter trivialising the concerns of the objectors, I happened to be at the planning meeting when Councillors rejected it, as a retired senior nurse it was of immense interest to me.

Surely it is unethical for Doctors to bulldoze opinion of patients in their care. I do not live in that catchment area, nor would I wish to if commercial priorities override locally provided surgeries, however ‘Excellent’ they claim to be.

It was by no means “a small group of very local residents” (quote from WW Group Practice). Expert representatives with the objectors put forth a believable and well researched case regarding the potential health and environmental impacts of the proposed Polyclinic. The PCT’s impact studies for the Polyclinic and promises of enhanced clinical care was not sufficiently convincing.

Anyone who attended the planning meeting would have listened to a case put by several agencies and those representing the objectors. On this occasion, Councillors rejected this application, I think in the interests of the whole community not just for the commercial aspirations of the Polyclinic and its shareholders.

Apparently the BMA are urging patients to sign a petition against Government proposals to introduce these so called polyclinics. They, that is the doctors, believe that these super clinics will fragment patient care, damage GP services, and lead to the closure of hundreds of small practices. On that basis, how does that square with The West Wirral Group Practice appealing to their patients to support such a clinic when the BMA are strongly against them?

In a personal capacity, I support the Planning Committee's decisions to refuse outline planning permission for a polyclinic on The Warrens site.

However, there are two things I would like to urge people to remember.

Firstly, this long democratic process will culminate in a public inquiry later this year where an independent Planning Inspector will examine afresh all of the evidence put forward and come to a reasoned judgement, which will not be unduly swayed by grandstanding from either side.

If those members of the public strongly in favour of the application have not made their views known already then it is probably too late for them to do so. However, this does not mean that they have somehow been disadvantaged because those who oppose the application have done so within the statutory time limits.

There is no inequality of representation here, particularly as the supporters have the weight of an MP; the professional expertise of the PCT, and probably barristers and paid Planning experts behind them to argue their case!

It is not simply a case of the squeaky gate getting the oil, but of strong opinions expressed within an established and fair framework of rules and time limits.

Secondly, this is an outline application. Even if the supporters do win out, it is only the principle of development that is at issue here (unless the plans put forward are not simply illustrative).

So, if the supporters of the application do win at appeal, they still have quite a steep climb remaining when trying to convince the Planning Committee that any reserved matters can be successfully reconciled with the continuing need to preserve the openess of the Green Belt.

To use a journalistic metaphor - this is a story that will run and run and is unlikely to be the last such case as Green Belt land becomes more and more jealously coveted!

The PCT has made it abundantly clear that polyclinics are the way forward. The reason why local GPs aren't objecting is that their operation isn't going out to tender to commercial operators like United healthcare or Virgin. Had this been the case the doctors would have opposed the plans as fiercely as the other objectors.