THE forthcoming closure of Bury General Hospital and the transfer of facilities to Fairfield General raises a number of issues which give cause for concern.
The official figures show that there will be a substantial increase in the number of patients treated at Fairfield from the year 2000.
The number treated under the heading of Accident and Emergency will increase from 6,000 to 61,000 per annum. Similarly, outpatients will increase from 51,000 to 122,000 per annum. The number of beds will increase from 449 to 573 (incidentally, Bury General at present has 237 beds, leaving a shortfall of 113 beds. This will inevitably have a serious effect on the waiting lists). If the 658 staff at Bury General are added to the 937 staff at Fairfield this would give a figure of 1,595. This figure may, of course, be subject to some reduction! It is proposed to increase the number of car parking spaces from 600 to 780. In view of the figures I have quoted, this would appear to be woefully inadequate. The predictable solution is that car parking charges will be levied for staff, patients and visitors. This will, of course, encourage many people to park in the streets nearby, leading to disputes with local residents.
Will there be residents-only designated parking areas in order to combat this problem?
Following a study of traffic between Bury and Fairfield Hospital, one possible recommendation is to demolish a row of property on the southern side of Rochdale Old Road, opposite Fourth Avenue. This would seem to suggest that road widening is under consideration along this stretch of road.
However, no such proposals are envisaged for the stretch of road between the hospital entrance and Jericho terminus, part of which is very narrow and potentially dangerous.
Fairfield Hospital is going to be extremely busy for many years into the new millennium. Hopefully, the above comments may stimulate a response from Bury Council and Bury and Rochdale Health Authority which may go some way to alleviating these concerns.
FUTURE PATIENT
Converted for the new archive on 14 July 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article