Sir, – Your lead article (Herald, September 30) regarding the fierce criticism of the financial management of Guildford & Waverley Primary Care Trust deserves further comment. Patients and staff have a right to know what steps, other than to close beds, sack staff and deny patients care, have been taken by the PCT to deal with the anticipated £6.2 million cash shortfall. For example, has the PCT considered plugging the financial gap with the sale of redundant assets? In particular, I have in mind the unused, gently decaying former health centre building adjacent to Brightwell House. This building, which has been vacant for almost two years, occupies a very valuable key development site right in the centre of Farnham. Waverley Borough Council, acting with a large developer, plans to erect a vast eight-screen, 1,200-seat cinema surrounded on all sides by a multi-storey façade of residential flats on the site now occupied by the old health centre. To WBC and their "development partners", possession of the site is essential and the potential profits immense. Will the PCT management give us all an assurance that they will face up to their responsibilities and fight to ensure that a very large percentage of this windfall profit is secured for primary health care? Will the PCT management also ensure that any cash is obtained now, when it is needed in this financial year? Normally, when there is a proposal to dispose of PCT property, it is essential that planning consent for change of use is secured and the property advertised on the open market to ensure transparency and that the best price is obtained. However, I accept that this case may not be normal. In the conditional contract between WBC and the developer, signed in April 2003, WBC undertook to acquire the health centre for the developer by compulsory purchase if necessary. If WBC were to exercise its powers, much would depend on the basis of the valuation of the site. Will the PCT management insist that the site is not valued as a rather dilapidated 1960s building with planning consent for health only, but rather as a key ransom site of immense value reflecting its manifest development potential? By confronting the PCT with the possibility of compulsory purchase, WBC needs be in no hurry to hand over any payment to the PCT. The East Street project meanders on and no firm date has been set for the PCT to receive any desperately needed cash from the sale of this valuable asset. Even so, I for one will not accept that the PCT is "...between a rock and a hard place" and that no action is possible. If the full resources of NHS Estates and the Department of Health were employed, WBC could be compelled to pay the PCT the same value for the site as if it had been placed on the open market, and pay it now. Just £219,000 would prevent the closure of 10 beds at Farnham Hospital and the loss of valuable experienced staff. With energy and determination this cut could be prevented and a sizeable reduction made to the £6.2 million deficit. Chief executives are paid to manage and take hard decisions. Chairmen are appointed to ensure that chief executives think laterally, fight for their organisation and do not shrink from confrontation. Supine management is not an option. If the present incumbents won't champion the cause of staff and patients, they might have the grace to hand the challenge on to others who will. B G Davey, Frith End, Bordon
