• AS someone whose life was almost certainly saved by the Soho NHS Walk-in Centre, which is visited by 40,000+ people a year, I would like to make a positive suggestion.

I have also visited the centre for various issues over the years thus saving the time of my GP and A&E. I thought that was one reason for such centres.

I gather one option is an Urgent Treatment Centre replacing the current centre which would be a positive outcome especially if comes under Camden and University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust as the Central London Clinical Commissioning Group who run the building want to close the centre. Its closure would almost certainly lead to more pressure on UCH’s A&E department.

There are, in fact, two sides to the building, one entered in Soho Square and the other in Frith Street and the latter has always housed the medical facilities, while the Soho side was intended as NHS offices. Their upkeep, maintenance and improvement, is clearly a heavy burden for the NHS.

Five years ago the NHS applied to have the Soho Square side used as commercial offices but this was refused by Westminster who invited the NHS to reapply with modifications.

Surely the sensible way forward is for the NHS to revisit its previous proposals for commercial office use in the Soho Square side which could provide the income needed to run both buildings and, at least in part subsidise medical services.

Such an application should include a S106 agreement (a legal agreement) to continue the Frith Street building for medical uses in return for income-generating uses in the other building and to do so in liaison with the Camden side of the NHS.

The S106 could also include a commitment to keep both buildings in NHS ownership given the temptations to sell valuable assets. In addition one area for use by local groups could be part of the S106.

I dare say the council and the NHS will raise “complications”, but where there is a will there is a way. Let’s hope all parties exercise the will to maintain these key facilities and bring back those which were removed.

Readers might look at www.thesohosociety.org.uk which has a survey and information on public meetings to be held on February 3 and 10.

The Soho Society survey has had almost 300 mostly detailed responses in a short space of time, indicating that a proper consultation rather than “engagement” is needed.

DAVID BIEDA
Address supplied