I WAS unable to be present at the Primary Care Trust Meeting on Wednesday, October 2, but have received disturbing reports from both individuals and through the Malvern Gazette report and editorial (October 4, 2002) of what went on.

I am both puzzled and dismayed that there appears to be a question mark (yet again) over a new hospital and resource centre for Malvern's potential 100,000 users.

Why the need to 'put off' a decision until the December Trust meeting for more 'in-depth' studies? As recently as July, as the result of nearly two years of project board and project team meetings, an outline business case was produced ready for submission to the Health Authority.

At a two-day seminar in the mid-1990s held in Malvern, consultants from the Regional Health Authority met with representatives from all interested parties and it was recommended by the consultants that a purpose-built hospital and various ancillary resources should be built on a site already owned by the authority, Seaford Court, and costed at approximately £5 million.

In 2001-2002 a project board and project team met regularly to evaluate and cost various options in depth and as a matter of urgency because the National Service Framework of 1998 had decreed that 'Acute' hospitals (such as WRI Worcester) should be 'Centres of Excellence' and used to treat patients in their 'Acute Stage' and hospitals such as Malvern would continue treatment in a Community Hospital close to their homes, where necessary.

We now have a situation in South Worcestershire whereby there are not enough beds in the Acute Hospital and a purpose-built new hospital is still not a certainty in Malvern.

Ask the Acute Trust Board how many patients return to WRI inside a month because they were sent home too early and how many patients are 'bed-blocking' because there is nowhere suitable for them to go? They have talked endlessly of new 'initiatives' for the last five years and the new resource in Malvern was part of that initiative.

Meanwhile, statistically we will have 21 per cent of residents aged 65 and over as compared to 16 per cent average by 2003 and time is running out.

The 'Vision of Worcestershire' detailed in the paper Partnership towards Excellence - a Community Strategy for Worcestershire tabled by the PCT on October 2 proudly states: "When people require social or health care we will ensure that the right service is available quickly, in the right place at the right time ..."

In conclusion, I understand it has cost £40,000 a year to maintain the Seaford Court site with its derelict buildings.

I acknowledge there will never be enough money to achieve all our aspirations but the new PCT's first duty must be for a new purpose-built hospital and resource centre including a minor injuries unit and a diagnostic centre. The 'Inter-mediate Care Nursing Team', MacMillan Nurse, social workers would be on the site - as would their cars.

I fear it does not auger well for the future relationship between the residents of Malvern and the Primary Care Trust, despite the wordy leaflet received this week, if, because of the further reviews, reports and endless meetings and costs, which appear to be escalating out of control, the public are confirmed in their opinion that South Worcestershire has inherited a further bureaucratic nightmare.

On a light note and tongue in cheek, may I remind members of the steering group that most of them were late for a 9am start on September 19 because of the volume of traffic and of course Worcester is reached from most of the Malvern area by two bridges - both of which were closed by floods in 2001.

Malvern does not want a new facility - it needs one and deserves one.

PAT MERRICK, Lower Wilton Road, Malvern.