SPECIALIST ARCHITECTURE
New-build or refurbish in the healthcare sector?
The post-virus world sets immense challenges for every aspect of the healthcare estate, particularly in the creation of modern facilities which are fit-for purpose to accommodate the latest technology and practices. Nowhere is this more acute than in the charitable sector, where funding has seen such a dramatic decline. Mura Mullan, Healthcare director at Newcastle-based JDDK Architects, explains how the practice works with one national provider to find solutions to location and budget challenges.
JDDK Architects and Sue Ryder have forged a close working relationship over the last decade, having collaborated closely since 2012. Together they have completed projects at Sue Ryder Thorpe Hall Hospice in Peterborough, and Sue Ryder Neurological Care Centre The Chantry in Ipswich, and have also undertaken options appraisals on various Sue Ryder properties across the UK. Sue Ryder provides palliative and neurological care across the UK in its hospices and specialist neurological care centres, as well as within clients’ homes. JDDK Architects was established in Newcastle upon Tyne in 1986, and, from the outset, has developed an expertise in the design of specialist care buildings, having been involved in over 100 hospice and assisted living projects to date, many of which have received recognition through design awards.
Over the course of 2020, two of Sue Ryder’s neurological care centres, designed by JDDK Architects, reached completion, and are now operational. Although there are significant similarities between the two schemes, there are also fundamental differences in the scope of work, location, and procurement routes, all of which have had an impact upon the completed building in each case. The primary difference, however, is that
The Sue Ryder Thorpe Hall Hospice in Peterborough..
one project is new-build (Sue Ryder Neurological Care Centre Lancashire), while the other entailed the refurbishment and extension of an existing building (Sue Ryder Neurological Care Centre Dee View Court in Aberdeen). Given the current challenges facing the charity sector, particularly in relation to fundraising, it seems like an appropriate time to compare the differences between the two schemes, and to try to understand whether the decision to extend or
relocate, in each case, provided the client with the optimum value in terms of the finished product.
Reasons for investment A good starting point, in terms of the background to each project, may be to understand the reasons behind Sue Ryder’s decision to invest in two significant new capital projects simultaneously. The fundamental reason for this is that since 2000 Sue Ryder has seen a huge change in the needs of its clients.
Cuerden Hall was formerly a grand family home between 1717 and 1906, and was subsequently used by the Army until the 1960s, before becoming a Sue Ryder Neurological Care Centre 20 years ago.
26 Health Estate Journal October 2020
The closure of long-term hospital wards, and changes to the level of care offered by community facilities, have seen increased levels of residential nursing care for those with more complex needs. Many clients are now progressing much further in their disease trajectory than would previously have been the case, and while some of this is undoubtedly driven by medical advances – which are helping clients to live for longer – it is also partly due to social expectations, and people’s changing perceptions of how high-quality specialist care should be provided. JDDK Architects had been developing architectural solutions for both Sue Ryder
©JDDK Architects
©JDDK Architects
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108
