The action group said in a statement: "This proposal for a mixed use development including a new Inverurie Medical centre, retail units, gymnasium, spa and offices with associated car parking was rejected by Aberdeenshire Council in October 2007. The reasons given relate to the proposed site which is outwith the town centre, the loss of a green space in a 'protected Area' and concerns over increased traffic and public safety.

"In spite of this, the developers, Carden Medical Investments have resubmitted the plans for planning approval having made only minor changes. As a group of interested residents we do not believe these changes alter the reasons for rejection of the proposal by the Council first time round. We believe the general public in Inverurie should be made more aware of this proposal and should be encouraged to join in a public debate on its pros and cons."

The statement added: "The building and associated car parking would result in the loss of green space designated as "Protected" under the Local Plan. The field is used by Inverurie Academy pupils on an informal basis and by local youth groups as a playing field. The developers plan to squeeze a junior sized football pitch into the remaining area but there will be no changing or car parking facilities and no general public access.

"Inverurie needs a new health centre. However, we believe the proposed Life Centre will not deliver the integrated health benefits claimed for it buy the developers. In addition, we believe that the proposed site will have serious adverse effects on Inverurie in terms of public safety and traffic congestion. We would like therefore to outline why we believe this proposal should again be rejected by the Council. There are three main issues:

• The proposed location of the Centre.
• The flaws in the proposed Life Centre approach.
• The commercial method of funding.

"Local people will have to live by the decision made by Aberdeenshire Councillors and it is important that all of the above issues are fully debated before they make such a momentous decision."

The action group pointed out that the original proposal attracted over 80 letters of opposition with only three in support. They also highlighted that the opposition last time, led by the Old Sandhole Residents Association, focused on the objections to the loss of a green space in a "Protected Area", road safety issues, traffic volume increases, narrow roads, inadequate parking, appearance and the commercial composition of the Life Centre.

They point to the four reasons that Aberdeenshire Council refused planning permission previously, which they state still apply.

• "Protected Areas and Other Open Areas in Settlements, specifically that only a small proportion of the development is for a medical centre or other essential community facility"; "the site lies outwith the town centre and there are more appropriate sites available within the area being more sustainable, being better located adjacent to existing parking areas and the transport interchange"; and the proposal "would result in the loss of an important green space in the town centre and an important community space".

• Regarding sustainability principles, the site is "outwith the town centre and thus not considered a sustainable location".

• "The layout, siting and design is not laid out to fit successfully into the site and would not respect the character and amenity of the surrounding area."

• Relating to traffic, parking, servicing and accessibility, "the proposals will result in a substantial increase in traffic movements at a busy location to the detriment of vehicle and pedestrian safety".

The action group also point to the "flaws" in the "Life Centre" approach saying that the developers "claim the centre will provide a holistic approach to health care with integration of a medical centre and complementary health care.
"However, the reality is rather different since, although it is intended that complementary health practitioners are housed in the building, this will be on a commercial basis. Practitioners will have to pay rent for their accommodation, which inevitably will be passed on to the public as a fee for their treatment.

"This will mean many in the community will be excluded from their services because they cannot afford them. This comes at a time when some doctors are seriously attempting to integrate complementary medicine into their medical practice. This will not happen in the Garioch Life Centre since the medical centre will be housed on the first floor completely separate from the commercial complementary services on the ground floor

"In our opinion the Life Centre is a façade for a commercial development which uses the idea of integration of traditional and complementary health services to persuade us that it is at the forefront of medical innovation."

The statement concluded: "If planning approval is given, the developers will act as the landlord, charging a rent from occupiers of the premises. This will include the medical centre which the NHS will have to finance. Thus taxpayers will fund the rental for the entire life of the medical centre. This will be at an ever-increasing rate due to inflation and the rising cost of maintaining the building. In our opinion the proposed Centre is, from the developers perspective, a commercial proposal primarily focused on making profit.

"Aberdeenshire Council should consider whether the sale of its own land for a commercial development which will result in significant ongoing costs to the local taxpayers is the most acceptable and cost-effective way of providing the first class medical facility which the people of Inverurie deserve.

"Members of the public can view the plans at Gordon House and make comments which will be considered as part of the planning process. Your views are important."