A chicken hatchery on Gonerby Road
On Gonerby Road, at the edge of Gonerby Hill Foot, sits a building that spent most of its working life as a commercial poultry hatchery. The Moy Park Hatchery operated here on an industrial scale — the kind of premises designed around incubation trays, temperature control, and livestock throughput, not waiting rooms or clinical referrals. In April 2022, the same structure opened as Grantham's Community Diagnostic Centre.
The provenance is publicly documented and specific. This is not a vague former warehouse or a nondescript retail unit; it is a named agricultural-industrial site, and that particularity matters. The NHS CDC programme has found homes in shopping centres, leisure facilities, and university buildings, but conversion from a commercial poultry hatchery is unusual even within a programme that has made a virtue of unconventional locations.
The central tension is straightforward: a building engineered for egg production now houses MRI scanners, CT equipment, echocardiogram suites, and diabetic eye screening. What the site was, and what it is now asked to do, are almost as far apart as two uses can be.
State-of-the-art scanners in an industrial shell
The 2024 expansion made the clinical ambition explicit. In March 2024, a £5 million investment introduced MRI and CT scanners to the site — equipment that, in most NHS contexts, sits inside the imaging departments of district general or teaching hospitals. Combined with existing services, the facility now covers eight diagnostic pathways, from plain-film X-ray and echocardiogram to DEXA bone-density scanning and abdominal aortic aneurysm screening.
MRI is worth pausing on. The technology demands shielded rooms, superconducting magnetic fields, and dedicated patient-preparation areas capable of handling claustrophobia protocols and contrast procedures. It does not slot easily into any building. By the time the new scanners arrived, the site had already delivered more than 75,000 tests for Lincolnshire patients — so the expansion was a commitment to something close to a full hospital imaging suite in function, if not in form.
The distinction between function and form is where this gets interesting. The clinical specification is unambiguous; the building it occupies was engineered for entirely different processes. Patients referred for an MRI at a former poultry hatchery are not walking into a poorly resourced service — but they are walking into a place that was never designed to signal 'this is where serious medicine happens', and that gap shows up in patient feedback in ways that are telling without being damning.
What patients actually notice
The most revealing piece of feedback from the site does not come from a complaint. Patient representative Andrew David, quoted after the 2024 expansion, described 'clean, fast, efficient service' and staff who put him 'completely at ease'. His summary line was: 'Gone are the queues, delays and gloomy corridors.' That last phrase is worth sitting with. Gloomy corridors are what he apparently expected — and was pleased not to find. The compliment is shaped by an anticipation of something worse, which tells us something about what the building's exterior or reputation communicated before he walked through the door.
Healthwatch Lincolnshire's April 2024 enter-and-view report, drawing on feedback from 127 patients, confirmed the overall picture: high satisfaction with staff professionalism and cleanliness. But it also flagged two persistent problems — on-site wayfinding signage and pre-appointment communication about the non-hospital setting. These are not minor administrative oversights. They are symptoms of a building that does not yet generate the spatial cues patients normally rely on to orient themselves in a clinical context: the departmental signs, the familiar NHS interior grammar, the legible sense that this is a place equipped to manage something serious.
Navigational confusion in a diagnostic centre is not just inconvenient. Arriving uncertain of where to go, or what kind of facility you are entering, raises the ambient uncertainty patients bring to any medical appointment — before a single test has begun.
Why a former hatchery feels different from a retail park
There is a well-documented pattern in the national CDC programme: patients arriving at a repurposed non-hospital setting often bring preconceptions of inferior or less serious care — concerns about privacy, noise levels, and whether the facility can really handle something medically significant. Those concerns tend to dissolve once the appointment begins. This gap between expectation at the door and experience inside has been described as threshold anxiety, and Grantham is far from alone in generating it. Around 30 of the 165 operational CDCs in England were running from temporary or non-permanent capacity as of mid-2024, across settings as varied as shopping centres, university campuses, and football stadiums.
But the nature of the prior use is not neutral. A retail park or leisure centre carries broadly familiar, human-centred associations — places designed around footfall, comfort, and people's time. A commercial agricultural building carries a different register entirely: industrial scale, functional rather than human-centred design, operations oriented around process rather than individual experience. A former hatchery was engineered around the needs of poultry, not patients. The associations it carries have more distance to travel before they resolve into clinical confidence.
That distinction is an inference rather than a measured finding — no published study has examined agricultural-to-clinical conversion and patient trust specifically — but it draws on a mechanism the national literature supports clearly enough to take seriously.
The interior is what matters, mostly
Research offers a partial reassurance — and a more demanding corollary. A 2022 study published in Frontiers in Psychology surveyed 367 GP clinic patients and found that interior decor, ambiance, and cleanliness were all significant predictors of patient trust and satisfaction. Exterior design, by contrast, was not associated with either. The building's shell carries less weight than what a patient encounters once they cross the threshold.
That finding does not let the interior off the hook — it loads more weight onto it. A 2025 review of 25 experimental studies, published in Buildings, found that the aesthetic quality of clinical interiors, particularly nature imagery and calming visual elements, consistently reduced patient stress, anxiety, and pain while enhancing satisfaction. A separate study on paediatric oncology inpatients found that perceived environment satisfaction significantly mediated overall healthcare satisfaction — meaning that clinical quality and spatial quality are not fully separable in a patient's mind. How a space feels shapes how a service is judged.
For Grantham, the implication is precise rather than abstract. The former hatchery exterior may not, on its own, undermine confidence in what happens inside. But if the interior lacks the calming aesthetic cues associated with purpose-built clinical design — settled atmosphere, visual elements that communicate care rather than industrial process — then the gap between the equipment's sophistication and the environment's character becomes legible to patients. Excellent clinical kit inside a space that still reads as functional and utilitarian may not earn the confidence it deserves.
Wayfinding and spatial legibility as clinical requirements
Getting a non-clinical shell to function as a clinical space is not simply a matter of installing the right machines. An NHS ophthalmology diagnostic hub, repurposed from empty commercial real estate and studied in a 2022 co-design paper, required three separate layout configurations — each tested with approximately 1,000 patients — before the space achieved acceptable safety, efficiency, and staff satisfaction. The iterative process was not perfectionism; it was the minimum work needed to make a non-clinical building navigate like one. CPMG Architects, in guidance on CDC design, describe calming interiors, intuitive wayfinding, and spatial legibility as essential clinical requirements — not finishes applied after the clinical work is complete.
The Healthwatch Lincolnshire report from April 2024 identified persistent gaps in on-site signage and pre-appointment communication at Grantham. Those are exactly the failure modes that emerge when a repurposed shell receives equipment investment without equivalent attention to how patients move through it and understand what they are entering. The two types of investment are not competing priorities — a £5 million scanner upgrade and a coherent wayfinding system both serve the same clinical mission.
What the Grantham case makes visible, quietly, is a wider assumption embedded in NHS diagnostic policy: that quality is measured in equipment, and that the building around the equipment is a secondary concern. For most of the CDC programme's 165 operational sites, that assumption has remained untested. On Gonerby Road, in a building that once processed eggs rather than patients, it is harder to ignore.
- [1] Determinants of patients' satisfaction and trust toward healthcare service environment in general practice clinics. (2022). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.856750 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.856750
- [2] Benefits of Nature Imagery and Visual Art in Healthcare Contexts: A View from Empirical Aesthetics. (2025). https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15071027 https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15071027
- [3] Quantifying the Relationship Among Hospital Design, Satisfaction, and Psychosocial Functioning in a Pediatric Hematology-Oncology Inpatient Unit. (2011). https://doi.org/10.1177/193758671100400404 https://doi.org/10.1177/193758671100400404
- [4] Driving Innovation in Healthcare Design: The case of an interdisciplinary co-design process for a new rapid virtual diagnostics hub for eyes. (2022). https://doi.org/10.24404/62344823caad020dcc847405 https://doi.org/10.24404/62344823caad020dcc847405