Notes of the Nelson Hospital Workshops held on 9 November 2005 at Wimbledon School of Art

Attended by over 80 members of the local community and facilitated by:
Cllr Jillian Ashton, Chair of the Nelson Community Reference Group (chair)
Bob Welchman John Innes Society
Gabby Walters Project Manager Sutton and Merton Primary Care Trust
Marcus Beale Wimbledon Civic Forum Urban Design Taskforce
Tim Day Wimbledon Civic Forum Urban Design Taskforce
Tony Tsoukkas Wimbledon Civic Forum Urban Design Taskforce
Ged Lawrenson London Borough of Merton Plans and Projects
Anne Bamford Wimbledon School of Art.

Gabby Walters explained that the plans for the hospital were at an early stage, and the clinical brief has yet to be finalised, but it includes at present: no overnight beds, but a continuation and expansion of the diagnostic and day care provisions currently provided. The document Better Healthcare Closer To Home was tabled for those who had not already seen it. The purpose of the meeting was to find out the wishes of local residents so that this could be incorporated into the brief for the designers of the hospital.

Cllr Ashton thanked hosts WSA and organisers of the workshops, and explained that the meeting would split into groups to discuss themes surrounding the development.

Marcus Beale explained that since the consultation was happening at an early stage, residents had the possibility of significantly affecting the design. The results of the meeting will be taken forward with SMPCT, and the planning department at Merton.

Stephen Hammond MP forwarded a message which was read to the meeting:
I am sorry I can't be with you for the Workshops tonight, but I hope they are successful because the redevelopment of the Nelson Hospital could and should be a catalyst for renewal and improvement of the surrounding areas.  Whilst making sure that we build a model hospital, we must not neglect the opportunities that exist outside the hospital site.  You, the local residents, are the real experts about this place, and it is important that your expertise is fed into the design process at an early stage.   I will be taking a close interest in the Nelson Hospital development and will ensure to the best of my ability that the issues raised at tonight's meeting will be considered as the project proceeds. 
With best wishes, Stephen Hammond MP.

The workshop split into groups, considering:
- Best uses of the site
- Integration into Local Community, a safe environment, noise
- Transport and Access
- Other Issues.
Additionally a paper of ‘Beacon issues’ was submitted.
In this summary we have grouped the views expressed into themes. A diversity of views expressed for some issues is reflected in the text. Points raised by the groups in group order are at appendix A below.

Character of the new Hospital buildings.
Most in favour of rebuilding entirely and not keeping the facade. Mixed feelings about retention versus demolition of the buildings: benefits of new facilities, but reluctance to lose the fine brick buildings.
The war memorial and foundation stone should be preserved if the buildings are demolished.
Retain the intimate character of the hospital.
Should be two storeys high.
Keep as low as possible without sacrificing services.
Concern over three storey height - needs to be two storey equivalent height.
Scope for basement development including servicing - but consider impact on Manor Gardens.
Scale of development has to respect and integrate with local area.
Preference for good modern design rather than retention of frontage buildings.
Clear footpaths and internal organisation of the site - must be easier to find one’s way around the new hospital.
Tree planting over open areas such as car parks - a green environment.
Minimise land for car parking - perhaps multi storey?
Why can’t we keep the existing hospital?
Consider keeping the old facade.
Don’t want another St. George's i.e. the scale and complexity of the building.
Should be sympathetic the Conservation Area in terms of scale and design.
What other buildings have the selected architects designed. Can these be visited. Do they have a preconceived idea of the design?
John Dees House should be removed.

Relationship to Kingston Road.
Consider the relationship with Kingston Road - pavement is currently narrow - possibly widen it.  
Should present a continuous frontage to Kingston Road 
The development should act as a buffer to Manor Gardens.
Support the idea of a noise barrier on Kingston Road, but balanced against patients needs for a quiet environment.

The Rush.

Improve the Rush - a possible entrance to the site.
- Re-use this area to allow better/easier access to the Hospital e.g. drop offs, entrance
- Concerns over pedestrianisation: will get abused by people from the pub and boys from Rutlish school.
- Enforce parking restrictions - stop illegal parking especially from the garage.
- do not allow any parking whatsoever.
- no Cafe

Return the Rush to pedestrians.

The Rush, could it be a pull up with buses,
there is enough room in the rush for arrival and departure of buses
i.e. main entrance for people arriving by vehicle, with a turning circle around the entrance.
Important to retain the Rush, and the green triangle:
- don’t want it replaced with hard surfaces
- retain its identity or have a piazza with planting.

The Rush should be integrated sympathetically into the scheme and conservation area.

No new retail use jeopardising local shops, e.g. florist, pharmacy, bakers, newsagents.

Access points:
Do not like multiple separate entrances, suggest only two entrances:
- for patients and staff
- for servicing.
Would prefer not to have an entrance from Watery lane or Cleveland Avenue, which is narrow.
Public right of way across hospital site to consider.
Access whilst the work is being done should be considered and residents inconvenienced to the minimum.
Site generators, deliveries, etc. (i.e. noisy stuff) away from houses.
Make access into site from either side i.e. The Rush & Co-op sides.


Transport Links:
Integrate a bus service with the site.
The 152 bus does not go all the way to St. George's - it should do, providing a link between the 2 hospitals.
Good direct transport is needed direct to other hospitals. A good frequent reliable bus service between them is essential.
Watery Lane residents want residents only parking.
Parking is currently a problem.
How is the car parking going to be handled? Underground parking?
Consider underground car parking - but note high water table.
Have less parking rather than more. Encourage patients and staff to come by public transport or on foot. This is consistent with local and national policy on congestion and pollution.
Moreover, walking is itself therapeutic.

The hospital brand and vision:
Emphasis on prevention rather than cure.
Call it: Nelson Health rather than Nelson Hospital.
Other non medical or preventive facilities should be included:
- hydrotherapy pool
- healthy living centre
- facilities for school children
- drop in care for the elderly and facilities for disability groups.
Geriatric Day hospital - has a nice family atmosphere - keep it that way e.g. by incorporating landscaped courtyard, access for disabled, not too far away from blood clinic.
Accent on healthy living and expertise to prevent illness.
Organic food shop/cafe/farmers market, detox clinic, anti-smoking clinic, gymnasium, swimming pool (shared by Rutlish and Wimbledon Chase. Tie in with Wimbledon School of Art - therapeutic effects of paintings and sculpture within the premises.
Dieticians fitness experts and ancillary health professionals on the site,
in addition to curative professional services.
The whole should be architecturally compatible with the local area incorporating gardens trees landscape, maybe fountains.
Nelson Health should be a place where residents can come to have their ailments diagnosed and treated, but also to get and stay fit, to learn about diet and exercise in delightful surroundings. It should be a hospital for the future, a model for hospitals everywhere, a beacon.


Notes collated by MB 11 Nov 2005.

If you have any comments email the Forum or use the Forum Bulletin board at www.wimbledoncivicforum.org.uk

Appendices:
A. Notes in group order
B. List of Attendees








Appendix A - Issues raised by the groups in group order.

Best Uses of the Site:

The Rush. Improve the Rush - a possible entrance to the site
- Concerns over pedestrianisation
- will get abused by people from the pub and boys from Rutlish school.
- Enforce parking restrictions - stop illegal parking especially from the garage.
- Cafe was not thought a good idea.
- If trying to upgrade it isn't producing enough benefit, then re-use this area to allow better/easier access to the Hospital e.g.. drop offs, entrance, etc. and
- do not allow any parking on the rush whatsoever.

Consider the relationship with Kingston Road - pavement is currently narrow - possibly widen it.  Should present a continuous frontage to Kingston Road 
The development should act as a buffer to Manor Gardens.

The Hospital:
Most in favour of rebuilding entirely and not keeping the facade. However, mixed feelings about retention versus demolition of the buildings: benefits of new facilities, but reluctance to lose the fine brick buildings.
Retain the intimate character of the hospital.
Should be two storeys high.

Not too close to houses.
Site generators, deliveries, etc. (i.e. noisy stuff) away from houses.
Make access into site from either side i.e. The Rush & Co-op sides.

Geriatric Day hospital - has a nice family atmosphere - keep it that way e.g. by incorporating landscaped courtyard, access for disabled, not too far away from blood clinic.

John Dees House should be removed.

Integration into Local Community, a safe environment, noise:

Concern over three storey height - needs to be two storey equivalent height.
support the idea of a noise barrier on Kingston Road, but balanced against patients needs for a quiet environment.
scope for basement development including servicing - but consider impact on manor gardens.
Integrate a bus service with the site.
Tree planting over open areas such as car parks a green environment
Return the Rush to pedestrians
Minimise land for car parking - perhaps multi storey?
Scale of development has to respect and integrate with local area
Preference for good modern design rather than retention of frontage buildings.
Other non medical or preventive facilities should be included:
- hydrotherapy pool
- healthy living centre
- facilities for school children
- drop in care for the elderly and facilities for disability groups.

Transport and Access:

The 152 bus does not go all the way to St George’s - it should do, providing a link between the 2 hospitals.
Do not like multiple separate entrances, suggest only two entrances
- for patients and staff
- for servicing.
Would prefer not to have an entrance from Watery lane or Cleveland Avenue, which is narrow.

Watery Lane residents want residents only parking.
The Rush, could it be a pull up with buses.
There is enough room in the rush for arrival and departure of buses,
i.e. main entrance for people arriving by vehicle, with a turning circle around the entrance.

Parking is currently a problem.
Consider underground car parking - but note high water table.
Clear footpaths and internal organisation of the site - must be easier to find one’s way around the new hospital.
Important to retain the Rush, and the green triangle
- don’t want it replaced with hard surfaces
retain its identity or have a piazza with planting.
Public right of way across hospital site to consider.
Access whilst the work is being done should be considered and residents inconvenienced to the minimum.


Other issues:

Why can’t we keep the existing hospital?
Don’t want another St George’s i.e. the scale and complexity of the building.
Should be sympathetic to the Conservation Area in terns of scale and design.

The Rush should be integrated sympathetically into the scheme and conservation area.
Keep as low as possible without sacrificing services.
No new retain use jeopardising local shops, e.g. florist, pharmacy, bakers, newsagents.
What other buildings have the selected architects designed. Can these be visited. Do they have a preconceived idea of the design?
Consider keeping the old facade.
How is the car parking going to be handled? Underground parking?
Good direct transport is needed direct to other hospitals. A good frequent reliable bus service between them is essential.

Beacon issues:

Emphasis on prevention rather than cure
Call it: Nelson Health rather than Nelson Hospital
Have less parking rather than more. Encourage patients and staff to come by public transport or on foot. This is consistent with local and national policy on congestion and pollution.
Moreover, walking is itself therapeutic

Accent on healthy living and expertise to prevent illness
Organic food shop/cafe/farmers market, detox clinic, anti-smoking clinic, gymnasium, swimming pool (shared by Rutlish and Wimbledon Chase. Tie in with Wimbledon School of Art - therapeutic effects of paintings and sculpture within the premises

Dieticians, fitness experts and ancillary health professionals on the site
In addition to curative professional services.
The whole should be architecturally compatible with the local area incorporating gardens trees landscape, fountains.

Nelson Health should be a place where residents can come to have their ailments diagnosed and treated, but also to get and stay fit, to learn about diet and exercise in delightful surroundings. it should be a hospital for the future, a model for hospitals everywhere, a beacon.