REPORT ON THE MEETING OF THE
NELSON HOSPITAL  WORKSHOP
in the LINK ROOM at the NELSON HOSPITAL
 Monday 26th November 2001, 7 – 8.30 pm
 
Over 40 people attended the Workshop, including Roger Casale, MP (who chaired the meeting) Marcus Beale, Chairman of the WCF Urban Design Task Force Rod Bugg, member of the WCF Urban Design Task Force, John Onken, member of the WCF Urban Design Task Force and
(with apologies for any mis-spelt names and/or omissions, and in no particular order):
 Jenny Atkinson Alison Whale Jenny Jones
Cllr Dese Child Russell Rolfe Edna Rolfe
Kath Denbigh Kieran Chhabra Henry Wood
Sarah J Woropay Mrs Chhabra Diana Cairns
Margaret Nanson Maria Priestland Tim Day
Maureen Jordan Emma Tustin Martin Anderson
Bob Welchman John Ward Hubert Child
Cllr Bridget Smith Bert Johnson David Nanson
Mike Hutchins Douglas Esaw Ian Ayres
Peter Kirby Brian Terrett Graham Clark
 
Roger Casale opened the meeting by thanking those who had taken part in the Nelson Clean-Up Day.  He was so pleased that so many different organisations, such as the Wimbledon Civic Forum, the John Innes Society, the Nelson Hospital Community Reference Group, the Community Health Trust, were getting involved in the planning strategy for the Nelson Hospital site.  The vision is to use the development of the hospital to get ideas for the development of the whole area out in the open and into the planning mechanism.

Marcus Beale of MBA Architects and Chairman of the WCF Urban Design Task Force, introduced his two colleagues, Rod Bugg and John Onken.  He gave a brief overview of the current situation, stressing that what develops at the Nelson affects in a very direct way what is happening in the immediate area.  The area falls within the Wandle Valley which has been identified as one of three areas of urban growth by the Mayor of London.  The Wandle Valley area extends from Wandsworth towards Gatwick Airport.  (The other two areas are an area including Docklands and the Lea Valley, and the Western Wedge which includes the M4 corridor and Heathrow).  He underlined the importance of local people, who know the area intimately, getting involved in the design process, giving planners and decision-makers the benefit of local knowledge.  Rod Bugg stressed the importance of the four main institutions in the area (Wimbledon School of Art, the Nelson, Wimbledon Chase Middle School and Rutlish School) working together.  Ian Ayres, the Chief Executive of the Trust said that the general view of the clinical provision on the site would be “medical services that don’t involve beds”.  He envisaged that “most” of the site would be required for these services, but probably not all of it.  The actual buildings had recently been “tarted up” – but “immense maintenance” would be required to allow redevelopment within the current structure.  Additionally the current structure was poorly laid out and thus of the three options available (bring up to scratch by a massive maintenance project; re-build the site; close the site), re-building currently looked the most likely.  If the Nelson was to be re-built, it would be built for “the community and for the health requirements”.  MB suggested that the Workshop consider whether there were aspects of the current building that were particularly attractive and should be saved – or were held in particular regard locally.  A member of the Workshop immediately asked whether something could be done about the flower stall (“Molly Inwood”), and Ian Smith said that he and others had volunteered to tidy it up, which was widely applauded. 
 
The Workshop then split into three groups to discuss how local people can add to the planning of the healthcare facilities at the Nelson with “personalised” ideas specifically relevant to this area.
 
GROUP 1 – discussed how you get to and from the site, involving transport by road, Wimbledon Chase station, bicycles, pedestrians, the Tram.
GROUP 2 – discussed the uses of the site and its environs over and above the clinical requirements.  They were given a brief to discuss items with “money and planning restraints no object”.
GROUP 3 – discussed the green space around the site.

After 40 minutes of lively discussions, the three groups reassembled for the final plenary session, where a report back of their discussions were given.  These reports are bullet-pointed below:
 
 
GROUP 1 - TRANSPORT ISSUES

*  The importance of transport was highlighted.  The group looked at rail, tram, bus, car, bicycle and pedestrian transport.
* Wimbledon Chase Station - is not disabled-friendly - no lifts to platforms,  and the gap between the train and platform is huge, so this needs to be addressed if we are to encourage the use of public transport to the Nelson.
* Tramlink is good - although access from the west via Dorset Road is poor.
* Good buses - 163, 164, 152 etc. from Morden, Sutton, New Malden stop outside the hospital. 
* But no bus connection to St George's - a direct bus link to other hospitals is essential.
* Bus stops are directly outside Nelson - this is good.
* For walkers and bikers, the chasm is the Kingston Road.  The cycle track is well used.  Need covered and secure cycle racks at stations and hospital.
* There have been several accidents recently outside the hospital which need to be investigated (Roger Casale said he would look into these).
* The Rush : used as a car park? - or perhaps only for ambulances? or could it be made into something more pedestrian friendly?
* The Rush could be pedestrianised making the most of restaurants, baker, etc
* Main pedestrian entry to the hospital should be via the Rush 
* Controlled parking zones are approaching Merton Park, making life difficult for commuter cars - this is welcomed.
* Policing of car parking not enforced enough.
* A strategic solution would be to divert A3 traffic away from the Kingston Road down Martin Way to Morden.
* There should be staged implementation - "little by little improvements".

GROUP 2 – USE OF THE SITE
* Parking was identified as a crucial element
*Roads constrain
*Daytime use of the site for health uses, Evening use of the site for community uses
*How about nursing-only beds
*Cottage Hospital-type facilities for respite care
* People need T L C
* Can we add to the site by efficiency in buildings?
* Other uses:  care of the elderly, changing care technology, general practice, minor injuries, schools and community use, walk-in centres, health promotion, day surgery, pharmacy, CAB, library, community meeting place, Volunteer centre
* There is a need for these services
* Parking – AGAIN!
* Will the larger Trust use more office space
* Good access is crucial
* Address the relationship with The Rush *
Address the public profile and the Hospital’s contribution to the area
* Good design / fresh start
* Uses should reflect community needs, needs of the young and ageing population
* Use should be flexible
* Use should be for the locale and for further afield
* DON’T LOSE THE BIGGER PICTURE OF THE STRATEGY OF OUR NEIGHBOURS

GROUP 3 – GREEN ISSUES
* The Hospital could be viewed as a “wall” protecting the neighbourhood
* Acting as a barrier against noise
* In keeping with the conservation area
* Merton Park was like a “garden surburb” with lots of green spaces to be preserved – the John Innes Park with the activities that take place there, Gleve Fields with its open pasture and wildlife, Church Yard, Church Lane Playing Fields, Rutlish Playing Fields, Wimbledon Chase
* Sharing space is by foot and bike, not by car
* “pocket handkerchiefs of green
* keeping private / secret roads in the area
* landscape – and “lots of it”

Roger Casale wound up the Workshop by stressing that things really are happening.  He asked all participants to take away the ideas discussed and involve all the local groups they could in the discussions.  Feedback could be to the Nelson Hospital Community Reference Group (who next meet on 18th January 2002 – contact via his office on 020 8540 1012).

Roger thanked Marcus Beale and his team for facilitating the meeting, Ian Ayres and the Trust for providing the room, Jane Bretton from Ad Hoc Business Support for attending to take these notes and putting them on the website – and especially all the participants for attending and taking part.

What next?  Roger announced that he will produce a Newsletter summing up “where we are”, and that there will be another Clean Up Day.  He again encouraged everyone to engage as many other people as possible in this process so that the ideas can be fed back to the decision makers at this crucial time.