Nelson Hospital

Author

Message

Design work is starting on a new Nelson Hospital. The NHS believes that a high level of local involvement can complement and improve design. Have your say.

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.

REPORT ON THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE NELSON HOSPITAL,
from Ian Ayres, Chief Executive, Sutton and Merton PCT.

By the Spring of 2002, there have been many changes to the NHS with the NHS going through its largest reorganisation since 1948. This has happened at all levels from the Department of Health down to hospitals such as the Nelson.

The Department of Health and NHS has been integrated into a single structure: Regional Offices have been abolished, removing one layer from the structure. 300 National Health Authorities have been abolished and been replaced by 28 Strategic HealthAuthorities. There are 9 Departments of Health and Social Care. There are no longer any Community Trusts – all activity has been passed to the PCTs (Primary Care Trusts). Many senior managers have been displaced.

The Nelson and West Merton PCT was formed in April 2000 as a merger of GP and community nursing services. The new Trust based its headquarters in the Nelson Hospital and transferred ownership of the site from the Epsom & St Helier NHS Trust to the Nelson and West Merton PCT. The Nelson and West Merton PCT has subsequently joined with the East Merton and Sutton PCG in April 2002 to form the SUTTON AND MERTON PCG. This organisation has 1500 employees (the Nelson and West Merton PCT had 200) and there are 42 premises in total.

Plans to rebuild or renovate the Nelson Hospital have been talked about for many years but little or no action had been evident. The site is dilapidated both inside and out and, until the formation of the new PCT, there had been little sign of increased services being introduced. Since its formation the PCT has been working with local GPs, nurses and hospital clinicians to develop a new vision for the range of services that could be provided from the site. This vision has been shared within the local NHS and with the London Borough of Merton, and has wide support.

As a result of such extensive support, the PCT re-launched the New Nelson Community Hospital Project in January 2001, in order to develop the vision more fully. A project manager was appointed and a new management group set up to lead the work. A Reference Group was also established to provide a wide range of input from the local NHS and Borough. These two groups are complimented by an additional group (The Nelson Community Reference Group) run by the local MP, Roger Casale, which has the aim of providing a focus for community regeneration in the area.

The main objectives of the New Nelson Community Hospital Project are to:

Address health & safety and maintenance issues on the site
Improve and expand services provided from the existing buildings
Examine the financial and practical viability of developing the site in the long-term and prepare business plans to support the proposal
A Feasibility Business Case for the redevelopment and expansion of Services at the Nelson Hospital was developed in the summer and autumn of 2001 and demonstrated that the site had a future. It also recommended the developing of the site by the knocking down of the old buildings and replacing them with a modern hospital. There was wide support from Social Services, local acute trusts, the voluntary sector and health authority. The development of the site is likely to be funded by PFI. A Strategic Outline Case is currently being worked on and will be complete after the summer. This phase of the project has included expert financial advice, looking at what is viable and planning it, determining what physically can fit on the site, what it would cost, etc. The next stage is the Outline Business Case, which includes a specification of what is required on the site. Then there is the Final Business Case. At this point tenders are invited to develop the site. The likely date for development is 2005 and there will be a public consultation. The site will respect architecturally the surrounding area.

It is planned that there will be GP services, community nursing services with clinics for children and the elderly, a diabetic clinic, primary community care for minor injuries (24 hours 7 days per week), ambulatory care (walk in walk out) with x-ray, ultrasound, giving blood and seeing consultants. There will be day surgery, day hospitals for the elderly, etc. Also there will be community mental health care. The PCT is working with the voluntary sector and the community. There will not be beds on the site.

A lot of work has now been done to address the health, safety and maintenance issues at the Nelson. Current refurbishment and improvement at the Nelson Hospital includes the painting of the downstairs windows at the front; the main waiting room has been decorated and the roof has been patched; the car park is to be enlarged and parking will be over the old florist’s site and conditions on the building of the car park have been imposed to preserve the trees. The hospital site is now full and being used entirely for health care. The Wimbledon School of Art have left the Nelson (they had occupied half of the top floor.) An Internet Café has been introduced for staff with the help of the League of Friends.

If you have any questions about the project, please contact Ian Ayres, Chief Executive of the Sutton and Merton PCT on 020 8251 1111.

Document produced July 2002.

MINUTES

NELSON COMMUNITY REFERENCE GROUP and

Wimbledon Civic Forum’s Urban Design Task Force

STRING OF PEARLS MEETING / WORKSHOP

Tuesday 18th March 2003
The Pavillion, Rutlish School

Present:
Ian Ayres Primary Care Trust – Nelson Hospital
Jane Bretton Ad Hoc Business Support
Eileen Brewer Local Resident
Helen Clark Bell Manager, Wimbledon Civic Forum
Paul Coe Local Resident
Tim Day WCF Urban Design Task Force
June Dove Local Resident
Rob Doyle Rutlish Headteacher
Jane Gammage Primary Care Trust
Mary & Tim Fripp Local Residents
Jemma Gilbert Primary Care Trust
Revd John Hillier St Mary’s Church
Mike Hutchins John Innes Society
Bert Hyde Christian Care
Bert Johnson Local Resident
A McCloughlin Local Resident
Martin McCormack Thameslink Loop Manager
John MacDonald Local Resident
Janet Meekings Local Resident
D Miln Local Resident
Elina Needham Local Resident
John Nelson Jones Local Resident
Emma Sheridan London Borough of Merton
Peter Southgate Local Resident
Ian Smith Local Resident
Helen Stanley Local Resident
Alan Walker Wimbledon School of Art
Bob Welchman John Innes Society
Audrey Wood Local Resident
Sarah J Woropay Local Resident
Apologies from:
Roger Casale MP
Marcus Beale
Cllr Jillian Ashton
Steve Rodman London Borough of Merton
Rod Bugg – Wimbledon School of Art,
Mike Reddin
Mrs Susan Tomes - Wimbledon Chase Middle School

Helen Clark Bell introduced herself as the Manager of Wimbledon Civic Forum. She chaired the meeting due to the unavoidable absence of Roger Casale MP and Marcus Beale. She read statements from each of them, endorsing the work of the Nelson Community Reference Group and this String of Pearls Workshop. A survey of the audience showed representation from local businesses, local organisations and local residents.

HCB gave an overview of the current situation around the Nelson Hospital and the terrific possibilities for regeneration of the surrounding area.

The identified “String of Pearls” who were going to participate in the meeting are: Rutlish School, John Innes Society, Wimbledon School of Art, Sutton & Merton PCT, WCF’s Urban Design Task Force, the NCRG. HCB also acknowledged the presence of Martin McCormack, the Thameslink Loop Manager, Emma Sheridan from LBM, other representatives from the PCT, and local councillors. Much effort had been made to try to contact Merton Park Primary School, the Manager of the BP Petrol Station and Tramlink – all also considered part of the “String of Pearls” as is Wimbledon Chase Middle School who had sent apologies. It is hoped that all these organisations will be able to attend any follow up meeting.

Rob Doyle, Head Teacher of Rutlish School gave an overview of the development going on at the school, and apologised for any inevitable disruption to the locality: this is a two year development. He confirmed the school had no on-going links with the Nelson, but was keen to develop them. He was aware of some anti-Rutlish boys feeling locally, and was working to improve this though it is impossible to keep the boys within the grounds of the School in their breaks due to the current lack of facilities and whilst the building work is going on.

Bob Welchman from the John Innes Society gave an overview of the history of the Society with some interesting anecdotes, such as the reason for so much holly planted in the area. The Society is not against change per se, but keen to promote appropriate development. He mentioned that they were not happy with the architectural drawings for the development at Rutlish. They are justifiably proud of the “garden of Merton Park” and there is a meeting on 7th May covering the first stage of replanting the John Innes Park, which they hope to finish in time for the centenary anniversary of John Innes’ death in 2004.

Alan Walker, Vice Principal, Academic of Wimbledon School of Art. He gave a brief overview of the history of WSA which was formed out of drawing classes at Rutlish School. It is now a major international specialist institution for 800 students, specialising in Fine Art, Theatre Design and Foundation Studies. All staff are research-active which generates government funding. WSA is also keen to foster closer links with the local community: it has an annual exhibition in Cannizaro Park, their end of year exhibitions are open to the public, and they are actively looking for further links into the local community.

Ian Ayres, Chief Executive of Sutton & Merton Primary Care Trust discussed the Nelson Hospital, which is 102 years old, a war memorial and a centre of healthcare. It’s held in great affection by the local community. The PCT took it over five years ago, and the building is now “full” with a range of healthcare services and the headquarters of the PCT. Some refurbishment of the building has been done (painting of the downstairs doors and windows), carpark security improved etc., but the long term aspiration is to redevelop the whole site. This would allow a total rebuild, changing the shape of the building, which was designed for a bed-based hospital whereas the new building will not be bed based, but more community healthcare covering diagnostics, X-rays, outpatient clinics etc. This is envisaged for 4 years time, and will have to be appropriate to fit in with the local area. HCB asked whether there would be more consultation with the local community and IA confirmed that he was a member of the NCRG, which is the best vehicle for this. He’s also keen to link with the three local schools and WSA, and perhaps to provide medical services for their students.

Tim Day from Wimbledon Civic Forum’s Urban Design Task Force explained that the UDTF was keen to act as a facilitator for local debate and local people with concerns should contact them, and these would become agenda items at their meetings. The last major consultation, which was facilitated by the UDTF was in November 2001, at which transport, site usage and public domain issues were discussed. The outcome of these were fed back to the PCT via Wimbledon Civic Forum. The redevelopment of the Nelson gives the local community the opportunity to influence how the development looks, how The Rush and Kingston Road are affected, sustainability issues, energy and pollution issues which can be built into the scheme in due course. Local businesses are currently missing from this debate, and are likely to be affected.
Jane Bretton from Ad Hoc Business Support gave an overview of the Nelson Community Reference Group. It was set up by Roger Casale MP to be a voice for the community regarding the development at the Nelson. Roger’s strong commitment to the Nelson, stemming from his birth there, is well known and he’s pleased to have his Constituency Office there. She listed the members of the NCRG and said that there was a further mailing list of interested parties, who received all documentation about these meetings but didn’t attend the meetings. She asked that anyone who would like to join this mailing list contact her to be put on it, and two members of the audience did this. She outlined the other activities of the Group, including Clean Up Days, and Mike Reddin’s gardening project. The NCRG was keen to use the redevelopment of the Nelson as a lever to improve the whole area.

HCB gave examples of current local redevelopment, such as the BP Garage and the Emma Hamilton Pub. She highlighted RC’s plans for introducing a local Post Office and bank Cash Point into the Nelson. She suggested breaking into discussion groups and read out Marcus’s instructions such as “the barmiest ideas are the best” and “let your imaginations run wild” and “don’t set yourself artificial limits”.
However the audience preferred to ask questions from the floor:·

What plans are there for sporting facilities in the redevelopment?: Ian Smith responded by handing out copies of his Wish List, which focussed on Prevention rather than Cure. ·

What is the time scale for the redevelopment? IA said that realistically we are looking at another 4 years: the business plan (the Strategic Outline Case) is nearly completed which will lead to draft costings to see whether the SOC is viable, which will lead to planning permission issues.·
Bert Johnson underlined the fact that the Nelson redevelopment is at the core of the regeneration of the area and should offer a diversity of services from its geographical position in the heart of the community. Fostered links with local organisations must not become bureaucratic and WCF should act as the catalyst to bring organisations together. ·
John Nelson Jones asked whether there will be non-health related uses for the new Nelson. IA confirmed it will be a health-dominated development. ·

Bob Welchman suggested developing the shops in The Rush so local people could walk to them· Rob Doyle stated that a crèche for his staff’s children would be very useful. He also said he wanted to develop a specialist maths and computer centre which would be of use to the local community, as would the gymnasium, but these would be rented out at commercial rates as his development was being funded by PFI. Representative from St Mary’s Church asked whether there would be chaplaincy at the new Nelson. IA said that his was normally provided in a bed-based hospital, and that the Nelson will not be bed based.·

Mike Hutchins asked all to keep public transport issues in mind as the more the new Nelson offered, the more people would have to access them. IA said they were trying to work with LBM and TfL on this and perhaps might be able to arrange extended bus routes.·

Would there be A&E on the site? IA said that he hoped there would be a minor injuries centre but no A&E. He also reiterated his hope to offer medical access for the students in the area.

HCB publicized the forthcoming WCF events, and the meeting closed at 8 pm when wine and soft drinks were enjoyed.
Draft Minutes prepared by Ad Hoc Business Support and approved by Helen Clark Bell

Any comments on these draft Minutes can be communicated to Jane Bretton at Ad Hoc via janebretton@adhocbusiness.co.uk or by telephone on 020 8946 5387 : the Minutes can be amended and they will be re-circulated before the next meeting.

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.

Post new comment:

To reply to this post, you must log in or register.