NHS compromise must be reached

Bournemouth Echo: NHS compromise must be reached NHS compromise must be reached

DESPITE the fact that they are both bureaucracies often working closely together (for instance in the care of the elderly), the health service and local authorities sometimes seem to find communication difficult.

Christchurch planners and local NHS bosses are clearly not on the same page at the moment when it comes to the future of the hospital site.

After Thursday’s rejection of the healthcare campus plan, health chiefs say the councillors don’t appreciate the financial constraints the NHS is under and, in a slightly ominous phrase, will now review what services can be provided.

But councillors say the scheme does not take enough account of the heritage of the site and that they’ve made that clear for months.

There’s always a certain amount of posturing in these situations. But a compromise needs to be reached.

Nobody wants health services in the borough at risk, as campaigners have made crystal clear many times.

Comments (1)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:27pm Sat 5 Jan 13

point--of--view says...

At the meeting last week on a cold winters evening I counted over 50 objectors that came out to support Christchurch. I say well done to all of them for showing concern and turning up. Other than people to do with the application no one was present in support!

The applause when Sue Newman, the resident’s speaker and Cllr Phipps made speeches was all to clear. These speeches represented local people and opinions and all made an excellent case and spoke with passion. Incidentally, the standard of the supporter’s speeches for the development was surprisingly rather poor!

The 575 template, or “round robin” letters used as a means of claiming local support from the GP surgery gave nothing other than a petition that people signed supporting better health services. This was done at the GP surgery that was involved in selling up and moving to the new site so no incentive on that front! Note people attending a medical appointment being asked to support an alleged better medical service was perhaps not appropriate! This was made clear at the meeting and given the rejection this marketing exercise clearly did not work for Quantum!

Regarding medical services in Christchurch hospital they have slowly been reduced over the last five years. This is widely reported and documented. From the plans submitted this new scheme would further reduce the services to blood taking / testing, X-Ray and consultancy rooms with a new GP surgery. I see no wards, no operations or in-patients in the proposed scheme. All this exists or is possible in the current historic buildings that would have been demolished if this had been approved; these services or potential would have been lost forever.

As for the financial constraints I refuse to believe the money the NHS trust has spent on this application that they could not have gone a long way towards refurbishing the existing buildings.

Local NHS staff members do not understand the trusts fixation with demolition of the existing buildings. Most of the hard working staff, actually believe the existing buildings just need refurbishment and could be far better utilised and take pressure away from Bournemouth hospital. It seems only the Trust directors believe in the need to demolish.

As for compromise, Sue Newman and the local people have held a long standing campaign to protect the site and others to protect the NHS services provided. Local council policy has been to conserve the area and past applications to alter or build in the conservation zone have been rejected. Why during this process has the planning department and Bournemouth and Christchurch NHS trust not listened and worked with the History and conservation society and local residents rather than using bully boy arguments and tactics?

In November I attended a meeting with local objectors and the NHS Trust to try to compromise. I along with the 50 other households was told no changes would or could be made to the planning application and that it would be built regardless of our concerns and objects. Compromise was attempted.

This application has now raised locally awareness of the work house history and the conservation order on the site. It has also raised great interest in our health care provision and galvanised local residents to voice an opinion. This has been well voiced to our local councillor’s who have listened and rejected this scheme. Along with Druitt Hall this was a great day for local democracy.

This scheme was the NHS trust board playing property developer. Why did they waste my tax's putting in such a high risk application to build 120 OAP apartments on a conservation zone? This seems an incompetent.

The scheme would have resulted in 120 OAP apartments and 81 small rented house and yet more small flats. The bulk, density and height of the scheme was just totally over the top with no parking and open space. In the middle would have been the above mentioned medical facilities so not much of a "health care campus". This was a land sell off and nothing to do with "retaining health services".

This current scheme if it had been approved would have been the death of any real hospital services in Christchurch, the loss of a conservation zone and the destruction of historic buildings that form an important part of our local history and heritage.

To sum up the Mayor Cllr Peter Hall voiced strong support for the objectors and I believe his closing comment was to suggest the plan go back to the drawing board. Wise words indeed!
At the meeting last week on a cold winters evening I counted over 50 objectors that came out to support Christchurch. I say well done to all of them for showing concern and turning up. Other than people to do with the application no one was present in support! The applause when Sue Newman, the resident’s speaker and Cllr Phipps made speeches was all to clear. These speeches represented local people and opinions and all made an excellent case and spoke with passion. Incidentally, the standard of the supporter’s speeches for the development was surprisingly rather poor! The 575 template, or “round robin” letters used as a means of claiming local support from the GP surgery gave nothing other than a petition that people signed supporting better health services. This was done at the GP surgery that was involved in selling up and moving to the new site so no incentive on that front! Note people attending a medical appointment being asked to support an alleged better medical service was perhaps not appropriate! This was made clear at the meeting and given the rejection this marketing exercise clearly did not work for Quantum! Regarding medical services in Christchurch hospital they have slowly been reduced over the last five years. This is widely reported and documented. From the plans submitted this new scheme would further reduce the services to blood taking / testing, X-Ray and consultancy rooms with a new GP surgery. I see no wards, no operations or in-patients in the proposed scheme. All this exists or is possible in the current historic buildings that would have been demolished if this had been approved; these services or potential would have been lost forever. As for the financial constraints I refuse to believe the money the NHS trust has spent on this application that they could not have gone a long way towards refurbishing the existing buildings. Local NHS staff members do not understand the trusts fixation with demolition of the existing buildings. Most of the hard working staff, actually believe the existing buildings just need refurbishment and could be far better utilised and take pressure away from Bournemouth hospital. It seems only the Trust directors believe in the need to demolish. As for compromise, Sue Newman and the local people have held a long standing campaign to protect the site and others to protect the NHS services provided. Local council policy has been to conserve the area and past applications to alter or build in the conservation zone have been rejected. Why during this process has the planning department and Bournemouth and Christchurch NHS trust not listened and worked with the History and conservation society and local residents rather than using bully boy arguments and tactics? In November I attended a meeting with local objectors and the NHS Trust to try to compromise. I along with the 50 other households was told no changes would or could be made to the planning application and that it would be built regardless of our concerns and objects. Compromise was attempted. This application has now raised locally awareness of the work house history and the conservation order on the site. It has also raised great interest in our health care provision and galvanised local residents to voice an opinion. This has been well voiced to our local councillor’s who have listened and rejected this scheme. Along with Druitt Hall this was a great day for local democracy. This scheme was the NHS trust board playing property developer. Why did they waste my tax's putting in such a high risk application to build 120 OAP apartments on a conservation zone? This seems an incompetent. The scheme would have resulted in 120 OAP apartments and 81 small rented house and yet more small flats. The bulk, density and height of the scheme was just totally over the top with no parking and open space. In the middle would have been the above mentioned medical facilities so not much of a "health care campus". This was a land sell off and nothing to do with "retaining health services". This current scheme if it had been approved would have been the death of any real hospital services in Christchurch, the loss of a conservation zone and the destruction of historic buildings that form an important part of our local history and heritage. To sum up the Mayor Cllr Peter Hall voiced strong support for the objectors and I believe his closing comment was to suggest the plan go back to the drawing board. Wise words indeed! point--of--view
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree