KOHIN

Access Planning permission is seldom granted unless the applicant can satisfy the committee that access problems have been addressed and satisfactory solutions included in the application.
An exception to this general rule is the new N&N Hospital. Access is still undecided and still the subject of much argument. The common sense solution from the A47 is not popular with the highways people but is gaining in popularity with the politicians. We need to write to Messers Blair and Clarke.

Consultation. "The move has been the subject of a massive consultation exercise." If so the consultation has passed a great number of people by. There is much evidence that a large proportion of the population does not consider itself to have been consulted.
Laws and regulations have been observed to the letter. One would have expected that when such an important, long established and well loved institution was involved consultation of rather more than the minimum needed would be appropriate.
To conduct a "democratic" consultative process that leaves so many people unconsulted and discontented erodes the standing of our democracy and encourages cynicism.

The Povall Worthington report. This document is a central plank in the argument in favour of the move. It was commissioned by the health authority to report on the suitability of the St Stephens site for redevelopment for a 1,600 bed hospital. The report is said to have said that the site was unsuitable for such a purpose. The report is not in the public domain and has disappeared - even Charles Clarke has failed to locate it.
The disappearance of this report is very convenient for it went on to say that the site was suitable for a 1,000 bed hospital, and so presumably for a 701 or 809 bed one as well.

Accountability. Much of the information needed for a reasoned judgement by the public was (and still is) withheld on the grounds of commercial sensitivity. The N&N is not owned by any one save the public. Information should be freely available to the public. KOHIN was promised access to much of this hitherto secret information "three months" from the signing of the contract. It is still unavailable.

The Community Health Council. The Community Health Council has a statutory duty to represent the views of the public to the health authorities and to the Government. It has consistently and forcefully supported the move to Colney and advised the Minister of Health that this was the wish of the people of Norfolk & Norwich. There is no evidence that they have conducted any sort of popular consultation. If they had they would have been surprised by the size of the opposition and the size of the number who know nothing of the Community Health Council.
There are no guidelines about how the Community Health Council should conduct consultations. The personal views of the members can be represented as those of the public at large, misleading those who listen to their opinions.

Who briefed Mr Haslam?. Michael Haslam is the Chief Planning Officer for South Norfolk District Council.
On 7th December 1995 he wrote to John McGregor (MP for South Norfolk) "My brief is to do everything possible to secure approval of the hospital proposal on the Colney site." He was questioned by letter and at public meetings about this, as was the chairman of his committee. The reply was always that as the letter was subject to Parliamentary privilege no explanation was needed.
When pressed by the Ombudsman he explained that the phrase referred to his general brief from the Council to see that its policies were carried through.
Why the prevarication? Why not offer this perfectly proper explanation when asked by council tax payers?

Introduction

There is a body of opinion that considers it to be a mistake to build a hospital on a green field some miles from the centre.

Towards the end of 1995 a small organisation came into being to give expression to these doubts. It called itself "Keep Our Hospital in Norwich" or KOHIN for short. KOHIN wrote letters, interviewed the public, arranged a petition, organised meetings and other events. It was financed largely out of participants own pockets but there were some donations and money was collected at some events.

History

KOHIN agrees wholeheartedly.

The main arguments for a move are

1. It is not possible to redevelop the present site.
2. It is easier, quicker and cheaper to build on a green field.
3. Access by car and parking are difficult in the City centre.
4. First class staff will only be attracted to Norwich if the hospital is built at Colney.
5. The new hospital has been discussed ad nauseam. All proper enquiries and consultation have taken place. Lets get on with it.
6. It is important to be in close proximity to the University.
7. Redevelopment on the present site would entail operating a hospital on a building site.
8. A country environment is beneficial to patients and staff.
9. It is Colney or nothing.

The main arguments against a move are

1. It is against Government policy.
2. It is possible to redevelop the present site.
3. It encourages car usage.
4. Green fields on the outskirts of cities are valuable assets as green fields.
5. Access is a nightmare.
6. The public do not believe they have been adequately consulted.
7. The city centre will be blighted.
8. It is not value for money.

"It is the people's national health service and we should never forget that."