KOHIN
Keep Our Hospital in Norwich
Letters 1997
Letters - what people write to the papers - 1997
1996 1997 1998 1999
I See Why Banks Are Not Confident
It is clear from your report (7/1/97) that the banks being asked to fund the building of the Colney Hospital have plenty of worries about the future of our health authority and health trust.
This is not surprising given the present management difficulties and the regressive fixation with a move to an out of town site.
In desperation, the building consortium has persuaded the Health Secretary Stephen Dorrell to promise to on the debt when the trust or authority goes bankrupt.
This same government minister is also prepared to quietly write off the present N&N Hospital, a public asset which is worth tens of millions of pounds, and which could still be developed into a more viable hospital than Colney could ever be.
It remains to be seen whether the words of a struggling politician will give the banks any confidence.
Matthew Williams
Norwich
Eastern Evening News 16th January 1997
Alison King's Views
I was surprised to read the letters of 17/4/97 that I, as county councillor for Humbleyard Division, was in favour of the new hospital going to Colney.
Your correpondent, the Green Party candidate for Hunbleyard, is obviously unaware that in 1987 I was one of the founder members of the local residents' group formes to oppose the siting of the hospital at Colney.
We lost our argument at the public inquiry into the hospital but I have never changed my opinion on the unsuitability of the site for this use.
Now that planning permission has been renewd by South Norfolk District Council the reality is that the hospital is very likely to be built at Colney.
My task as local member is to try to achieve the best solution to the traffic and access problems that the hospital will cause in this area and this is what I have promised to do, if re-elected no May 1st.
Alison King
Cringleford
Eastern Evening News 24th April 1997
The Green Party
In reply to Edna Smee's letter of 24/4/97, there was no intention by the Green Party to make political capital out of the protest at the site of the Colney Hospital.
As the Green Party PPC for Norwich South I deliberately did not talk to the press as I was the only parliamentary candidate there, and it would have contravened the election rules.
The Evening News did not name any of the Green Party members there including three candidates in the county elections. I spoke to a Conservative protestor and recognised Labour and Liberal Democrat supporters. I agree this issue is too big for any one party to monopolise. If the other parliamentey candidates had turned up we could have had a meaning ful discourse with Mr Dorrell.
Adrian Holmes
Norwich
Eastern Evening News 3rd May 1997
Absurd Waste
With reference to Mr Innes' proposal for the revamping of the N&N Hospital as an alternative to the extremely expensive and greatly reduced Colney Road Hospital.
It has always seemed to me that, having invested, even very recently in the N&N to scrap it is an absurd waste of resources.
I hope that there will be many more citizens of this city who agree that a central hospital is an important possession for which we are grateful.
While Mr Innes is here and showing an interest in Norwich, perhaps he could be tempted by a swift design for the new cemtral library.
Sarah Middleton
Norwich
Eastern Evening News 3rd May 1997
Hospital Where Families Pop In
It seems time to speak up for the people in Norfolk re: the proposed hospital at Colney.
As yet I have not spoken to any person (as opposed to those in authority) who have welcomed a new hospital at Colney.
We must now think of working people, pensioners and patients, those with family or friends in hospital come to Norwich to do their shopping, coupling the trip with a visit to the hospital.
One would think twice about boarding another bus into the countryside loaded with shopping, meaning the patient would suffer loss of visitors, granted the bus will be subsidised, but still an extra cost, but for how long, in the present economic climate, not long I suspect.
Planners have to justify their jobs and salaries, unions are pushing to create 500 jobs.
What after this green field site is developed, if ever, no further on-going jobs for either, only a few years of intense activity covering this beautiful green field site with concrete.
The less priveleged members of our sociey, without transport must be considered.
The views across open countryside from the hospital bed, beautiful as they may be, can add to the feeling of isolation one often feels at a vulnerable time. The patient is usually feeling lonely, depressed and very worried. Being in Norwich, a city of intense activity, helps, knowing taht friends and family will pop in after a shopping trip, or after work.
An amount of compassion is now needed from our newly elected MPs the planning debate should be re-opened and views sought from the ordinary people of Norwich and Norfolk.
Norwich is the place for the new hospital and there it should stay, for the convenience of all those who become sick and are unfortunate enough to need hospital treatment.
June Farrow
Bawburgh
Eastern Evening News 14th May 1997
No Opportunity for Full and Open Public Debate
Writing as one who still has an open mind on the question of the hospital site, I disagree totally with your editorial suggesting that the issue was decided long ago.
As with so many issues under the previous Government, there was no opportunity for a full and open public debate. Charles Clarke is absolutely right to insist on a rethink to make sure that the decision is the right one for Norwich.
We need to be sure that when we do get our new hospital t is the one that the people of Norwich want.
There is no need to panic and fear that we may miss the PFI boat; with two such able representatives as Charles Clarke and Ian Gibson speaking up for us, and with a Lbour Government in power, we can be certain that we will get our new hospital wherever it is sited.
Dominic Boddington
Norwich
Eastern Daily Press 21st May 1997
Hospital Should Remain in City
CJ Basey's comments on the proposed siting of the new hospital at Colney (EDP 22/5/97) are worthy of consideration. To develop the hospital with the loss of 60 acres of land is out of character with the rural setting, adding to the urban sprawl.
The N&N Hospital in its central position has served city and county well with doctors and staff giving commendable care to patients over the years. I understand that according to a city firm of architects, the hospital can be suitably redesigned.
Regarding the Colney plan, your correspondent has pointed out that no case has been made for better care or more convenience for visitors and staff. Conversely, for thousands of people in the county and Norwich the Colney site means inconvenience and extra travelling expenses.
Keith Watts
Acle
Eastern Daily Press 29th May 1997
Hospital Should Remain in City
Your leader of May 17th ("Why it's Colney or nothing") surprised and dismayed me, that my favourite local daily should take such a biased stance supporting the new N&N Hospital to be built at Colney.
Norfolk people without transport will still hqave to get into Norwich before bussing out to a new hospital in the countryside at Colney - not everybody is fortunate enough to own a car.
Your paper is well aware that if we do not encourage the use of public transport instead of being beholden to the motor vehicle, more of us will need hospital treatment, from the resultant emissions of carcinogenic pollutants.
With an issue as controversial as the new hospital, I would beg your paper to take an unbiased and neutral approach, and that your leader writer does likewise.
June Farrow
Bawburgh
Eastern Daily Press 29th May 1997
Hospital Should Remain in City
I agree with CJ Basey about the siting of the new hospital. We should not lose 60 acres of green field area. The hospital should be in Norwich - the existing site should be redesigned.
It amy take longer, but surely it is better to do the right thing slowly than the wrong thing quickly and regret it for years to come.
Ann Powland
Haddiscoe
Eastern Daily Press 29th May 1997
The Green Party
It is a fair bet that a poll of people in Norfolk would favour a city centre site for the new N&N Hospital.
Unfortunately such a poll is unlikely to happen for the same reason that the Colney site has been chosen in the first place.
That reason is short term financial gain. The Co,ney site has not been demonstrated to be the best site for access or environmental considerations.
It is an out of town development opportunity that developers are keen to cash in on.
South Norfolk District Council in approving the application has opted for a short term gain over a sustainable future which looks at the city of Norwich and Norfolk as a whole.
The previous Government's panel on sustainable development criticised local authorities for continuing to ignore long term sustainable issues surrounding such developments.
The new Government has a chance to take the long term outlook in initiating a wide ranging review, and not rushing ahead with the Colney development.
If the Government fails to do this it will destroy its credibility in promising the electorate a new deal for democracy.
Adrian Holmes
Norwich
Eastern Evening News 19th May 1997
Let's Get on With the Hospital
Re the proposed hospital at Colney. Could I respond to the debate regarding this project?
In the first place I make no apologies for being a "vested interest" in this matter. The building industry in Norfolk has been severely affected by the downturn over the 1990s. This project will not only secure employment for large numbers of local building workers, but will help the local companies directly and indirectly.
That is why we are keen to get on with it. The planning permission has been granted. The demographic need has been identified andd whatever the criticisms of the method of funding through the PFI, it looks certain that the new Government will honour thgis system for health service projects, especially those as far down the line as this one.
As for the comment by architect Mr Innes that "it is not a good argument to say that building the wrong thing is the right way to generate jobs", as one vested interest to another I can tell him some of his colleagues have been designing the wrong things for years? (Take a walk round Norwich).
The fact is that we are talking about building a hospital not a land mine factory, an American air base or projects equally obnoxious.
Remember too it has to serve all of Norfolk. Access is important and if we complete the northern bypass it will be even better. Like it or not, in this modern age many private and public facilities are located away from urban centres - supermarkets for example.
We do not understand the Nimby factor (Not in My Back Yard) but had they succeeded previously there would be no UEA for example, or indeed the John Innes Institute, etc..
I understand that Dr Ian Gibson is New Labour and , therefore, wants to serve everybody, but I make no apology for syingwhat about the workers (albeit building ones in this case)?
P Tobin
UCATT
Eastern Daily Press 19th May 1997
New-age Urban Revival Hospital
Mr Tobin (EEN 19/5/97) will be pleased to to know that he can relax on two counts.
Firstlt, he had no need to apologise for having a "vested interest", and at the same time speaking up. Many thousands of Norfolk citizens - including many in Norwich - also have a "vested interest" in their hospital and have been speaking up.
Secondly, he should understand better than most that although building has been having a thin time over the last few years, the anxiety that lies ahead is that we may actually be facing too much work.
For the building industry, overheating usually presents a trickier situation than decline.
What with the Longwater Lane development, two multiplex cinemas and whatever else at Riverside, the new library, and various other projects in the pipeline including increase house building, firms are getting a little concerned that there actually might be too much about!
In any event, there should still be a lot to do at the N&N, even if Colney does not go ahead. It won't be necessary to throw away quite so many tens of millions of public investment, but there is significant and substantial work to be done to catch up on past inefficiencies.
Paradoxically, the first fruits from an alternative strategy could come earlier than Colney, although admittedly, it will overall take longer.
What we need now is to support our new MPs, and a new Government, in allowing us the first of the truly new-age hospitals, rather than the last of the old out of town dinosaurs.
Michael Innes
Thorpe
Eastern Evening News 28th May 1997
Pick Up Your Pens
Thank you, Evening News, for keeping the important matter of the site for Norwich's new hospital in the news.
May I suggest that everybody who is concerned about the hospital being built outside the city should write to their local Member of Parliament straight away.
Pick up your pens and send a note to Dr Ian Gibson or Charles Clarke, House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA, and let them know how strong the feeling is about keeping the N&N Hospital in the city.
Mrs J Wiseman
Sprowston
Eastern Evening News 28th May 1997
City Site the Best for All Patients
The present site of the N&N Hospital in the city centre is the easiest for all aptients to reach from all parts of the county.
It has been shown that an adequate new hospital could be built on this site, givimg Mr Tobin and his UCATT construction union members the work which they so badly need, with no delay, at much less cost than Colney and without creating asmany problems.
Having our hospital on the sout-west edge of the city would make all sorts of difficulties for patients, staff and visitors alike; it would add to their costs and travelling time, as well as adding to traffic congestion on all roads through the city but particularly Earlham Road.
For many people who have not got a car it would mean extra stressa in checking timetables for connections to Colney from and to the railway station or city centre - inevitably they would sometimes miss those connections.
Thsi solution would also seem to have implications for future extra road investment costs together with environmental costs.
In addition there are arguments concerning economic development for this area which should be taken into account.
Norwich is surrounded by other district councils making piecemeal and competing developments on all our boundaries; this is planning chaos.
The city cannot afford to lose the health and related service industries in addition to all other commercial and industrial losses.
Norwich as the hub of a rural county serves as a regional centre which should be capable of future development for the good of the whole area.
If, as has been rumoured, the PFI behind the Colney plan may not find the city centre site of equal interest for investment, could they say why?
Pat Daniel
Norwich
Eastern Evening News 28th May 1997
Lonley (or Loony?) Colney
P Tobin, regional UCATT organiser, says local building workers could have secure employment if against all the odds the new hospital was built at Colney on the green field site there.
Well I remember how "local" building firms were expected to have their share of the building work at Thorpe Marriott. What a let down that was.
The consortium brought down their own builders.
Norfolk's population say no, and we out here know full well we will need to board four buses to and from that out of the way hospital at Lonely Colney (or is it loony Colney?).
PFI can still be used to fund a reconditioned N&N Hospital at Norwich.
LE Barney
Drayton
Eastern Evening News 28th May 1997
No! No! No!
Mr Tobin states that supermarkets are situated away from urban centres.
Yes, there are supermarkets all around the city but there will be only one hospital, and if patients and visitors are not car owners it would mean going into the city centre then out to Colney, doublle the journey time and double the bus fares.
Lots of people without cars are elderly or disabled.
No! No! No! Mr Tobin. The people want their hospital on the city site and we agree with Mr Innes that "building the wrong thing is not the way to generate jobs".
B James
Sprowston
Eastern Evening News 28th May 1997
Is All Hope Lost?
It seems that somewhere, somebody is going to find £190 million to pay for what will be called a new hospital.
I need not worry, as I am approaching my 90th birthday, so shall not have to pay much towards that £190 million or the interest on it (but somebody will have to do so).
We have here in Norwich a majestic building that looks encouragingly like a good hospital.
I cannot get there to have agood look round, but fancy there is plenty of space to build each side of our hospital.
Even one of those lovely millions might be sufficient to amply compensate people who had to give up space for such a project.
Nobody seems to have given much thought to visitors to Colney.
I have had superb treatment in our hospital, and people have been able to visit me without resorting to expensive taxis.
Is all hope lost for people who feel as I do?
EM Bingham
New Costessey
Eastern Evening News 28th May 1997
90% Wish Hospital to Remain
I, like many thousands of Norwich citizens, have a vested interest in the N&N Hospital, and wish it to remain on its present site, with the proposd extension described in the Evening News recently.
My appeal would be to the banks, who seem to hold the key.
Fom a layman's point od view, it would seem a much more secure investment, taking into account the very valuable prime site within the city centre, together with its buildings, some listed and sent off.
The financial aspect of the hospital saga, seems somewhat vague, although from Pressreports, there would be considerable saving, if the hospital remains on its present site.
I am associated with many groups within the city, and more than 90 per cent of members wish the hospital to remain, and would back the council leader in his efforts on our behalf.
So once again I say to the listening banks, listen to the people.
E Hird
Norwich
Eastern Evening News 29th May 1997
Aid Our Traders
As`a former patient who has recently been in the N&N Hospital, I agree with all that June Farrow said in her letter (EEN 14/5/97).
I would endorse all the fears she outlined.
I gained great comfort and support from my friends and relatives visiting (whilst in town to do their shopping).
I doubt whether they would have ventured as far as Colney.
My admiration however goes to our Member of Parliament Charles Clarke for supporting a Norwich site for the hospital in his maiden speech.
Now that we have a new Government listening to the people, we hope we will also have Ian Gibson, our other MP, joining him on this issue.
Yes, a new hospital is fine but we must think of many years ahead.
It must therefore be sited in the right place, and that is in Norwich.
Consideration must also be given to small traders struggling to survive.
The loss of a city centre hospital inflicts a further blow to their survival if ww wish to retian Norwich as the main shopping centre in East Anglia.
Trade will be lost if the hospital is built in the countryside.
As the Prime Minister said: "The country has given us a mandate, we must listen to the people."
Now, let the people's voice be heard.
Jean Maclean
Norwich
Eastern Evening News 29th May 1997
Colney Site a Major Blow for Trade in the City
I would like to place on record my appreciation to the staff of Barford ward at the N&N Hospital for their cheerful friendliness and ready approachability during my two stays earlier this year.
The TLC so amply distributed plays a large part in the recovery process I'm sure.
Since returning home, I've naturally become very interested in he recent discussion regarding the future siting of the hospital.
The majority of closely related visitors to patients in the rooms which I was in did not have private transport.
I feel that having to reach a site at Colney would cut valuable visiting time through longer and costlier travelling.
The avaiability and convenience of subsidised public transport is still questionable.
So many of the points raised in your column had been mentioned previously by visitors and patients that I expected to recognise many of the names beneath letters as recent acquaintances, but not so.
By far the vast majority would seem to agree that the choice of Colney the site would strike a savage blow to the trade of the city.
Surely it would be better (and less expensive) to improve access to the existing site by, for example, introcucing more useful park and ride schemes, building a multistorey car park on the Nestle site (possibly involving resiting of the Bignold School).
As for the fears expressed lately by the construction industry, wouldn't these be quelled by the work involved in redeveloping the existing site?
Michael Ireland
Thorpe St Andrew
Eastern Evening News 3rd June 1997
Get on and Build it!
So after all the rash statements by our two new MPs for Norwich, the hospital is to be built at Colney.
I f they had done their honework beforehand, like I did, they would have known that.
Dr Gibson has always been a supporter of the Colney site any way and I consider that the UEA was very influential all the way along in preference for Colney.
Despite opposing the Colney site way back in 1988, I now in fact consider that it probably is the best site after all looking to the future.
I say this because I had to attend the hospital during the week that Castle Meadow was closed for Environment Week and it took an age to get through the city whereas it would have taken about 10 minutes around the southern bypass.
If the city council is to consider similar traffic schemes, and they say they are, emergency cases would never get to the current site in time for treatment.
Let us all stop our whining about city centre hospitals, get it built and then the northern bybass so that everyone can get there quickly.
Norwich City Council can have the current site for housing or even the multiplex and bus station that they would not let Norwich Union build.
It would not surprise me if they moved out of the city next after the way the city council treats them.
John Fisher
Thorpe St Andrew
Eastern Evening News 4th June 1997
Fat Cat Culture
Our MPs claim that to pull out of the Colney hospital deal would incur compensation to the developers of hundreds of millions of pounds.
If this is the case, is it fair to infer that the size of compensation reflects the level of profit these private companies stand to gain by building and running the new hospital?
If private backers indeed stand to reap such rich profits, then the PFI must be scrapped.
If Labour endorse this "fat cat" culture they will be perpetuating the Tory philosophy which the electorate utterly rejected on May 1st.
Naomi Balcam
Hellesdon
Eastern Evening News 4th June 1997
Tunnel Could Link Two Hospital Sites
The decision to site the new hospital at Colney was cut and dried at the outset but delayed to put on a show of "democracy" by involving the public.
The main protagonists for the Colney site are those developing the new hospital, and the medical consultants who wish to be near the medical research laboratories which are at UEA.
The former can foresee huge future profits from the hospital and from future developments that will inevitably follow in that vicinity.
There would be no opportunity for future large developments around the present site in Norwich.
The new hospital will cost less than £200 million to build.
Messers Gibson & Clarke should explain how compensation to the developers would be "hundreds of millions of pounds" if the Colney site was abandoned (EEN 30/5/97).
They should also explain why the cash pledged to pay for the new hospital cannot be transferred to develop the city site.
It would be perfectly viable to combine the former Nestle site with the present hospital site and build the new hospital there.
A tunnel can link the two sites.
This would be easily accessible from Norwich bus station and would also help to generate more business for the city's shopping centre.
Fred S Curtis
New Costessey
Eastern Evening News 5th June 1997
Labour's Poor Set of Excuses
I am writing in response to the front page article "Its Colney. City MPs Rule Out N&N Site" (Evening News 30/5/97).
I Wholeheartedly agree with Denise Carlo's words - the Labour Government has indeed let the people of Norwich down and come up with a poor set of excuses.
Mr Charles Clarke and Dr Ian Gibson have broken their promises of a review of what seemed, for a sadly short time, to be a realistic chance of retaining a hospital in Norwich.
The excuses are very feeble indeed. In the past the Labour Party, either as a parliamentery party in opposition or as a local council, has frequently used lack of power as an excuse not to change things.
But this is a Government with a massive paliamentary majority.
They have already made quite major changes to the law, for example to allow hospitals to be built under the PFI. Perhaps they don't want to change things?
Dr Gibson hinted that ministers had told him "there was no point in having a review".
Clearly the Labour Government isn't interested in the democratic process.
Dr Jeremy Bartlett
Norwich
Eastern Evening News 5th June 1997
Wishes of Norfolk People Ignored
We've been let down.
Our two elected MPs have now proven to be wimps.
I had believed that they, of all people, would have heard and heeded the wishes of Norfolk's majority who saw Norwich as the ONLY, reasonable and less costly site for a "new from old" N&N. Excuses are not good enough.
Just consider: the health services will have arope round their neck for as long as rent will have to be paid.
Do they not realise that although they only represent south and north Norwich the majority of Norfolk's good folk looked to them to stand fast over their hospital?
And for them to say, I quote "and now, just being able to spend five minutes with the minister concerned, gives us the chance to put the city's cause"!
What's wrong with the concerns of the whole of Norfolk?
If Ian anf Charles, as they say, are working together for the good of Norwich as a whole there was no mention whatever of the loss of the city's economy.
And what of the environment issues?
Capitulation after five minutes of talks to Alan Milburn who has no idea of the feelings here in Norfolk. Another Whitehall farce!!
LE Barney
Drayton
Eastern Evening News 5th June 1997
It Will Not Help Me
Please let me know how in the world the best interests of the ordinary man and woman will be best served by putting the new hospital at Colney.
I will need to leave my home in the early afternoon to be there by evening, for like many others I am a pensioner and no matter what you may believe I cannot afford nor am I fit enough to ride by bus.
It may serve some vested interests and may well put money into pockets already well filled.
But it will not help me or a lot like me.
James Sandham
Clover Hill
Eastern Evening News 5th June 1997
The First Whiff of Powder
I was present at the hustings in the Meeting House, Upper Goat Lane before the General Election.
Dr Gibson said that he had always believed that the city centre was the proper place for our new hospital.
I was also present at Blackfriars Hall.
Mr Clarke said that he believed in a city centre site and that the manner in which the decision had been made was a scandal.
As soon as he was elected there would be a review and the people of Norfolk consulted.
To capitulate at the first whiff of powder is wrong.
Dr Geoff Clayton
Eastern Evening News 5th June 1997
Consultation over 15 Years
In recent weeks there has been a plethora of unsubstantiated assertions in your columns by several people, not least our new MP for Norwich South Charles Clarke, about the siting of the new district hospital.
Few if any have drawn attention to the very long consultation period, going back for over 15 years, of detailed consideration and several very well attended public meetings at various times, where the requirements for a modern, state of the art hospital to meet the health care needs of the whole of the local Norfolk & Norwich population led to the inevitable conclusion that the Colney site has major advantages over the other city sites.
On site development of the N&N Hospital, with a 10 year or so period of major disruption to continuing health care, is a complete non-starter, despite the protestations of architect Michael Innes and others.
Access to that site at busy times even now is at best a joke and at worst a tragedy, as was so very nearly the case with one of my own sons several years ago.
Access to the Colney site can be made swift and easy.
But, at the end of the day, what we need is a hospital that will attract the very best of staff to provide the very best of health care well into the next century that we can all be proud of and that will be a worthy successor to the present N&N Hospital.
Colney will provide that.
John Noble-Nesbitt
Cringleford
Eastern Evening News 5th June 1997
MPs Stance is Reasoned and Correct
I feel it is important to express support for the reasoned stance taken by Norwich's two MPs with respect to the location of the new hospital.
I accept the emotional response against the Colney option, but this argument contains a number of flaws.
If the Colney development does not happen, the new hospital will be back at stage one.
There is a risk at this point that Norwich will not get a new hospital at all.
Even using the present site it could be more than a decade before completion.
There would be the inevitable delays in starting from scratch and the estimated seven to nine years that it would take to rebuild.
While this is happening the district hospital would have to cohabit with a building site surrounded by a major arterial road and a residential area.
This would not seem the most efficient environment for medical care.
The protestors overstate the economic effects of relocation.
It is impossible to measure what these could be without first examining the possible alternative uses for the site, particularly when linked with the redevelopment of the Nestle site.
It is difficult to imagine Norwich City Council giving planning permission to any other enterprise on the hospital site of such a size.
Turning the site over to housing has many advantages, not least providing a demand for goods and services from local traders.
The protestors even overstate the environmental case.
The assumption is that no hospital at Colney means no development on the land purchased for the project.
This is clearly false. If the land is not for a hospital other options would recover the purchase cost.
The most obvious use would be new housing.
South Norfolk District Council would be happy to locate some of its demand for residential development on the site, as would the health authorities and the local land owners.
The land would not remain green and undeveloped for long.
Perhaps the city council would better serve the people of Norwich by supporting our MPs rather than resorting to a knee-jerk response to emotional popular reaction.
After all there is more to locating a hospital than making it convenient to combine a visit with a bit of shopping.
Richard Cutting
Norwich
Eastern Evening News 5th June 1997
Let Down by Our New MPs
Well done Dr Gibson and Mr Clarke. Within one month of being elected you have let down the people of Norwich.
Mr Clarke now holds the record for the fastest U-turn in politics.
In this new era of "open government" let the public see the contracts which were reported to have been signed before the election and the terms of the agreement.
If it is proved to be correct, why wasn't it disclosed before the election, so that it didn't become an election issue?
When ministers and MPs come to decisions behind closed doors at cosy little meetings, some people, quite rightly, are suspicious of their motives.
In the light of previous government decisions it does tend to leave a nasty taste in the mouth.
With Tony Blair inviting Mrs Thatcher to tea, and now these two letting people down, it seems we haven't had a change of government, only a change of name.
What Messers Gibson & Clarke should remember is that they were elected by the people of Norwich to represent them, not the banks, Norfolk Health Authority or Octagon Health Trust.
What the people of Norwich voted in they can also vote out.
A Agate
Norwich
Eastern Evening News 5th June 1997
Start Shouting
Well, after much huffing and puffing our new Labour MP has sold the people of Norwich South down the river.
During the General Election campaign the Labour candidate for Norwich South assured us that if a Labour Government was elected it would undertake a public listening exercise and a complete review of the hospital issue.
This has not happened and we have been provided with vague reasons about compensation. What are we not being told?
This development just gives Norwich a disaster waiting in the wings, economic decline of St Stephens, environmental vandalism of the Yare Valley, public transportation problems, rat running of traffic through Eaton and Cringleford, not to mention a great derelict hole in the city centre.
We must now shout, shout loud, and shout together, but most impotantly we must all shout at Alan Milburn MP, Minister of State, who can be found at:
The Department of Health, Richmond House, 79 Whitehall, London SW1A 2NS.
Councillor Andrew Aalders-Dunthorne
Eaton
Eastern Evening News 5th June 1997
Still Time to Drop Colney
The idea of moving our only hospital to Colney is so out of line with any modern thinking in so many areas - planning, transport, energy conservation, social equity, to list but a few - that it beggars belief.
Can it be true that our new "listening" Governmemt for "one nation", with its huge majority, is really disabled in this matter of unfinished business left hanging out to dry when things changed?
The Tories undoubtedly pursued Colney with tunnel vision, as part of a political drive to achieve the launch of a so-called flagship PFI, riding roughshod over local and environmental issues, and with the thinnest pretence of democratic procedure.
There is every justifiaction for a new government to act in response to the public demand to prevent such a huge and unnecessary damage to this city, whatever any general PFI expedient may dictate elsewhere. Not to lose the N&N in some form was quite the strongest mandate given to both our new MPs in the run-up to the election.
That Colney has been so selfishly manoeuvred through the processes, virtually out od sight, and against the public interest, is nothing short of scandalous. And despite pre-election promises, there still may be no review and no consultation. Once again Whitehall appears about to take a patronising stance, contemptuous of local sensitivities.
The Government is surely far from as powerless in this matter as it claims. The assertion that damages, "possibly hundreds of millons, over 60 years might have to be faced as the penalty for not proceeding", is very hard to swallow.
The trust itself sys that everything is stuck, and unable to proceed pending the forthcoming Act of Parliament. Without action by the Government, the contract surely stays "stuck", or it would indeed be going ahead now. For all future schemes the Bill as drafted requires the certificate of the Secretary of State before matters can oroceed.
Why not the same for Colney? If no certificate is forthcoming, and the contract is thus frustrated by statute, surely damages would be limited to the accrued expenses to the date of frustration?
Admittedly even this is an unwelcome penalty, but certainly not "hundreds of millions of pounds", and but a shadow of the huge costs to be borne when the alternative is to abandon all that is on the present N&N site with nothing left of value but the ashes of the site?
If the N&N site and the best of what exists is properly reployed, not only the capital, but the potential revenue savings are of enormous significance to the NHS - to say nothing of the knock-on savings to the community, and to the countless thousands of individuals over the years ahead who will be paying far more money and time to get into the heart of the country in order to use their hospital.
Come on Mr Clarke and Dr Gibson - get your coats off, it's a bit soon to cry off. Keep at it - we always did "do different" in these parts!
Michael Innes
Thorpe
Eastern Evening News 6th June 1997
Pollution Will Grow
The transport minister wants us to cut down on car use and pollution.
Moving the hospital to Colney would mean more use of cars and taxis and more pollution.
It would be inconvenient and costly to get a train or bus to the city, then a bus to Colney, then back home again.
Stanley Copland
Norwich
Eastern Evening News 10th June 1997
What Will Happen to Our Shopping Centre?
What will happen to ouyr shopping centre if the hospital doesn't stay where it is?
I can see it all: Iceland packing in, Sainsbury's moving out, St Stephens Street wiped out.
Everyone knows the market traders are finding things difficult.
The Mall may as well close its doors.
KJ Kemp
Norwich
Eastern Evening News 10th June 1997
Waste
I appreciate the letter written by Mrs EM Bingham suggesting that our present hospital should be extended.
Recently I have had to be a frequent visitor to the N&N Hospital and it is so obvious that thousands of pounds have recently been spent to improve the existing facilities.
Is this all to be lost?
I feel that the people of Norfolk & Norwich should have an opportunity to record their vote on this very important matter and I have no doubt that there would be an overwhelmimg majority in favour of the present site.
Decision should not be left to a comparative few.
To me it seems almost as important as a political election. Please give the people concerned a chance to state their preference.
L Vera Wright
Norwich
Eastern Evening News 10th June 1997
Hands Round the Hospital
So "hundreds of millions of pounds" would be payable to the developers if the hospital were not built at Colney.
How can that be true if the "contract" between the health care trust and the developers has not yet been validated by legislation still to be passed.
The Government seems intent on riding roughshod over anything which would interfere with ensuring that the Colney hospital goes ahead.
Well, we in Norwich are not silenced so easily.
There will be an event on Saturday, June 14th, at 2.30pm at the N&N at which people will link hands to encircle the hospital, to show their committment to keeping the hospital in the city.
I invite everyone to come and join in.
Amanda Williams
Norwich
Eastern Evening News 10th June 1997
BUPA connection?
Why is the hospital being built on the "wealthy" side of the city?
Is it to make it easier for BUPA patients to walk across to use the NHS facilities on their doorstep?
Margaret Self
Norwich
Eastern Evening News 10th June 1997
Health Care Standard Is Paramount
In the debate about the location of the new hospital one issue that is in danger of being obscured is the crucial one of the standard of health care that is to be provided.
Norwich must have a hospital that is capable of providing first class health care for the city.
The city council will be doing all that we can to ensure that this happens.
The N&N has served the city well but it is time for renewal, the case for a new hospital is overwhelming.
If there is a chance that the new hospital can be built on the exisiting site we must push as hard as we can for that. The city council is demanding an independent review of how we have been left in this appalling position by the previous government and the secret financial arrangements that are only now beginning to come to light.
In our concern to have the current site redeveloped we must not put ourselves in the position of saying that if the hospital can only be built at Colney we don't want it. If we took this position and it led to the abandonment of the new hospital it would be disastrous for its people.
We would be castigated if the N&N became a second class hospital and local people had to travel to the James Paget in Gorleston or to Kings Lynn for treatment.
The view that says "it's Colney or nothing" cannot be an option, and we must also consider what we must do if the hospital is eventually built at Colney.
Adequate transport to the site is vital - the Trust has made public committments to fund a bus service - this must be affordable, reliable, regular and accessible to the disabled.
Norfolk Health has committed itself to establish a working group tp examine the needs of people in Norwich and to make plans for the provision of primary health care services to meet those needs.
This council must do what it can to monitor the PFI deal to ensure that patients are getting value for money. We must ensure that the clinical services are provided by the NHS and not for profit by private companies.
We must also ensure that there is adequate scrutiny of those support services which the Trust has said will be provided by private companies.
One benefit of this issue is that it has brought debate about health into the public arena.
We must ensure that the debate continues and fosters a greater understanding in the wider public about health and illness issues and ensures that future decisions about it are not taken behind closed doors.
MP Charles Clarke has suggested he would welcome responses on this issue by June 13th.
I suggest that we take up his offer and make him aware of our concerns about the broader health issues.
Nick Williams
Deputy Leader Norwich City Council
Eastern Evening News June 12th 1997
He Spoke for People of Norwich
I would like to say thank you to Lord Addington for speaking on behalf of the people of Norwich in the House of Lords.
He put on national record Norwich City Council's unanimous condemnation of the siting of the new hospital at Colney.
He informed the Lords of the city council's request for "an urgent review by the Government of all decisions made with regard to the new hospital provision in the Norwich area."
He expressed the people's bitterness at the loss of our two hospitals to a site with poor access, four miles outside the city in the currently beautiful Yare Valley when a redevelopment of the present site, with a saving of perhaps £100 million, remains possible.
He questioned Baroness Jay and the new Labour Government on the legal status of the the NHS Trust which has yet to receive the backing of the banks, and on whether the compensation clauses in the contract are enforceable.
We await the Government's reply.
Truly this unelected Member of Parliament has served us all and is a noble lord.
Gordon Dean
Norwich
Eastern Evening News 13th June 1997
Bring in Swampy!
So the new hospital has been given the go ahead.
Mr Charles Clarke and Dr Ian Gibson have gone against the wishes of their constituents.
The majority of Norwich people do not want an "out of city centre" hospital and are opposed to this being built.
I've voted Labour all my life but I'll never vote for them again.
I've realised just how out of touch they are with the people of Norwich.
There is only one hope left now: bring in Swampy!
R Lines
Norwich
Eastern Evening News 13th June 1997
Hospital is Not Just for City Dwellers
I ahve been reading the various letters in the Evening News regarding the move to Colney of our hospital - mostly from city residents.
I am sure I am not alone in looking forward to the Millennium and the new hospital on a far more accessible site for everyone. After all, it is for all in Norfolk, and not just city folk.
For Michael Innes to go along with the protestors amazes me, after all his superb work on the Mall.
We need a new stae of the art hospital with access for all. One only has to look at the traffic chaos created by our city council to see that access to the city gets worse daily.
So come on you city people give some thought for the county dwellers and also to the medical staff who badly need an up-to-date hospital.
A Womack
Wreningham
Eastern Evening News 16th June 1997
Centre for Emergencies
If the no doubt excellent hospital at Colney goes ahead, it is patently obvious to me (and others I hope) there absolutely must be a centre for emergencies in the existing N&N site.
It has the facilities.
Mrs FL Deane
Marsham
Eastern Evening News 16th June 1997
Hospital Fight Must Carry On
The campaign to save the N&N Hospital continues apace. Promises by our local MPs to send in political troubleshooters to sort out the affair by listening to local people are followed by the same MPs withdrawing from the fight on the basis that "negotiations have gone too far, contracts have been signed with costly cancellation clauses".
Some sections of the media deride the very people who should be listened to, allege they are a small minority, and tell them now is the time to shut up!
Th esupport for the retention of the N&N Hospital on its existing site by people in Norwich is overwhelming. In my recent county council campaign in Eaton Ward as Conservative candidate I widened the limited national issues to include a more even handed allocation of resources towards the elderly and those in mid-life, working and brining up a family.
I prioritised my 100% support for the health service, as it is, without PFIs, and for the hospital to remain on its present site, with Colney as the number two county hospital.
The overall response I had was one of overwhelmimg support, reflected in the size of the vote for me, and the whisker by which success eluded me in what was not a Conservative year.
In Eaton Ward some 5270 votes were cast out of a possible 6490, an 81.2% turnout. The high level of prioritising the N&N Hospital issue in the ward campaigns, and in the city public meetings, is an indicator of the mood and feelings of the Norwich people and should not be disregarded.
I personally called upon about 2,000 houses in Eaton speaking to around 3,000 people. Icalled on homes of all political persuasions, and none, and from my doorstep highlighting of the N&N Hospital issue the Liberal Democrats were able to assess the imprtance of this matter.
They realised this was a crucial issue in the county campaign and issued their hospital canvass form some five days before election day.
I hope the support of the Eaton Liberal Democrat team does not slip away like that of our MPs and would welcome their continued support for the Keep Our Hospital in Norwich Campaign.
Co-operation between the parties can achieve so much more than confrontation in a matter such as this, which is of great concern to so many in Norwich. Regettably, South Norfolk Council and Norfolk County Council, in direct conflict with the interests of the people of Norwich, saw fit to support plans for the new Colney hospital which sealed the fate of the N&N Hospital in the city.
Bernard Wells
Norwich
Eastern Daily Press 16th June 1997
People's Choice Has Been Ignored
The Government was probably influenced in approving Colney Hospital by fallacious reasons similar to those of Mr Cutting (5/6/97) and Mr Noble-Nesbitt (5/6/97).
Most points these two make suggest a better reason to reject it; for example, few people would recognise the 15 years of unresolved bitter wrangling as consultation.
These two and the Government have ignored the paramount importance of the community's choice against Colney.
Their moral right of decision has been abused.
No sensible person can describe this decision reasoned and correct without being satisfied on the two major issues of beds and finance.
Would these two now tell us what supported statistics (including bed reduction timetable) convinced them that 800 beds will be sufficient within three years when 1200 now are not?
Please also tell us what Colney's annual cost will be for us and our children.
We will then know if we can, or want to, afford it, or would have preferred a cheaper solution.
Does the Government realise that this flagship PFI appears full of holes and deeply resented?
Future private financing may well be undermined by this sorry affair.
Roy Hansell
Norwich
Eastern Evening News 18th June 1997
Chain of Hands Displayed Depth of Concern
Denise Carlo and her band of helpers should be commended for the N&N Hospital rally.
That literally thousands of people stood in the drizzling rain for maore than 40 minutes to finally make the chain of hands around our hospital, or watched the rally, bears testimony to the fact that a huge nunber of people are still angry that the changes in hospital provision in Norfolk have been made in an undemocratic manner.
It takes courage to embark on a rally such as this knowing that a small turnout would irreparably damage the cause.
That so amny turned out in atrocious weather, and formed the chain of hands without any stretching, makes the result that much more significant.
Local politicians were conspicuous by their absence.
The rally on Hay Hill was conducted in an orderly and good spirited manner.
Ordinary people of political persuasions from the far left and across the political spectrum were allowed to express their concern which came from the heart.
In the light of this latest public expression of the feelings of such a large section of the local population it would be prudent for this whole affair to be referred back for further consideration, conducted openly in the public domain.
Bernard Wells
Norwich
Eastern Evening News 19th June 1997
It Is Time for All the Facts
I think the people of Norwich and Norfolk deserve a full account of all that has led to the present situation regarding our hospital provision here.
What is wrong with the present "N&N"?
How much would it cost to significantly improve what's wrong?
When was the Colney site bought, by whom and for how much?
When was the Governmnet agreement to the PFI for Colney given, by whom, and why were we under the impression until shortly after the election that financial backers wouldn't commit themselves because agreement had not been given?
What exactly are the penalties which would have to be paid if the Colney site wasn't proceeded with, and on what grounds?
Who agreed these financial penalties, and when?
What have our two Norwich MPs actually done to investigate the situation, represent the views of the apparent majority of their constituents (who are opposed to the Colney site), and what are their own personal preferences for the hospital site?
Perhaps most important, how are we going to manage with 400 fewer beds than at present?
Only a couple of months ago routine admissions were cancelled because of a modest increase in the emergency admissions.
The idea that GPs will somehow do the work of the hospitals is not valid - and what we have to look forward to is, in my opinion, undoubtedly a very much worse provision of health care, not only for the elderly and the chronic sick, but for us all, than we have at present.
Some honesty about the facts, politics, and notably the consequences of what is taking place is what is most needed if we are now to make the best of an apparently bad job.
Are the people employed and elected on our behalf prepared to answer the questions?
Dr I Duncan
Norwich
Eastern Evening News 19th June 1997
No Case Made For Colney Site
M Harrison in the Evening News (2/7/97) set out the case for a new hospital, and few would disagree with most of what he says.
However, he does not make the case for the hospital to move to Colney.
His only argument for Colney is that there need to be closer geographical links between the hospital and UEA for research purposes.
Does Mr Harrison really mean that the whole hospital has to be moved, lock, stock and barrel, so that a few researchers can be within a few hundred yards of their hospital colleagues?
Secondly, the hospital is not just for people who work there, but of course their views are of importance.
I am sceptical about Mr Harrison's statement that the "healthcare professionals working in the hospitals overwhelmingly support Colney".
It is inevitable in any institution that there is pressure on workers to "toe the line" on a policy decided at the top.
That is why I could only believe the results on this issue of an independently run secret ballot of all the hospital workers.
Thirdly, hospitals have been built on out of town sites in the past, but that is no reason to continue to do so.
Indeed, such building is now totally contrary to planning policy which recognises the need for hospitals to be in city centres on environmental and accessibility grounds. Norwich should be leading the way in this respect.
Yes, we want our new hospital, definitely not at Colney, but on the present N&N site where it can be built, and at far less cost to the taxpayer.
Amanda Williams
Norwich
Eastern Evening News 21st June 1997
Hospital Demo Inaccuracies
To correct some very misleading inaccuracies in the letter from Mr Wells (EEN 19/6/97):
- There were certainly not "literally thousands" of people present at the demonstration at the N&N Hospital on Saturday, as I am sure anyone there would confirm. Even Denise Carlo, in your article on June 16th, claimed only "around 1,000". There were in fact approximately 450.
- This does not represent "a large section of the local population." To put it into context, this Trust serves a population of 500,000 in Norfolk & Norwich.
- Mr Wells states that the Colney Lane hospital plans were made in "an undemocratic manner." I would refer him to the letter from Health Minister Alan Milburn which states: "I am satisfied that the trust and the health authority have carried out an extensive public consultation of the development of the trust's services and that their prefernce for a new hospital at Colney Lane was based on sound reasons which have bee well documented." This refers to the wide ranging programme of public consultation on this scheme which has been carried out by NHS bodies and planning authorities.
Louise Zucchi
Norwich
Eastern Evening News 23rd June 1997
For reply go to 3/7/97
Local Politicians at Hand Holding
Mr B Wells' letter (EEN 19th June 1997) stating that there were no local politicians at the protest at the N&N on Saturday June 14th is untrue.
In fact there was a picture of the Liberal Democrat county coundillor Gordon Dean next Mr Wells' Letter.
I can also confirm that Liberal Democrat city councillors Ian Couzens and Andrew Aalders-Dunthorne were also present. Also present was the Labour chairman of planning, who I saw after the protest.
I would aslo like to point out how blinkered Labour's health minister is by saying "I am satisfied that the trust and health authority have carried out extensive public consultation." I have never been asked my views by the trust or the health authority.
I can say that the Liberal Democrats in Norwich have carried out surveys of people's views in Norwich with a polling day survey in 1996 and 1997.
The people who responded to this were definitely against the hospital moving.
Ian Williams
Norwich
Eastern Evening News 23rd June 1997
Protest Proved the True Support
It's sad that Louise Zucchi (23/6/97) can only support her case for a Colney hospital by refuting figures re the human chain which encircled th N&N Hospital.
Could this lady gather 450, 1,000 or 2,000 people in such inclement weather to support Colney?
If it is the numbers game she wishes to play, 17,000 signatures against Colney have been deposited with South Norfolk District Council and more are being gathered in the Mall until tomorrow.
This implies that those responsible for making the decision on the PFI at Colney now have to justify their actions, now that the whole sorry saga has been brought into the public arena, and a sure sign that the Health Care Trust never sought public opinion at ALL levels.
However Octagon must be congratulated on their quick thinking six months prior to the General Election, when they tied up a compensation payment should not Colney go ahead.
Had this not been done the incoming government would most likely have reviewed the whole project. The lesson the Health Care Trust must learn is, never take for granted the views brought to committee meetings by groups purporting to be those of the general public, as they have not consulted the masses either.
June Farrow
Bawburgh
Eastern Evening News 27th June 1997
Answer These Two Questions
Louise Zucchi (EEN 23/6/97) has an unfortunately common view of democracy that offends its true meaning, which is "sovereignty vested in, and exercised by the people at large".
As vital information has never been in the public domain, a true democratic decision has never been possible.
She implied that as only 450 objected, therefore the other half million approved.
Would she now call for people to join hands to support the hospital closure to see how many of her half million understand and approve, to compare with the 450 opponents?
That would be evidence Ms Zucchi!
Her job is to communicate, which she has failed to do democratically.
May we now ask her to tell us, the people, the answers to just two essential areas of concern.
- Give us the convincing evidence that 800 beds will suffice when 1200 now do not.
Without reaasurance, one in three of the public will apparently not be treated when sick. If the projection is based on treating sick people elsewhere, is the infrastructure and finance available for that?
- How much will Colney cost per taxpayer in the Colney catchment area?
You cannot expect approval from "the people at large" without knowing this.
Communication please Ms Zucchi.
Roy Hansell
Norwich
Eastern Evening News 3rd July 1997
City's Hospital is a Dinosaur
Very few things incite me to put pen to paper, but the proposed move of the Norfolk & Norwich Hospital to Colney is one.
I was undecided on the pros and cons, until a shopping trip to the Castle mall made me think hard about the situation.
Some well-meaning individuals were running a stand to protest about the move.
I was reading some of the literature, when I was accosted by a helper who assumed I was against the move.
I asked why should I be against? I wasn't given a reasonable answer.
Then I realised that whenever I have to go to hospital, because I live in Reepham, I get the chance to choose between the Norfolk & Norwich and the James Paget Hospital at Gorleston.
I always pick the James Paget for several reasons. It is easy to get to!
The hospital is well laid out, the departments are easy to find!
.
Need I say more?
From a user's point of view the Norfolk and Norwich is a dinosaur.
We are approaching the 21st century.
Norfolk deserves a new hospital, where patients and visitors can park and where money is channelled to patient care, not to property maintenance.
One view that seems to continue to crop up is people who don't have transport and the elderly.
The hospital is for all people in Norfolk, not just the people in Norwich.
The trouble is I don't think they realise it!
RT Green
Reedham
Eastern Evening News 10th July 1997
Hospital Campaign has a Broad Membership
I would like to respond to the letter by Charles Clarke MP for Norwich South ("I want what is best for city") regarding the hospital.
In his letter published in the EEN 3/7/97, he attacked both Denise Carlo and myself of making political points.
The hospital is of course very much a political issue, but I would like to stress that the KOHIN campaign is non-political taking a broad spectrum in its membership.
Councillor Andrew Aalders-Dunthorne
Norwich
Eastern Evening News 14th July 1997
Throwing Away Our Hospital
I agree, to a greater degree, to the points of view in the letter "No real poverty in Britain" (EDP 4/8/97). However, pverty is relative supposedly to the lifestyle of other citizens of the country.
In our throw away society, the income of those at the lower end must, at least, keep pace with the ever increasing throw away style of living practised by those at the higher end of the scale. We throw awya packaging, cups, knives, spoons, plates, nappies, batteries, electrical goods, cameras - the list is endless.
Now, here in Norfolk, we have finally come to have a throw away hospital; I refer to the N&N.
Not so long ago I experienced a short visit to a public hospital in Guatamala City whicch was stark, dingy and depressing. Last week, when attending a clinic at the N&N, I wondered what the people of Guatamala City would have said when told that this hospital was soon to be dismantled and abandoned for a new, green field complex, some four or five miles from the centre of the city.
After £1.5 million worth of refurbishment and so on, I thought the hospital looked excellent and clean and the staff cheerful, kind and helpful.
Why, I thought, is this fine publicly owned hospital being abandoned for a £193 million- plus, on-tick hospital?
Elizabrth Wallace
Corton
Eastern Daily Press 11th August 1997
Keep Our Hospital in Norwich
The Keep Our Hospital in Norwich Campaign (KOHIN) is second to none in wishing to see a first class new hospital built in Norfolk. This is common ground with our critics. However we believe that our new hospital should be built in Norwich. We are critical about the way in which the St Stephens site has been developed. The Innes plan demonstrates how this can be put right.
KOHIN would like there to be a critical appraisal of the Innes plan. It has been in the public domain for more than a year.
KOHIN would like to see the following documents tabled at City and County Halls for public inspection.
- The contract signed last year by the Trust (before they had the money to honour it). The hospital belongs to the people and it is their money that is to be spent. How can commercial confidentiality extend to the owners? Even Charles Clarke has not seen it.
- The Povall Worthington report. This is important as it is upon this that the thesis that the present site is incapable of redevelopment is based. It has disappeared. KOHIN believes that its conclusions support a city centre hospital.
- "Openness in the NHS". This is the document which justifies the secrecy surrounding the issue.
KOHIN would like to know who briefed the Chief Planning Officer of South Norfolk District Council "to do everything
possible to secure the approval of the hospital proposal on the Colney site."
KOHIN would like to learn whether it is still government policy that "City and town centres are the places for hospitals"
(John Gummer, Minister for the Environment, 22nd March 1996) and "development can and should be directed with thoughtful and scrupulous attention to the charm of our countryside." (Tony Blair, The Times, 9th February 1996).
A "thorough public consultation programme" that comes to a conclusion so much at variance with public opinion on a topic so close to the public's heart must be flawed and speaks ill of democracy at work.
Dr Geoff Clayton
Colney
Eastern Evening News 18th August 1997
The Cost of Bus Travel to the New Hospital
I felt I must respond to your article on the front page of the paper dated August 27th proposing bus fares of approximately £1.70 return to the new hospital.
Several years ago my husband was involved in a road traffic accident resulting in the amputation of his leg. As I worked in the city centre I was able to visit him in my lunch break and after work.
My husband was in hospital for a total of four months. If the hospital had been at Colney and those fares applied, I would have been unable to visit as regularly.
The total cost to me for the duration of my husband's stay in hospital would have been approximately £204, and that would be visiting just once a day.
Can the Norfolk and Norwich Healthcare Trust say this amount of money is justified, so a wife can visit her husband following such a traumatic experience?
Zena Hipperson
Sprowston
Eastern Evening News 2nd September 1997
Delays to Starting
I was surprised to see the headline on Tuesday's (September 30) Evening News about the start date for building the Colney hospital, since it seemed to read rather too much into one short sentence of Mr Malcolm Stamp's in what was about an hour's presentation by members of the Health Care Trust at the annual meeting.
Also, I seem to remember Mr Stamp has been proclaiming that work would be starting imminently ever since this time last year!
The presentation at the annual meeting was most informative.
It was interesting to learn that it may not be too much longer before the annual PFI costs the trust will have to pay will be made public. If they are at all comparable with those for the Barnet, Halifax and Dartford hospitals, it will mean that at least a quarter of the trust's annual revenue will be paid to the developers.
When a question was asked at the annual meeting on this, inquiring whether staff cuts would be necessary to enable the trust to meet their financial obligations, Mr Stamp accused the questioner of "scaremongering".
Mr Stamp informed us that the trust enjoys excellent working relationships with the unions and any necessary staff cuts will be met by natural wastage.
A glowing picture was painted of the links existing between the Norfolk and Norwich and the University of East Anglia and the benefits accruing from this - strange that one of the major arguments for moving the hospital to Colney was that it was so difficult for these links to be made with the hospital in its present position.
Praise was heaped on all the hospital staff (and rightly so) for coping with the large member of emergency admissions over last winter (over 50 per cent of all admissions are emergencies), and we were told that strategies are being developed for coping with a similar situation this year.
I wonder what will happen when the hospital moves to Colney where there will be only two-thirds the number of beds currently available?
Amanda Williams
Norwich
Eastern Evening News 4th October 1997
CHC Advice Contrary to the Evidence
The Community Health Council represents the interest of the users of the NHS. They listen to opinions and views and report their findings to the Health Commission and to the Health Authority. Their advice is taken seriously.
On the subject of the move of the Norfolk and Norwich Hospital to Colney the CHC has consistently advised that the public strongly supports the move. This advice is misleading.
It is so contrary to the evidence I have seen that there must be some explanation. Are Council members depicting their personal views as those of the public? It has been difficult to get members to reply to correspondence but when pressed it seems they have no procedure for consulting the community.
- I myself have spoken to many thousands of people in both County and City. It is rare to find a Colney supporter and rare to find someone who knows about the CHC.
- Charles Clarke canvassed his constituency with similar results. He described the consultative process as 'scandalous'.
- Likewise Gordon Dean.
- Andrew Aalders-Dunthorne, the Lib/Dem candidate at the general election, said that the consultative process had "completely passed me by".
- There is a petition with 20,000 signatures locked up by the South Norfolk District Council at their offices.
- There are a further 1,500 comments on the World Wide Web.
- The Colney protagonists have clearly lost both the argument and the vote at every public meeting that I have attended.
- "Hands Round Our Hospital" was a great success.
- The majority of letters published in the EEN are opposed to the move. Presumably this reflects the proportions of those
received.
Clearly there is a gap between the CHC's perceptions and reality. This has led to misleading advice. What is the explanation? What is the remedy?
Dr Geoff Clayton
Colney
Eastern Evening News 15th October 1997
Access Should Be Top of the List
We seem to be still to-ing and fro-ing about keeping the N&N Hospital at the present site.
Now, the decision has been made, right or wrong, to move to a new hospital site at Colney, no matter what is said this cannot be changed, nor will it!
Should we not be expending energies not in stopping the move but in accepting it and making sure that it is done properly and that arrangements are made to allow patients access from Norwich and surrounds.
Very little has been said about the present site after closure.
May I suggest that part of the site is kept by the local families' health committee (or whatever) and used for a park and ride area to the new development.
Tendering could be carried out for this service, as has Norfolk County Council with its park and ride services.
Also, how about through ticketing, ie get on a bus and pay one "made-up" fare by asking for Colney Hospital.
The park and ride facility would then accept the ticket and the council would recoup the hospital part of the fare on a quarterly basis be it county or hospital council. This would allow travel to and from the new facility, at least for those without cars, to be more acceptable and the walk from St Stephens and the bus station would remain the same.
Also by providing a partial park and ride for evenings too, it would keep some traffic off of Colney Lane.
It can be done, but it needs planning, planning with the same urgency and thrust as was used to set up the PFI to start with.
It seems again that transport, other than cars, has taken not second place, but a back seat.
Energy now please in this direction would in future make life more tolerable for visiting in the future and for out patient and emergency access.
PV Emmerson
Newton St Faith
Eastern Evening News 15th October 1997
How Will Cash for New Hospital Be Found?
Manna from heaven for the local NHS managers, £5 million extra to spend wisely, preferably on jealth care provisions not on redundancies.
Currently East Norfolk Health Authority, an unelected quango, is consulting the public on cuts in the health services.
They are desperately worried that there is no money for services we have become accustomed to.
Why? Because they have signed major HP/PFI contracts running for sixty years into the future and costing us all an approximate £4 million per annum - yes, it is the financing of the Colney Hospital that has sent the health authority spinning.
If we are supposedly short of £2.5 million, how can we ever find an extra £4 million a year, just for the Colney Hospital?
Small and valued local hospitals and services are disappearing in favour of faraway places, not everyone cam reach, especially not the rising elderlypopulation in Norfolk.
Practically this means, if you have got a broken arm in Harleston and no car to get you to the Colney Hospital, you could face two bus journeys instead of one, increased travel time and costs.
When you come to Colney, you will find a two tier NHS, where you have to wait while someone from BUPA over the road gets service straight away.
But we must be grateful for the five million, after all it is our money!
I Wagenknecht
Rockland St Mary
Eastern Evening News 4th November 1997
Right Decision on Health Trust
You report (November 20th) health minister Paul Boateng's decision not to reappoint Michael Falcon as chairman of the Norfolk & Norwich NHS Health Care Trust.
I feel that I must respond to Mr Falcon's remarks that "the Government has failed to fulfill its commitments to the NHS trust boards" particularly since, earlier in the process, I made my own views on this matter clear both to Sir Stuart Burgess, the chairman of the Anglia and Oxford Regional Health Authority, and to Mr Boateng.
I strongly support Mr Boateng's decision, whic I believe to be in the best interests of the present and future Norfolk & Norwich NHS Trust. Mr Falcon is now 69 and I am told he has been a first class businessman.
However, whatever the merits of the Colney decision for the new hospital, there is no doubt in my mind that Mr Falcon's NHS trust conducted the whole debate about this vital issue for the future of health care in Norfolk in a way which failed to explain properly and openly what the trust was about and so aggravated community tensions and weakened community confidence in the Health Service.
As chairman, Mr Falcon bore the principal responsibility for this and, if for that reason alone, I believe Mr Boateng was right to seek a change of leadership for the trust.
More generally, all the NHS trusts would in my opinion benefit from new professional blood on their boards, so that they can be reinvigorated in their efforts to end the remoteness of the "NHS quango state" and to strengthen their relationships with the communities they serve.
Charles Clarke MP
Norwich
Eastern Daily Press 26th November 1997
Food for Thought on Colney
Colney is in danger of becoming a developers picnic site. The university, the science park and BUPA for starters. The proposed new hospital to be the main course. And then there would have to be - wouldn't there? - shpos and houses as dessert and afters.
If in 50 years time medicine and surgery look different; why, find another green-field site and start again. Whoopee!
Rather, the present site on St Stephen's Road should carry on as it already is - a managed forest; when a tree matures, it is replaced. The ambience, microflaora and fauna, carry on.
For example I am sure the staff and the police have a better purchase on possible pilferers and other pests at the existing site than they ever would on a huge single-storey campus.
Even after the boffins master the new generation of drug-resistant bugs, the same principle will continiu to apply to hospitals as to perishable food production - keep travelling distance to a minimum.
RR Gladden
Briston
Eastern Daily Press 20th December 1997
Baronness Jay - some correspondence
"It is the people's national health service and we should never forget that."
(Alan Milburn MP, Minister of State for Health, Hansard 15th May 1997)
"City centres are the places for hospitals."
(John Gummer, recently Minister for the Environment, Bristol 22nd March 1996)