St Ann's Hospital Con sultation

Consultation is currently taking place over proposals for the future of the St Ann's Hospital site, which is owned by Barnet, Enfield and Haringey Mental Health Trust (BEHMHT).  But beware, the consultation document has a lack of detail about the proposals and the questions asked are designed to make the project sound like something no-one could disagree with.  Then BEHMHT will use the answers to claim they have public support to sell and develop the site.  Instead, we should make sure the site is preserved to meet the healthcare needs of the Haringey's growing population, especially those in the east of the borough.  Once sold, the site is lost forever.

Background
Last year, as part of the consultation process a Community Reference Group (CRG) was set up by BEHMHT.  Despite what the consultation document says, there is not 'broad support' among local people or of the Community Reference Group (CRG) for the proposals.  Residents expressed concern over inadequate provision of healthcare facilities in Tottenham and wanted a range of additional health services to be provided on the site.  However, discussions at the CRG were consistently steered in a way that prevented exploration of other options to those preferred by BEHMHT,  i.e. this was not genuine consultation but we were used as a tick box exercise.  This is despite health inequality across the borough (life expectancy is 9 years less in the east) and the fact that the Primary Care Trust acknowledges that the area is under served for primary care services.

The consultation document suggests a whole lot of benefits for local residents, including increased health services, homes and jobs.  But these are not promises, they are extremely vague, have not actually been detailed or costed and are very unlikely to be delivered (this is what happened with the redevelopment of the Hornsey Hospital site a few years ago).  Also in recent years health services at St Ann's have been whittled away, so we are starting from a low base.  Despite concerns raised at the last CRG meeting about the leading questions proposed for the consultation document, these questions were not changed.  The key purpose of the consultation document is to proclaim public backing for the scheme so the site can be sold off. 

Health issues
The consultation document implies there will be 'modern and integrated health facilities developed to meet the current and future needs of the local population in Haringey'.  Requests were made for data to be provided to the CRG relating to incidence rates of various mental and physical ailments within Haringey, what treatments people receive for these and for information to be provided on where residents had to go to obtain diagnosis and treatment.  BEHMHT said they did not have this information, even relating to mental health, yet they repeatedly proclaim that most of the site is 'surplus to healthcare requirements'. 

Despite the high incidence of mental health problems in the east of the borough, BEHMHT planned to completely close the inpatient mental health facilities and transfer them to Chase Farm.  This part of the plan has been withdrawn - about the only real change made during the course of the meetings.   But despite requests, no information has been provided to the CRG (or in the consultation document) about the extent of the services to be provided and whether these will be sufficient to meet the needs of residents. 

The site was originally a general hospital, it was transferred from the NHS to the MHT in 2001, and if it is now surplus to their needs there is no reason why it cannot be transferred back to the NHS.  Local residents have repeatedly called for increased health facilities on the site.  Despite a population of nearly quarter of a million people, Haringey does not have a general hospital or even a walk in centre or minor injuries unit.   Requests by the CRG for a minor injuries unit to be provided on the site have so far been ignored as have requests for other health services.  We need to make sure they are included.

Housing
Some Councillors have supported the use of much of the site for housing on the basis of helping to meet Haringey's housing needs.   However, the primary shortage of housing in Haringey is of family sized social housing and genuinely affordable housing, and in at least two recent major redevelopment schemes (Spurs and Wards Corner), Haringey ignored their own policies and removed any requirement for social or affordable housing within the development on the say so of the developers who said that to include it would be financially unviable.  So called 'affordable housing' is in any event way out of the reach of the majority of those in need.  Developers are seeking to build all over Haringey on the asserted basis of housing need, then not actually building the sort of housing that is needed.  We shouldn't fall for it here.

Conservation
Residents repeatedly expressed their desire to preserve the attractive historic buildings and grounds particularly those in the west of the site which are pre 1914 and to refurbish these buildings rather than replace them.  Despite this, the plan in the consultation document shows two thirds of the site will be demolished, including all the west side with the exception of the water tower and 3 smaller buildings at the entrance.  Please also note that the consultation document does not give the height of proposed new buildings and that at the CRG there was widespread opposition to the proposal that buildings could be up to seven storeys high. 

Frequent reference was made by members of the CRG to the value of the trees and gardens on the site for health and well being, and in particular their importance to patients in aiding recovery and that modern hospital development often excludes this important factor.  Residents and service users expressed a desire for trees to be preserved, the gardens to be retained and to have allotments and food growing on the site.

Realism
We are repeatedly told that we have to be realistic, and that there are not funds available to provide the services people need.  This is designed to get us to set our sights low.  We pay taxes and NI for public services such as the NHS.  In the past few years billions have been given away to banks and the private sector and it is clear there is money available, but choices are being made not to give it to the services people need.  We need to make sure this changes, public money should be used for public benefit. 

Also BEHMHT have said that the hospital in its current run down state costs too much to run and is unsustainable, but during the CRG meetings they admitted that it would cost more to run the proposed new facilities.  Billions have been wasted on shiny new buildings through PFI and other schemes, are we facing the same thing happening again with St Ann's.  Detailed costings of various options were not provided to the CRG.  The family silver will be sold off and then we'll pay for it over and over again for years to come. 

We need to stop this from happening by objecting to the proposals and calling for the site to be preserved for healthcare and related facilities.  Our opposition now will make it more likely that generations to come will have local healthcare services meeting the needs of local residents, and that the attractive historic buildings and gardens will survive.