Dear Planning Policy
This is the response of PRACT to your consultation on the site named
St. Mary’s Hospital
PRACT s a consortium of these four recognised amenity societies: BRA, HPEA, PW&MVS and SEBRA.
Our response
Notice of Regulation 19 – Partial Review of Westminster’s City Plan Development Plan – site allocation, St. Mary’s Hospital
1. I am submitting this response on behalf of PRACT. We note that there appears to be no further detail publicly available through the Council, following the earlier consultation of January 2024. Therefore there is limited change in our response dated 29 January 2024.
2. Residents evidently support the prospect of a new 800 bed hospital to replace the present dispersed facilities including the QEQM building. We evidently hope that the financing difficulties can be resolved soon and a firm date settled for its completion. We understand that some existing land may be sold or swapped as part of this process, and that there will be a further Master Plan, hopefully with consultation before it is issued. At present we make observations or requests on only three themes.
First, addressing the difficulties of maintaining continuity of service during construction
3. From the briefing that Imperial College recently gave SEBRA, we know that the likely intention is to work in two phases – firstly to build a new hospital building on the East side of the QEQM building, and then to to demolish the existing QEQM building and replace it with, in effect, the second part of the new 800 bed hospital, for preference merged with the first part.
Eventually demolishing and replacing the QEQM Building
4. In our opinion, it is essential that any planning permission for such a new building or buildings should be made contingent upon an enforceable commitment to knock down the QEQM building shortly after occupation of the first part of the new building. It may be that the planning application will be on this basis in any event, but if so there should be a condition requiring completion of the whole project.
5. It appears that the ultimate objective is to have a single massive and tall new building built upon both the land now occupied by the existing QEQM building and land to the east of it, but at present there is much uncertainty. For instance, it is doubtful whether a second part on the west side could be merged with an already occupied first part on the east side.
How best to maintain continuity of service?
6. What is clear is that there must be continuity throughout in the provision of sufficient beds in Wards and continuity of A & E unless this can continue elsewhere, away from the new building. The local road system should facilitate speedy ambulance access throughout the construction period.
7. We appreciate that this is already well understood but there are obvious difficulties on the way. Would 400 or less beds in Wards be sufficient while the QEQM building is being knocked down and rebuilt? Separation of A & E from the Wards would create difficulties for staff and ambulances.
One new building eventually, or two?
8. Thus it appears at present that the possibility of two buildings cannot be ruled out, because of the difficulty of building and merging a second building when the first is already occupied. However that solution would evidently suffer from the disadvantage of probably there being only bridges between them on some floors only, but not all. (As in Kuala Lumpor.)
A new Master Plan, and consultation on it during preparation
9. We trust that all the other historic buildings on the wider site will be well maintained and put to good use. There should be detailed proposals about this in the Master Plan which is expected, and there should be consultation on it in its preparation, continuing once it is published.
Secondly, the canal basin frontage
10. We agree with the blue dotted line in your diagram, indicating a ‘potential active frontage’ along the whole of the southern side of the canal basin. At present the potential for this walkway is interrupted by the existing QEQM hospital building which is built right up to the water’s edge.
11. In our view, it is essential that the emerging Master Plan for the whole site should provide explicitly for this continuous walkway, whatever the other details in the Plan. Any new hospital building or buildings on the canal frontage should either provide a passageway through the building at low level or, if need be, the walkway could be cantilevered out over the water.
Thirdly, bringing forward the new outpatients’ building
12. Could the Council please consider along with Imperial College a version of the Master Plan for the whole site, in which the new outpatients’ building at the corner site at the eastern end of South Wharf Road could be brought into use early? It already has planning consent and it seems to us that early implementation, which would be to everybody’s advantage, is most unlikely to block any other options in the Master Plan for the whole site.
13. Doing this early would be the best solution of the need to continue providing outpatient services throughout. Finance is of course a problem, but the land now used for dispersed outpatient facilities would be freed.
8 May 2024 ( previously submitted on 24 April, no further changes )
John Walton
Secretary, PRACT