Watford health campus masterplan unveiled but hospital facilities remain unclear

Watford Observer: The plans do not indicate what purpose the new buildings in the project will have nor whether current hospital build will be replaced. The plans do not indicate what purpose the new buildings in the project will have nor whether current hospital build will be replaced.

A new masterplan showing the layout of the Watford health campus has been released, but the extent of the new hospital facilities it promises are still unclear.

A computer-generated image of the development has been unveiled today as part of a new consultation over the development, which aims to regenerate land behind Vicarage Road.

However the number of homes slated for the scheme appears to have risen from 600, which politicians originally mooted, to 700.

The proposed layout for Watford health campus shows a new access road and bridge, community garden, and central square - but crucially omits details of the new hospital.

The plans do not indicate what purpose the new buildings in the project will have nor whether current hospital build will be replaced.

Residents can view the plans for the 29 hectare site, stretching from Watford Hospital, down to the River Colne and Wiggenhall Road, and comment on them this month.

Mayor of Watford Dorothy Thornhill said: "The Watford health campus partners are delighted that, after months of work by the team, plans are finally ready to share with the community.

"Over this time, many local people have asked me what they could expect from the Watford health campus and it’s great news that we now have something people can look at that brings the scheme to life.

"We have been very demanding about what we want to see happen on the site: good quality homes, new business premises to encourage job opportunities, great open spaces with places for people to walk and exercise and the right mix of facilities such as shops, restaurant and cafés.

"Getting it right is vital for Watford; the scheme will take up to 20 years to deliver but a good masterplan is a great start".

Samantha Jones, chief executive of West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust said: "We’re delighted to be involved in such an exciting project which will undoubtedly deliver many advantages for the people of West Watford and beyond.

"Watford Hospital is at the centre of the Watford health campus and, in time, the plans will offer numerous benefits to our patients, their friends and families and our staff.

"I’d encourage local people to get involved and to help shape the masterplan".

The plans can be seen in the corporate lounge of Watford Football Club on Friday, January 17 from 1pm to 7pm and Saturday, January 18 from noon to 3pm.

They will also be displayed in Watford Town Hall, committee room two, on Thursday, January 30 from 10am to 1.30pm.

The plans can also be seen online via www.whc-consultation.co.uk.

Phil Woods, associate director Kier Project Investment, said: "We look forward to hearing the views of Watford residents at this important consultation phase with a view to submitting our planning application shortly thereafter".

You can view a larger version of the masterplan image here: Plan PDF.pdf

Comments (28)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:01pm Thu 9 Jan 14

TRT says...

Sketchy map with so little detail that it's impossible to comment sensibly. I smell a family of rats. Any scheme which asks you to support it when really it's leaving the detail up to your wishful thinking imagination is dodgy. It's a far cry from the previous documentation and plans which were released, virtually a back to the drawing board job. They'll run the survey, promising jobs and green spaces etc. then claim overwhelming support from the community, using that as a mandate to ignore legitimate protest, bulldoze huge tracts of natural habitat (like that behind the school which is a nature reserve at the moment, IIRC), and generally just line pockets left, right and centre.
Sketchy map with so little detail that it's impossible to comment sensibly. I smell a family of rats. Any scheme which asks you to support it when really it's leaving the detail up to your wishful thinking imagination is dodgy. It's a far cry from the previous documentation and plans which were released, virtually a back to the drawing board job. They'll run the survey, promising jobs and green spaces etc. then claim overwhelming support from the community, using that as a mandate to ignore legitimate protest, bulldoze huge tracts of natural habitat (like that behind the school which is a nature reserve at the moment, IIRC), and generally just line pockets left, right and centre. TRT
  • Score: 15

1:12pm Thu 9 Jan 14

TRT says...

From the 2007 masterplan documents...

17. TIMETABLE
Following on from the public consultation the Partnership is intending to submit an outline planning application for the masterplan to Watford Borough Council in July 2007. The Campus should take 10 – 11 years to complete. The new hospital is expected to open in 2014.
OUTLINE PROGRAMME
Memorandum of Understanding signed by Watford Health Campus Stakeholders – March 2006 
Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment Review of Masterplan – December 2006 
Football Club Registered Social Landlord Scheme Full Planning Consent – April 2007 •
Public Consultation – May 2007
Planning Application submitted – July 2007
Planning Consent – December 2007
Work begins – January 2008
New hospital completed – 2014
Campus completed – 2016
From the 2007 masterplan documents... 17. TIMETABLE Following on from the public consultation the Partnership is intending to submit an outline planning application for the masterplan to Watford Borough Council in July 2007. The Campus should take 10 – 11 years to complete. The new hospital is expected to open in 2014. OUTLINE PROGRAMME Memorandum of Understanding signed by Watford Health Campus Stakeholders – March 2006  Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment Review of Masterplan – December 2006  Football Club Registered Social Landlord Scheme Full Planning Consent – April 2007 • Public Consultation – May 2007 Planning Application submitted – July 2007 Planning Consent – December 2007 Work begins – January 2008 New hospital completed – 2014 Campus completed – 2016 TRT
  • Score: 2

1:24pm Thu 9 Jan 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

I don't trust it either.

I too do not feel the council are being open and honest about what is going on here. Something smells wrong.

I saw Dotty tell protesters that if there was any way she could have saved Farm Terrace she would have. My impression then was that nothing could have been further from the truth, so why would we believe her now?

I would say that our council and the opposition councillors have failed Watford over Farm Terrace and the whole Health Campus debacle.

There are elections this year for both Mayor and WBC.

Vote UKIP and let's open up this can of worms and see what's really inside.
I don't trust it either. I too do not feel the council are being open and honest about what is going on here. Something smells wrong. I saw Dotty tell protesters that if there was any way she could have saved Farm Terrace she would have. My impression then was that nothing could have been further from the truth, so why would we believe her now? I would say that our council and the opposition councillors have failed Watford over Farm Terrace and the whole Health Campus debacle. There are elections this year for both Mayor and WBC. Vote UKIP and let's open up this can of worms and see what's really inside. Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: 5

2:07pm Thu 9 Jan 14

dontknowynot says...

Its a housing development no ??
why is it called th Health Campus????
Its a housing development no ?? why is it called th Health Campus???? dontknowynot
  • Score: 7

2:22pm Thu 9 Jan 14

TRT says...

Quite. "Riverside" appears to be bounded by the school, the main road and the rail line / river. Access to those 100+ dwellings (which must be tiny tiny if there's 700 shown on this plan - 8/10 to a block!) is by Vicarage Road, "Farm Terrace" access road is from Cardiff Road only and comprises 500-600 dwellings (again at 8/10 to a block), major traffic with no relief there.
The rest includes a southern employment block, which I assume are the larger buildings in Riverside, and various other offices, possibly hospital buildings, in the central area and hub area. No indication of traffic flow. The junction between the new road and Wiggenhall Road is modified greatly from the previous plans I saw, the plans submitted to the council are no longer obtainable through the planning portal. The layout of that junction appears to allow left and right turns between Wiggenhall and the new road, not what was promised which was no through traffic across the campus so it doesn't become a rat-run. But without those turns and that through route, you get 700 extra dwellings-worth of traffic on already gridlocked roads.

There's not enough detail, just gloss and rhetoric. Another "public consultation" whitewash so they can kid themselves and central government (when the inevitable public enquiry is held) that they have the support of the majority, when really, they don't. This consultation is a box ticking exercise to enable them to continue with their plans.

How much did they spend on the 2007 masterplan? Gone but not forgotten, those plans are. Muddying the waters enough to disguise what they are up to. When someone turns round and says "But you said this..." they'll turn round and say "oh, that's the old plan, we abandoned that years ago... now we plan to... " But by the time that little deception is unmasked it'll be too late.
Quite. "Riverside" appears to be bounded by the school, the main road and the rail line / river. Access to those 100+ dwellings (which must be tiny tiny if there's 700 shown on this plan - 8/10 to a block!) is by Vicarage Road, "Farm Terrace" access road is from Cardiff Road only and comprises 500-600 dwellings (again at 8/10 to a block), major traffic with no relief there. The rest includes a southern employment block, which I assume are the larger buildings in Riverside, and various other offices, possibly hospital buildings, in the central area and hub area. No indication of traffic flow. The junction between the new road and Wiggenhall Road is modified greatly from the previous plans I saw, the plans submitted to the council are no longer obtainable through the planning portal. The layout of that junction appears to allow left and right turns between Wiggenhall and the new road, not what was promised which was no through traffic across the campus so it doesn't become a rat-run. But without those turns and that through route, you get 700 extra dwellings-worth of traffic on already gridlocked roads. There's not enough detail, just gloss and rhetoric. Another "public consultation" whitewash so they can kid themselves and central government (when the inevitable public enquiry is held) that they have the support of the majority, when really, they don't. This consultation is a box ticking exercise to enable them to continue with their plans. How much did they spend on the 2007 masterplan? Gone but not forgotten, those plans are. Muddying the waters enough to disguise what they are up to. When someone turns round and says "But you said this..." they'll turn round and say "oh, that's the old plan, we abandoned that years ago... now we plan to... " But by the time that little deception is unmasked it'll be too late. TRT
  • Score: 9

2:29pm Thu 9 Jan 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

dontknowynot wrote:
Its a housing development no ?? why is it called th Health Campus????
Because if you called it the "Let's overdevelop West Watford with housing, drive a major road through a park, close the Irish Club, Municipal tip AND destroy an allotment Campus" the people of Watford would be up in arms over it wondering what on earth the LibDems are doing destroying protected allotments and overdeveloping an already overdeveloped area.

I wonder what the Mayor and ruling LibDem council have against Labour-voting West Watford that they would do this deed?

Answers on a ballot paper please in May.
[quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: Its a housing development no ?? why is it called th Health Campus????[/p][/quote]Because if you called it the "Let's overdevelop West Watford with housing, drive a major road through a park, close the Irish Club, Municipal tip AND destroy an allotment Campus" the people of Watford would be up in arms over it wondering what on earth the LibDems are doing destroying protected allotments and overdeveloping an already overdeveloped area. I wonder what the Mayor and ruling LibDem council have against Labour-voting West Watford that they would do this deed? Answers on a ballot paper please in May. Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: 10

2:32pm Thu 9 Jan 14

dontknowynot says...

these meetings are what public consultation meetings, might i suggest the public go along
these meetings are what public consultation meetings, might i suggest the public go along dontknowynot
  • Score: 6

6:09pm Thu 9 Jan 14

dontknowynot says...

Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
dontknowynot wrote:
Its a housing development no ?? why is it called th Health Campus????
Because if you called it the "Let's overdevelop West Watford with housing, drive a major road through a park, close the Irish Club, Municipal tip AND destroy an allotment Campus" the people of Watford would be up in arms over it wondering what on earth the LibDems are doing destroying protected allotments and overdeveloping an already overdeveloped area.

I wonder what the Mayor and ruling LibDem council have against Labour-voting West Watford that they would do this deed?

Answers on a ballot paper please in May.
you are right on the first paragraph well done!!!

Now are you saying that this is an act of political spite against the good people of west Watford for voting Labour, if true then why would a vote for UKIP be the logical response,

On this issue Labour have been representing the people of West Watford very well and you should be congratulating them for doing a good job!!!!
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: Its a housing development no ?? why is it called th Health Campus????[/p][/quote]Because if you called it the "Let's overdevelop West Watford with housing, drive a major road through a park, close the Irish Club, Municipal tip AND destroy an allotment Campus" the people of Watford would be up in arms over it wondering what on earth the LibDems are doing destroying protected allotments and overdeveloping an already overdeveloped area. I wonder what the Mayor and ruling LibDem council have against Labour-voting West Watford that they would do this deed? Answers on a ballot paper please in May.[/p][/quote]you are right on the first paragraph well done!!! Now are you saying that this is an act of political spite against the good people of west Watford for voting Labour, if true then why would a vote for UKIP be the logical response, On this issue Labour have been representing the people of West Watford very well and you should be congratulating them for doing a good job!!!! dontknowynot
  • Score: 0

9:06pm Thu 9 Jan 14

Cuetip says...

The problem with intensifying housing is that it forces up the price of land which means the next round of property speculators will then build even more 'units' which then forces up the price of land and so the spiraling vicious cycle continues as more people are dragged in with of course a rise in rental incomes.

Then the reasoning such as demographics ie single people / couples 'want' one bed roomed places as they are affordable and no gardens or a parking space as they will cycle or use buses.

At the end of the day the social costs of patching up schools to cope with increased numbers or squeezing more on roads designed for much smaller numbers or even the cuts in police officers with a more demanding population count for little.

One thing is for sure, those who make these decisions don't have to live with them and someone walks away with a secure smile. No one is against the promise of a new hospital (which many think is in the wrong place) but it is used as the shield for all this.
The problem with intensifying housing is that it forces up the price of land which means the next round of property speculators will then build even more 'units' which then forces up the price of land and so the spiraling vicious cycle continues as more people are dragged in with of course a rise in rental incomes. Then the reasoning such as demographics ie single people / couples 'want' one bed roomed places as they are affordable and no gardens or a parking space as they will cycle or use buses. At the end of the day the social costs of patching up schools to cope with increased numbers or squeezing more on roads designed for much smaller numbers or even the cuts in police officers with a more demanding population count for little. One thing is for sure, those who make these decisions don't have to live with them and someone walks away with a secure smile. No one is against the promise of a new hospital (which many think is in the wrong place) but it is used as the shield for all this. Cuetip
  • Score: 6

10:42pm Thu 9 Jan 14

Andrew1963 says...

Good to see that allotments are to be replaced with executive parking for the football club directors; players and guests. After a 100 years of providing healthy recreation for West Watford residents, it's good to see the land finally be used for a Liberal Democrat priority - storing range rovers for 3 hours 30 times a year.
As predicted no new hospital, but lots of shiny new car parking.
Good to see that allotments are to be replaced with executive parking for the football club directors; players and guests. After a 100 years of providing healthy recreation for West Watford residents, it's good to see the land finally be used for a Liberal Democrat priority - storing range rovers for 3 hours 30 times a year. As predicted no new hospital, but lots of shiny new car parking. Andrew1963
  • Score: 9

10:48pm Thu 9 Jan 14

WD18Firm says...

It's a Housing Campus not a Health Campus.
There will never be enough money to rebuild the hospital, but none of our politicians can bring themselves to say it.

All we'll be left with is loads of boxy housing where once allotments stood, while the mayor laughs her way into the House of Lords like her pal second-placed-Sal Brinton did.

Bah humbug.
It's a Housing Campus not a Health Campus. There will never be enough money to rebuild the hospital, but none of our politicians can bring themselves to say it. All we'll be left with is loads of boxy housing where once allotments stood, while the mayor laughs her way into the House of Lords like her pal second-placed-Sal Brinton did. Bah humbug. WD18Firm
  • Score: 10

11:53pm Thu 9 Jan 14

dontknowynot says...

WD18Firm wrote:
It's a Housing Campus not a Health Campus.
There will never be enough money to rebuild the hospital, but none of our politicians can bring themselves to say it.

All we'll be left with is loads of boxy housing where once allotments stood, while the mayor laughs her way into the House of Lords like her pal second-placed-Sal Brinton did.

Bah humbug.
hang on she has to loss an election before she can be elevated to the HOL
er er oh yer....
Now I get the Master plan
[quote][p][bold]WD18Firm[/bold] wrote: It's a Housing Campus not a Health Campus. There will never be enough money to rebuild the hospital, but none of our politicians can bring themselves to say it. All we'll be left with is loads of boxy housing where once allotments stood, while the mayor laughs her way into the House of Lords like her pal second-placed-Sal Brinton did. Bah humbug.[/p][/quote]hang on she has to loss an election before she can be elevated to the HOL er er oh yer.... Now I get the Master plan dontknowynot
  • Score: 3

12:21am Fri 10 Jan 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

dontknowynot wrote:
Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
dontknowynot wrote: Its a housing development no ?? why is it called th Health Campus????
Because if you called it the "Let's overdevelop West Watford with housing, drive a major road through a park, close the Irish Club, Municipal tip AND destroy an allotment Campus" the people of Watford would be up in arms over it wondering what on earth the LibDems are doing destroying protected allotments and overdeveloping an already overdeveloped area. I wonder what the Mayor and ruling LibDem council have against Labour-voting West Watford that they would do this deed? Answers on a ballot paper please in May.
you are right on the first paragraph well done!!! Now are you saying that this is an act of political spite against the good people of west Watford for voting Labour, if true then why would a vote for UKIP be the logical response, On this issue Labour have been representing the people of West Watford very well and you should be congratulating them for doing a good job!!!!
Why would a vote for UKIP be the logical response?

There are so many good reasons, it's hard to know where to start.
[quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: Its a housing development no ?? why is it called th Health Campus????[/p][/quote]Because if you called it the "Let's overdevelop West Watford with housing, drive a major road through a park, close the Irish Club, Municipal tip AND destroy an allotment Campus" the people of Watford would be up in arms over it wondering what on earth the LibDems are doing destroying protected allotments and overdeveloping an already overdeveloped area. I wonder what the Mayor and ruling LibDem council have against Labour-voting West Watford that they would do this deed? Answers on a ballot paper please in May.[/p][/quote]you are right on the first paragraph well done!!! Now are you saying that this is an act of political spite against the good people of west Watford for voting Labour, if true then why would a vote for UKIP be the logical response, On this issue Labour have been representing the people of West Watford very well and you should be congratulating them for doing a good job!!!![/p][/quote]Why would a vote for UKIP be the logical response? There are so many good reasons, it's hard to know where to start. Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: -5

4:47am Fri 10 Jan 14

dontknowynot says...

Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
dontknowynot wrote:
Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
dontknowynot wrote: Its a housing development no ?? why is it called th Health Campus????
Because if you called it the "Let's overdevelop West Watford with housing, drive a major road through a park, close the Irish Club, Municipal tip AND destroy an allotment Campus" the people of Watford would be up in arms over it wondering what on earth the LibDems are doing destroying protected allotments and overdeveloping an already overdeveloped area. I wonder what the Mayor and ruling LibDem council have against Labour-voting West Watford that they would do this deed? Answers on a ballot paper please in May.
you are right on the first paragraph well done!!! Now are you saying that this is an act of political spite against the good people of west Watford for voting Labour, if true then why would a vote for UKIP be the logical response, On this issue Labour have been representing the people of West Watford very well and you should be congratulating them for doing a good job!!!!
Why would a vote for UKIP be the logical response?

There are so many good reasons, it's hard to know where to start.
there may or may not be many good reasons to have a driving licence but they are not relevant to the issue, similarly with UKIP the whatever you think of them is not relevant.
So I ask again is
Are you saying that this is an act of political spite against the good people of west Watford for voting Labour, if true then why would a vote for UKIP be the logical response???
And I restate
On this issue Labour have been representing the people of West Watford very well and you should be congratulating them for doing a good job!!!
both of which have some relevance, which clearly is more than UKIP have here, that is on this issue UKIP is irrelevant.
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: Its a housing development no ?? why is it called th Health Campus????[/p][/quote]Because if you called it the "Let's overdevelop West Watford with housing, drive a major road through a park, close the Irish Club, Municipal tip AND destroy an allotment Campus" the people of Watford would be up in arms over it wondering what on earth the LibDems are doing destroying protected allotments and overdeveloping an already overdeveloped area. I wonder what the Mayor and ruling LibDem council have against Labour-voting West Watford that they would do this deed? Answers on a ballot paper please in May.[/p][/quote]you are right on the first paragraph well done!!! Now are you saying that this is an act of political spite against the good people of west Watford for voting Labour, if true then why would a vote for UKIP be the logical response, On this issue Labour have been representing the people of West Watford very well and you should be congratulating them for doing a good job!!!![/p][/quote]Why would a vote for UKIP be the logical response? There are so many good reasons, it's hard to know where to start.[/p][/quote]there may or may not be many good reasons to have a driving licence but they are not relevant to the issue, similarly with UKIP the whatever you think of them is not relevant. So I ask again is Are you saying that this is an act of political spite against the good people of west Watford for voting Labour, if true then why would a vote for UKIP be the logical response??? And I restate On this issue Labour have been representing the people of West Watford very well and you should be congratulating them for doing a good job!!! both of which have some relevance, which clearly is more than UKIP have here, that is on this issue UKIP is irrelevant. dontknowynot
  • Score: 0

8:19am Fri 10 Jan 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

I don't live in west Watford and so have no idea whether Labour have represented the people well there or not. Voters will know. The best thing is to let the voters decide when faced with the choice of UKIP, Labour and others.

As for the motivations for why the development is happening on the Housing Campus I am not privy to what goes through the minds of Dotty and her fellow LibDems. I would just re-iterate what people like Sara-Jane and others have said, that the huge development of 600-700 dwellings in an area that is already one of the most densely packed in Hertfordshire seems an odd choice to make.

A UKIP council would not do what the Labour party wanted nor what the LibDems, Greens or any other party wants, it would do what is right for the people of Watford and if there was any serious doubt would hold a referendum to gain public consent (or otherwise). For that reason alone a vote for UKIP is a vote for common sense and for a better future for Watford.

That's why so many people are voting UKIP.
I don't live in west Watford and so have no idea whether Labour have represented the people well there or not. Voters will know. The best thing is to let the voters decide when faced with the choice of UKIP, Labour and others. As for the motivations for why the development is happening on the Housing Campus I am not privy to what goes through the minds of Dotty and her fellow LibDems. I would just re-iterate what people like Sara-Jane and others have said, that the huge development of 600-700 dwellings in an area that is already one of the most densely packed in Hertfordshire seems an odd choice to make. A UKIP council would not do what the Labour party wanted nor what the LibDems, Greens or any other party wants, it would do what is right for the people of Watford and if there was any serious doubt would hold a referendum to gain public consent (or otherwise). For that reason alone a vote for UKIP is a vote for common sense and for a better future for Watford. That's why so many people are voting UKIP. Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: -1

8:27am Fri 10 Jan 14

inayellowshirt says...

Would have thought if they were bringing in a potential 700 new families, a new school may have helped... but of course, we can just cram them into the existing ones that are already overflowing
Would have thought if they were bringing in a potential 700 new families, a new school may have helped... but of course, we can just cram them into the existing ones that are already overflowing inayellowshirt
  • Score: 4

10:35am Fri 10 Jan 14

TRT says...

I reckon I've got the idea behind this new masterplan... the 2007 plan had the housing on the site of the old hospital building. This new plan is more modular - it's not dependent on the hospital being vacated before housing, which is the highest profit part of the scheme, can be built. This scheme appears to allow them to build enough housing first to offset a great portion of the cost. The commercial/industria
l buildings I suspect will be designed to be mutli-function so that they can either be fitted out for hospital functions or let as commercial premises - offices and manufacturing / packing / production etc. The number of customised structures needed for medical use is not that great, magnetic shielding for MRI, reinforced water and steam proof floors for autoclave rooms, the operating theatres, etc. Things like the high integrity power supply, secure communications, distributed heating etc. can be designed in on a site-wide basis or for a specific segment of the site.

If the trust do stump up enough for a hospital rebuild, then all is well and dandy, the old hospital comes down and the bonus housing gets built, huge profits for Kier etc. If the trust don't find ALL the cash, the old hospital remains with probably some departments moving into new accommodation, it gets the new access roads, new combined heat and power etc. and the developers make a smaller profit from the housing they could build and the commercial lease of un-hospitalised units say for biotech or medical suppliers like Sigma (on Colonial Way), or private clinics (dentistry, cosmetic surgery, Vision Express etc). If the trust don't find any money for the rebuild or change their plans re Hemel etc then the developers break even or make a small but insured loss and retain the commercial property to let to whoever wants it.

In short, I think the extra housing on Riverside and Farm Terrace is really an insurance policy for the developer so they can get going on the project whilst the NHS wavers about and umms and errs over the costs and struggles to balance its books.

The likelihood is that under this scheme, the area will get redeveloped, the trust will put some money in, but not enough to do the whole lot as originally sold to us, and we'll end up with a piecemeal patchwork of an old hospital and other departments scattered across a wider campus, much like we have at the moment with the temporary buildings and porta-cabin services.
I reckon I've got the idea behind this new masterplan... the 2007 plan had the housing on the site of the old hospital building. This new plan is more modular - it's not dependent on the hospital being vacated before housing, which is the highest profit part of the scheme, can be built. This scheme appears to allow them to build enough housing first to offset a great portion of the cost. The commercial/industria l buildings I suspect will be designed to be mutli-function so that they can either be fitted out for hospital functions or let as commercial premises - offices and manufacturing / packing / production etc. The number of customised structures needed for medical use is not that great, magnetic shielding for MRI, reinforced water and steam proof floors for autoclave rooms, the operating theatres, etc. Things like the high integrity power supply, secure communications, distributed heating etc. can be designed in on a site-wide basis or for a specific segment of the site. If the trust do stump up enough for a hospital rebuild, then all is well and dandy, the old hospital comes down and the bonus housing gets built, huge profits for Kier etc. If the trust don't find ALL the cash, the old hospital remains with probably some departments moving into new accommodation, it gets the new access roads, new combined heat and power etc. and the developers make a smaller profit from the housing they could build and the commercial lease of un-hospitalised units say for biotech or medical suppliers like Sigma (on Colonial Way), or private clinics (dentistry, cosmetic surgery, Vision Express etc). If the trust don't find any money for the rebuild or change their plans re Hemel etc then the developers break even or make a small but insured loss and retain the commercial property to let to whoever wants it. In short, I think the extra housing on Riverside and Farm Terrace is really an insurance policy for the developer so they can get going on the project whilst the NHS wavers about and umms and errs over the costs and struggles to balance its books. The likelihood is that under this scheme, the area will get redeveloped, the trust will put some money in, but not enough to do the whole lot as originally sold to us, and we'll end up with a piecemeal patchwork of an old hospital and other departments scattered across a wider campus, much like we have at the moment with the temporary buildings and porta-cabin services. TRT
  • Score: 3

10:40am Fri 10 Jan 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

Remember as well that Farm Terrace does not have to be sold off, it is just convenient to do so for the LibDems. There are other ways of raising the money Farm Terrace would have brought in to the west Watford housing campus but they refuse to even consider this.

That's why we need fewer LibDems and more UKIP.
Remember as well that Farm Terrace does not have to be sold off, it is just convenient to do so for the LibDems. There are other ways of raising the money Farm Terrace would have brought in to the west Watford housing campus but they refuse to even consider this. That's why we need fewer LibDems and more UKIP. Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: 2

2:23pm Fri 10 Jan 14

dontknowynot says...

@phil cox (UKIP)
your posting on here makes about as much sense as your part'y's two tier flat tax policy
@phil cox (UKIP) your posting on here makes about as much sense as your part'y's two tier flat tax policy dontknowynot
  • Score: 2

3:24pm Fri 10 Jan 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

I am assuming that is an insult from a worried Labour party supporter who recognises how UKIP is eating into its core vote.

You are right to be worried, more and more ex-Labour supporters are coming to UKIP, attracted by its common sense policies.

I will leave it to others without such a heavy political axe to grind to decide for themselves whether my posts make any sense. It is clear you are too busy trying to insult UKIP to actually consider the merits of anything that has actually been said.

In case anyone is wondering why Labour might be worried, here is a clue.

When I stood for UKIP in May, for the first time ever UKIP had stood in Woodside/Stanborough
, the results were as follows.

County election: UKIP - 2nd Place, Labour 4th. We got a third more votes than Labour and 10 per cent more votes than the Tories.

Because of lack of resources at the time we were unable to post a single leaflet or canvass a single house. This was a vote for UKIP, pure and simple.

It's no wonder you and the other parties are so worried!
I am assuming that is an insult from a worried Labour party supporter who recognises how UKIP is eating into its core vote. You are right to be worried, more and more ex-Labour supporters are coming to UKIP, attracted by its common sense policies. I will leave it to others without such a heavy political axe to grind to decide for themselves whether my posts make any sense. It is clear you are too busy trying to insult UKIP to actually consider the merits of anything that has actually been said. In case anyone is wondering why Labour might be worried, here is a clue. When I stood for UKIP in May, for the first time ever UKIP had stood in Woodside/Stanborough , the results were as follows. County election: UKIP - 2nd Place, Labour 4th. We got a third more votes than Labour and 10 per cent more votes than the Tories. Because of lack of resources at the time we were unable to post a single leaflet or canvass a single house. This was a vote for UKIP, pure and simple. It's no wonder you and the other parties are so worried! Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: -1

7:52pm Fri 10 Jan 14

dontknowynot says...

nope just pointing out one the nonsense that is UKIP
BTW if you look at todays yougov Lab are gaining 5% of the tory vote from 2010 & ukip are gaining 5% from Labour 2010 vote, as your MEP's in eastern region have a 50% chance of turning tory and your policy's are tory steroid policy's I would call that even (although technically as the tory vote was higher than Labours in 2010 this is more than even for Lab)
The UKIP vote seems to have peaked according to the pollsters, this might have something to do with your useless MEPs such as the ex UKIP Bloom and this Agnew idiot
nope just pointing out one the nonsense that is UKIP BTW if you look at todays yougov Lab are gaining 5% of the tory vote from 2010 & ukip are gaining 5% from Labour 2010 vote, as your MEP's in eastern region have a 50% chance of turning tory and your policy's are tory steroid policy's I would call that even (although technically as the tory vote was higher than Labours in 2010 this is more than even for Lab) The UKIP vote seems to have peaked according to the pollsters, this might have something to do with your useless MEPs such as the ex UKIP Bloom and this Agnew idiot dontknowynot
  • Score: 0

8:06pm Fri 10 Jan 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

Ok, you, a fervent Labour supporter think that UKIP is nonsense. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. That's yours.

That might be expected I suppose of someone of your political persuasion.

There are however a great many people in this country and in Watford who would disagree with your analysis. We are happy that UKIP is appealing to those good people and we fully expect them to vote for us in the May elections when for the first time ever UKIP will be fielding candidates in all Watford seats.

I am proud of UKIP and what it stands for. UKIP will be good for Watford.
Ok, you, a fervent Labour supporter think that UKIP is nonsense. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. That's yours. That might be expected I suppose of someone of your political persuasion. There are however a great many people in this country and in Watford who would disagree with your analysis. We are happy that UKIP is appealing to those good people and we fully expect them to vote for us in the May elections when for the first time ever UKIP will be fielding candidates in all Watford seats. I am proud of UKIP and what it stands for. UKIP will be good for Watford. Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: 0

8:28pm Fri 10 Jan 14

dontknowynot says...

Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
Ok, you, a fervent Labour supporter think that UKIP is nonsense. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. That's yours.

That might be expected I suppose of someone of your political persuasion.

There are however a great many people in this country and in Watford who would disagree with your analysis. We are happy that UKIP is appealing to those good people and we fully expect them to vote for us in the May elections when for the first time ever UKIP will be fielding candidates in all Watford seats.

I am proud of UKIP and what it stands for. UKIP will be good for Watford.
look at YOUR vote the most You got from Labour is 50 votes you got hundreds from the Torys and Libdems,
This is reflective of the polls you are not greatly eating into the Labour vote.
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: Ok, you, a fervent Labour supporter think that UKIP is nonsense. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. That's yours. That might be expected I suppose of someone of your political persuasion. There are however a great many people in this country and in Watford who would disagree with your analysis. We are happy that UKIP is appealing to those good people and we fully expect them to vote for us in the May elections when for the first time ever UKIP will be fielding candidates in all Watford seats. I am proud of UKIP and what it stands for. UKIP will be good for Watford.[/p][/quote]look at YOUR vote the most You got from Labour is 50 votes you got hundreds from the Torys and Libdems, This is reflective of the polls you are not greatly eating into the Labour vote. dontknowynot
  • Score: 0

8:49pm Fri 10 Jan 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

Then you have nothing to be worried about, have you?
Then you have nothing to be worried about, have you? Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: 0

8:45am Sat 11 Jan 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

dontknowynot wrote:
Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
Ok, you, a fervent Labour supporter think that UKIP is nonsense. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. That's yours.

That might be expected I suppose of someone of your political persuasion.

There are however a great many people in this country and in Watford who would disagree with your analysis. We are happy that UKIP is appealing to those good people and we fully expect them to vote for us in the May elections when for the first time ever UKIP will be fielding candidates in all Watford seats.

I am proud of UKIP and what it stands for. UKIP will be good for Watford.
look at YOUR vote the most You got from Labour is 50 votes you got hundreds from the Torys and Libdems,
This is reflective of the polls you are not greatly eating into the Labour vote.
I've just had a quick look at the figures. You're right, the Labour vote held up reasonably losing just 46 votes from 2009, a drop of just 11%, so not much to worry about there then even if UKIP is a far more credible force now than it was then.

The Greens vote collapsed once UKIP stood, dropping from 301 to 86. Their vote collapsed by a whopping 71%. They might need to worry. A lot.

Tories lost 337 votes. That's a drop of 42% in their support. I think you can see why some in the party are insulting UKIP whenever there is an opportunity. They might also be worried.

The LibDems thrashed everyone by a wide margin in 2009 (when UKIP didn't stand) and again in 2013. But then again, when you look at the figures in more depth, their vote also collapsed significantly. They lost 569 votes between 2009 and 2013 - hardly a ringing endorsement of their time in power in Watford. That's almost as many votes as all the other parties put together. A drop in their vote of 31%. I hope that concerns them and that they treat the people of Watford with a bit more respect in the future than they have in the past.

I look forward to analysing the results from the May elections in Watford.
As we say in UKIP "Interesting times lie ahead".

Vote UKIP.
[quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: Ok, you, a fervent Labour supporter think that UKIP is nonsense. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. That's yours. That might be expected I suppose of someone of your political persuasion. There are however a great many people in this country and in Watford who would disagree with your analysis. We are happy that UKIP is appealing to those good people and we fully expect them to vote for us in the May elections when for the first time ever UKIP will be fielding candidates in all Watford seats. I am proud of UKIP and what it stands for. UKIP will be good for Watford.[/p][/quote]look at YOUR vote the most You got from Labour is 50 votes you got hundreds from the Torys and Libdems, This is reflective of the polls you are not greatly eating into the Labour vote.[/p][/quote]I've just had a quick look at the figures. You're right, the Labour vote held up reasonably losing just 46 votes from 2009, a drop of just 11%, so not much to worry about there then even if UKIP is a far more credible force now than it was then. The Greens vote collapsed once UKIP stood, dropping from 301 to 86. Their vote collapsed by a whopping 71%. They might need to worry. A lot. Tories lost 337 votes. That's a drop of 42% in their support. I think you can see why some in the party are insulting UKIP whenever there is an opportunity. They might also be worried. The LibDems thrashed everyone by a wide margin in 2009 (when UKIP didn't stand) and again in 2013. But then again, when you look at the figures in more depth, their vote also collapsed significantly. They lost 569 votes between 2009 and 2013 - hardly a ringing endorsement of their time in power in Watford. That's almost as many votes as all the other parties put together. A drop in their vote of 31%. I hope that concerns them and that they treat the people of Watford with a bit more respect in the future than they have in the past. I look forward to analysing the results from the May elections in Watford. As we say in UKIP "Interesting times lie ahead". Vote UKIP. Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: 1

2:24pm Sat 11 Jan 14

dontknowynot says...

well that ward is Libdem country hear you need an Orange Passport to venture north of that section of St Albans road.
Strange about the Green vote, I would say that with these figures and the demographic from a Geekish point of view and with some knowledge of the area the downward trend from 2009 to 2013 may be due to the long term increase in property prices etc in that area a much as to do with the eb abd flow of votes.
It is Tory votes on the main that your party attracts, clearly the Local Lib dems are rubbing their hands in glee becouse your party locally will inevitably concentrate its efforts on areas such as Meriden, leggats etc areas in which UKIp will only succeed in pushing the Tory party into fourth and give the Libdems their best chance of a seat. If Your party wants to win seats then its best chance is to concentrate on seats like Park and Nascot, maybe your seat and Tudor that look like they should be natural Tory
well that ward is Libdem country hear you need an Orange Passport to venture north of that section of St Albans road. Strange about the Green vote, I would say that with these figures and the demographic from a Geekish point of view and with some knowledge of the area the downward trend from 2009 to 2013 may be due to the long term increase in property prices etc in that area a much as to do with the eb abd flow of votes. It is Tory votes on the main that your party attracts, clearly the Local Lib dems are rubbing their hands in glee becouse your party locally will inevitably concentrate its efforts on areas such as Meriden, leggats etc areas in which UKIp will only succeed in pushing the Tory party into fourth and give the Libdems their best chance of a seat. If Your party wants to win seats then its best chance is to concentrate on seats like Park and Nascot, maybe your seat and Tudor that look like they should be natural Tory dontknowynot
  • Score: 1

11:24am Mon 13 Jan 14

TRT says...

I see they've scribbled in a few "possible hospital" notes on their master plan now.

*sarcasm mode*

Clearly the hospital was at the forefront of their minds when they drew the plans up.

*sarcasm off*
I see they've scribbled in a few "possible hospital" notes on their master plan now. *sarcasm mode* Clearly the hospital was at the forefront of their minds when they drew the plans up. *sarcasm off* TRT
  • Score: 1

1:50pm Tue 14 Jan 14

TRT says...

Another thing they show is that the present old hospital building facing Vicarage Road is coloured in yellow, indicating "new build" when clearly it isn't. that stands to reason as the old hospital is of local interest and protected, but the REST of the old hospital looks like it is to go. That is the boiler house, laundry, kitchens etc. Not that it's a great loss, but it's still a nice building. The plan's indication for the existing hospital building also seems not to match up with the floor plan of those buildings. The main tower has the linking bridge with two light wells, not the maternity block which has a single open courtyard.
And as Andrew pointed out, the allotment land, or part of it, is marked as parking for the football club. Not "essential" for the housing as stated. The more you look at this plan, the more you uncover flaws and hidden agendas.

The zone 2 area could easily be built before the playing fields are touched...
The school looks like is loses a few feet of playground.
Rose Gardens looks like it's going to be overlooked to the rear - there's too many step changes is level on this land to achieve the plan they present...
Another thing they show is that the present old hospital building facing Vicarage Road is coloured in yellow, indicating "new build" when clearly it isn't. that stands to reason as the old hospital is of local interest and protected, but the REST of the old hospital looks like it is to go. That is the boiler house, laundry, kitchens etc. Not that it's a great loss, but it's still a nice building. The plan's indication for the existing hospital building also seems not to match up with the floor plan of those buildings. The main tower has the linking bridge with two light wells, not the maternity block which has a single open courtyard. And as Andrew pointed out, the allotment land, or part of it, is marked as parking for the football club. Not "essential" for the housing as stated. The more you look at this plan, the more you uncover flaws and hidden agendas. The zone 2 area could easily be built before the playing fields are touched... The school looks like is loses a few feet of playground. Rose Gardens looks like it's going to be overlooked to the rear - there's too many step changes is level on this land to achieve the plan they present... TRT
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

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

I agree