Saving Atkinson Morley's Hospital Green Space
 and Working for a Greener London

Diagrams & maps of  proposals November 2004

LUNG's concerns

Previous plans (2003)

Hospital closure & security

Sweet chestnuts

The campaign

Merton Council's Unitary Development Plan

National issues

Housing on Firs and hospital sites:

• Hospital building retained and converted into flats
• 94 dwellings (previous plan 149)
  -- 28 affordable/66 private, of which 30 are houses
• 146 parking spaces -- 1.5 spaces per dwelling -- which the Trust say is the maximum allowed under planning guidance
• Development to be set 30ft back from the road
• No individual crossovers

Open land to the south of the Firs and hospital sites:

• Freehold to Merton Council
• Lease and management to a community trust
• Open land and funds to be transferred to the Council (and thereafter to the community trust) through a Section 106 agreement i.e. as part of the planning approval
• Planning application only fully approved when the S106 is signed by the council and the NHS Trust

LUNG'S CONCERNS ABOUT THE TRUST'S PROPOSALS

Housing development concerns:

• No views of open land from copse Hill through the Firs site

• Bus turning circle moved from current site to the front of the Wolfson Rehabilitation Unit, and will occupy, in part, land designated as Metropolitan Open Land (MOL)

• 49 trees lost, some important trees including some original Repton planting and a threat to 2 London planes

• Social housing mostly on the Firs site.  Contrary to best practice, there is little integration of social and private housing

• Proposed buildings are close to MOL and adjacent properties

Open land concerns

• The lawn area to the south of the hospital is proposed as a private facility for residents of the new development

• Will the NHS Trust transfer sufficient funds and assets to make a park financially sustainable?

• If it can only work with grant funding, how can there be certainty about funds before a S106 is signed?

LUNG are seeking clarification on a number of points:

• Parking spaces -- how have the 1.5 spaces per dwelling been calculated? Have spaces on the open land by the sports pavilion been inappropriately included in the 16 total -- these would not be available for the new residents

• Is the new development actually lower in density? There are fewer dwellings, but are there also fewer rooms?

• Which trees will be lost? The list is not consistent with the drawings

• No elevation or floor plan drawings have been provided

Click here for further information on the continuing campaign