NHS LONDON TELLS COCKELL AND MOYNIHAN TO TAKE A HIKE

NHS London, the major customer of  Royal Brompton and Royal Marsden is not happy. 
This letter, obtained by the Chelsea Independent group, is a game changer...NHS London is getting heavy...
Reading between the lines it seems NHS London strongly object to Merrick Cockell and buddies narrow and self interested plans for redevelopment. It also seems they are unhappy about the gang's promotion of the Council's pro Brompton's Supplementary Planning Guidance. 
NHS London consider this negligently ignores the equally important fate of the Royal Marsden.
The letter goes on to say that, not withstanding the urging of the Council, the two sides are still at loggerheads.

The Royal Marsden is not just a London centric hospital: its patient base is England wide so many patients are being put at risk.

Dr Rainsberry

30 April 2014

Jonathan Bore
Executive Director of Planning and Borough Development
The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
Room G/08, The Town Hall
Horton Street
London W8 7NX

Dear Mr Bore,

Consultation on Royal Brompton Draft SPD

This is NHS England’s response to the current consultation on the redevelopment of the Royal Brompton Hospital.

Since April 2013, NHS England has been responsible for commissioning specialist services from the Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Foundation Trust and the Royal Marsden Hospital (see below) for all England’s residents. Our estimated expenditure at Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Foundation Trust (RBHFT) in 2013/14 is over £200 million (84% of RBHFT’s NHS income). For clarity, as a Foundation Trust, RBHFT is regulated by Monitor.

In your report of 7 January 2014, you recorded the Royal Marsden Hospital and Institute of Cancer Research concerns regarding the Fulham Wing (South Block) and the impact of any development on their buildings on either side.  You called upon the two Foundation Trusts to continue to discuss the future use of these buildings. Our understanding is that these discussions have so far failed to reach a resolution that the Royal Marsden and Institute of Cancer can support.

We note RBHFT’s stated benefits of the proposals but we have not yet had sufficeint opportunity to review them in detail nor consider them in the context of the development of specialist services and research in general across London. In any event, the failure to achieve a satisfactory resolution of the discussions with the Royal Marsden and the Institute places NHS England in a difficult position regarding any potential support for RBHFT’s proposals. Whilst we recognise the potential for benefits to patients and services at the Royal Brompton, we could not support a development if there was a risk that it is to the detriment of the future development of specialist cancer services provided by the Royal Marsden or the Institute’s research.

Our view is that there should be a review of the impact of RBHFT’s proposals on the Royal Marsden and the Institute to mitigate any potential risks.  Further more, we would recommend any review should look at opportunities arising from the RBHFT’s proposals to the benefit of Royal Marsden and the Institute. As the principle commissioner of services from both organisations we would be pleased to facilitate a review, involving the regulator if Monitor thinks it appropriate.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Anne Rainsberry

Regional Director (London)

NHS England