Blog Contents | Start | End | Previous: Save Berwick Infirmary | Next: A plan for the Infirmary: A Winter Garden
This is our paragraph-by-paragraph response to Northumbria Healthcare’s shock announcement that they will be going back on their word and demolishing the Berwick Infirmary front except for the tower. The announcement is marked in blue, and our responses in red.
The planning process to retain part of Berwick Infirmary’s bell tower building is to begin.
This statement is upside down. They are actually seeking permission to demolish parts of the building that they have already promised to retain. They already have permission to retain the tower, and the whole front.
Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust has been engaging with a wide range of groups and individuals about the future of the bell tower, as it appreciates that it holds a strong emotional connection for some.
As we understand it, there have been elusive and secretive talks that, despite commercial interest, have foundered because Northumbria Healthcare could not decide which of their redundant buildings they were going to use themselves. This was an impossible environment for commercial decision-making. There has been no attempt that we know of to open discussions up to the public, or to advertise using an estate agent.
A key consideration for Northumbria Healthcare must be affordability as the custodians of NHS money. Investing in patient services will always be its top priority for spending.
Agreed, but you proposed to keep the whole frontage in your application of 2020 and surely it was costed out then. Also, your proposal is likely to cost more upfront because there is little possibility of getting a heritage grant for the plan: and you have added a planning process and therefore consultancy that you could have avoided. Shoring up the tower, which was never intended to stand alone, will be expensive and unsatisfactory.
Other key considerations include making sure the use of the bell tower is appropriate for the space and location, and longevity and sustainability of use, with this section of the old building being at the main entrance to the new modern hospital.
We completely agree that it is a difficult one to solve but you did manage to incorporate the building into your extensive plans and mention many times how it is to form part of the whole ensemble (see our timeline for examples). Surely the use of the building was discussed prior to 2020?
Damon Kent, managing director of Northumbria Healthcare Facilities Management, said: “We know what an emotive issue this is and that opinion is split in the town around whether the bell tower should be retained or not. This is understandable, as the tower has been a prominent feature on the Berwick skyline since 1874 and although it is not statutorily listed, we know it holds a strong emotional attachment for some.
“We would like to reassure everyone that we have been thorough in our consideration of the use of the bell tower building. As part of this we commissioned various reports to consider different factors including feasibility, cost and safety.
“The new hospital has been long awaited by many, and the site’s function must primarily focus on the delivery of healthcare and accessibility to healthcare. Any use of the bell tower cannot impact on this or restrain this in any way.”
There is no evidence given here that “we have been thorough in our consideration” – it has not been advertised as available for sale or rent, nor raised as part of your drop-in sessions for progress of the hospital.
The assertion “Any use of the bell tower cannot impact on this or restrain this in any way” is at odds with the fulsome praise lavished on the building and the idea of retention that formed a crucial part of the 2020 application.
Reports commissioned by Northumbria Healthcare demonstrate that the bell tower section of the hospital building has limited use in terms of functional space and importantly, limited accessibility to the top floor. The reports also detail that the cost of making sure the building is structurally sound, keeping the building in good repair and adapting it for any other use would be very expensive. It is not appropriate that NHS funds are used to do this.
“Very expensive” does not allow the public to understand the cost-benefit argument you are trying to make. Also, why are you focused on NHS funds to do this when it clear that heritage grants might be available?
Accessibility would not be a problem in some reuse scenarios, such as our suggestion of a winter garden in which the upper floor of the main block is removed entirely to increase light and space.
The reports also conclude that it is unlikely that a commercial developer would consider the reuse of the building due to many constraints, and in particular the challenges involved in finding a functional commercial use within a busy operational hospital site.
Commercial development is not the only option. One only has to look at Maggie’s Centres, to see that independent, quirky buildings can be a feature of an NHS hospital.
Damon Kent continued: “To date, we have not received an official proposal for the use of the bell tower building that we believe is tangible, durable and that can be sustainably funded for a long period of time.”
This means that you haven’t had any proposals that allow you to retain control of the building/land or that you like. We have not seen the building advertised or proposals invited in any public manner.
“After a significant amount of engagement and consideration, we have made the decision to apply to retain the central tower element of the bell tower building. This means the tower could remain as a landmark on the new hospital site and as part of the Berwick skyline – as it has been for many years.”
This is extremely disingenuous wording. The 2020 proposal was accepted on the grounds that the tower and its supporting block was to be incorporated, and indeed celebrated as a gateway to the new hospital. Using the word ‘retain’ in this context is to hide the fact you are seeking permission to demolish most of the rest of the building, and therefore going back on your proposal.
Less than five percent of the original floor plan of the front will be retained if you are allowed to proceed: and the front is itself a small fraction of the Victorian building.
The retention of only the tower and the building as in the 2020 proposal already represents a serious concession in terms of heritage preservation. What had been allowed to remain already meant the loss of the historically interesting 1874 H-block – the state-of-the-art hospital plan of its day. Had you decided to leave more, it might have been easier to find a commercial use for it. Now you are seeking to further erode this by leaving only the tower, stranded and alone and without function. This is tokenism, with only lip-service paid to heritage considerations.
“We believe that this is positive as from what we have heard in various discussions and forums, it is the tower that people would most like to retain on site and as part of the town’s skyline. This is also reflected in the planning evidence base and conservation area documentation.”
Again, some evidence would be useful. And very often, referring to the tower has been a short-hand for the front plus tower – we doubt anyone has previously considered the idea that the tower might stand entirely on its own. The landmark is not simply the tower, but the tower in its context.
The Trust plans to replace the buildings that are attached to the bell tower itself with landscaped gardens that can be used by patients and the local community, whilst creating an attractive arrival space to the new hospital, as well as much-needed car parking for patients and visitors.
Landscaping was already planned for behind the Infirmary front. And the idea that demolishing these small remaining buildings would provide a significant amount of further landscaping and more parking is absurd. It’s also questionable how enjoyable or safe a small garden surrounded by manoeuvring cars close by is going to be.
The Trust will begin work on the planning application process within the next week or so.
The haste with which this is being done, without further community consultation for the new plan, means we are being railroaded into losing our valuable heritage. This plan is entirely for the Trust’s convenience, without proper weight given to the impact on Berwick’s conservation area and its built heritage.