Criteria (d) of the Policy should be amended as follows: 'Car parking to be provided in accordance with needadopted standards as a minimum, informed by a car parking survey of existing demand'. Parking at the hospital is a significant issue and is often reported as a significant and harmful problem by visitors, employees and patients. Before progressing with this site there should be a parking survey to determine the existing needs of all users. In particular there should be sufficient parking

POLICY S18 – WILLIAM HARVEY HOSPITAL Policy 18 supports proposals to improve, expand, reconfigure and consolidate the range of medical facilities at the William Harvey Hospital. We would welcome early engagement with the Hospital when such proposals are being scoped. We support the policy requirement for a Transport Assessment and Travel Plan to be provided, along with the provision of measures to mitigate any impact of development on the wider transport network. However, we note that it appear

In Policy S18, reference needs to be made to the Local Wildlife Site of Willesborough Lees (AS44) because it encloses this allocation to the north and east. any development must be shown not to impact upon this adjacent site of county importance and any impacts must be mitigated for. Without this protection, the policy does not comply with the NPPF para 113, where its specifies that protection should be afforded for locally designated sites.

Car parking should be adequate for future needs rather than existing demand. This must include sufficient parking for staff, patients and visitors. In addition charges must be made at a reasonable rate. This is to stop the need for hospital users to park vehicles in nearby residential areas.

4.204 and 4.205 and 4.207 Survey by all means, but recognise that arriving up to 30 minutes before an appointment in case you have to wait for a car to leave the car park is not a sensible way to run a car park. If you are ill or have broken limbs, cycling and walking to the hospital is not really an option.

The consultation document is very much from the 'status quo' position rather than looking at the area from scratch and making sound planning decision. It is very weak regarding the effect of developments on local residents and ignores the effects of over development on transport and the the local resident's environment. For example: I have great concerns about the effect on residents caused by a lack of thought by planners for example: The continued OVER DEVELOPMENT of the William Harvey S18 s

William Harvey Hospital (S18) * Green travel plans are to be required by each development on this site to reduce the parking by staff on local residential roads. It is noted that there is a discount for part time workers at WHH who can buy a reduced price permit to park in the public car parks but there is an issue as to whether this discount is enough. It is also noted that the 10A, C and H routes run by Stagecoach are not particularly well used and the Green Travel Plan produced by applicants

4.207 Future access to the WH hospital site and current access are all controlled by the limitations of both the current and future road network provision.

This document mentions Health only once (in the introduction about partnership with the HWB). It is imperative that the planners seek additional input from health in the form of the CCG, the GP Federation and other health providers including the hospital and community trust. This Plan should be mindful of the need to develop high quality out of hospital local facilities as the direction of travel in health and social care is to move all but the most acute services out of hospital setting for d