NASMIS Welcome & Introductions Site Option Appraisal Session 2 - - PDF document

16/09/18 1

NASMIS Site Option Appraisal Session 2 Welcome & Introductions

Who I Am

Norman Suth therland, RN, MBA

• HGHCP Director (Healthcare)
• Associate Director (Healthcare Planner)
• NHS Head of Capital Projects/Planning
• NHS Hospital General Manager
• NHS Clinical/FM Services Manager
• NHS Modernisation Consultant
• Clinical Professional

Agenda

1300 - 1315 Introduction & Overview of Session 1 1315 - 1445 Summary of Short-listed Options & Discussion 1445 - 1500 Break 1500 -1600 Formal Scoring of Options 1600 – 1620 Plenary Discussion: Preferred Site Option 1620 – 1630 Summary and Next Steps

Introductions

Anyone who wasn’t at the first session? Any specific comments or reflections on the first session…

5

Review & Summary of Session 1

16/09/18 2

Session 1:

Provided an update on the project Agreed the “measures of success” (benefits criteria) relating to preferred site selection “Weighted” these benefits criteria to determine their relative importance Considered the main site options available Agreed which of these options were feasible and developed a “short-list” of options for further consideration Attempted to understand what we all need to know about these options in order to be able to evaluate (appraise) them formally

In between Session 1 and Session 2 we have:

Refined options on the “short-list” Gathered relevant information on the short list of

• ptions to inform the appraisal process

Developed “block” drawings on how these options might look/work in practice based on Keir’s block relationship diagrams Compiled a high-level SWOT (Strengths, weaknesses,

• pportunities & threats) analysis for each option as

the basis for discussion, debate and formal “scoring”

At this session we will:

Remind everyone of the agreed “benefits criteria” Provide the opportunity to discuss and debate the short-listed options as appropriate Formally score these options based on the measures we agreed previously Begin to understand, all things considered, which

• ption appears preferable and our preferred site

Discuss what happens next!

Agreed Benefits Criteria (Measures of success)

Accessibility Disruption Future flexibility/sustainability Planning/Legal issues and lead time Service-specific (NASMIS) Clinical/strategic “fit” Site/environmental constraints Wider (Woodlands view site) Clinical/strategic “fit”

Site Benefits Criteria (Emerging themes)

CRITERIA Ability of an option to, E.g. ... Accessibility

• Be easily seen/found
• Be readily accessible by public transport
• Be easily accessed by car
• Be easily accessed by pedestrians and cyclists
• Be easily reached from a taxi drop-off point
• Present ready emergency access
• Present ready access to relevant (off-site)

local amenities, e.g. Hotels

• Maintain consistency with local and wider

travel planning/policy

• Reduce overall distance travelled for the

majority of those accessing it

• Be accessible for FM and Estates services, e.g.

Linen, mail, waste, supplies, etc.

16/09/18 3

CRITERIA Ability of an option to, E.g. ... Disruption

• Minimise the impact of construction on

existing clinical services, e.g. Noise.

• Minimise the impact of construction on

existing support services, e.g. Location of the site compound.

• Minimise the impact of construction on all

staff, patients and visitors

• Minimise the impact of construction on

existing traffic flows and separation.

• Minimise any preparatory/services work

required

• …

CRITERIA Ability of an option to, E.g. ... Future flexibility & sustainability

• Allow the development of flexible facilities
• Allow services to be delivered flexibly
• Cope with future change/capacity needs
• Attract and retain an appropriately skilled

workforce

• Optimise “out of hours” and wider staffing

requirements

• Reduce “single points of failure”
• Deliver flexibility and redundancy
• …

CRITERIA Ability of an option to, E.g. ... Planning issues, legal issues and lead time

• Reduce the impact of planning considerations
• Reduce the likelihood/impact of legal

implications

• Reduce investigations/studies likely to be

required

• Reduce lead time overall
• Optimise land values of the disposal site
• …

CRITERIA Ability of an option to, E.g. ... Service-specific (NASMIS) Clinical/strategic “fit”

• Deliver the NASMIS service as it is currently

envisaged

• Deliver an experience that NASMIS patients,

visitors and staff would choose

• Deliver optimal physical links/access routes to

relevant services on the Woodlands site in support of the NASMIS service

• Optimise the use of collective clinical staff
• Present the optimal topography to minimise

the visible impact of essential security requirements

• Appropriately balance privacy and isolation
• …

CRITERIA Ability of an option to, E.g. ... Site/Environmental Constraints

• Deliver all required services, e.g. Water,

power, drainage, etc

• Provide a discrete entrance
• Provide an appropriate environment that is,

e.g. Free of background noise

• Allow a design that can be naturally ventilated
• Facilitate a building that will support an

appropriate BREEAM rating

CRITERIA Ability of an option to, E.g. ... Wider (Woodlands View) Clinical/strategic “fit”

• Improve/enhance (or mitigate the negative

impact of) NASMIS development on overall site functionality

• Deliver an experience that existing

Woodlands View patients, visitors and staff would choose, e.g. Not have a negative impact on views

• Optimise the use of collective resources

(support staff and facilities)

• …

16/09/18 4

Understand the Challenge Determine the “Benefits Criteria” “Weight” the Benefits Criteria Agree the Options Available Score the Options Against The Criteria Discuss the “Preferred Option”

Session 1 Session 2

To discuss and debate short-listed options To review and assess how well each option addresses each individual criteria E.g. “The extent to which Option X delivers accessibility as we have defined it” To formally score all options against all criteria /10 based

• n an established scoring matrix

To be able to present a rationale argument for scoring, e.g. We scored option X higher than option Y on accessibility because…

The Challenge Now:

Scoring

SCORING CRITERIA POINTS/10 Could not be better, perfection! 10 Excellent, almost perfect 9 Very good 8 Good 7 Quite good 6 Adequate – Neither good or bad 5 Less good 4 Poor 3 Very poor 2 Could hardly be worse! 1

Options

The Process…

Norman will introduce the option David Mason will summarise the main site considerations We will all have the opportunity to discuss/debate the

• ption and ask relevant questions in the context of the

agreed benefits criteria We will reflect on the option and how we would personally score it against the criteria already agreed (out of 10) (Prompt sheets have been provided) After we have heard all options, we will discuss our scores within our group and agree group scores for each option against each criteria

24

Suggested scoring process…

O p t i

• n

1 Option 2 Option 3 SCORING CRITERIA POINTS/ 10 Could not be better, perfection! 10 Excellent, almost perfect 9 Very good 8 Good 7 Quite good 6 Adequate – Neither good or bad 5 Less good 4 Poor 3 Very poor 2 Could hardly be worse! 1

16/09/18 5 Any questions on process?

25

Location Site Analysis

Potential Development Zones Potential Development Zones

1 2 3 4 5 5A

16/09/18 6

Key Building Blocks

Bedrooms 1-12 Recreational Seclusion Staff areas inc controlled entrances Support Learning

Gym

6 7 9 8

WC

st st st

Qu

5 10 11 12 Qu

Qu

4 3 2 1

Seclu.

Admiss

Service Yard FM Unit Support Staff Admin

Kit.

Dining

• Bev. Bev. Entrance

Rec. Staff Change Office Learning

Covered Sports Area Recreation Courtyard Therapy Courtyard

Option (Site) 1

Potential Development Zones

1 2 3 4 5 5A

Option 1 - Overview

Site previously appraised Size of proposed site remains as previously tested Close to Woodland View Discrete location to rear of overall ACH site Potential views into woodland area Relatively easily developable Easily accessible

sun path – indicative Site generally orientated N/S and E/W Prevailing wind from SW Views to woodland Site generally flat with “artificial” mounding

Parking Service Access

C

• u

r t y a r d C

• u

r t y a r d

Drop Off 376m to Woodland Entrance Approx 2.20min @ 10km/h Direct Access from Woodland

16/09/18 7

Parking Service Access

Courtyard Courtyard

Drop Off

Option 1 SWOT

Strengths: Weaknesses:

• Close to Woodland View.
• Close to main area of car parking
• Easily serviced due to proximity to Woodland

View service yard.

• Discrete location to rear of site.
• Discrete access with potential drop off and local

parking.

• Irregular site shape potentially constraining.
• Mounded areas required to be removed from

site to facilitate development.

• Potential impact on Woodland View

expansion opportunities.

• Potentially too close to Woodland View in-

patient wing. Opportunities: Threats:

• Potential views to woodland on site perimeter.
• Potential to enable support staff emergency

response secure routes.

• Potential ease of segregation of access for staff,

visitors and servicing.

• Development of current block planning to be

more site specific.

• Potential additional secure outdoor space.
• May not be able to implement easy support

staff emergency response access route.

• Site shape constrains optimum design

solution.

• Does not gain Planning Approval due to

unforeseen issues.

How well does the option:

• Support accessibility?
• Minimise disruption?
• Support future flexibility?
• Minimise planning issues, legal issues and lead time?
• Support service-specific (NASMIS) clinical/strategic fit?
• Minimise the impact of site/environmental constraints?
• Support wider (Woodland View) clinical/strategic fit?

Based on the scoring criteria, how many points out of 10 would you give it against each of these criteria?

Personal thinking Time! Option (Site) 2

Potential Development Zones

1 2 3 4 5 5A

Option 2 Overview

Site previously appraised Size of proposed site remains as previously tested Close to Woodland View Discrete location to rear of overall ACH site Potential views into woodland area Relatively easily developable Easily accessible

16/09/18 8

Prevailing wind from SW Site generally flat Views to woodland sun path – indicative Site generally

• rientated

N/S and E/W

Parking Service Access

Courtyard Courtyard

Drop Off 448m to Woodland Entrance Approx 2.36min @ 10km/h 85M Direct to Woodland (less than 30s) Parking Service Access

C

• u

r t y a r d C

• u

r t y a r d

Drop Off

Option 2 SWOT

Strengths: Weaknesses:

• Close to Woodland View.
• Close to main area of car parking.
• Easily serviced due to proximity to main site

service areas.

• Discrete location to rear of site.
• Potentially too overlooked by service areas

and site circulation routes– impacts on privacy and noise intrusion likely.

• Demolitions and minor infrastructure changes

required to develop sites.

• Potential impact on Woodland View

expansion opportunities. Opportunities: Threats:

• Potential views to woodland on site perimeter.
• Potential ease of segregation of access for staff,

visitors and servicing.

• Potential development of current block

planning to be more site specific.

• Demolition removes redundant former TSSU

block.

• Opportunity for good local drop off area.
• Potential additional secure external space.
• Too “industrial” a location
• Site shape constrains optimum design

solution.

• Does not gain Planning Approval due to

unforeseen issues.

How well does the option:

• Support accessibility?
• Minimise disruption?
• Support future flexibility?
• Minimise planning issues, legal issues and lead time?
• Support service-specific (NASMIS) clinical/strategic fit?
• Minimise the impact of site/environmental constraints?
• Support wider (Woodland View) clinical/strategic fit?

Based on the scoring criteria, how many points out of 10 would you give it against each of these criteria?

Personal thinking Time! Option (Site) 3

16/09/18 9 Potential Development Zones

1 2 3 4 5 5A

Option 3 Overview

Not previously appraised Size of proposed site as per Options 1 and 2 Close to Woodland View Close to Horseshoe Perceived as more “front door”? Potentially easily developable though loss of car parking that will require to be re-provided elsewhere Easily accessible

Site generally flat sun path – indicative Site generally orientated N/S and E/W

Parking and drop

• ff

Service Access

C

• u

r t y a r d C

• u

r t y a r d

140m to Woodland Entrance <1.00min @ 10km/h 65M Direct to Woodland (less than 30s) 32M Direct to Woodland (less than 30s)

Parking and drop

• ff

Service Access

C

• u

r t y a r d C

• u

r t y a r d

Option 3 SWOT

Strengths: Weaknesses:

• Close to Woodland View main entrance.
• Close to main area of car parking.
• Easily developable site.
• Potentially too overlooked – impacts on

privacy.

• Loss of car parking which will require to be re-

provided.

• Potential impact on Woodland View

expansion opportunities. Opportunities: Threats:

• Potential to enable support staff emergency

response secure routes.

• Ease of segregation of access for staff, visitors

and servicing.

• Use of adjacent areas to rear of Horseshoe for

drop-off and parking.

• Opportunity for extended secure external areas.
• May not be able to implement support staff

emergency response access route.

• Site shape constrains optimum design

solutions.

• Does not gain Planning Approval due to

proximity to Listed Building or other unforeseen issues.

16/09/18 10

How well does the option:

• Support accessibility?
• Minimise disruption?
• Support future flexibility?
• Minimise planning issues, legal issues and lead time?
• Support service-specific (NASMIS) clinical/strategic fit?
• Minimise the impact of site/environmental constraints?
• Support wider (Woodland View) clinical/strategic fit?

Based on the scoring criteria, how many points out of 10 would you give it against each of these criteria?

Personal thinking Time! Option (Site) 4

Potential Development Zones

1 2 3 4 5 5A

Option 4 Overview

Site not previously appraised Size of proposed site generally as per Options 1 and 2 Close to Woodland View Discrete locations to rear of site Requires demolitions and associated space re-provision Easily accessible

Site generally flat sun path – indicative Site generally orientated N/S and E/W

Service Access

C

• u

r t y a r d C

• u

r t y a r d

Parking and drop off 112M Direct to Woodland (42s) 230m to Woodland Entrance Approx 1.18min @ 10km/h

16/09/18 11

Service Access

Courtyard Courtyard

Parking and drop off

Option 4 SWOT

Strengths: Weaknesses:

• Close to main area of car parking
• Potentially good site shape (subject to

demolitions).

• Easily serviced due to proximity to main site

service areas.

• Discrete location to rear of site.
• Potentially too overlooked – impacts on

privacy and noise intrusion likely.

• Surrounded by main site servicing areas and

routes.

• Requires demolition and associated space re-

provision. Opportunities: Threats:

• Potential views to woodland on site perimeter.
• Site shape facilitates optimum design solution.
• Potential ease of segregation of access for staff,

visitors and servicing.

• Development of current block planning is

relatively site specific.

• Too remote for support staff emergency

response access.

• Not affordable due to demolition and re-

provision required.

• Does not gain Planning Approval due to

unforeseen issues.

How well does the option:

• Support accessibility?
• Minimise disruption?
• Support future flexibility?
• Minimise planning issues, legal issues and lead time?
• Support service-specific (NASMIS) clinical/strategic fit?
• Minimise the impact of site/environmental constraints?
• Support wider (Woodland View) clinical/strategic fit?

Based on the scoring criteria, how many points out of 10 would you give it against each of these criteria?

Personal thinking Time! Option (Site) 5

Potential Development Zones

1 2 3 4 5 5A

Option 5 Overview

Not previously appraised Size of proposed site generally as per Options 1 and 2 Adjacent to proposed disposal site but close to Douglas Grant Rehabilitation Centre Potential development issues due to trees Potentially easily developable subject to tree issues Easily accessible

16/09/18 12

sun path – indicative Site generally orientated N/S and E/W Site generally flat

Service Access

Courtyard Courtyard

Drop Off 150M Direct to Woodland (less than 54s) 220m to Woodland Entrance Approx 1.12min @ 10km/h Service Access

C

• u

r t y a r d C

• u

r t y a r d

Option 5 SWOT

Strengths: Weaknesses:

• Close to Woodland View though discretely

located within the retained site.

• Potentially good aspect from bedrooms.
• Close to main area of car parking.
• Good service access
• Due to site shape, building line will be close

to disposal site boundary.

• Overlooked and particularly from disposal

site.

• Shared access route with disposal site.
• Limited opportunity for drop off and adjacent

parking.

• Potential issues with trees in close proximity.

Opportunities: Threats:

• Ease of segregation of access for staff, visitors

and servicing.

• Expansion opportunity.
• Potential for additional secure external space.
• Site shape constrains optimum design

solution.

• Proximity to disposal site makes development

unfeasible.

• Does not gain Planning Approval due to

unforeseen issues.

How well does the option:

• Support accessibility?
• Minimise disruption?
• Support future flexibility?
• Minimise planning issues, legal issues and lead time?
• Support service-specific (NASMIS) clinical/strategic fit?
• Minimise the impact of site/environmental constraints?
• Support wider (Woodland View) clinical/strategic fit?

Based on the scoring criteria, how many points out of 10 would you give it against each of these criteria?

Personal thinking Time! Option (Site) 5a

16/09/18 13 Potential Development Zones

1 2 3 4 5 5A

Option 5a Overview

Not previously appraised Size of proposed site generally as per Options 1 and 2 Adjacent to proposed disposal site. Potential development issues due to trees Requires demolitions and associated re-provision Easily accessible

sun path – indicative Site generally orientated N/S and E/W Site generally flat

Parking and drop off

Service Access

C

• u

r t y a r d C

• u

r t y a r d

108M Direct to Woodland (36s) 176m to Woodland Entrance Approx 1.00min @ 10km/h

Parking and drop off

Service Access

C

• u

r t y a r d C

• u

r t y a r d

Option 5a SWOT

Strengths: Weaknesses:

• Close to Woodland View.
• Close to main area of car parking
• Easily serviced due to proximity to access road.
• Closest to main ACH site entrance?
• Good expansion zone adjacent – Site 5!
• Potentially too overlooked – impacts on

privacy.

• Closest to main ACH site entrance?
• Close proximity to disposal site boundary.

Opportunities: Threats:

• Ease of segregation of access for staff, visitors

and servicing

• Opportunity for additional secure external

spaces.

• Site location constrains optimum design

solution.

• Does not gain Planning Approval due to

unforeseen issues.

• Demolitions and associated re-provision

make it unaffordable.

16/09/18 14

How well does the option:

• Support accessibility?
• Minimise disruption?
• Support future flexibility?
• Minimise planning issues, legal issues and lead time?
• Support service-specific (NASMIS) clinical/strategic fit?
• Minimise the impact of site/environmental constraints?
• Support wider (Woodland View) clinical/strategic fit?

Based on the scoring criteria, how many points out of 10 would you give it against each of these criteria?

Personal thinking Time! Scoring The Short-listed Options Plenary discussion: Emerging Preferred Option Summary & Next Steps

Any final questions?

83