Minute of the second meeting of

the South Side Reference Group

held at 10.30 a.m. on Monday 11 June 2001

in Board rooms A & B Greater Glasgow NHS Board.





Mr G Craig  

Trustee, South Glasgow Trust (Chair)


Ms M Barrie  

Staff Partnership Forum Rep South Glasgow Trust(SGH site)

Mr B Beacom MBE  

Greater Glasgow Health Council

Mr R Calderwood  

Chief Executive, South Glasgow Trust

Mr T Findlay  

Divisional General Manager, Glasgow Primary care Trust

Mr K Gibson  

MSP, Scottish Parliament

Ms J Hughes  

MSP, Scottish Parliament

Ms P McNally  

Staff Partnership Forum Rep South Glasgow Trust (VI site)

Dr R Sharp  

Medical Staff Association South Glasgow Trust (VI site)

Mr C Spry  

Chief Executive, Greater Glasgow NHS Board

Ms M Macleod  

Corporate Affairs Manager, South Glasgow Trust (secretariat)




Mr B Aitken - MSP, Scottish Parliament

Mr J Anderson - Medical Staff Association South Glasgow Trust (SGH site)

Mr R Brown - MSP, Scottish Parliament





1.                   MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD ON 23 APRIL 2001

The Minutes of the meeting held on 23 April 2001 were approved as an accurate record.




Mr Calderwood reported that PriceWaterhouse Coopers had been appointed as the independent external financial advisers for the Pan-Glasgow strategy.  He reported that progress was being made in respect of the appointment of professional advisers for the south side strategy, and tabled a paper on the South Glasgow Design Team Services Prospectus.  He highlighted that architects were being asked to design the following for the option appraisal exercise:


q              A hospital at a Greenfield site in Cowglen/Pollock

q              An ACAD

q              The phased re-development of the Southern General campus


Mr Gibson sought clarification on the brief for the schedule of accommodation, particularly in respect of the numbers of beds.  Mr Calderwood reported that the current assumptions for Glasgow in terms of need was 1000 for both the Southern site and the Cowglen option based on 85% occupancy. He advised that the breakdown by specialty was:


q          Surgery 399 beds to 319 beds

q          Medicine 643 beds to 706 beds

q          Institute of Neurosciences 146 beds

q          Obstetrics 52 beds

q          Gynaecology 52 beds

q          Spinal Injuries Unit 48 beds

q          Physically Disabled Rehabilitation Unit 30 beds


Mr Calderwood agreed to circulate a paper with the Minutes highlighting the proposed bed complement.


Mr Spry commented that there were proposals to move two further specialties to the new south side hospital:  Yorkhill Hospital which, if it did transfer,  would add a further 300 paediatric beds (approximately); and in-patient beds for those with acute mental illness.  Mr Findlay advised that the current bed complement for the Southern General and Leverndale  for this category of patient was 182 beds.


Mr Gibson asked about the expected difficulties in building such a large hospital.  Mr Calderwood commented that if all the specialties were to be provided on the one site it would be one of the largest hospital sites in the UK, but there were others of similar size in Nottingham  & Leeds, for example.


Ms Hughes stated that the campaign by supporters of the Victoria Infirmary continued to promote the argument for two DGHs and suggested that more information should be issued which explained why the Victoria Infirmary site had not been included as an option.  Mr Calderwood advised that this information had been included in the papers considered by the Health Board in December 2000.  He reiterated the reasons that the Victoria Infirmary and adjacent land was ruled not suitable:


1.         There were none of the  benefits associated with a greenbelt site

2.         The site including the adjacent land was too small

3.         The hospital did not meet the strategy requirements in terms of a critical population mass (the critical mass of the population needs to be wide enough to allow consultants to get practice at treating particular conditions)


He pointed out  however,  that the status quo of two hospitals had to be compared for the Option Appraisal exercise.


Dr Sharp commented that the size of the hospital would make the acute medical receiving function particularly challenging.


Mr Beacom sought clarification on the proposed ACAD.  Mr Calderwood advised that an ACAD would be built in the south east no matter which site was chosen. He advised if there if the Victoria Infirmary inpatient services were to be closed there would need to be locally accessible medical facilities in this area.  He reported that the elective nature of the procedures to be undertaken at the ACAD would drastically reduce the number of operations cancelled, as emergency cases would not be referred to this facility.  Dr Sharp stressed that the back-up facilities in the ACAD would require careful consideration.




Mr Calderwood referred to the request by Mr Brown at the previous meeting on information about Compulsory Purchase Orders (CPO).  He then tabled a paper entitled “Acquisition of Land Issues”.  He advised that the paper detailed the processes for a Compulsory Purchase Order which was in effect an application to the Minister for consideration.  He commented that the Trust’s legal advisers had been unable (so far)  to identify a recent application for a CPO by a public sector body. 


Mr Craig asked about progress with the Council to purchase the land on the recreation ground adjacent to Queen’s Park House.  Mr Calderwood responded that to date there had been no formal response from the City Council to the Trust’s approaches to buy this land.  He advised however, that a letter from the Council in May 2001 had indicated that “…it might not be possible for the Council to act as agents for this land….” .  He informed members that a further letter had been sent to the Council on 7 June 2001 seeking clarification on the  vendors for the land but a response had not been received.


With regard to planning permission to build an ACAD on the recreation ground, Mr Calderwood highlighted the planning criteria for building on the site and the consultees.  He summarised that whilst these problems could be overcome they would add some difficulties and possible delays.  Ms Hughes commented that this could delay progress of the Acute Services Strategy for the whole of Glasgow.  Mr Calderwood stated that if the Trust had not received permission to purchase this land by October 2001 it would have a bearing on the whole strategy.  He commented that it had been planned that the ACAD would be opened one year before the Victoria Infirmary closed but this now looked unlikely.


Mr Gibson requested copies of the correspondence received from the City Council.  Mr Calderwood agreed to provide this.


Mr Gibson asked about other potential sites in the south east for the ACAD.  Mr Calderwood advised that the Gorbals freightliner terminal had been suggested, but there could be other possibilities.


Dr Sharp asked about costings for the project.  Mr Calderwood responded that the purchase of private land might be more expensive but the strict planning criteria for the recreation ground at Queens park would also add to the costs. 


Mr Calderwood then tabled a paper from James Barr Co on the Planning Appraisal (dated 7 June 2001).  He reported that the firm had been instructed to undertake a planning appraisal of two sites for the possible new acute hospital, he cautioned that the report did not take account of land ownership, contamination or the extent of the services infrastructure.  He advised that site 1 was the current Cowglen Hospital site with some surrounding land and site 2 was Broompark Farm, Pollock Park. 


Mr Calderwood highlighted that the current design would “fit” into the two sites being considered and drew members’ attention to the report’s conclusion that site 1 was the preferred option.  He then referred to the three recommendations contained in the report:


7.1            Review and reject the Glasgow City Council Plan

7.2            Review and reject the application by Retail Property Holdings

            7.3            In planning terms, consider site 1 as the preferred site for development for a new                            acute hospital


Mr Calderwood advised that the Trust had acted on recommendations 7.1 & 7.2 and would pursue recommendation 7.3 once details regarding purchase of the land and the suitability of the site for building were established.  He indicated that it was expected that this information would be available for the next meeting.





Mr Calderwood tabled a paper on the invitation to tender for the facilitation support of the  Option Appraisal Process for the Reconfiguration of Acute Services.  Mr Craig asked why the document was being issued by North Glasgow University Hospitals NHS Trust and not the Health Board.  Mr Spry advised that North Glasgow had a project team in place to deal with the tender process.  Ms Hughes suggested that the tender should be changed to: North Glasgow Trust on behalf of Greater Glasgow NHS Board and the South Glasgow Trust.


Mr Craig asked which companies were on the tender list, and Ms Hughes asked how the list had been compiled.  Mr Calderwood agreed to provide a paper on detailing the tender process.


Mr Spry tabled a paper on the Council involvement in the Development of Business Cases.  He then detailed the workshop arrangements for conducting the Option Appraisal element of the Outline Business Case:


Workshop A            Initial Briefing Workshop

¨       Explanation about the Option Appraisal process

¨       Understanding and agreement of the Option Appraisal weightings for Glasgow

¨       Participants will be members of Workshops B, C & E


Workshop B            Service Benefits Weighting Workshop


¨       To define the service benefits criteria

¨       To agree a weighting between them


Workshop C            To Compare Options against Service Benefits Criteria

¨       Each option will be considered and scored dependent on the extent to which it delivers the service benefits defined in Workshop B

¨       The scores will then be adjusted by the weightings agreed in Workshop B


Workshop D            Technical Desk-top Assessment of Economic Factors, Financial                                                            Factors and Risk Profile


¨       To be undertaken by the Trust Finance departments/advisers

¨       To be independently validated by PriceWaterhouse Coopers and by Partnership UK


Workshop E             Finalisation of Option Appraisal Exercise

¨     To bring together the work done in Workshops C & D

¨       To give an opportunity for the results of Workshop D to be explained and interrogated

¨       To seal the overall scoring in accordance with the agreement reached in Workshop A


Ms Hughes asked if there would be the opportunity for wider public participation in Workshop C, and not just members of the Local Health Council and the Local Community Councils.  Mr Spry advised that further discussion was required on Workshop C participation.


Mr Craig asked when it was expected that Workshop B would be held.  Mr Spry responded that this was likely to be in August 2001. 


Dr Sharp asked for details on the Option Appraisal process.  Mr Calderwood responded that there were 4 element within the Option Appraisal exercise:


a)                   The Benefits Appraisal

b)                  The Financial Appraisal

c)                  The Economic Appraisal

d)                  Risks and Uncertainty Appraisal


He advised that there were about 10 measures under each Benefits Appraisal heading and the agreed weights would be applied to these measures.  Mr Spry commented that the tenor of previous Reference Group consideration of this issue was  that the same weightings would apply pan-Glasgow.


Mr Craig asked about the public participants to be recruited via the Local Health Council. Mr Beacom reported that there was a meeting of the Health Council scheduled for 12 June 2001 when the subject would be discussed.



5.         THE NEXT STEPS


Mr Calderwood advised that the next step for the Trust was to progress the work on the design team.  He reported that non-recurrent funding was being allocated from Capital Funding to pay for this work.


Mr Calderwood reported that the next stage for the pan-Glasgow work was to progress the Workshops.  He reported that the tender for a Traffic Consultant had now been issued to 4 companies.  He agreed to obtain a copy of the tender for circulation.





a)                  Membership of Workshop C

Mr Craig suggest that there should be a detailed discussion on the composition of Workshop C at the next meeting.  Members agreed with this suggestion.


b)                  Papers

Mr Craig suggested that due to the number of papers tabled at the meeting (5), members would be invited to raise any questions concerning them at the next meeting.



7.                   DATE OF NEXT MEETING

10.30 a.m. Monday 2 July 2001 at Dalian House

Return to Acute Services Main Index

Last modified: August 15, 2002

Copyright © Greater Glasgow NHS Board.
All rights reserved.

Return to top of this page.