I have tried replying to Mr Easton's email TWICE but they keep bouncing back, and tried to phone his office, but couldnt get through. So sadly the only option for getting in touch is via this blog, which he said he finds interesting. Not well written, funny or thought provoking, but at least interesting. Like Steve Davis. :(
I don't think he liked it. He sent me a press release:
Wednesday 11th July 2012
Land sales at Barnet Hospital
As part of our discussion with scrutiny committee on the BEH strategy, we were asked to provide details of potential future land sales. We made it clear at the committee, that the BEH programme was not funded by land sales and we had no immediate proposals to dispose of land. Before any land is disposed of, it would have to form part of a site development plan and be subject to planning processes. The NHS has well established procures for disposing of surplus land and the proceeds are reinvested into the NHS.
I notice that it didn't answer even the point I made about the sale of the land. I didn't say that the sale of land was to pay for the BEH programme, I said that the sale of land was to balance the books. I hope I am wrong, and am always happy to apologise and withdraw when I am so, unlike George Osborne.
I am also confused by the beginning, "As part of our discussion with scrutiny committee on the BEH strategy, we were asked to provide details of potential future land sales. We made it clear at the committee, that the BEH programme was not funded by land sales and we had no immediate proposals to dispose of land. " Which scrutiny committee? Enfield's Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee? I have to admit, I was out of the room to take a quick call for a small part of his answer session at the JHOSC on Monday so I can't be sure, plus I struggled to hear him, as I was sitting behind him. But as it turns out, I do know what he said about land sales. Notice that JHOSC was on Monday 9th, the Labour Group press release was Tuesday 10th (morning), his appearance at the Enfield HOSC was Tuesday evening, and his press release was Wednesday.
It might be the politician in me, but my eyebrows pricked up when I read "we had no immediate proposals to dispose of land". It's the word "had" that bothers me. I am not sure whether they still do not plan to sell the land, or that they had no immediate plans at the time, but do now. I suspect it's pedantry on my part, but I would not be doing my job not to ask for clarification.
Also note that he didn't answer any of my other assertions, or correct anything else.
I also have a number of other questions which I would like answers to:
- Why was the old workhouse knocked down?
- Did the application for the rebuilding of the hospital contain that request?
- What was the purpose of knocking it down, if not to make car parking spaces?
- Can you tell me exactly how many extra car visits are expected to be made as a result of moving services over?
- How much would converting the rubble site to parking have cost during the original redevelopment?
- How much would it cost now, in comparison to a multi storey car park?
- How much revenue would have been raised if it had been converted during the original redeveloping (in other words how much has been lost out on)?