Since publishing this article When is a hospital not a hospital? When it’s in “poor old Cranleigh? – whose residents appear to have been SHAFTED by a charity!
Our site has been groaning under the weight of comments, and information from the ANGRY OF CRANLEIGH … and surrounding villages to contact@waverleyweb.org
One said: “I’m just an ordinary working guy who set up a standing order for a new Cranleigh Village Hospital because I stupidly believed in the project! If it is true – that it is now to be a private nursing home, that I won’t be able to afford, then I have been duped! I together with many others were told by that newspaper woman Kay Newman of the CVHT that we were contributing to a hospital that would be owned by the “local” community for the benefit of the “local community.” What a load of tosh! How can I get my money back?
Another: A local business who contributed a considerable amount of money said his company has already requested that its contribution for a “village-owned hospital” and not a “private for-profit nursing home” had already been refused by the “so-called charity” and he was considering seeking recompense through the courts.
WW receive this letter from a Cranleigh resident.
Dear all at the Waverley WEb,
I had a discussion with one of the CVHT trustees recently regarding a letter in my possession saying that the exchange of the land for the hospital would only be done on the understanding that there would be 14 community beds and a day hospital. The trustee in question said in not so many words that he did not believe me, I will scan the letter tomorrow and email to you. The letter also shows that the parish counciL gave CVHT £10,000 as part of a payment to help keep the beds open in the old hospital, whether this was ever paid to PCT at the time I do not know and if not whatever happened to the money.
The community beds that the CVHT speak about is supposed to be 20, as follows 10 for social services all over Surrey and 10 for area health people (sorry can’t remember correct name) (Guildford& Waverley Clinical Commissioning Group) which will cover I think around 21 to 25 health centres which will all be able to use the 10 remaining beds, so it is no good Cranleigh people thinking they are just for them.
As Mrs Plank said, (in your earlier post)- sold down the river. A distinguished gentleman who raised money for charity once told me that if you did not succeed with at least 70% of what was needed within two years give up, where is the CVHT now 15years at least and not a brick in the ground.
Regards Sandra
A Ewhurst resident who was a member of the Cranleigh Village Hospital League of Friends, tells us, that, that the organisation has, “distanced itself for very good reasons ” from the Cranleigh Village Hospital Trust,(CVHT). The President who is/was also chairman of CVHT was asked to resign, and the Chairman of the League was asked to resign her trusteeship of CVHT if she wished to remain as the head of the League of Friends.
Another resident informed us that the CVHT has employed a top PR Agency to “sell” its private nursing home scheme to the public. However, the charity has refused a number of invitations to present its plans to the parish council who provided the parish land for the venture.
contact@waverleyweb.org
A Cranleigh businesswoman sent us a letter which she had received from a former Clerk of Cranleigh Parish Council. A copy of which you can read by clicking on this link: here: CCE03052018 copy
We are unable to post all of the comments received as there is a very real risk it would collapse our website but there is more – much, much, much, much more in a similar vein.
For our part, the Waverley Web would very much like to hear from the aforementioned Trustee – Kay Newman – or, indeed, any Trustee or person in the know who can throw light on this scandalous piece of chicanery. For example, has anyone considered reporting this matter to the Charities Commission or the Fraud Squad? Surely it must be illegal to fundraise for a public hospital and divert those funds into a private nursing home? Perhaps the Chairman of CVHT would like to comment contact@waverleyweb.org
Now villagers are asking why the Parish Council did not invoke a clause in an agreement it signed with the CVHT, to return the land to the parish if the hospital the charity promised Cranleigh and the surrounding villages of Alfold/Dunsfold and Ewhurst was not built within 5 years.
We are told it is 18 years since the project, called for public money to build a replacement hospital and a new Day Hospital which would be owned by the charity for “local” people and not, asit would appear, for patients of the Guildford & Waverley Commissioning Group.
There are facts are there are stories – let’s face a few facts – the old hospital beds were for anyone that would like one – free at the point of use – this would be the same.
Yes for anyone from Guildford and Waverley CCG – as ever.
Nursing homes mostly have hospital style beds and nurses – and our GPS access these since the hospital was closed.
All charities run into trouble if and when their objectives aren’t met – but that is not a crime – the money has been raised and spent in good faith – and everyone is very sorry it hasn’t worked out – yet- including me.
Personally I believe that most people have worked very hard to work with the NHS and get beds back to Cranleigh in good faith, but the NHS bodies kept changing and the GPs went their own way just when things looked positive, the Berkeleys applied for planning permission on green fields and everything changed.
I worry the site isn’t suitable, and I worry about the traffic and I worry about the size and shape of the buildings. I also worry about the quality of the “partner” – HC one – but CVHT is responsible for the land and the objectives of the charity and they must do something that brings free at the point of use beds back to Cranleigh
The WW welcomed your comments, though we have to take issue with just a few of your concerns.
We understood from the many villagers who have contacted us, that the fundraising campaign was directed at a handful of villages in the immediate vicinity of Cranleigh. It appears that they were led to believe that the beds would be used by residents in the immediate vicinity and not Guildford!
We believe villagers generally accepted the huge changes in the health-care system and that getting beds back into Cranleigh was supported. However your concerns over the suitability of the site (presumably to accommodate residential properties in addition to a private nursing home is shared by many people over there.
We could not quite understand how the Berkeley homes application affects the CVHT site? We have also heard of the concern villagers have over the appointment of HC-ONE. And, although we do not actually have close knowledge of this particular area of Cranleigh, there are very real worries over parking and traffic issues.
Hi WW – we raised money in and around Cranleigh because at the time the NHS bodies said the reason for the closure of the beds was money. They later said that the old hospital was “not fit for purpose” and closed them anyway, despite keeping them open for a few more months thanks to some money being contributed – I have always believed.
At the time a person in Royal Surrey would be offered a “step-down” bed nearer their home if one was available – e.g. I was offered and I live in Cranleigh. It was always offered to people who would benefit because of being closer to home – same for Haslemere etc. So to my mind it makes sense that the current NHS authority -GWCCG -would have the power – if ever the hospital beds were available – to offer them to people who live nearer to Cranleigh than Guildford. NHS bodies have changed their parameters for all sorts of spending, including stating that a community like Cranleigh’s just isn’t big enough for a hospital, but one thing has remained the same – they can’t make a contract with a thing that doesn’t exist – not legally. So everything has been just talk. This was not explained at first and the fund raising was all done in good faith. The people who have worked tirelessly to do this should be applauded not derided. They should also be sympathised with – many have been ill and even died in their very real attempts to do whatever NHS fashion required to get the outcomes promised. Shame on everyone for their criticisms.
re the site – the opportunity to use the land fully has its good points and would mean that CVHT would be able to gain income to continue to support the project going into the future. I don’t believe it has any bad features – But it may be over-development and not possible due to simple things such as drainage.
re HC-one – i haven’t yet seen good reviews of the company – perhaps they will surprise us all.
re Berkeleys – you know everything changed in the village once the prospect of so many dwellings came along – everything else is on hold – we need a Local Plan, a Neighbourhood plan and some honest transparent plans for the future we can all sign up to.
Just saying……………….