The Mount Vernon Cancer Centre Joint Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting was scheduled to discuss the reprovision of services at the Mount Vernon Cancer Centre, including updates on the consultation process and care closer to home initiatives. The committee was also set to consider the scrutiny response to the consultation on proposed changes to services currently provided at the centre.

Mount Vernon Cancer Centre Reprovision Consultation and Care Closer to Home Updates

The committee was scheduled to receive an update on the public consultation regarding proposals for the Mount Vernon Cancer Centre (MVCC). This update was expected to cover how the consultation was being delivered and governed, including participation data and emerging themes from the first half of the consultation period. Actions being taken by the programme team to address gaps in engagement were also to be outlined. Concerns raised at a previous meeting about the consultation progressing before capital funding was secured were to be clarified, with confirmation that the assurance process began in early 2025 and a route to capital funding was agreed in January 2026. The alignment of the MVCC scheme with the Watford scheme was to be clarified, noting that feasibility had been tested but was subject to the outcome of the public consultation. The committee was to be informed that feedback from this scrutiny was expected by the end of June 2026.

A programme had been developed to support structured engagement with groups facing barriers to traditional consultation methods, working through voluntary, community, and social enterprise organisations. Direct funding was to be provided to cover their costs and access to an additional participation fund to help remove barriers to engagement.

Questions were to be raised regarding whether consultation responses submitted after the closing date of 29 March would still be considered. It was to be explained that while the NHS wished to continue receiving views, a cut-off date was necessary for the final report.

Engagement with cancer patients was to be clarified, noting that the consultation questionnaire included a question asking respondents if they had been a patient. Patients were to be informed about the consultation through the cancer centre, referring hospitals, and cancer support groups. Banners were to be displayed at Mount Vernon Hospital directing patients to the consultation website. The hospital was unable to write directly to current patients due to consent requirements, but information was to be included in appointment letters. It was noted that most attendees had been former patients or family members of former patients.

Regarding carers, it was noted that a number of consultation attendees were carers and that carers' groups had been contacted. The Integrated Care Board was to be asked to support engagement through its communications and engagement teams. Local social prescribers were also to be contacted to help disseminate information.

Engagement with oncologist leads at neighbouring hospitals was ongoing to ensure wider sharing of consultation information, as patients were drawn from a wide geographical area.

Questions were to be raised about modelling undertaken regarding potential travel costs and impacts for each council. It was to be noted that a travel and access survey was running alongside the consultation, with updated modelling of demand and footfall for the Watford site. This work was intended to inform consultation responses, particularly public and patient views on care closer to home. If successful, certain treatments could potentially be delivered at home, removing the need for travel. The modelling aimed to understand how much care could be delivered locally, after which transport implications would become clearer, requiring more detailed transport planning in collaboration with local authorities.

An update was requested on views relating to radiotherapy provision, including whether an additional, networked radiotherapy unit should be established at a second site. The committee was to be advised that three options had been presented: A) relocating all radiotherapy services to Watford only; B) relocating services to Watford with an additional unit at Lister Hospital, Stevenage; or C) relocating services to Watford with an additional unit at Luton and Dunstable Hospital. Based on consultation responses received to date, support for options B and C was broadly even, although option A continued to attract significant support. Criteria for radiotherapy relocation were to be considered, pending analysis of all submissions, including factors such as acute services on site, car parking, public transport, health inequalities, rurality, and the number and range of treatments. The weight given to consultation responses versus the principle of care closer to home was to be discussed, with clarification that any satellite service would be delivered by the Mount Vernon team.

Concerns were to be raised about the low proportion of male and ethnic minority respondents, and engagement activity to encourage greater participation from these groups was to be discussed. This included collaboration with NHS trusts and communications leads, translated materials, paper advertisements, work with diverse FM radio, visits to organisations, microgrant programmes, geo-targeted newspaper advertising, and social media campaigns. Wembley was selected as a venue due to its central location.

Efforts made during consultation meetings to explain the clinical need for change and address concerns about access to facilities were to be highlighted. Information about the consultation was to be included in appointment letters.

A query was to be raised about an additional option (Option D) for radiotherapy at home, which was not explicitly included in Options A, B, or C. It was to be explained that all elements of Option A were incorporated within Options B and C, with the key difference being the potential provision of a smaller radiotherapy unit for services at an additional location. Chemotherapy at home was also noted as a potential option for some patients, subject to clinical suitability and preference.

The committee was to note the ongoing work around travel and access, and consider writing to Local Authorities urging them to partner with the NHS in improving access to a new cancer centre in Watford.

The committee was also to note that patients currently travel to London for haematology services, and under the proposals, these services would move to the Watford site, improving accessibility.

Mount Vernon Cancer Centre Transport and Access Update

The committee was to receive an update on work concerning transport and access in support of the MVCC consultation. Transport and accessibility were noted as the most frequently raised issues and a significant concern for patients. Key themes included car parking availability and cost, and public transport connectivity across Hertfordshire, particularly east-west travel. Access to Watford Hospital and car parking provision were viewed unfavourably by some respondents, though a large multi-storey and surface-level car park was confirmed to be in place. The proximity of Watford Football Club was also considered, with match days not currently coinciding with cancer treatment schedules.

NHS England had received suggestions to mitigate access issues, including park-and-ride facilities, minibus services, and voluntary transport. An independent social research organisation had been commissioned to examine how patients access the centre, with findings to inform the Decision-Making Business Case. This survey was to close at the end of May 2026, with indicative feedback provided at the June meeting.

A suggestion for a dedicated bus service linking the hospital with mainline railway stations was to be considered, though the NHS had limited influence over bus routes. Discussions with local authorities were to explore innovative solutions as further modelling progressed. The importance of public health considerations when assessing transport access was to be emphasised.

A visit to the Watford site was considered helpful to experience the journey and see the proposed site, to be arranged by the Programme Director, Ruth Derrett. Discussions with bus service providers had not yet taken place, as no formal decision had been made. Intelligence was being gathered on travel hotspots and areas where changes might be required.

Members were to note the ongoing work around travel and access and consider writing to Local Authorities urging them to partner with the NHS in improving access to a new cancer centre in Watford.

MVCC Relocation Case for Change

The committee was to be updated on the clinical case for change underpinning proposals to relocate Mount Vernon Cancer Centre (MVCC). The report was to refresh members on the reasons for change and provide high-level feedback from the recent consultation. Clinicians have consistently advised that specialist cancer services cannot be sustained on the current site due to a lack of acute hospital services. Advances in cancer care have made treatments more complex, requiring access to critical care and specialist medical teams, which are not available on the current site. Consequences include the departure of inpatient and outpatient haematology services, the inability to undertake early phase clinical trials, and patients needing to receive treatment elsewhere or requiring ambulance transfers to acute hospitals. Recruiting and retaining staff is also becoming more challenging. The public consultation identified concerns about travel, transport, parking, and accessibility, but these did not challenge the underlying clinical evidence for the need for acute hospital services. The committee was asked to note the challenges and consider the case for change.

MVCC Core Proposals

This report was to update the committee on the proposal to relocate Mount Vernon Cancer Centre to Watford, the testing of these proposals with patients and the public, feedback from the public consultation (January-March 2026), and the next steps in the decision-making process. The paper focused on the core proposal to relocate specialist cancer services to a new purpose-built cancer centre at Watford General Hospital. It provided a summary of the background, noting that following extensive clinical review, options appraisal, public engagement and programme assurance, relocation to Watford General Hospital was identified as the preferred solution. Over 3,500 people participated in the consultation. The findings showed a range of views, with many recognising the clinical challenges and supporting relocation, while others expressed concerns about travel, transport, parking, accessibility, and the potential loss of the current centre's environment. The consultation findings were to provide an evidence base for the Decision-Making Business Case, with commissioners considering the findings and undertaking further analysis before final recommendations are developed. The committee was asked to note the report.

The report detailed the development of options, including maintaining services at the current site, dispersing services, building smaller centres, and relocating to a new purpose-built facility adjacent to acute hospital services. Watford General Hospital emerged as the preferred option due to meeting clinical criteria and having the lowest overall impact on travel times. The report included a table comparing travel time analysis to various sites.

Consultation findings were summarised, noting that 48% of respondents supported the proposals and 42% opposed them. Support was stronger among healthcare professionals. The central finding was that views reflected perceived impacts on access rather than disagreement with the clinical case. Improvements in access were key for supporters, while opponents raised concerns about travel times, transport, parking, and the current site's environment. Travel, transport, and accessibility were identified as dominant issues.

Themes requiring further consideration included travel and accessibility mitigations, preserving the valued qualities of the current cancer centre, investigating health inequalities, and addressing concerns about deliverability and transition. The report also outlined the principles guiding the decision-making process, such as maximising patient access to safe, high-quality care, minimising unnecessary travel, and reducing inequalities.

The committee was to be presented with the proposed timeline for the Decision-Making Business Case (DMBC) phase, explaining the rationale and key areas of work underway, including finance and activity modelling, clinical model development, workforce planning, impact assessments, consultation analysis, stakeholder engagement, and assurance processes. The programme includes formal assurance checkpoints, commissioner oversight, stakeholder engagement, and statutory scrutiny through JHOSC.

Finally, the committee was to be presented with a proposed collective response to the NHS consultation proposals regarding MVCC services. The committee was asked to agree its formal statutory position and consider whether any further action or escalation was required. The report noted that no Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA) or Sustainability & Equality Evaluation Decision Support (SEEDS) assessment was undertaken as they were not applicable.