Select a region
The Vice-Chair of the political group leading the hospital project has defended the final location shortlist, after the inclusion of People's Park was met with confusion and frustration.
Yesterday, it was confirmed that the shortlist had been whittled down to Overdale and People’s Park.
The former has long been rumoured to be the favourite of the Chief Minister, while States Members had previously voted to take People’s Park off the table.
Politicians and commentators took to social media to share their shock at the inclusion of the latter in the final two, which will only be able to be chosen as the preferred option if politicians decide to rescind their previous vote.
Pictured: Politicians will have to vote to rescind their previous rejection of People's Park if it emerges as the preferred option.
Minister for Children and Housing Sam Mézec was among the critics. He described People's Park as a "no hoper" site on Twitter, and retweeted Chair of his party Lynsday Feltham, who said: “It makes absolutely no sense to have a shortlist of two which includes a site which the States Assembly has already voted to take off the table.
“It’s an affront to democracy to ignore the decision made by our elected representatives last year.”
Others speculated that the controversial option had been included to leave Overdale as the only possibility.
— Senator Sam Mézec (@SamMezecJsy) September 4, 2020
Speaking about the decision to have the park on the shortlist, Assistant Minister andVice-Chair of the Our Hospital Political Oversight Group Deputy Hugh Raymond assured that if People's Park was identified as the preferred option, normal democratic processes would be adhered to, with politicians voting to approve the final choice.
He emphasised that “the process has to take its course, then there has to be a debate, it has to go through the Assembly and all 49 politicians” would make the choice.
Speaking about the reliability of the team of clinicians and civil servants who helped whittle down the shortlist of five to two, Deputy Raymond said: “The professionals aren’t there to lie – when you go to a lawyer, you expect to get advice – these people have nothing to gain or lose.”
He added that if they suggest a site, then “it is a site that needs to be looked at" and also noted: “I can only say that I am satisfied with how they have acted, the way they have got together, and the way they have told us.”
Pictured: Deputy Hugh Raymond expressed confidence in the clinicians and civil servants that whittled down the shortlist.
He explained that one of the main reasons for the excision of the other sites was to do with compulsory purchases and the possible effects on transport and residential areas that would occur.
Speaking in particular about Five Oaks, which was the subject of a public campaign to remove it from the shortlist, he explained that the problems were “the transport implication, the number of schools around there, and the number of properties we would have purchased”, emphasising that “we don’t want a lot of delay any more.”
There had been some speculation that a redevelopment of the current site as previously proposed could still be on the cards.
But Deputy Raymond confirmed this wouldn't be an option, saying: “The maintenance cost on that hospital is just getting out of hand – there is so much that is just getting out of date – if we are going to keep our medical staff happy, we need to make sure we are providing them with the best services we can produce.”
Pictured: Five Oaks was removed due to the implications for schools and transport, according to Deputy Raymond.
He declined to comment on the possible cost of the project as he said he did not want to “mislead”.
Other members of the Council of Ministers have been given costings for both sites, but these have not been disclosed publicly.
Senator Mézec would not reveal the figures he had seen when asked on Twitter, but noted that he was "not impressed" with them.
Senator Mézec also noted choosing to build on People's Park would incur additional costs of having to create a replacement park.
"That could potentially be higher than the cost of Overdale. So people expecting People's Park to be the cheaper option may not actually be right."
Chief Scrutineer Senator Kristina Moore, who recently launched a probe into the "fairness" of the site selection process, tweeted that she had heard Overdale would cost "at least 15% more" and said that some States Members had expressed regret at voting against revamping the current Gloucester Street site.
Create your own user feedback survey
Comments
Comments on this story express the views of the commentator only, not Bailiwick Publishing. We are unable to guarantee the accuracy of any of those comments.