Select a region
Allegations of gagging, flooding, patient risk and staffing problems dominated a tense meeting this week that exposed deep divides among members of the public, planners and even hospital staff over what is now the second attempt at a future hospital plan.
Independent Planning Inspector Philip Staddon has this week been on the island to hear views on whether the planning application for Jersey’s largest ever capital project should be approved.
It’s the second time he’s visited, after the first one saw him criticise proposals for the £466million build for being “grossly out of scale” with their surrounds.
It was then back to the drawing board, with States officials instead offering a shorter, wider version to be built on the current hospital site, rather than a new one. A fresh planning inquiry was opened, and on Tuesday evening islanders and hospital staff – including senior medical professionals – took to St. Paul’s Centre to air their views in a tense session.
Here’s what was said…
Early on in the session, a member of the public alleged that this was the first time staff had been able to air their views on the hospital plans and its current site, having previously been “gagged” by senior officials in an alleged string of warning emails.
But this was hotly disputed by hospital staff, including Medical Director John McInerney and and Head of Nursing Becky Sherrington, who both placed on record that staff were free to make their views known. Consultant Andrew Woodward added to this, stating: “Everyone here is free to speak their own mind.”
Pictured: Dr Miklos Kassai (left) recently backed a petition by campaigner Dave Cabeldu (right) to allow staff members to have a say on the future hospital site.
Dr Miklos Kassai, who has previously been outspoken on the build, said that the issue was not “gagging”, but hospital staff not being asked for their views in the first place.
Former member of the Jersey Architecture Commission Christopher McCarthy, who was the first to speak, warned attendees in an emotive speech that planners were considering building on “the worst flood plane in the UK” and that the floors beneath the hospital were at particular risk, despite plans claiming otherwise.
“It will flood. Fact,” he said, later adding: “How many people will you allow to die through your proposal? You’re imposing risks on patients that you don’t have to.”
Pictured: Chris McCarthy said that the proposed future hospital would be likely to flood.
His comments provoked remarks from two members of the public who said they lived on Gloucester Street and had experience of basement flooding in a period of extreme weather that particularly affected the Opera House some years ago. One described “running for my life to escape a tide of water.”
But a staff nurse hit back, asking: “When has the hospital last flooded? Has it ever flooded?... I have been there 10 years and not known it to flood.”
For consultant Miklos Kassai, the main concern was risk to patient recovery from noise and dust. He said that some patients had already complained about noise from smaller works such as changing lifts and rebuilding theatres disturbing their sleep.
“Being a surgeon I meet a lot of people who come in their most distressed part of their life. They come in despair, they want treatment, they want help, and ideally they want it in an environment that is good for their cure,” he said.
Pictured: One staff member said that the construction of the Dandara apartments across from the hospital hadn't posed too much of an issue at the time.
However, another staff member said that few would be able to remember any disruption from the building of the Dandara apartments across the road on Gloucester Street, and believed this would be the same.
Dr Kassai also touched upon the ‘stop work’ procedure to be used in case of an emergency, arguing it wasn't “ethical” to work in this way.
Stressing that the “most valuable asset of the hospital is the combined knowledge, dedication and skill of people working in it”, Dr Kassai expressed fears that the building on the current site and potential “turmoil” with it could make it more difficult to retain staff at a time when the hospital is already struggling to recruit.
Dr Ajay Kumar also explained that morale among workers was currently low.
The States, however, urged that “recruitment is already affected by the poor state of the current hospital and a new hospital with accompanying planned high quality key worker accommodation is likely to improve recruitment.”
Dr Kumar also said he feared that the proposals didn’t follow the ”modern trend… to build just outside town to allow for expansion in the future.”
Explaining that the island should be considering introducing its own radiotherapy and oncology services, which it doesn’t have at present, Dr Kumar said there would not be enough space to introduce these if wanted.
A States spokesperson later responded: "The planned new hospital is designed to be able to expand according to need and to provide services to 2065 – beyond that it’s difficult to plan because of changes in technology."
Pictured: When it came to discussions of a site for the new hospital, Senator Ferguson offered assurance that there was a "wind of change" in the States Assembly.
Many staff rose to say they would appreciate an entirely new build on a fresh site, although others dismissed it as wishful thinking, emphasising that the current site was the only one suitable at present.
One doctor said that the staff wouldn’t have been opposed to building on People’s Park, but that it was the lack of political will that hindered this.
However, Senator Sarah Ferguson, who was in attendance, commented that she was “sorry to hear the gentleman has such a dim view of politicians”, but assured that there was a “wind of change…blowing through.”
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.