Select a region
Today, the first stage of the inquiry that could make or break plans for a new £800m hospital in Jersey is getting underway - and one man, who you may not have heard of, has a critical role to play in that.
The man set to take centre stage (once more) in the new hospital saga is Philip Staddon.
But what do we know about the planning inspector who will have a crucial part in deciding the fate of islanders' healthcare in decades to come?
Described as “unscrupulously fair” and “a consummate professional”, the former head of Regeneration at Gloucester City Council will play in key role in the where the hospital will be built and how it might look.
Ultimately, it will be down the Environment Minister John Young to decide if planning application ‘P/2021/1670’ is accepted or rejected, but Mr Staddon’s job is to make a clear recommendation to him.
And twice before, his recommendation that previous hospital applications – both for Gloucester Street - should be rejected have been accepted by the Minister, including the incumbent.
Mr Staddon, who now runs his own planning consultancy but is employed by the Government as an expert planning inspector, last shared his considered opinion on Jersey’s attempts to build a new hospital in January 2019.
Pictured: Mr Staddon has twice recommended that plans for a new hospital - both on the existing site - should be rejected.
With £38m already spent, the then £466m 'Future Hospital' project ground to a halt when Mr Staddon concluded that the updated version of Gloucester Street hospital planning application was an improvement on the first one, which he had recommended for rejection in January 2018, but was still too large and likely to have an “exceptionally severe” impact on neighbouring residents.
First time round, Mr Staddon had described the proposed hospital development as “grossly out of scale, an over dominant, obtrusive and alien structure.”
He said the new building is “far too small” for the floor space proposed and whilst the location is suitable, the design was “fundamentally unacceptable”.
After the second inquiry, Mr Staddon concluded that there was no “stand out” site for the hospital, but that there were “realistic” alternatives that would not cause the same “adverse demolition/construction impacts, including the disruption to the existing hospital”.
However, he noted that while these sites would not cause operational difficulties, they would come with their own set of political challenges.
Of these, the People’s Park was described in the most positive terms – “sustainable, accessible and very close to the existing hospital”.
Pictured: Mr Staddon has previously noted the challenges of building a new hospital at Overdale.
He also noted the challenges of building a hospital at the top of a hill, at Overdale.
He wrote: “The second alternative I assessed was the Overdale hospital site. While this is an existing hospital location and within the built-up area, it is physically separated from the main town and the topography makes it inaccessible, particularly by walking and cycling modes of travel.
“The intensification of development required to accommodate the hospital, combined with the elevated ridge location within the Green Backdrop Zone, would result in very significant adverse visual impacts.
“There could also be adverse residential amenity and biodiversity impacts. This option would create significant challenges with the Island Plan.”
However, he also observed: “There is no perfect site, but there are alternatives that could deliver the hospital project with different environmental effects and consequences.”
Like then, Mr Staddon’s principal guide will be the Island Plan, although this time round, it is likely to be a new one.
Judging the merits of an application against an agreed planning document is the bread and butter of an independent inspector’s job, but the problem at the start of 2022 is the replacement of the ten-year 2011 Island Plan is still in draft form.
The three-year Bridging Island Plan – shortened due to the uncertainties of Brexit and the pandemic – is yet to be debated.
States Members are due to begin the task on 14 March. With almost 100 amendments already lodged, it is expected to finish just days before the Public Inquiry is set to begin on Monday 4 April.
This has already caused concern as people making a written submission to the inquiry have done so judging the merits of the application against the Island Plan of the day, which is probably not going to be the one Mr Staddon refers to.
This disparity has prompted some, including Save Jersey’s Heritage, to argue that the whole process could be subject to judicial review.
Unlike the 2011 plan, the Bridging Island Plan contains a policy specific to the new hospital, which says:
Proposals for the development of the new hospital within the designated ‘Our Hospital development site’ will be afforded the highest level of priority, and will be supported where:
As Mr Staddon gets down to the business, even his pre-inquiry meeting today is set to be controversial. In setting out his terms of reference, he has to decide whether to include the demolition of the current building at Overdale into the inquiry.
This was subject to a separate application which was rejected by the Planning Committee earlier this month. Mr Staddon has been asked by Planning and the applicant, IHE Director-General Andy Scaite, to incorporate this in his inquiry but campaigners against the new hospital argue that there must be a fresh application and the Government is trying to “move the goalposts by stealth”.
At least Mr Staddon is well-versed in the complexities of a Jersey planning matter, which he acknowledges in his notes setting out he expects today’s meeting to run.
“It is a very major and complicated planning application, and one that inevitably attracts significant interest,” he writes.
But if anyone can keep calm and stick to the task in hand, it seems Mr Staddon will be able to.
“He was always the consummate professional who left no stone unturned and took everyone’s views into consideration,” said Deputy Steve Luce, who was the Environment Minister who rejected the first hospital application in 2018.
Pictured: Mr Staddon recommended that the 2018 Esplanade Quarter Masterplan should be reviewed.
“He was always fair to both sides and kept outside of politics, taking the Island Plan as his template and balancing all factors against it, in order to make a recommendation to the minister.
“Importantly, he has considerable experience of Jersey, so has knowledge of the Island Plan process as well as the particular dynamics of life in a small island community.”
That experience has included a number of reviews, inquiries and third-party appeals.
As well as the two Gloucester Street applications, Mr Staddon recommended in 2016 that a plan to demolish glasshouses and build 11 homes on fields in Rue de Grantez, St. Ouen, submitted by a company chaired by former Chief Minister Frank Walker, should be rejected, a view Deputy Luce agreed with.
In 2020, Mr Staddon also recommended that an application by Dandara to build 19 two-bedroom and five three-bedroom homes at Broadlands on Mont Fallu in St. Peter should be rejected, which was again accepted by the Minister, this time Deputy Young.
Last year, he recommended that a project to build 16 affordable homes and create a new school playing field in St. John should go ahead. Field ‘J525’ is now one of the housing sites proposed in the Bridging Island Plan.
Mr Staddon has also handled many planning appeals since they were introduced in Jersey in 2015. These have included Building 5 in the Jersey International Finance Centre and the redevelopment of La Collette Flats.
He recommended that both appeals should be dismissed.
Despite being an independent outsider, Mr Staddon is clearly well-versed in the intricacies of island life, particularly when it comes to building on Jersey’s limited land.
His experience will undoubtedly be needed in spades over the next few months, when he tackles what it is likely to be his most significant, controversial, and complicated inquiry yet.
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.