New hospital: You should have gone for the Waterfront!

Thursday 03 November 2016

After many millions of pounds and public protests...the long-running row over where to build Jersey's new £466million hospital has taken yet another twist.

Just weeks after Ministers published detailed plans to build the new hospital just yards from its current location, now another consultants' report, this time commissioned by the Health Scrutiny Panel, says the Waterfront would actually have been a better option after all - it argues that building there would mean less noise and disruption for patients during construction.

The Waterfront was on the original short-list of preferred sites, but Ministers opted for rebuilding close to the current site after a large public protest against using the People's Park. Overdale was also shortlisted as a potential location. 

They said the Waterfront was "screened out" of the selection process in 2012, as the "constrained" site would have compromised design, it would need flood protection measures and it wouldn't comply with the Island Plan. 

So far it has taken more than four years and approximately £5million to determine where was the best place is to build the new hospital, with 41 sites on the original list. 

But now, project management company Concerto Partners have raised a number of concerns regarding the new hospital in their report. In particular, Concerto say the “best answer” may not be to rebuild in the current proposed location.  

It reads: “The Council of Minister’s preferred option for the future hospital appears to score unfavourably against the Waterfront option in an independent appraisal and therefore the best answer may not be emerging.”

It added: "Present proposals for the construction phase of the new hospital may have understated the risks of disruption to existing hospital services and patient inconvenience due to noise, dust and vibration." 

But their report has been slammed by Health Minister Andrew Green who says it will “unnecessarily damage public confidence” in the new hospital, and contains “numerous inaccuracies.”

He said: “I am very frustrated and concerned that this report contains numerous inaccuracies and draws conclusions and gives opinions based on incomplete information, or a clear lack of understanding of the material shared.

“On behalf of Islanders, both the Health and Social Services and Infrastructure Departments are very keen to move forward with this most important project, but I am worried that this report will unnecessarily damage public confidence in the proposed site choice, around which a consensus has been emerging, and which will be subject to a States debate before the end of the year.

“Any further delay will endanger our goal of a wide range of primary and community-based services, supported by a modern, fit for the future and sustainable hospital.”

Infrastructure Minister Eddie Noel also criticised the Concerto report, saying their “conclusions about the disruption, cost and risk of the preferred site have been drawn without reference to the project delivery team. These conclusions fail to appreciate how the site assessment process assesses value for money, risk and the impact on patients, nor how the safe, sustainable and affordable vision for the future hospital underpins the weighting and scoring of the site assessment process.”

The Concerto report was commissioned by the Health and Social Services panel and its chairman, Deputy Richard Renouf said the panel will discuss the issue of the new hospital location at their next meeting tomorrow.  

Deputy Renouf said: “We want to ensure that if we do build on the preferred site there will be no unacceptable compromises.

“Nothing has been finalised yet and it is true that the technical report by Concerto does say that, in their opinion, the Waterfront site is a superior location due to a number of reasons, one of which is that it is simply bigger.

“The panel will be seeing the Health Minister on Friday and we will be asking him about the preferred location. Concerto say that technically they would have been more in favour of the Waterfront, so we need to ascertain the reasons behind the decision to go for the present hospital site as the preferred option.

“I am open-minded about the location. Concerto are continuing to make a more detailed assessment and I will be interested to see what their findings are.”

As for ever-rising consultancy costs, now into several millions of pounds, Deputy Renouf said he remains convinced that planning and preparation must be thoroughly examined before a building of this size is constructed.

He said: “The consultancy costs do not unduly concern me and I don’t think they have, so far, been excessive. You have to remember this is a massive project costing over £400milliion so we have to get it right. That means we have got to get the right site and the right plans – and that, of course, has to be fully assessed before we go ahead.”