APPENDIX 1: Our Hospital: draft supplementary planning guidance - consultation feedback and response
Report for the Minister for the Environment
Supplementary planning guidance: advice note
Our Hospital: response to consultation
Purpose of the report
This report sets out the response to consultation on the draft supplementary planning guidance for Our Hospital; analyses the general response made; and considers amendment to the supplementary guidance, to enable its adoption and publication.
Background and context
A request to the Minister for the Environment for planning guidance to support the development of Our Hospital was received from the Chair of the Our Hospital Political Oversight Group in October 2019. In response, draft supplementary planning guidance was prepared for consultation (MD-PE-2020-0018). The draft guidance was issued for public consultation over a six-week period, from 10 February – 23 March 2020.
Consultation outcome and analysis
Responses from 17 stakeholders have been received via the online survey form, including individuals and organisations such as Friends of Our New Hospital. Separate submissions have been received from one private individual; Growth, Housing and Environment (Operations and Transport); and Health and Community Services.
The response to consultation, in the form of the Minister’s changes to the supplementary planning guidance, is set out and assessed at appendix 1. This includes the full results of the online survey together with some of the comments that were received in response to specific questions. It also specifies where the Minister is making changes to the guidance himself, principally to reflect changed circumstances arising from the coronavirus pandemic. Where individuals or agencies have made separate submissions, their specific comment is analysed relative to the relevant section of the draft guidance. Details of the full consultation response are provided at appendix 2.
Specific comment about previous or potential sites for the new hospital has not been considered as part of the analysis as such comment is not directly material to the purpose or substance of the supplementary planning guidance.
Recommendation
On the basis of the analysis of the response to consultation, set out at appendix 1, a revised version of the supplementary planning guidance is attached at appendix 3 and it is accordingly recommended that the Minister for the Environment:
- notes the consultation feedback, at appendix 2, and endorses the response to it, set out at appendix 1;
- accordingly adopts and publishes the revised supplementary planning guidance, as set out at appendix 3.
Legal and resource implications
Article 6 of the Planning and Building (Jersey) Law enables the Minister to publish guidelines and for them to be material to the determination of future planning applications.
There are not considered to be any additional resource implications arising from this decision and that the publication of supplementary planning guidance should help to ensure the efficacy of associated expenditure.
Report prepared by Head of Place and Spatial Planning
13 May 2020
APPENDIX 2: Our Hospital: draft supplementary planning guidance - -consultation feedback
1. Why consult?
Consultation responses may be made public (sent to other interested parties on request, sent to the Scrutiny Office, quoted in a published report, reported in the media, published on the Government of Jersey's website, listed on a consultation summary etc). If you want to remain anonymous please indicate below. |
| Response Percent | Response Total |
1 | I agree that my comments may be made public and attributed to me | | 35.29% | 6 |
2 | I agree that my comments may be made public but not attributed (i.e. anonymous) | | 41.18% | 7 |
3 | I don’t want my comments made public | | 23.53% | 4 |
Analysis | Mean: | 1.88 | Std. Deviation: | 0.76 | Satisfaction Rate: | 44.12 | Variance: | 0.57 | Std. Error: | 0.18 | |
| answered | 17 |
skipped | 0 |
2. Repondent's Details
You have agreed to your comments being attributed. Please give us your details. |
| Response Percent | Response Total |
1 | Name | 100.00% | 6 |
|
2 | Organisation | 50.00% | 3 |
|
| answered | 6 |
skipped | 11 |
3. Our Hospital supplementary planning guidance advice note: questions
Any proposal for a future hospital should demonstrate that it meets patient needs and that its specification is supported by clinicians. |
| Response Percent | Response Total |
1 | Strongly Disagree | | 6.25% | 1 |
2 | Disagree | | 0.00% | 0 |
3 | Neutral | | 0.00% | 0 |
4 | Agree | | 0.00% | 0 |
5 | Strongly Agree | | 93.75% | 15 |
Analysis | Mean: | 4.75 | Std. Deviation: | 0.97 | Satisfaction Rate: | 93.75 | Variance: | 0.94 | Std. Error: | 0.24 | |
| answered | 16 |
skipped | 1 |
Please give the reason for your answer: (8) |
1 | 13/02/2020 08:31 AM
ID: 135655217 | The clinicians views must be paramount and trusted. | 2 | 13/02/2020 17:22 PM
ID: 135686935 | Only the clinicians know what is required for the treatment of their patients in the hospital. The clinicians determine the design brief for the new hospital | 3 | 24/02/2020 12:24 PM
ID: 136514757 | It is essential for any proposal for a future hospital should demonstrate that it meets patient needs and that its specification is supported by clinicians, in order for it to meet its purpose. | 4 | 27/02/2020 13:40 PM
ID: 136745607 | We have one chance to get this right. This is about the healthcare for the entire population for decades to come, it is essential that ALL the hospital clinicians and staff are consulted, not just the select few. Sadly, this does not appear to have been happening to date. | 5 | 28/02/2020 11:13 AM
ID: 136793563 | Architects and politicians looking for trophy buildings are the unfortunate norm in our building ""excellence"" over functionality. | 6 | 28/02/2020 12:05 PM
ID: 136794836 | In a modern health service, service users needs are paramount. Both patients and clinicians are best placed to make evidence based decisions and the proposal must reflect that and not be based on political expediency. | 7 | 01/03/2020 12:59 PM
ID: 136872075 | They are the people that have to make it work and should have a major say in it | 8 | 20/03/2020 14:16 PM
ID: 137880461 | It needs to be supported by ALL Clinicians and not just a select few.
I object to Section 3 regarding the 'Jersey Care Model' stating what the new Hospital will offer.
The new Hospital should, in my view, be a General Hospital and offer ALL the facilities currently available. Previous proposals omitted vital facilities and departments. (e.g The Haematology department, hydrotherapy pool and Catering in the first; no proper areas as nurses stations, no Education centre and considerably reduced clinical area from 64,000 sq metres down to 48,000 sq metres in the second.) I strongly also question the number of beds to be included in the Hospital and believe we should accept the findings of Consultants employed for many millions of pounds who assessed the need as 296 beds. |
|
Any proposals should demonstrate that the community, including clinicians and other health care staff, has had an opportunity to engage and contribute to their development. |
| Response Percent | Response Total |
1 | Strongly Disagree | | 6.25% | 1 |
2 | Disagree | | 0.00% | 0 |
3 | Neutral | | 0.00% | 0 |
4 | Agree | | 18.75% | 3 |
5 | Strongly Agree | | 75.00% | 12 |
Analysis | Mean: | 4.56 | Std. Deviation: | 1 | Satisfaction Rate: | 89.06 | Variance: | 1 | Std. Error: | 0.25 | |
| answered | 16 |
skipped | 1 |
Please give the reason for your answer: (8) |
1 | 13/02/2020 08:31 AM
ID: 135655217 | I am worried that the community has been failed and always will to be listened too as a decision was made not to build on Peoples Park based on the views of a minority and not the public as a whole! | 2 | 13/02/2020 17:22 PM
ID: 135686935 | I am not sure about the community being involved, as they have little understanding of what is involved in designing a hospital. However, the support staff, nurses and consultants all need to be involved. | 3 | 24/02/2020 12:24 PM
ID: 136514757 | It is essential that the community, including clinicians and other health care staff, have an opportunity to engage and contribute to the development of any proposals, and thus contribute their knowledge and experience to the project. | 4 | 27/02/2020 13:40 PM
ID: 136745607 | Please see above. Patients also need to be consulted as it is they who are the centre of all of this. | 5 | 28/02/2020 11:13 AM
ID: 136793563 | The whole idea of building AROUND operating hospital processes is flawed. Having just been an in patient, the small amount of drilling (4 or 5 hours over 5 days) was not letting me sleep or recover. | 6 | 28/02/2020 12:05 PM
ID: 136794836 | Hospital users - the community and health care professionals have a better idea of what does not work properly at the moment and how to fix it than people that have been directing the project in the past. | 7 | 01/03/2020 12:59 PM
ID: 136872075 | As above | 8 | 20/03/2020 14:16 PM
ID: 137880461 | Our new Hospital is for the whole Island and needs to take in the views of Islanders.
Before Plans are submitted to the Planning Department all Islanders should be given the opportunity to view the plans and their opinions should be taken into consideration i.e. this should NOT be a briefing, it should be a proper engagement and consultation. |
|
Any proposal should demonstrate that all the costs and any possible delays associated with its delivery have been assessed, and that the costs and delays associated with all reasonable alternative options have also been considered. |
| Response Percent | Response Total |
1 | Strongly Disagree | | 6.25% | 1 |
2 | Disagree | | 6.25% | 1 |
3 | Neutral | | 6.25% | 1 |
4 | Agree | | 37.50% | 6 |
5 | Strongly Agree | | 43.75% | 7 |
Analysis | Mean: | 4.06 | Std. Deviation: | 1.14 | Satisfaction Rate: | 76.56 | Variance: | 1.31 | Std. Error: | 0.29 | |
| answered | 16 |
skipped | 1 |
Please give the reason for your answer: (8) |
1 | 13/02/2020 08:31 AM
ID: 135655217 | We, the public, have become cynical about the costing of this whole project to date! Any effort to convince us money has been well spent will be treated with the contempt it deserves. | 2 | 13/02/2020 17:22 PM
ID: 135686935 | This is not a part of a planning consent, as Planning has no responsibility for this. The treasury does, through the project director. This point has nothing to do with the Planning Application for the new hospital. | 3 | 24/02/2020 12:24 PM
ID: 136514757 | All costs and possible delays should be accurately assessed, and the costs and delays associated with reasonable alternative options also considered, so that these can be taken properly into account in arriving at a final decision for the future hospital. | 4 | 27/02/2020 13:40 PM
ID: 136745607 | It is essential that a design brief is produced at the very beginning of the process, agreed by the clinicians and the public and much thought is then given to finding a site big enough to accommodate the building. Location does NOT need to be in St Helier, Jersey is very small and nowhere is far away. The majority of islanders live outside St Helier anyway. From the patients point of view, a countryside setting with fresh air would be beneficial. A site which can be cleared quickly or even a greenfield site should be considered to save time and money. | 5 | 28/02/2020 11:13 AM
ID: 136793563 | Too often a figure is picked out of the either, when asked two years ago where the costings came from the answer was ""we do not know"" | 6 | 28/02/2020 12:05 PM
ID: 136794836 | This simply makes sense but is rarely seen in most GOJ projects! However, cheapest is not always best - you get what you pay for. | 7 | 01/03/2020 12:59 PM
ID: 136872075 | Any delays should be at the builders cost not the tax payer | 8 | 20/03/2020 14:16 PM
ID: 137880461 | We need to get our new Hospital built as quickly as possible; with all the facilities currently available; for the best fixed price and within a definite time frame.
I question how a 'Design and Build' contractor can be engaged before we know what is required and the site of the build. How can this provide a competitive tender scenario for taxpayers at the best price and the quickest build time? It is to be hoped that any contract is very carefully drawn up ( unlike that for the J3 consortium, who needed a 'pay-off' of some £5million+) |
|
The location of any future hospital proposal will have to be justified in the context of the spatial strategy of the current Island Plan. |
| Response Percent | Response Total |
1 | Strongly Disagree | | 37.50% | 6 |
2 | Disagree | | 18.75% | 3 |
3 | Neutral | | 18.75% | 3 |
4 | Agree | | 12.50% | 2 |
5 | Strongly Agree | | 12.50% | 2 |
Analysis | Mean: | 2.44 | Std. Deviation: | 1.41 | Satisfaction Rate: | 35.94 | Variance: | 2 | Std. Error: | 0.35 | |
| answered | 16 |
skipped | 1 |
Please give the reason for your answer: (12) |
1 | 13/02/2020 08:31 AM
ID: 135655217 | The hospital should be built on the best available site and at come in at a cost that can be justified. The obsession that everything needs to be built in St. Helier is preposterous! An obvious place is St. Saviour’s Hospital Site which could provide all we need including key worker accommodation but it is said, to far away! Madness. The island is only 45sq Miles! | 2 | 13/02/2020 10:21 AM
ID: 135663914 | The future Island Plan should be taken into account. | 3 | 13/02/2020 17:22 PM
ID: 135686935 | The spatial strategy is a 'nice to have' aspiration and should not be used as a way of adding to the bureaucracy of the Planning Application. There are very few sites on which the new hospital campus can be built, even in the green Zone. The reality is that we have been trying to get a new hospital built for 8 years and have spent £45 million getting nowhere. The hospital is a strategic necessity and must be treated as a priority, if necessary putting aside the Island Plan and this section of it. | 4 | 18/02/2020 16:35 PM
ID: 135941966 | Flexibility may be required and the current island plan is due for renewal in any case | 5 | 24/02/2020 12:24 PM
ID: 136514757 | The location of the future hospital should be justified in the light of current planning guidance, and not purely in the context of the spatial strategy of the current Island Plan/ | 6 | 27/02/2020 13:40 PM
ID: 136745607 | The Island Plan should not be put before the health of the islanders. If we need a greenfield site or we need to knock down a listed building such as St Saviour's Hospital, so be it. We should not, however, allow high rise buildings in order to try and shoehorn something in which is against all common sense for future growth. It is also best practice not to have high rise buildings for hospitals as it is a huge risk trying to evacuate bed ridden patients in the event of fire. | 7 | 27/02/2020 14:40 PM
ID: 136752513 | The island doesn't build a new hospital every 10 years, it is an investment that will have an effect for many generations of islanders perhaps for 100 years. Island Plans only cover 9 years, the best site and design should be built regardless of the current version of the Island Plan spatial strategy. | 8 | 27/02/2020 15:37 PM
ID: 136757719 | Development of key projects needs to fit within a long term (20 year plus) strategy for st Helier and the Island to ensure there is coherent development and to maximise island community outcomes. | 9 | 28/02/2020 11:13 AM
ID: 136793563 | The island plan, business plan, property holdings, quangos, etc. all have differing views. The scale of this development means it should trump any other states interest in the benefit of the people who are paying and will use it | 10 | 28/02/2020 12:05 PM
ID: 136794836 | This is a major and key piece of Island infrastructure - it should do its best to comply with the plan but if it's needs are contrary then the plan should be over ridden. | 11 | 01/03/2020 12:59 PM
ID: 136872075 | Don’t think island plan is fit for purpose | 12 | 20/03/2020 14:16 PM
ID: 137880461 | The new Hospital should be based on Clinical need required and should only be situated where there is enough room for the required ground floor space, together with room for expansion. |
|
Any proposal should demonstrate how it makes the most efficient use of land, energy and other resources in its design and operation. |
| Response Percent | Response Total |
1 | Strongly Disagree | | 0.00% | 0 |
2 | Disagree | | 6.25% | 1 |
3 | Neutral | | 25.00% | 4 |
4 | Agree | | 18.75% | 3 |
5 | Strongly Agree | | 50.00% | 8 |
Analysis | Mean: | 4.12 | Std. Deviation: | 0.99 | Satisfaction Rate: | 78.12 | Variance: | 0.98 | Std. Error: | 0.25 | |
| answered | 16 |
skipped | 1 |
Please give the reason for your answer: (8) |
1 | 13/02/2020 08:31 AM
ID: 135655217 | We must not build everything in St. Helier. | 2 | 13/02/2020 17:22 PM
ID: 135686935 | The design of the campus and the buildings in it have to meet the needs of the new hospital at its centre. Function is the first priority, room for expansion and addition the second with architectural design the third. | 3 | 24/02/2020 12:24 PM
ID: 136514757 | Any proposal should demonstrate efficient use of land, energy and other resources, but not so as to compromise fulfilment of clinical requirements, operating resilience and appropriate future-proofing. | 4 | 27/02/2020 13:40 PM
ID: 136745607 | We need a large site - big enough for a campus and sufficient room to grow over the next 60 years. Nobody knows what lies ahead and we need to acknowledge the space needed.
We should also be providing nursing accommodation onsite. | 5 | 28/02/2020 11:13 AM
ID: 136793563 | We do not need another architects' competition entry. We need function over form | 6 | 28/02/2020 12:05 PM
ID: 136794836 | Efficient use of land does not mean cramming facilities into the smallest space available - as is currently evident in the existing site and any expansion of the existing site. Energy and resource efficiency should be built into any proposal, not just the hospital. | 7 | 01/03/2020 12:59 PM
ID: 136872075 | Please think out of the box on this one use new efficiency ideas not already taken advantage of in jersey at present | 8 | 20/03/2020 14:16 PM
ID: 137880461 | Any proposals need to be built as sustainably as possible; be built to the best standards, making use of renewable energy when possible( solar, wind). It needs to be able to be run as efficiently as possible. |
|
Any proposal should demonstrate how it can be accessed by employees, patients, servicing, visitors, and emergency services, and that regard has been given to the strategic principles of seeking to minimise travel; reducing the use of the car; and promoting sustainable transport options, including existing and new bus services. |
| Response Percent | Response Total |
1 | Strongly Disagree | | 0.00% | 0 |
2 | Disagree | | 18.75% | 3 |
3 | Neutral | | 6.25% | 1 |
4 | Agree | | 18.75% | 3 |
5 | Strongly Agree | | 56.25% | 9 |
Analysis | Mean: | 4.12 | Std. Deviation: | 1.17 | Satisfaction Rate: | 78.12 | Variance: | 1.36 | Std. Error: | 0.29 | |
| answered | 16 |
skipped | 1 |
Please give the reason for your answer: (11) |
1 | 13/02/2020 08:31 AM
ID: 135655217 | However, our journey time in Jersey is significantly less than almost every town across the British Isles and better dedicated public transport is easily provided with sensible planning and commitment. | 2 | 13/02/2020 17:22 PM
ID: 135686935 | Of course it must. Key to this is the road layout and the requirement for a bus station (not a shelter, as there will be a considerable traffic load if the bus service works well) with parking for 600 vehicles. Cycle track and pedestrian access come next, particularly if the new hospital campus is outside St Helier. | 3 | 18/02/2020 16:35 PM
ID: 135941966 | Agree although I see this as a second level priority | 4 | 24/02/2020 12:24 PM
ID: 136514757 | For both environmental and clinical reasons, any proposal must demonstrate as ready access as possible for employees, patients, servicing, visitors and emergency services, with regard given to the strategic principles of seeking to minimise travel, reduce the use of the car and promote sustainable transport options, including existing and new bus services. | 5 | 27/02/2020 13:40 PM
ID: 136745607 | This is wholly subjective. Transport needs depend on where a person is starting their journey. No matter where the hospital is placed, the journey will be closer for some and further for others. We don't all live in one place.
The hospital needs to be serviced by a regular mini bus service from the Bus Station. Emergency situations would be blue lighted anyway. | 6 | 27/02/2020 14:40 PM
ID: 136752513 | Travel reduction must not be a reason to reject sites, it is up to the island to put in place the green transport services to access the hospital regardless of where it is. | 7 | 27/02/2020 15:37 PM
ID: 136757719 | Agreed, but in the context of the Island generally, currently the hospital itself will not have a perfect solution as the Island hasn't yet got a perfect solution overall for any of its transport issues noted in the question. A compromise within the context of other measures to achieve these targets over the long term may be required. | 8 | 28/02/2020 11:13 AM
ID: 136793563 | Bus services can be provided to the facility outside of those we have. Park and ride, visitor access, etc. also would need looking at (the current hospital parking and bus access is NOT good) Full car parks or long distance from bus routes for those who use the buses for hospital (i.e. those who do not live in town) | 9 | 28/02/2020 12:05 PM
ID: 136794836 | Good transport links should be a given - most new hospital facilities have a bus 'terminus' or are on multiple bus routes. | 10 | 01/03/2020 12:59 PM
ID: 136872075 | As long as it is not where it is now | 11 | 20/03/2020 14:16 PM
ID: 137880461 | It may well be that the best site is not in town. No where is far on an Island 9 miles x 5 miles.
Whilst being aware that we should not be over reliant on use of the car there is nothing to stop a shuttle bus service being provided directly from the bus station to any new Hospital.. after all, no one finds it difficult to access the airport in St Peter. |
|
Any proposal should demonstrate how it is resilient to the effects of climate change. |
| Response Percent | Response Total |
1 | Strongly Disagree | | 0.00% | 0 |
2 | Disagree | | 12.50% | 2 |
3 | Neutral | | 25.00% | 4 |
4 | Agree | | 25.00% | 4 |
5 | Strongly Agree | | 37.50% | 6 |
Analysis | Mean: | 3.88 | Std. Deviation: | 1.05 | Satisfaction Rate: | 71.88 | Variance: | 1.11 | Std. Error: | 0.26 | |
| answered | 16 |
skipped | 1 |
Please give the reason for your answer: (11) |
1 | 13/02/2020 08:31 AM
ID: 135655217 | But knee jerk reactions often miss practical solutions! | 2 | 13/02/2020 10:21 AM
ID: 135663914 | nothing said about what factor is most important, not just climate change, but other matters such as disability access, quiet and pleasant surroundings, children, de-stressing, longevity of building. Staff are actually more important than a building. | 3 | 13/02/2020 17:22 PM
ID: 135686935 | This is applicable if the chosen site is close to the sea. Otherwise normal common sense determines the the design which should take advantage of the full BREAM process and include renewable energy. | 4 | 18/02/2020 16:35 PM
ID: 135941966 | Of course. Care need to be taken here to focus on practical solutions and not get confused by answers to too many questions in the name of 'engaging the public'. I just want you to make a decision and get on with it. | 5 | 24/02/2020 12:24 PM
ID: 136514757 | As climate change is with us, any proposal should demonstrate resilience to that, subject to not compromising clinical requirements and the needs for operational resilience and future proofing. | 6 | 27/02/2020 13:40 PM
ID: 136745607 | I think this question is ambiguous. The only factor I can think of that would relate in any way is the possibility of rising sea levels. For this reason it is important that the building is not placed anywhere near a possible flood zone. | 7 | 27/02/2020 14:40 PM
ID: 136752513 | The building will be built to meet the bye-laws and environmental standards set by the Government. This is a non-question, it is a Government decision and a Government failure if the building doesn't have resilience. | 8 | 28/02/2020 11:13 AM
ID: 136793563 | Here is the muddy the waters question. What has it to do with a health facility? | 9 | 28/02/2020 12:05 PM
ID: 136794836 | Climate is without doubt changing, whether accelerated by human action or not. It would be a ridiculous waste of public funds if climate change resilience was not incorporated into the planning. As an example any of the Islands costal fringes will become more susceptible to flooding, this includes the town area and if the hospital were flooded you no longer have a hospital. I would expect the new site to be sufficiently above current sea level (at least 50 metres) to 1, reduce the cost of flood resistance and 2, remain functional should the Island experience a major flooding disaster. | 10 | 01/03/2020 12:59 PM
ID: 136872075 | No point in putting it on reclaimed land due to problems already seen and future problems with tidal changes | 11 | 20/03/2020 14:16 PM
ID: 137880461 | We should not be building the new Hospital in an area liable to flooding. |
|
Any proposal should demonstrate how it might perform over time, and be capable of adaptation and/or expansion, to meet changing needs. |
| Response Percent | Response Total |
1 | Strongly Disagree | | 0.00% | 0 |
2 | Disagree | | 0.00% | 0 |
3 | Neutral | | 0.00% | 0 |
4 | Agree | | 18.75% | 3 |
5 | Strongly Agree | | 81.25% | 13 |
Analysis | Mean: | 4.81 | Std. Deviation: | 0.39 | Satisfaction Rate: | 95.31 | Variance: | 0.15 | Std. Error: | 0.1 | |
| answered | 16 |
skipped | 1 |
Please give the reason for your answer: (9) |
1 | 13/02/2020 08:31 AM
ID: 135655217 | Value for money and ongoing investment must be possible! | 2 | 13/02/2020 10:21 AM
ID: 135663914 | See above. In the present hospital the oldest building is structurally the most sound. Any new buildings should have potential to last at least 150 years. | 3 | 13/02/2020 17:22 PM
ID: 135686935 | Of course and this applies in particular to bed numbers, ensuring that there is room to add more if there is a requirement and without compromising the main design. | 4 | 24/02/2020 12:24 PM
ID: 136514757 | Any proposal should demonstrate future proofing, including evaluation of how it might perform over time and capability for adaptation and/or expansion to meet future needs, over a 20 to 30 year timescale - having due regard to future medical advances, further population increases ands future demographic trends. | 5 | 27/02/2020 13:40 PM
ID: 136745607 | Absolutely! This is why we need a very large site and a campus - in the countryside. | 6 | 28/02/2020 11:13 AM
ID: 136793563 | The buildings need area to expand and adapt | 7 | 28/02/2020 12:05 PM
ID: 136794836 | I would expect this as part of the change control process - what would be the point of developing something that is not adaptable | 8 | 01/03/2020 12:59 PM
ID: 136872075 | Needs to have space to expand to deal with changing circumstances in the future | 9 | 20/03/2020 14:16 PM
ID: 137880461 | Room for expansion is essential.
Any new build must be capable of adaptation and/or expansion to meet changing needs.
Medicine is advancing; but the population is increasing with a larger proportion being elderly. |
|
Any proposal should assess and consider its socio-economic impacts, including its effect on the Island’s labour market. |
| Response Percent | Response Total |
1 | Strongly Disagree | | 6.25% | 1 |
2 | Disagree | | 18.75% | 3 |
3 | Neutral | | 18.75% | 3 |
4 | Agree | | 31.25% | 5 |
5 | Strongly Agree | | 25.00% | 4 |
Analysis | Mean: | 3.5 | Std. Deviation: | 1.22 | Satisfaction Rate: | 62.5 | Variance: | 1.5 | Std. Error: | 0.31 | |
| answered | 16 |
skipped | 1 |
Please give the reason for your answer: (11) |
1 | 13/02/2020 08:31 AM
ID: 135655217 | Attracting key workers in Health & Social Care should be one of the governments top priorities. The cost of living and in particular housing is the biggest stumbling block to attracting key workers as indeed it is generally. | 2 | 13/02/2020 17:22 PM
ID: 135686935 | Up to a point: this project will involve a large workforce, as it is the biggest infrastructure project, probably in Jersey's history. Therefore there will have to be controls on the flow of the workforce. What this has to do with the Planning Department I have no idea and that it is mentioned at all smacks of Empire building. This is for the Immigration Department in Home Affairs to control in conjunction with Social Security and the project director. It is not a part of the Planning Application. | 3 | 18/02/2020 16:35 PM
ID: 135941966 | No - there are other far more important considerations here | 4 | 24/02/2020 12:24 PM
ID: 136514757 | Clinical requirements, accessibility/transport needs, demonstrating operational resilience and incorporation of future-proofing are the key and overriding requirements for any proposal. | 5 | 27/02/2020 13:40 PM
ID: 136745607 | Which labour market? I think this is a little ambiguous. | 6 | 27/02/2020 14:40 PM
ID: 136752513 | Another non-question, we already have a hospital with staff, and the staffing levels will continue and potentially grow as the demands of an ageing population increase.
Even with automation and AI the staffing requirement is not going to decrease. | 7 | 27/02/2020 15:37 PM
ID: 136757719 | I agree but this isn't a key driver. Where possible, development should be sourced within the Island to maximise the economic benefit of this capital spend. There should also be consideration for providing low income affordable housing to key staff as part of this project to ensure the new hospital can be staffed properly. | 8 | 28/02/2020 11:13 AM
ID: 136793563 | Just because some builders or designers or caterers, et al may be needed short term does not mean we should be altering the constriction of Jersey's biggest p[project in years away from its prime function | 9 | 28/02/2020 12:05 PM
ID: 136794836 | This impact needs to be considered and balanced. | 10 | 01/03/2020 12:59 PM
ID: 136872075 | Not sure how to answer | 11 | 20/03/2020 14:16 PM
ID: 137880461 | Hopefully, any proposal may well be of modular build which, can, in large part be fabricated off- Island and assembled on-Island. |
|
Any proposal should demonstrate how, during its construction, effective healthcare services, working conditions and a quality patient environment will be maintained, and how the implications for local residents and business in the immediate proximity will be mitigated as far as possible. |
| Response Percent | Response Total |
1 | Strongly Disagree | | 6.25% | 1 |
2 | Disagree | | 0.00% | 0 |
3 | Neutral | | 0.00% | 0 |
4 | Agree | | 37.50% | 6 |
5 | Strongly Agree | | 56.25% | 9 |
Analysis | Mean: | 4.38 | Std. Deviation: | 0.99 | Satisfaction Rate: | 84.38 | Variance: | 0.98 | Std. Error: | 0.25 | |
| answered | 16 |
skipped | 1 |
Please give the reason for your answer: (11) |
1 | 13/02/2020 08:31 AM
ID: 135655217 | Plainly obvious . | 2 | 13/02/2020 17:22 PM
ID: 135686935 | Yes, this is a statement of the obvious. However, it is the responsibility of other Government Departments such as Environmental Health, Health and Safety to deliver on the site, not the Planning Department and should be an example of 'One Government'. As far as adjacent properties are concerned, this is normal practice determined through the project planners as the plan comes together and the project director and contractors during construction. Again it seems like Empire Building for Planning to include it in a Planning Application. | 3 | 18/02/2020 16:35 PM
ID: 135941966 | This is two separate questions. I agree to the first part ie maintaining effective healthcare services during construction | 4 | 24/02/2020 12:24 PM
ID: 136514757 | The maintenance of effective healthcare services, working conditions and a quality patient environment during construction are essential so as not to compromise standards of patient care in that period, and undue issues for local residents and business in the immediate proximity should be mitigated as far as possible. | 5 | 27/02/2020 13:40 PM
ID: 136745607 | This is exactly why Gloucester Street should NEVER be considered. It has already been stated on the health impact assessment that it is potentially dangerous to patients and staff. It would take longer to deliver AND be the most expensive. | 6 | 27/02/2020 14:40 PM
ID: 136752513 | The current Gloucester Street site must be ruled out, construction there was never going to be feasible without significant adverse effect on the staff working conditions and quality of care for patients. | 7 | 27/02/2020 15:37 PM
ID: 136757719 | Agree but this isn't a key consideration. It will always be disruptive. It is a question of how you can mitigate that as best you can. | 8 | 28/02/2020 11:13 AM
ID: 136793563 | You cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear (the Parade Site) and trying to do so would only hurt the pig! | 9 | 28/02/2020 12:05 PM
ID: 136794836 | This would be very difficult to achieve, as healthcare professionals have clearly identified if the existing site were to be re-developed. A new site would enable existing services to be maintained and then transferred to the new facility. | 10 | 01/03/2020 12:59 PM
ID: 136872075 | Shouldn’t be in a area like that in the first place | 11 | 20/03/2020 14:16 PM
ID: 137880461 | Hopefully, if a new Hospital is built on an unencumbered site, the build ( especially if modular) can be quicker, better and cheaper than the previous two proposals.
If built on any other site, the current Hospital can continue to operate (essential maintenance must continue) and then can move into the new fully functioning facility. |
|
4. Final comments
Please give any further comments you wish. |
| Response Percent | Response Total |
1 | Open-Ended Question | 100.00% | 10 |
1 | 13/02/2020 08:31 AM
ID: 135655217 | The hospital saga needs to end! We have wasted time, huge amounts of money and risk missing out on securing the staff we need to provide the services those professionals, who have so many options, to find work elsewhere and we will never be able to recruit locally sufficient staff across HSS&D. | 2 | 13/02/2020 17:22 PM
ID: 135686935 | There is a principle in this guidance that is missing - KISS. We have spent an inordinate time in delivering a new hospital that the people of this island need now. We have spent £45.2 million getting nowhere, together with a £56 million 'enablement fund' for the future hospital from which £5 million was spent building a cookhouse on an industrial site, remote from the General Hospital, which is a year behind schedule and was built for a different scheme, added to which this Government has committed £7 million to get the 'Our Hospital' project off the ground. We are spending more money on the General Hospital to keep it going, money that would have not needed to be spent had politicians and civil servants worked together to deliver P82/20912 in 2013. We cannot go on wasting taxpayers money in this extravagant and unaccountable way. If 'One Government' is to be a reality, then Government Departments need to work together to deliver this new hospital and its attendant facilities and buildings. We need to 'Get This Hospital Done - Now!' This Planning Advice draft guidance document, if adopted, adds unnecessary bureaucracy and time that we cannot afford, financially or politically. | 3 | 18/02/2020 16:35 PM
ID: 135941966 | Building on the current site will be expensive and operationally difficult.
Practically, it probably needs to be in St Helier so that must limit the number of available sites. I am not averse to building on an existing park and suggest that once built the existing site is used to replace any public open space lost to the new hospital building.
Courage will be required - please do not listen to the vocal minority. Most reasonable people accept that you need to spend significant professional fees to make the right decision and build this.
This public consultation is great but please prioritise answers - there are some questions above that are essential and some that are 'nice to haves'
Thanks and good luck | 4 | 27/02/2020 13:40 PM
ID: 136745607 | We need to know EXACTLY what the hospital will contain and should not entertain a Rochdale envelope approach. How can we put forward a planning application without the knowledge of what is to go in it? This is the single most important building undertaken in most of our lifetimes, please let us get this right with absolutely NO compromises. The Jersey Care Model should not be allowed to hold this process up, we paid £23 million for reports from Gleeds, WS Atkins etc telling us what we need, please listen to them. Implementation of the JCM does not effect their finding as their finding were based on full implementation of P82 which never happened and on which the JCM is based - to say medicine has moved on in this regard is wrong and recent reports on cancelled operations etc due to insufficient bed numbers bear this out. | 5 | 27/02/2020 14:40 PM
ID: 136752513 | Please give due weight to the recuperation of patients. A countryside setting with peace and quiet, high air quality and outside access to pleasant surroundings are extremely valuable in speedy patient recovery. | 6 | 27/02/2020 21:37 PM
ID: 136775142 | Surely these questions were addressed last time. We are going round in circles | 7 | 28/02/2020 11:13 AM
ID: 136793563 | Please drop the ""we have invested so much"" mentality and use PRINCE to see the overall cost (financial and health wise) of a bare site development. | 8 | 28/02/2020 12:05 PM
ID: 136794836 | This is a key facility for all Islanders so the right sight and plan needs to be decided on. Coming up with a plan and then reducing the available space for the hospitals function should not happen again! It is a waste of resources and causes significant delays. GOJ needs to learn from the many past mistakes made on multiple projects (even ones currently running) and get things right for this one. | 9 | 01/03/2020 12:59 PM
ID: 136872075 | This hospital needs to have a considerable amount of beds and facilities to carry us forward in the years to come and not be based on the size we already have , on the right site there could be doctors and nurses staff accommodation and plenty of parking this could be the best thing jersey has done or the worst please get it right first time . | 10 | 20/03/2020 14:16 PM
ID: 137880461 | The Planning application should be a detailed plan, rather than the inadequate 'Outline' plans of the last two proposals. The Rochdale Envelope of the first Planning application and the 'Access only' application for the second were both highly unsatisfactory. The plan should be submitted properly at the start and not altered and added to in dribs and drabs, as happened for the second proposal. All 'artistic impressions' should be accurate.
The new Hospital needs to be assessed by an Independent Planning Inspector. I am very concerned that the law has been changed as of Feb 14th 2020 and that now an Inspector can now be an employee of the Government. The original law was written in the Public interest. Please explain how and why this change has occurred and why the Public were not consulted. It would seem that the Public are not now protected.
There should be an Environmental Impact Assessment and a Health Impact Assessment of the proposed new Hospital.
The Minister of the Environment should make the final decision, based on the assessement of the Independent Planning Inspector following a public inquiry. |
|
| answered | 10 |
skipped | 7 |
Appendix 2(b): Individual submission
Dear Kevin Pilley,
I write with regard to the General Hospital planning inputs from people like myself a badge carrying states of Jersey decision member like my brother Philip Bree LLM BA MA LLB member of Lincoln`s Inn and our relations from Jersey families who like us studied at Victoria College and like our many relations have qualified in jurisprudence with many friends globally including in the USA where my friends include Barak Obama related to the Jersey island Duval family like our friends the Bush family friendly with Michelle Obama who realises our friends in Texas like the Bush family in our Methodist community there share our contacts in oil and gas like my colleague Hunter Biden who has a father who is a Senator like Uncle John Kerry who has relations working in Jersey I worked with in our hospital in Jersey island who know we need a new hospital like Guernsey out of its capital so in Jersey the Overdale site is ideal near the Inner Road and requiring compulsory purchase of the road side properties at Mont Pele to widen the road there to access Overdale where out of town near the crematorium close to Saint Brelades where a third of Jersey residents reside near the Airport and near the capital where a third of locals live really central but outside the snarled up town development with world class views and facilities near parking possibilities outside town where on the old tea factory site and other places are potential level underground parking locations for visitors and existing facilities and a complex already built ready to extend in countryside out of town over built noisy polluted metropolis we need to use Overdale as the Inner Road with compulsory purchase could be widened and is out of traffic blocked town but near the Inner Road and the JEC Powerhouse nearby for electrical expertise a great view is possible and room to expand is possible making this Overdale site ideal for the new build hospital my colleagues in construction in Brittany can built at a fraction of the UK consultants and a better clinical design like at Saint Brieuc and the new build hospital in Redon south of Brittany now being completed on time in budget at a fraction of the UK rip off design outdated model the States wish to foolishly choose.
I hope common sense will prevail and my relations who run the Ministerial States of Jersey like my brother and I who wear States of Jersey badges will chose the best design lower cost quick build top French design backed by German building expertise with top European construction firms backed by the French Bouygues brothers I chat to who offer the best building technology expertise in Europe and globally near us in Brittany a short ferry trip away for French based biggest European Hospital builders who can ship cheaply French materials and technology like Siemens and Alstrom scanner technology to Jersey much cheaper and efficiently than outdated over priced UK older designs. Kind regards, B.E.B.Bree ICSA Dip ACCA student member.
Appendix 2(c): Health and Community Services submission
Draft Response to Draft SPG
Hello Kevin
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this Draft advice note. As the Guidance itself states, the Our Hospital project raises some of the most complex and difficult issues the island is likely to face. Broadly the Guidance sets the scene for the project in a useful way but there are some points that possibly require clarification or could actually lead to more confusion as the project progresses and set out below are some of those points:
Status and scope of this guidance
The 4th paragraph seems to indicate that the SPG specifically sets out all the issues that would need to have been considered if a public interest test was required to be applied. Then the 5th paragraph appears to contradict that position by suggesting that there may be other considerations that might be material to a future determination.
Would it be appropriate if this contradiction could be removed one way or another?
Section two: policy context
Should the start of the second sentence of the 6th paragraph make it clear that the “It” referred to is the Island Plan Review not the Island Plan itself?
With any new Island Plan, when it is not clear how the policy making context for decision making will be, stating that ‘in all likelihood, more straightforward’ seems presumptious. Whilst there will evidently be differences with the emerging Island Plan it seems too soon in the process to suggest things may be more straightforward.
Would it be appropriate just to highlight the fact that the new hospital will be referenced in some way in the emerging Island Plan?
Section three: Key considerations for Our Hospital
Whilst there is an indication that ‘non-planning’ matters were issues of public concern in the previous applications for planning permission, they (quite rightly) did not result in any of the reasons for refusal for the applications.
As indicated in the 1st paragraph of the introduction to the Draft SPG, the statutory planning process provided the principal means for engagement on the proposals for a new hospital, but that does not mean that it falls to the planning process to act as an arbiter for some of the issues which were raised.
Should it be clear that these issues cannot in themselves be determinative in any application?
The project will at all times seek to explain and clarify issues of concern to anyone who raises those concerns. However where these concerns are not legitimate subjects on planning control they should not prejudice the planning process and is it appropriate for the SPG to be placing such expectations on the planning process?
Examples of these in the Draft SPG are references to the Jersey Care Model and to various costs of the project. These examples are controlled through other Government and political avenues and accountability should remain with those avenues.
In connection with the Deliverability and Consequences of Delay section the Draft SPG seems to suggest that the need for the hospital is not a ‘planning issue’ However in the inspector’s report in connection with the second application for planning permission Mr Staddon stated:
"I concluded, following the first Inquiry, that the need for a ‘new’ hospital, in some form, as part of a ‘new model of care’, is well evidenced and undisputed. Nothing has changed to alter that conclusion, other than the passage of another year compounding the case. This is a material and weighty Planning consideration."
Would it be appropriate for the SPG to support this statement and highlight the weight that will be given to the question of need in consideration of any application for planning permission?
Sustainable Development Considerations
The matters highlighted in this part of the Daft SPG are extremely useful as a summary of the issues any development proposal will need to consider and demonstrate. They are also useful in highlighting to anyone who may wish to contribute to the process once it reaches planning application stage what will be considered through the planning process.
The site selection process has included the issues in this section of the Draft SPG to assist assessing potential sites for the hospital.
Other Considerations
The appointment of a development partner early in the process for the Our Hospital project will allow the mapping of labour supply to be detailed by the time of any application for planning permission. Similarly the requirements of that supply – such as accommodation – will be developed alongside the labour strategy.
Whilst the project will be seeking to use innovative and contemporary methods of construction, this in itself should not be a determinative factor with the planning application. Do you think that the SPG could clarify this?
Section 4: matters of process and decision-making
The closing date for comment of the Draft SPG is 23 March 2020. The site selection process – as endorsed by the Our Hospital Political Oversight Group (POG) - will shortly after that date present a shortlist of potential sites for the new hospital. The feasibility of these remaining sites will then be further investigated by the appointed development partner to establish the preferred site.
The whole process of site selection – from the initial call for sites to the public through to the shortlist of 2 sites - will be fully documented and set out in any planning submission. The fact that the process will have virtually reached a conclusion prior to the publication of what will be the adopted SPG suggests that the SPG is limited in its ability to guide the site selection process. In other words, given the timescale of the project and the publication of this Draft SPG, it may not be possible for the site selection process to follow some of the advice that may appear in the final version of the SPG. Given this difference in timing would it be appropriate for the SPG to potentially create conditions for the site assessment process that cannot be met as any relevant stages will have concluded?
As regards the application process itself, whilst the Draft SPG indicates that an outline planning application would be acceptable – provided it is supported by sufficient information – it is assumed that a full application would also be acceptable?
On a general point there are numerous uses of quotation marks around words and phrases that are at not required and can be confusing. Examples include ‘wider public interest’, ‘public interest test’ and ‘fit’. As none of these examples are referring back to any particular source or quote by a person or document should they be in quotation marks?
There are other phrases that appear in quotation marks legitimately – for example where they refer to phrases that are in primary legislation– and the use of quotation marks in other circumstances confuses the presentation of direct and relevant quotes
If you require clarification on any of the issues please do not hesitate to contact our Project Director, Richard Bannister, r.bannister@gov.je
Many thanks,
Caroline Landon
Director General Health and Community Services
Government of Jersey
Appendix 2(d): Growth, Housing and Environment (Operations and Transport) submission
From: William Prendergast
Sent: 24 February 2020 11:10
To: Kevin Pilley <k.pilley@gov.je>
Cc: Robert Hayward <R.Hayward@gov.je>
Subject: RE: Future Hospital Supplementary Planning Guidance Advice Note Consultation
Hi Kevin
Rob requested me to respond to you.
Whilst reducing car dependency and equality / inclusivity of access is mentioned, the role that travel and transport has in the functioning of any hospital wherever it is obviously critical.
The costs of providing an efficient functioning hospital will vary considerably site to site. They should be a major consideration in site appraisal.
For example, if the hospital remains where it is, cost impacts are relatively low scale and involve only the consideration of ensuring accesses are fit for purpose for all, whoever they are and by whatever mode, as seen with the Planning Applications.
However, to go to St Saviours Hospital site, for example, will likely involve millions on and off site to provide a transport network and infrastructure that is fit for purpose. Off site would likely require CPO to enable 2 way passing of buses, servicing lorries, and ambulances “on shout” too all the way along their route to access this remote site. This would be critical to their response times.
CPO for transport improvements are therefore is another obstacle to be considered under project practicality and delay!
Specifically within the draft SPG, the Design Considerations Section therefore should have a section to cover transport and parking infrastructure on site and off.
This ought to include:
- Bus access (ideally should be prioritised and unobstructed to avoid congestion and delays)
- Servicing arrangements – ideally separate from main entrance
- Emergency services routing – probably similar to needs of buses except different destination!
- PARKING
- Underground? MSCP?
- Costs? Discounts?
- Staff parking. Is there any need for allocated parking except for on call emergency staff?
- Patients’ parking – costs? Any discounts for cancer etc.? A&E patient parking?
- Car parking management – by whom? Costs? Ring fenced to support bus services, sustainable travel etc.?
The design of transport and travel for access to and from the hospital should follow the hierarchy identified in the current Sustainable Transport Plan – so
1. Walk / cycle
2. Bus
3. Car share / taxi
4. Private car alone
However the new STP is likely to be adopted before the end of this draft consultation period, hence any proposed site will need to show how well sites accord with the Principles for a Sustainable Transport System identified in Chapter 8 of the “Framework for a Sustainable Transport System 2020-2030
Any site appraisal must recognise the significant cost implications of facilitating access to, on, and from any site.
Just for your info, attached are our formal comments on using the St Saviours Site for the residential purpose, and also for interest, draft notes if it was for the new hospital, which are draft, and were not forwarded.
Regards
gov.je