Skip to main content Skip to accessibility
This website is not compatible with your web browser. You should install a newer browser. If you live in Jersey and need help upgrading call the States of Jersey web team on 440099.
Government of Jerseygov.je

Information and public services for the Island of Jersey

L'înformâtion et les sèrvices publyis pouor I'Île dé Jèrri

  • Choose the service you want to log in to:

  • gov.je

    Update your notification preferences

  • one.gov.je

    Access government services

  • CAESAR

    Clear goods through customs or claim relief

  • Talentlink

    View or update your States of Jersey job application

Our Hospital: Site Suggestion

Shortlisted sites

Overdale and The People’s Park have been shortlisted for the location of Jersey’s new hospital.

Those sites were chosen from a starting point of 82 sites following assessments using criteria formed by working with the Our Hospital Citizens’ Panel, medical professionals and from the feedback from Islandwide public consultation. Those assessments looked at the clinical suitability, location, environmental, economic and social impact of each site.

Both sites will undergo further technical and financial assessments to determine which will go forward as the preferred site for a States debate in the autumn.

The site shortlisting process

Following a public call for sites, 5 sites were shortlisted as possible locations for Jersey’s new hospital.

The sites, which all passed a set of clinical and citizens’ panel criteria, were: 

  • St Andrew’s Park, First Tower, St Helier
  • Fields north of Five Oaks, St Saviour
  • Millbrook playing fields with fields across Inner Road, St Lawrence
  • Overdale, St Helier
  • The People’s Park, St Helier

Sites that did not make the shortlist

Maps of the shortlisted sites

From a starting point of 82 sites, two key clinically-led criteria were applied to each site:

  • was the site big enough for a hospital of the required size
  • would the site enable to be completed with the deadline

These two criteria knocked out many of the sites. 

The Our Hospital Citizens' Site Selection Panel made up of senior officers and infrastructure technicians, then assessed the remaining 17 sites against the 22 criteria set by the Our Hospital Citizens’ Panel. After the application of the criteria, five sites were shortlisted to be appraised in detail. The Citizens’ Panel did not select the sites.

Our Hospital Site Shortlist Report July 2020

Kit of Parts

The ‘Kit of Parts’ report was used to inform the minimum footprint size for the new hospital. It was compiled by drawing on information in the draft functional brief and the proposed new Jersey Care Model.

Our Hospital Kit of Parts Report July 2020

The People's Park

Reviews of the previous project identified that the objectivity of the site selection process was compromised by input from politicians when The People's Park was ruled out in 2019. Therefore, all potential sites have been considered as part of the site selection process.

Members of the Our Hospital Political Oversight Group and the Council of Ministers have supported the shortlist because they believe a robust and objective process should be allowed to identity the best performing site without any political interference. 

Leading the process

Reviews of the previous project identified that the objectivity of the site selection process was compromised by input from politicians.

The process is being led by technical experts from the Design and Delivery Partner. The technical experts will prepare detailed analyses of each of the shortlisted sites. Politicians will be given the chance to debate the preferred site at a States sitting in November.

Next steps and identifying a preferred site

The site analysis will identify a preferred site by mid-September by our Design and Delivery Partner. They will look at the:

  • feasibility of each site
  • costs involved in constructing a hospital at each location
  • different challenges involved with each
  • impact on the local environment, surrounding area and infrastructure

Once approved by the Our Hospital Political Oversight Group and the Council of Ministers, a preferred site will then be presented to the States in time for a mid-November debate.

Maps of the shortlisted sites

Site outline of St Andrew’s Park, First Tower, St Helier

St Andrews Park site location


Site outline of Fields north of Five Oaks, St Saviour

Fields at Five Oaks site outline

Site outline of Millbrook playing fields with fields across Inner Road, St Lawrence

Millbrook playing fields site outline

Site outline of Overdale, St Helier

Overdale site outline

Site outline of The People’s Park, St Helier

The Peoples Park site outline

Sites that did not make the shortlist

St Saviour's Hospital

The site passed the first two clinical criteria tests in that would be large enough to accommodate all the required clinical and support services, including staff and service (access) facilities and may be able to deliver the hospital within the project timeline. It did not meet the Citizens' Panel criteria:

  • it is a remote location with very restricted highway access capacity, either locally or on the wider highway network. Staff would have to be able to access the site every day throughout the year, along with patients and visitors
  • there would be a significant likelihood of major highway improvements to cope with the capacity that a hospital would require, both locally and on the wider highway network. It is worth noting that the works at Five Oaks required for the Five Oaks site would also be required for St Saviour's Hospital, along with far more extensive highway network improvements to approach the site from the west
  • the remote location would encourage the use of the private car
  • the lack of social and community facilities nearby would not support sustainable behaviour and staff and visitors would have no facilities to provide services found in less remote locations

During the previous Future Hospital project a planning inspector's report said of the site: "Whilst I can understand advocates saying that it is an established hospital site, currently vacant and available, and that it would provide a therapeutic and healing environment, the pursuit of this option would fundamentally conflict with the Island Plan. Its remoteness from the main centre of the Island's population, the potential destruction of a fine Grade 1 listed building, and the likely serious impacts on the character and appearance of the area, would conflict with a raft of strategic and other polices within the Island Plan."

Warwick Farm

While the site passed the first two clinical criteria tests - in that would be large enough to accommodate all the required clinical and support services, including staff and service (access) facilities and it may be able to deliver the hospital within the project timeline, it did not meet the Citizens' Panel criteria, specifically:

  • there would be a significant likelihood of major highway improvements to cope with the capacity that a hospital would require, both locally and on the wider highway network
  • the location would encourage the use of the private car
  • the lack of social and community facilities nearby would not support sustainable behaviour

Furthermore, during the previous Future Hospital project a planning inspector's report said of the site: "It is within the Green Zone, where there is a presumption against all forms of development, although the associated policy NE 7 does allow possible exceptions for 'strategic development', which could include a new general hospital. Whilst it could physically accommodate a large hospital and allow for expansion, it would conflict with the Island Plan's strategic focus of development in the built-up area. Its location would not be particularly accessible or sustainable. It is likely that visual impacts would be significant and far-reaching, given its relative elevation above the town. This option would involve major challenges to the Island Plan and could only be realistically considered, in Planning terms, if more sustainably located sites were demonstrably not available or workable."


Back to top
rating button