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: Supplementary Planning Guidance: Response to Public Consultation

A formal published “Ministerial Decision” is required as a record of the decision of a Minister (or an Assistant Minister where they have delegated authority) as they exercise their responsibilities and powers.

Ministers are elected by the States Assembly and have legal responsibilities and powers as “corporation sole” under the States of Jersey Law 2005 by virtue of their office and in their areas of responsibility, including entering into agreements, and under any legislation conferring on them powers.

An accurate record of “Ministerial Decisions” is vital to effective governance, including:

  • demonstrating that good governance, and clear lines of accountability and authority, are in place around decisions-making – including the reasons and basis on which a decision is made, and the action required to implement a decision

  • providing a record of decisions and actions that will be available for examination by States Members, and Panels and Committees of the States Assembly; the public, organisations, and the media; and as a historical record and point of reference for the conduct of public affairs

Ministers are individually accountable to the States Assembly, including for the actions of the departments and agencies which discharge their responsibilities.

The Freedom of Information Law (Jersey) Law 2011 is used as a guide when determining what information is be published. While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.

A decision made on 21 May 2020

Decision Reference:  MD-PE-2020-0042

Decision Summary Title:

Response to the public consultation on supplementary planning guidance for Our Hospital

Date of Decision Summary:

14/05/2020

Decision Summary Author:

Head of Place and Spatial Planning

Decision Summary:

Public or Exempt?

 

Public

Type of Report:

Oral or Written?

Written and Oral

Person Giving

Oral Report:

Head of Place and Spatial Planning

Written Report

Title:

OH SPG Response to consultation

Date of Written Report:

14/05/2020

Written Report Author:

Head of Place and Spatial Planning

Written Report:

Public or Exempt?

Public

Subject:

Response to the public consultation on supplementary planning guidance for Our Hospital

Decision(s):

The Minister for the Environment:

  • noted the consultation feedback, at appendix 2, and endorsed the response to it, set out at appendix 1;
  • accordingly adopted and agreed to publish the revised supplementary planning guidance, as set out at appendix 3.

Reason(s) for Decision:

The Minister has noted the feedback from consultation and, having given it due consideration, resolved to make changes to the draft supplementary planning guidance, enabling its adoption and publication.

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.

Action required:

Supplementary Planning Guidance to be published and a copy to be provided to the Our Hospital Political Oversight Group.

Signature:

 

 

 

Deputy John Young

Position:

 

 

 

Minister for the Environment

Date Signed:

 

 

Date of Decision (If different from Date Signed):

 

 

Hide report
Our Hospital supplementary planning guidance: Response to the public consultation

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

Page | 1


 

 

 

APPENDIX 1: Our Hospital: draft supplementary planning guidance - consultation feedback and response

Comment

Source (where it is attributable)

Minister’s response

Introduction and purpose

‘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.’

Health and Community Services.

Noted and accepted.

The guidance has been revised to make clear those issues which are likely to be material to the determination of a planning application and those which are not.

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?’

 

 

 

Health and Community Services.

There is no contradiction. The guidance simply acknowledges that issues which arose in relation to the two previous planning applications, and which are addressed in the guidance, are not the only ones that may arise in the future. A new proposal on the same or a different site may raise new issues which may be material to any future determination.

The Minister is confident that pre-application planning advice could be provided to the OH Project Team to help identify any new issues which might arise as a consequence of a new proposal.

No change to the guidance.

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?’

Health and Community Services.

Accepted.

The guidance has been changed to explicitly reference the Island Plan Review.

‘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?’

Health and Community Services.

Accepted.

Whilst not considered presumptuous, the guidance has been changed to make it clear that the new Island Plan policy will explicitly address the need for a new hospital.

 

Minister for the Environment

In light of the likely impact of the CV-19 pandemic on either or both the IPR Programme and the OH Project, explicit reference is made to assert that a new Island Plan; or the current Island Plan, together with this supplementary planning guidance, should provide a sound basis for the determination of a planning application for the new hospital

Patient needs

Q: Any proposal for a future hospital should demonstrate that it meets patient needs and that its specification is supported by clinicians.

Strongly Disagree

 

6.25%

1

Disagree

 

0.00%

0

Neutral

 

0.00%

0

Agree

 

0.00%

0

Strongly Agree

 

93.75%

15

Much comment supported the engagement of clinicians to ensure patient needs were met e.g. ‘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’.

Online survey response.

The overwhelming support for this aspect of the guidance is noted.

 

‘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.’

Online survey response.

Noted.

The Minister considers that it is appropriate for the planning application for a new hospital to demonstrate how its form and specification best meets the island’s needs, as part of a ‘new model of care’; and that this is a factor which will be material to the determination of a planning application for the new hospital.

‘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.’

Online survey response.

Noted (see above).

‘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 .’

Online survey response.

See above, on the matters of form and specification of the new hospital.

The Minister considers that the matter of how best to meet staff accommodation associated with the new hospital and the model of care is important, but one which is ancillary and operational, and which is being considered as part of a separate workstream (key worker accommodation).

The matter of parking provision is addressed below (see section on Sustainability of access).


Demonstrates community involvement

Q: 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.

Strongly Disagree

 

6.25%

1

Disagree

 

0.00%

0

Neutral

 

0.00%

0

Agree

 

18.75%

3

Strongly Agree

 

75.00%

12

There was general agreement that clinicians and health care staff should be directly engaged and contribute to the development of proposals e.g. ‘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’.

Online survey response.

The overwhelming support for this aspect of the guidance is noted.

The guidance has been amended to make it clear that this will be a prerequisite to the submission of any planning application and that the planning application should be accompanied by details setting out how the community has been engaged and has contributed to the development of proposals.

Deliverability and consequences of delay

Q: 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.

Strongly Disagree

 

6.25%

1

Disagree

 

6.25%

1

Neutral

 

6.25%

1

Agree

 

37.50%

6

Strongly Agree

 

43.75%

7

Whilst general support was offered in response to this question e.g. ‘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.’

Limited comment suggested this should not be part of the planning process: e.g. ‘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.’

Online survey response.

The general response to the question is noted.

In light of the specific comments, the guidance has been changed to make it clear that matters of cost and delay associated with all reasonable alternative options are not determinative to a planning decision but are factors which ought to have been appropriately and consistently considered and assessed in the process leading up to the development of a new hospital proposal and the submission of a planning application i.e. as part of the site selection and assessment process.

 

‘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?’

Health and Community Services.

Accepted. It is not the intention of the guidance to suggest that the need for a new hospital is not a planning issue.

The guidance has been changed to recognise that the need for a new hospital is well evidenced and undisputed, and that the new Island Plan will make provision for it as part of meeting the island’s development needs.

Sustainable development considerations

‘The matters highlighted in this part of the Daft (sic) 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.’

Health and Community Services.

This comment is gratefully acknowledged by the Minister.

 

Relationship with spatial strategy

Q: The location of any future hospital proposal will have to be justified in the context of the spatial strategy of the current Island Plan.

Strongly Disagree

 

37.50%

6

Disagree

 

18.75%

3

Neutral

 

18.75%

3

Agree

 

12.50%

2

Strongly Agree

 

12.50%

2

Whilst the quantitative response to the question would suggest that people do not consider that any proposal for a new hospital ought to be justified relative to the spatial strategy of the current Island Plan, the actual qualitative comments provided would suggest that what people mean is that the hospital should be built on the best site, even if that is not in St Helier. The following comments provide evidence of this interpretation.

‘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’.

‘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.’

‘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.’

Online survey response.

The Minister notes the mixed response to this question.

The development and adoption of supplementary planning guidance, by the Minister, must generally accord with the Island Plan, which is approved by the States.

The guidance simply requires that if the location of any future hospital does not accord with the spatial strategy of the current Island Plan then it would need to be appropriately justified.

Explicit reference, to Policy NE7: Green Zone of the current Island Plan, has been added to the guidance to make it clear that, where it can be appropriately justified, existing policy permits exceptions to the presumption against development in the Green Zone (and the spatial strategy) for the development of strategic public infrastructure.

 

Efficient use of resources

Q: Any proposal should demonstrate how it makes the most efficient use of land, energy and other resources in its design and operation.

Strongly Disagree

 

0.00%

0

Disagree

 

6.25%

1

Neutral

 

25.00%

4

Agree

 

18.75%

3

Strongly Agree

 

50.00%

8

There was general support for a sustainable approach to the location, design and operation of any new facility, provided it did not compromise its health requirements, e.g. ‘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.’

 

Online survey response.

The Minister notes the generally supportive response and the specific comments made in relation to this question.

No change to the guidance.


Sustainability of access

Q: 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.

Strongly Disagree

 

0.00%

0

Disagree

 

18.75%

3

Neutral

 

6.25%

1

Agree

 

18.75%

3

Strongly Agree

 

56.25%

9

Whilst general support for the principles set out in the guidance, peoples’ comments suggested that the sustainability of access should not be a determinative factor e.g. ‘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.’

‘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’.

Online survey response.

The Minister notes the generally supportive response and the specific comments of qualification made in relation to this question.

The guidance simply requires that a comprehensive transport assessment of all aspects of travel to the new hospital is undertaken and that this is considered and assessed relative to the objectives for promoting sustainable transport. This does not mean that the location of a new hospital in a less accessible place is a determinative factor, but rather that there is a need to demonstrate how such a location might be made accessible in a way or ways which are most sustainable.

The guidance has been changed to make it clear that there will be a need to justify the proposed location of any future proposal for the island’s new general hospital setting out, where relevant, why less sustainable locations might be pursued and what mitigation – for example, in terms of the provision of new transport infrastructure, facilities and services – would be provided.

‘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.

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.’

Growth, Housing and Environment (Transport and Operations).

The Minister notes the substance of this detailed response.

The need to address the access and transport elements of any new proposal is already explicitly identified in the supplementary planning guidance but this will be supplemented by specific reference to the new vision and decision-making principles set out in the recently approved Sustainable Transport Policy.

Change and update the guidance to make explicit reference to the need to assess the travel and transport implications of a new hospital against the vision for sustainable transport in Jersey and the seven decision-making principles established by the new Sustainable Transport Policy.

Resilience and future-proofing: climate change

Q: Any proposal should demonstrate how it is resilient to the effects of climate change.

Strongly Disagree

 

0.00%

0

Disagree

 

12.50%

2

Neutral

 

25.00%

4

Agree

 

25.00%

4

Strongly Agree

 

37.50%

6

Whilst there was support for the need for climate change to be addressed as part of any proposals, it was generally considered that this should be an integral requirement of the development of any new proposals.

‘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.’

Online survey response.

The Minister notes the generally supportive response to this question.

No change to the guidance.

Resilience and future-proofing: adaption and/or expansion

Q: Any proposal should demonstrate how it might perform over time, and be capable of adaptation and/or expansion, to meet changing needs.

Strongly Disagree

 

0.00%

0

Disagree

 

0.00%

0

Neutral

 

0.00%

0

Agree

 

18.75%

3

Strongly Agree

 

81.25%

13

There was very strong support for the new hospital to be able to cope with future needs through adaptation or expansion. This was reflected in both the quantitative response and the qualitative comment received e.g.

‘… 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.’

‘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.’

Online survey response.

The Minister notes the very supportive response to this question, and notes the qualitative comment made referring to the matter of adaption/expansion to meet changing needs.

No change to the guidance.


Other considerations: socio-economic impacts

‘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?’

Health and Community Services.

The Minister notes and accepts that the impact of a large development project upon the local labour market is not, of itself, a factor that is material to the determination of a planning application for the new hospital. He is pleased to note, however, that the matter will be considered as part of the overall delivery of the project.

Change the guidance to make it clear that a comprehensive assessment of the impact of a large development project upon the local labour market is not determinative to a planning application for the new hospital.

Q: Any proposal should assess and consider its socio-economic impacts, including its effect on the Island’s labour market.

Strongly Disagree

 

6.25%

1

Disagree

 

18.75%

3

Neutral

 

18.75%

3

Agree

 

31.25%

5

Strongly Agree

 

25.00%

4

The response to this question was mixed and the qualitative response focused mostly on the matter of the labour market implications arising during the construction phase of the new hospital. This was considered, by many respondents, to be an issue of secondary importance and simply an unavoidable consequence of a large development project. e.g. ‘Clinical requirements, accessibility/transport needs, demonstrating operational resilience and incorporation of future-proofing are the key and overriding requirements for any proposal.’

‘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. ‘

 

Online survey response.

The Minister notes the response and the comments made on this matter.

The issue raised about the impact of a major development project will be addressed by the proposed change to the guidance outlined above.


Assessment of health and local impacts, including demolition and construction

Q: 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.

Strongly Disagree

 

6.25%

1

Disagree

 

0.00%

0

Neutral

 

0.00%

0

Agree

 

37.50%

6

Strongly Agree

 

56.25%

9

 

Whilst there was overwhelming agreement that these matters should be considered, the qualitative response suggested that maintenance of effective healthcare services, working conditions and a quality patient environment was of primary concern; whilst the implications for local residents and business was of second order consideration, and an unavoidable consequence of a development project.

‘This is two separate questions. I agree to the first part ie maintaining effective healthcare services during construction’

‘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.’

 

Online survey response.

Noted.

The guidance does not seek to prioritise one consideration over another but rather requires that the impact of development, and its subsequent management and mitigation, on both factors, where relevant, is demonstrated.

No change to the guidance.

Site assessment process

‘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?’

 

Health and Community Services.

The Minister notes this comment but would suggest that the principles upon which this draft guidance is based have been previously shared with the Our Hospital Team on a without prejudice basis.

In preparing guidance, the Minister is required to undertake some consultation and the draft guidance itself has been published since the beginning of the year.

Furthermore, the Minister does not consider that any further amendment to the guidance, leading to its adoption, will present conditions which cannot be reasonably met in the work that is required to be undertaken in the preparation of, and be material to, the determination of, a planning application.

No change to the guidance.

Process: form of application

‘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?’

Health and Community Services.

The Minister is pleased to confirm this assumption.

The guidance will be changed to clearly state that the submission of a detailed application, which addressed all matters in full, would also be acceptable.

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.

 

Online survey response.

Noted.

A planning application in principle is considered to be a valid form of planning application for the purposes of assessment and decision-making, provided that it is supported by adequate detail to enable proper assessment to be made.

Decision-making

One comment was received about the decision-making process for the new hospital i.e. ‘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.’

Online survey response.

The supplementary planning guidance explicitly states that the Minister will require that a public inquiry is held before the Minister determines the application. It is clear, therefore, that the Minister for the Environment will make the final decision after having received the advice of an independent planning inspector following a public inquiry. The process of holding a public inquiry has been described more fully in the guidance.

The recent changes made to the appointment of planning inspectors (see: MD-PE-2020-0027 https://www.gov.je/Government/PlanningPerformance/Pages/MinisterialDecisions.aspx?docid=67751FFE-310F-47C6-A4E3-896C3AD4F698) affects only those inspectors who might be eligible to hold an Examination in Public as part of the process required to review the Island Plan.  The existing Island Plan Order inadvertently excluded the existing pool of independent and professionally qualified planning inspectors who deal with planning appeals in the island from considering an Island Plan examination in public. This was, therefore, a change to secondary legislation (i.e. the Planning and Building (Island Plan) (Jersey) Order 2009) only to specifically remedy this situation and was not a change to the primary law.

This change does not affect the appointment of inspectors that are engaged to hold public inquires related to planning applications.

The Minister is conscious of the role of good planning and design in contributing to the health and wellbeing of people and the community. He wishes to promote healthy, successful places and considers it appropriate that this will be explicitly highlighted as a consideration in this guidance.

There is, however, no universal definition of what constitutes a Health Impact Assessment and the Minister is of the view that the health and wellbeing implications of the hospital planning application can be considered through the information that is already required to be provided as part of the submission including the Environmental Impact Assessment; Transport Assessment; and Design Statement.

The guidance will be changed to make it clear that any emergent scheme should demonstrate how the proposed development contributes to the health and wellbeing of people and the community.

Other

‘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.’

Health and Community Services.

This point is accepted by the Minister.

Where they relate to a specific reference in another source e.g. the Planning and Building (Jersey) Law; or where they relate to an expression that has been used by others, quotation marks, or inverted commas, will be retained. Otherwise, they will be removed to promote clarity.

Minor changes to the guidance to promote clarity

A number of ‘other comments’ related to the need for this matter to be expedited e.g.

‘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.’

‘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.. 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.’

‘Surely these questions were addressed last time. We are going round in circles.’

Online survey response.

These comments, and the evident frustration behind them, are noted and understood by the Minister.

The purpose of this supplementary planning guidance is not, however, to add ‘unnecessary bureaucracy’ but rather to ensure that those factors required to be considered as part of the development of a new proposal are clear and are addressed. If this guidance is followed, the Minister is of the view that it will help ensure the delivery of the new hospital that the island so desperately needs.

A number of ‘other comments’ related to the expenditure of professional fees e.g.

‘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.’

‘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 taxpayer’s money in this extravagant and unaccountable way’.

Online survey response.

These comments are noted by the Minister: they are sincerely made but relate to the historical development of the Our Hospital project and are not germane to the preparation of this supplementary planning guidance.

 


 

 

 

Page | 1


 

 

 

APPENDIX 2: Our Hospital: draft supplementary planning guidance - -consultation feedback

Appendix 2(a): Online survey response

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

1

13/02/2020 08:31 AM
ID: 135655217

Robert

2

13/02/2020 17:22 PM
ID: 135686935

Bruce Willing

3

24/02/2020 12:24 PM
ID: 136514757

Paul Turner

4

27/02/2020 13:40 PM
ID: 136745607

Jean Lelliott

5

01/03/2020 12:59 PM
ID: 136872075

Angela Le bailly

6

20/03/2020 14:16 PM
ID: 137880461

Andy Howell

2

Organisation

50.00%

3

1

13/02/2020 08:31 AM
ID: 135655217

Mr

2

13/02/2020 17:22 PM
ID: 135686935

Friends of Our New Hospital

3

27/02/2020 13:40 PM
ID: 136745607

Private individual

 

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

William Prendergast

01534 448599

Government of Jersey

Growth, Housing & Environment | Operations and Transport

 

 

 

 

Page | 1

Our sites
Back to top
rating button