Future Hospital: Moves to scrap town site for good

Wednesday 16 January 2019

The first moves have been made to scrap the current Gloucester Street site as a possible Future Hospital after plans were rejected for a second time this week.

Deputy Russell Labey is bringing forward proposals to stop Ministers having a third attempt at regenerating the current site, which are due to be voted on next month.

Based on the recommendations of an independent planning inspector, Environment Minister Deputy John Young concluded on Monday that building on the current site would not be “in the public interest”.

But in the wake of that decision – the second time in just one year that plans for the site had been rejected and amid growing disapproval from the public, medical and political ranks – Ministers declined to take the option off the table.

Video: The Environment Minister giving his decision.

Deputy Labey described the stance as “unacceptable” in a report explaining his proposal to end debate over regenerating the current site for good.

“If ever there was a time for clarity in political direction to the Department for Infrastructure and the Department for Health and Social Services, this is it… Irrespective of planning issues, which will be manifest but different in character whichever site is chosen, for most people Gloucester Street is a compromise too far, and more time will be wasted by a stubborn failure to accept this as fact. The Assembly can end this now, take the political decision that only it can take, and ensure that energy is concentrated on a better site that will deliver a better new Hospital.”

The Deputy acknowledged that his proposal, if successful, would involve “writing off” the spend of around £40million on the project to date.

He added that the “winding-up implications” could also involve redundancies of nine members of the Future Hospital project team, which would result in costs of around £400,000 if their skills could not be used to work on a new hospital site. 

Pictured: Nearly £40million has been spent on the project so far.

Finally, he acknowledged that taking the option off the table would mean further delay to the project, which could involve maintenance costs of around £26million to keep the current hospital going until 2025.

His proposition comes as voices calling for a new site continue to grow. 

In his report, the independent Planning Inspector inspected alternative site options, including Overdale, Warwick Farm, St. Saviour’s Hospital, the Waterfront and People’s Park.

Of these, People’s Park was described in the most positive terms – “sustainable, accessible and very close to the existing hospital”. However, the inspector acknowledged that it was so “locally controversial” that had previously been taken off the table altogether by the previous Health Minister following pressure from campaigners. 

Pictured: People's Park was described in favourable terms by the Planning Inspector.

Despite involving the loss of an open space, the inspector noted that the existing hospital site could, in future, provide a “compensatory” new park. 

Meanwhile, Constable Chris Taylor is leading the charge for using Overdale, which was previously taken off the table as an option due to accessibility issues.

The Constable argued, however, that the site would be ideal if a connection with the inner-road could be created.