The Jersey proposed New Hospital – Submission to the Planning
Inquiry Page 1
From Michael Dun
September
2017.
This
is my written submission by e-mail to planning@gov.je
and should be considered in conjunction with the attached video links.
The
video links are my recordings made of the inadequate so called public consultation
process over the past 2 years – including my interviews with the Minister for
Health and others on the “design team.”
These
are prepared and submitted in accordance with the Jersey Government’s e-gov
policy to encourage improved communications.
1) “Let’s just get on with it” sums up
the current thinking behind the proposed new hospital. Although this is the
most important and costly building project ever known in Jersey – the
discussions have been so prolonged and contradictory that the general public
and many in government are just “sick” of the whole thing.
2) The public is so
reluctant to comment for this Planning Review that extra time has been allowed
by the Minister to try to draw out public opinion.
3) The lack of
independent professional comment by architects, designers and medical
practitioners since 2012 has been deplorable. The general public has received
little or no learned alternative guidance because of a professional “omerta.”
4) It is evident
that a few individuals in government have exercised their own capricious and
personal preferences behind the scenes to influence and change the budget,
financing, timescale, location and design of this project throughout its
progress.
5) The history of
the official discussions is set out adequately in the Scrutiny Sub Panel Report
from November 2016 (SR 7/2016) and I do not propose to repeat that.
6) The Scrutiny
Report refers to the failure of this project to include for the “whole design
programme for health and services” in Jersey.
This is a
fundamental omission that must not be ignored.
7) The substantial
reforms that are proposed in the provision of primary care and the needs of the
aging population and suchlike have been much talked about but there are minimal
plans only for their funding or implementation.
Without such plans
being known, costed and agreed, the design proposal for the new hospital is
virtually useless.
8) The extra
patient costs to be imposed through consulting GPs, physiotherapists, dentists
and many more “primary care”
providers and engaging home care
services is a deceitful part of the
whole covert “user pays” strategy.
The range of
services to be, or not to be provided within the new hospital, is not
explained.
Some existing
services and staffing are already inadequate and underfunded.
Many people already
try to use A & E facilities because they cannot afford to consult GPs or
others for so called “primary care” but which should be provided within a
hospital facility.
9) The majority of
Jersey’s population does not own the accommodation they live in and are not
empowered to make alteration to suit their disabilities or illnesses.
Page 2
10)
Most accommodation is inadequate for “caring” purposes. It’s not just an “aging
problem”.
11) 12,000 working
adults (and their children) – about one fifth of the working population – do
not have “housing qualifications” and must live in the worst accommodation and so are the least enabled to care for
themselves when injured or ill. They
tend to work in the most hazardous and low paid jobs and are already liable to
the extra stresses of poverty and poor housing. This is a matter identified in
the recent Report of the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry.
12) “Function dictates form” is
especially true for a hospital but the functions to be provided with this
project have not been adequately quantified or determined.
13) There is no
provision at all for so called “mental health” treatment.
14) The future uses
of major parts of the existing structures are not resolved. The Granite Block is to be kept supposedly
because it is listed but its future purpose is not determined.
The future uses of
Overdale and St Saviour’s Hospital are not defined.
15) Existing staff
accommodation at Westaway Court is to be converted to form a remote and
inadequate “out patients” department.
16) There is no
certain plan for future provision of staff accommodation or staff recruitment
although these two are integrally linked factors.
17) Since 2012
there has been endless discussion about the choice of the site but the
alternative options have never been fully explored in public and the hospital
needs of Islanders remain uncertain and undetermined.
18) The current
choice of location seems to be motivated primarily by the fact that the
hospital already occupies this town site and an absurd belief that most people
who will use the hospital live within “walking distance.”
19) No Access
Strategy has been prepared that I am aware of.
This is especially
strange for such an important facility which caters primarily for people with
disabilities and illnesses.
20) Access to and
within the site is not clearly determined.
Parking provision
is vague for patients, visitors, staff, emergency, delivery and maintenance
vehicles.
21) The existing
road patterns are seriously inadequate and will not be improved.
Gloucester Street
especially is a noisy main road which is busy day and night and is devoid of
any desirable design characteristics. This development will ensure its
preservation for many future decades.
22) It is difficult
to predict future medical and technological changes so any new hospital design
has to allow for this. To a large extent the current buildings need to be
replaced because they do not accommodate change easily - but it is not just
about technological advances.
Page
3
23) Attempting to
build this new hospital within the same cartilage as the existing whilst it
remains in business will surely create totally predictable problems for the
users of the facilities and the design and construction teams. The new hospital
should evidently be built somewhere else.
24) The French Connection was much
talked about 5 years ago and how Jersey patients could be treated in that country.
But already, even before the outcome of BREXIT is known, French providers are
refusing to submit tenders for the provision of treatments.
25) The most
favoured Oxford hospital recently closed its trauma unit because of design
defects revealed following the Grenfell fire. Thus, for many reasons “off
Island” referrals are not to be relied upon for such a major long term
provision.
26) The reliance
upon inadequate transport links for “off island” treatment is wholly
optimistic. The sea and air carriers do not provide a sufficiently reliable or
affordable service and are susceptible to weather extremes. They are often not user friendly, especially
for disabled travellers.
27) The air-lines
serving Jersey tend to be financially precarious using smaller aircraft which
have inadequate access or toilet provision – if any.
28) It is sometimes
necessary to close Victoria Avenue or nearby parks for emergency helicopter
access.
Such emergency
access should be included within a new hospital.
29) If a disaster
of Grenfell proportions did occur in Jersey it is doubtful if adequate hospital
facilities could be provided “on Island.”
But, it is
realistic to design for major outbreaks of illness or a serious accident and
this proposal seems to be “downsizing” rather than enhancing space, capacity
and skills.
30) The “WOW FACTOR.”
The Minister for
the Environment has today declared that the whole Waterfront area lacks an
architectural “wow factor” and is boring.
I do not disagree
but I wonder how he has belatedly arrived at this conclusion but more
particularly how the New Hospital might achieve the highest standards of design
that it warrants.
31) There is
certainly no evidence so far of any desire to produce an “Iconic” building.
Rather the whole
process so far has been centred upon squeezing almost anything into a location
which is totally unsuitable, already congested and without attempting to
improve the amenities of the area.
32) The prevailing
“let’s just get on with it” attitude is guaranteed to produce yet another
massive development failure.
My video links can
be accessed on a separate page.
END 3 of 3
Jersey
proposed New Hospital - Compilation August 2017
VIDEOS by Mike Dun 2016 and 2017.
1 - REVISED
SCHEME (Current project )
Environmental Impact Assessment
2017 - 18 May https://youtu.be/hx5cYluiXSU
2 - Interview
with Minister (Current project)
2016 – 3 August https://youtu.be/L4RpZP0qQcM
3 - Current
Project – overview including computer animation (Current project)
2016 – 3 August https://youtu.be/BZ211s_DSSQ
4 - Interview
with Minister following States decision – Now 3 sites (Part 1)
2016 – 23 February https://youtu.be/tun0p2JDLV8
5 - Interview
with Minister following States decision – Now 3 sites (Part 2)
2016 – 23 February https://youtu.be/0zib_CPs34w
6 - Demo
in Royal Square and defeat of People’s Park project (Part 1)
2016 – 23 February https://youtu.be/FiFqmsxw9hY
7 - Demo
in Royal Square and defeat of People’s Park project (Part 2)
2016 – 23 February https://youtu.be/yVGM6ZJs-lw
8 - Demo
in the mud at People’s Park
2016 – 22 February https://youtu.be/UZPoC-9l9s4
9 - Proposed
hospital in People’s Park – “Why?” in two Parts (Part 1)
2016 – 8 February https://youtu.be/Gm1OC_UG52c
10 -
Proposed hospital in People’s Park – “Why?” in two parts (Part 2)
2016 – 8 February https://youtu.be/TOMvxYc6OQc
11 -
Proposed hospital in People’s Park – “Where?” in three parts (Part A)
2016 – 8 February https://youtu.be/G1pEuEy9t9k
12 -
Proposed hospital in People’s Park – “Where?” in three parts (Part B)
2016 – 8 February https://youtu.be/DMfSBq43Th4
13 -
Proposed hospital in People’s Park – “Where?” in three parts (Part C)
2016 – 8 February https://youtu.be/gpcPkbVLfSY
14 -
FOOTNOTE Why Architectural Competitions?
A discussion recorded at the Association of
Jersey Architects Design Awards
And UK Stirling Prize in Jersey
2015 – 15 September 2015 https://youtu.be/MdXvaPEkmsA
