The official version of this document can be found via the PDF button.
The below content has been automatically generated from the original PDF and some formatting may have been lost, therefore it should not be relied upon to extract citations or propose amendments.
From; Michael de la Haye OBE and Susan de la Haye
We would like to submit comments to the above review. We should state at the outset that our house and garden adjoin the Overdale site on the northern side and the development will inevitably have some impact on our property. Nevertheless we are not opposed in principle to the choice of the Overdale site for the new hospital.
It has nevertheless always been recognised that creating suitable access to Overdale is a significant hurdle and the site has been rejected for this reason in the past as a site for the new hospital. The proposal to widen Westmount Road to create better access appears to be the only remaining option after other access routes have been discounted as unsuitable or unfeasible. Our principal concern at present in relation to the forthcoming debate is that States members are being asked to approve the use of Westmount without being given full and accurate information about what exactly the road widening will entail. It is clear from the information released so far that the widening will have a very significant impact, not only in relation to the properties that will be purchased and demolished but also on People's Park where a large area of the perimeter will need to be used for the road. It is somewhat ironic that there has been a wide consensus that People's Park should be discounted as a site for the new hospital (something we strongly agree with) but the very park that people have fought hard to preserve will be devastated by the construction of the new road. It is hard to see how it will be possible to hold large public events such as food fairs or funfairs, with large numbers of pedestrians coming and going, on an area of grass surrounded by a major highway.
At a recent online meeting for residents the design team for the new hospital was asked why detailed drawings of the exact position and impact of the proposed road were not yet available. The response was they were not yet at a detailed design stage and their budget did not allow speculative' work of this type to be done until the States had agreed that Westmount should be the preferred access route. In terms of process this seems totally unacceptable and I would urge States members to insist on receiving this information before the debate on the road. To do otherwise would be quite unacceptable, members would be asked to agree a route without having any details of exactly what that route would look like, what parts of the Park would have to be removed, etc. If a proper detailed drawing is produced before the debate States members can take an informed decision on the matter.