Today I'm publishing (with kind permission) the full text of a letter from Christian May, Chairman of Save People's Park, to Senator Andrew Green. Parts of this letter have been quoted in the media, but this is the complete letter.
We have no breakdown of the costs for the amount given for those compensatory green spaces, or whether they have in fact been included in the People's Park proposals, so no way of knowing if they are accurate.
In fact, all we have are end figures, with no "workings out". When I was at school, we were awarded no marks if we got the correct answer in a mathematics problem, unless we showed our workings out. Otherwise we could be cheating.
As these are actual sites, and the Revere has in fact been offered at a cost to the States for a hospital extension, we need to know what figure Senator Green is in fact using, and also with the Millennium Park, how much would be paid to take away a site which has been passed for development of around 250 flats?
In fact, all we have are end figures, with no "workings out". When I was at school, we were awarded no marks if we got the correct answer in a mathematics problem, unless we showed our workings out. Otherwise we could be cheating.
As these are actual sites, and the Revere has in fact been offered at a cost to the States for a hospital extension, we need to know what figure Senator Green is in fact using, and also with the Millennium Park, how much would be paid to take away a site which has been passed for development of around 250 flats?
Commercial sensitivity is often the smokescreen behind which the Council of Ministers hides, especially when Freedom of Information requests are made, but unless there is transparency on how costs are broken down, how on earth can we have any faith that these figures are accurate?
A Letter from Save People’s Park
Dear Senator Green,
Further to your announcement on Tuesday 2nd February 2016 that Ministers would be undertaking a two month public consultation period on the location of the future hospital, the Committee of Save People’s Park wish to raise the following urgent queries with respect to the information provided to the public in order to assess the suitability of each location.
1. We have grave concerns that despite public assurances that the Future Hospital team and Ministers would not express a preference for one of the four shortlisted sites, there is clear and strong bias towards the use of People’s Park. Please confirm:
a. Why the first image that appears on the www.futurehospital.je website is not randomly generated, but is always that of the proposed People’s Park development?
b. Why the proposed locations are not listed in alphabetical order on the same website, but with People’s Park at the head of the list?
c. Why the www.futurehospital.je website has been coded to provide the image of the proposed People’s Park development whenever any page is shared on social media?
d. Why the Director of Future Hospital, Bernard Place, who created a Facebook profile page to comment on public postings about the shortlisted sites, used the proposed People’s Park development image as his cover photo (attached)?
e. Why the fact that the development of People’s Park would not be in keeping with the Island Plan was not included in the table of factors considered when shortlisting sites, when this very fact was included against the Waterfront proposal?
f. Why the table of costs for each shortlisted site was removed from the FAQ section of the www.futurehospital.je website?
2. We are equally concerned that the date People’s Park was first considered as a location for the hospital was not in July 2015, as has been stated by you in the States Chamber and in the media. Given that source coding from the www.futurehospital.je website shows the image of the proposed People’s Park development was uploaded in November 2014, please confirm:
a. The date that the Future Hospital team began investigations of the use of People’s Park as a location for the hospital;
b. The date that the imagery showing the proposed People’s Park development was produced, and by whom;
c. The date that the imagery showing the proposed People’s Park development was uploaded onto the www.futurehospital.je website, or any of its previous unpublished formats.
3. There is a lack of particularity provided in the proposals shown for each shortlisted site on the www.futurehospital.je website. Please provide:
a. The total height of each proposed shortlisted site;
b. The total floor area of each shortlisted site;
c. The breakdown of floor area between various departments, communal areas and staff services.
4. All shortlisted sites, save for the proposed People’s Park development, have an image on the www.futurehospital.je website showing the perspective from a street elevation. The People’s Park image is shown from above. This again, would suggest bias as under point 1. The images provided for the proposed People’s Park development do not show the impact on properties in the immediate area with respect to light and scale. Please can you provide:
a. A street elevation view from outside the entrance of the proposed People’s Park development;
b. A street elevation view from Kensington Street looking towards the proposed People’s Park development;
c. The view from the first floor of the new Dandara Westmount development, looking towards the proposed People’s Park development.
5. The figures provided to the public to understand the total costs of the proposed People’s Park development do not include an appropriate breakdown, given the multifaceted aspects of this option. Please provide a breakdown of:
a. The cost of construction and commissioning of the new hospital if People’s Park is utilised;
b. The cost of the purchase of land required for an extension to the Millennium Park;
c. The cost of demolition of the old General Hospital;
d. The cost of the purchase of private property on the proposed ‘Parade Grounds’ site and development of that new park.
6. We are concerned that clear details have not been provided as regards compensatory space that would be offered were People’s Park to be developed. Please provide:
a. Clear confirmation that you intend to purchase the additional private property on the proposed ‘Parade Grounds’ park, including the Revere Hotel and adjoining properties;
b. An explanation of how it is intended the Council of Ministers will bind future States Assemblies and Ministers to ensure the compensatory park space is actually provided;
c. A timeline for the demolition of the General Hospital and creation of the ‘Parade Grounds’ park, allowing for issues of site contamination and archaeological surveys.
We look forward to your timely response to queries contained within this letter, copies of which have been provided to the local media.
A Letter from Save People’s Park
Dear Senator Green,
Further to your announcement on Tuesday 2nd February 2016 that Ministers would be undertaking a two month public consultation period on the location of the future hospital, the Committee of Save People’s Park wish to raise the following urgent queries with respect to the information provided to the public in order to assess the suitability of each location.
1. We have grave concerns that despite public assurances that the Future Hospital team and Ministers would not express a preference for one of the four shortlisted sites, there is clear and strong bias towards the use of People’s Park. Please confirm:
a. Why the first image that appears on the www.futurehospital.je website is not randomly generated, but is always that of the proposed People’s Park development?
b. Why the proposed locations are not listed in alphabetical order on the same website, but with People’s Park at the head of the list?
c. Why the www.futurehospital.je website has been coded to provide the image of the proposed People’s Park development whenever any page is shared on social media?
d. Why the Director of Future Hospital, Bernard Place, who created a Facebook profile page to comment on public postings about the shortlisted sites, used the proposed People’s Park development image as his cover photo (attached)?
e. Why the fact that the development of People’s Park would not be in keeping with the Island Plan was not included in the table of factors considered when shortlisting sites, when this very fact was included against the Waterfront proposal?
f. Why the table of costs for each shortlisted site was removed from the FAQ section of the www.futurehospital.je website?
2. We are equally concerned that the date People’s Park was first considered as a location for the hospital was not in July 2015, as has been stated by you in the States Chamber and in the media. Given that source coding from the www.futurehospital.je website shows the image of the proposed People’s Park development was uploaded in November 2014, please confirm:
a. The date that the Future Hospital team began investigations of the use of People’s Park as a location for the hospital;
b. The date that the imagery showing the proposed People’s Park development was produced, and by whom;
c. The date that the imagery showing the proposed People’s Park development was uploaded onto the www.futurehospital.je website, or any of its previous unpublished formats.
3. There is a lack of particularity provided in the proposals shown for each shortlisted site on the www.futurehospital.je website. Please provide:
a. The total height of each proposed shortlisted site;
b. The total floor area of each shortlisted site;
c. The breakdown of floor area between various departments, communal areas and staff services.
4. All shortlisted sites, save for the proposed People’s Park development, have an image on the www.futurehospital.je website showing the perspective from a street elevation. The People’s Park image is shown from above. This again, would suggest bias as under point 1. The images provided for the proposed People’s Park development do not show the impact on properties in the immediate area with respect to light and scale. Please can you provide:
a. A street elevation view from outside the entrance of the proposed People’s Park development;
b. A street elevation view from Kensington Street looking towards the proposed People’s Park development;
c. The view from the first floor of the new Dandara Westmount development, looking towards the proposed People’s Park development.
5. The figures provided to the public to understand the total costs of the proposed People’s Park development do not include an appropriate breakdown, given the multifaceted aspects of this option. Please provide a breakdown of:
a. The cost of construction and commissioning of the new hospital if People’s Park is utilised;
b. The cost of the purchase of land required for an extension to the Millennium Park;
c. The cost of demolition of the old General Hospital;
d. The cost of the purchase of private property on the proposed ‘Parade Grounds’ site and development of that new park.
6. We are concerned that clear details have not been provided as regards compensatory space that would be offered were People’s Park to be developed. Please provide:
a. Clear confirmation that you intend to purchase the additional private property on the proposed ‘Parade Grounds’ park, including the Revere Hotel and adjoining properties;
b. An explanation of how it is intended the Council of Ministers will bind future States Assemblies and Ministers to ensure the compensatory park space is actually provided;
c. A timeline for the demolition of the General Hospital and creation of the ‘Parade Grounds’ park, allowing for issues of site contamination and archaeological surveys.
We look forward to your timely response to queries contained within this letter, copies of which have been provided to the local media.
.jpg)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment