Dr Miklos Kassai, a colorectal surgeon at the Hospital, said the most democratic solution to the ongoing saga would be for the States to choose three options then put them to the public in a vote, thereby handing the final decision over to Islanders.
The latest planning application for a new build on the existing Gloucester Street site was rejected by Environment Minister John Young last week.
Chief Minister John Le Fondré halted further work on the project – which has been dogged by controversy – until the Council of Ministers have had the chance to discuss the next steps.
And a proposition has been lodged by Deputy Russell Labey to rescind Gloucester Street as the preferred site for the new building. Senator Le Fondré had been working on a similar proposition but is not expected to lodge it following Deputy Labey’s proposals.
Questions have been consistently raised about the suitability of building on the existing site – particularly when the current hospital will have to be operational while building work is going on.
Other suggestions have included the Waterfront, Overdale and St Saviour’s Hospital.
Dr Miklos Kassai, a colorectal surgeon at the Hospital, said the States should hold a referendum to garner public opinion on where the new Hospital should go.
He said: ‘Seemingly now we start again with the site selection for the new hospital. Somebody will have a problem with any of the sites that are on offer and if they [States Members] don’t know how to decide, then it’s a futile exercise.
‘To me, the best and most democratic way to decide would be for the States to choose three options. Then put those three options to the people with a referendum – let the people decide.’
A French firm has also recently cast doubt on the project, saying it could build a new hospital on a greenfield site for less than a fifth of the current estimated costs. The project has a budget set aside of £466 million.
Dr Kassai suggested that the money saved by building out of town could be used to improve access to those areas.
‘It’s an architectural question, but from my perspective as a Jersey citizen, I think it should not be in town – it should be built somewhere way out of town up north – take the traffic out of the town.
‘Now that we have an offer to build the hospital for less money, then we could use the rest of the money to build the infrastructure around it, to improve the routes to the north.’
Meanwhile, States Members will be asked to formally overturn the decision to build on the current site. The Future Hospital team has been tasked with developing plans in accordance with the States decision to build on Gloucester Street.
Deputy Labey said that he was now working with Senator Le Fondré on the ‘finer details’ of the alternative options.
He said: ‘I found that within minutes of the application being unsuccessful, people were still talking in terms of Gloucester Street being the preferred option. We will never get a proper look at other sites if that persists.
‘It will be a pretty clear indication, if the proposition is successful, that Members want to look elsewhere.
‘The Chief Minister was about to lodge the same proposition. I knew he was thinking of doing this but didn’t realise how close he was to lodging.
‘My proposition only requires a four-week lodging period as a backbencher. The Chief Minister asked me to take it on because if he lodged it means the debate can’t happen for six weeks.’
He added that the public had ‘lost confidence’ in the project and the States needed to rethink and re-analyse other available options.
In his report, independent planning inspector Philip Staddon recommended the application be rejected but added that there was ‘no stand-out alternative site that would be clearly superior’.
More than £38 million has already been spent on the project.
