Following Andy Love’s excellent letter in the Watford Observer’s June 17 edition, questions must be asked and answered as to where the Trust’s plans for a new hospital go from here.

Given Andy’s almost certain assumption that funding for £1.25 billion will be rejected given the state of government finances and the monies previously earmarked for the New Hospital Programme, the Trust will be forced to revise its plans.

The Treasury has previously confirmed £540 million is available for redeveloping the Watford facility, plus another £50 million to spend at Hemel Hempstead and St Albans hospitals. A total which is 50 per cent less than the Trust’s ambitions. Reducing a budget by 50 per cent will mean reducing the preferred scheme option by more than 50 per cent, probably by 65 to 70 per cent as the smaller the building, the higher the cost per m2 of built area.

The Trust has already confirmed it will take until the autumn to prepare its outline business case, so when the Treasury rejects the proposal it will be forced to go back to square one and start all over again.

Revising an outline business case proposal and producing the detailed design to bring a contractor onto the scene is likely to take 12 months - to the autumn of 2023. Then there is the issue of a contractor appointment (which could also be easier said than done given the restraints of the New Hospital Programme) and getting a firm price contractor’s offer within budget - likely to be a further eight to 12 months.

If the revised proposal includes some refurbishment of the existing buildings in addition to the much reduced new build scheme on the existing car park, additional disruption to the existing hospital facility can be expected, resulting in a longer, phased overall construction period.

A completion date of 2030 now starts to look questionable, leaving the Trust’s assertion in doubt that its preferred option is the shortest route to securing a new hospital. To add to the problems the Trust has admitted the existing hospital buildings have only a short life expectancy left in them, leaving the viability of maintaining the existing hospital facility during the interim construction period at risk. Had a new, greenfield site option been actively investigated, these problems could have been avoided.

Trevor Williams

By email