Government has opted for an expensive "Cadillac hospital" in the Botanical Gardens which the Island may not even need, Opposition Leader Wayne Furbert claimed last night.

The United Bermuda Party MP said the controversial scheme to put a new $500 million facility in the national park was too costly and could lead to "unnecessary runaway spending".

And he said a claim in a planning report on the hospital proposals that the King Edward VII Memorial Hospital (KEMH) was "a sound and solid structure" could mean that there was no need to tear it down at all.

His comments came as the number of signatures on a petition against the Botanical Gardens plan rose to more than 1,600.

Protestors from the Save the Gardens group hope to collect 5,000 names before they present the document to Premier Alex Scott.

Mr. Furbert said yesterday that the Estate Master Plan released by Bermuda Hospitals Board earlier this month on its website ? www.bermudahospitals.bm ? raised serious concerns about the Botanical Gardens scheme.

He cited the estimated $28.6 million cost of building 18 nurses' units in Berry Hill Road as "excessive".

"This equates to an average cost per unit of $1.6 million, a totally unacceptable figure," he said, adding that the cost for professional and management fees for the hospital project was an "astonishing" $45 to $50 million. Mr. Furbert added: "We are very concerned that the Government is blindly falling for a 'Cadillac' hospital proposal that, without sharper pencils and more common sense, will lead to unnecessary runaway spending."

He also called on Health Minister Patrice Minors to back up her claim that to rebuild on the existing site of KEMH would cost $100 million more than to build on the Botanical Gardens.

He pointed again to the Estate Master Plan which gives estimated costs for three existing site rebuild options as $407 million, $411 million and $447 million. He said the Botanical Gardens plan was estimated to cost $447 million.

"These figures fly in the face of Health Minister Patrice Minors' statement that building on the existing hospital site would cost $100 million more than building in the Botanical Gardens," he said.

He added: "We take issue with the Health Minister's claim that King Edward hospital will reach the end of its useful life in six years ? a time frame the Government said is driving its need to build in the Botanical Gardens.

"The Estate Master Plan appears to be at odds with itself on the point. In one section it describes the existing hospital building, now just 40 years old, as a sound and solid structure. In another it states that the building, as it is, will reach the critical end-life stage in six years.

"This is a significant statement yet we can find no engineering reports to support it and so we question the need to tear it down instead of making it part of a new hospital on the existing site."

Mr. Furbert said the findings in the Estate Master Plan raised serious questions about whether the hospital project was being managed competently. "The overall impression is that things are already out of whack and that no one is in charge."

Mrs. Minors told last night that the hospital was indeed a "sturdy structure" but was not suitable for the technology which was needed in a modern hospital and could not be built around.

"It does not have the wiring, the plumbing and the floor height that we see most modern hospitals provide," she said.

Ms Minors did not have the figures to hand to respond to the comments on cost.