Childrens' Hospital Planning Refusal [PR]

meglome

MadsL wrote: »

A few renders for the forgetful...

It's also worth remembering that the Mater hasn't exactly got a beautiful look on the skyline as it is.
http://maps.google.ie/maps?q=Eccles+Street,+Phibsborough,+Dublin&hl=en&ll=53.358146,-6.266091&spn=0.009502,0.017123&sll=53.401034,-8.307638&sspn=9.730867,17.53418&oq=eccles+stre&hnear=Eccles+St,+Phibsborough,+Dublin,+County+Dublin&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=53.358007,-6.265618&panoid=GnRLcezTuRA8NmeB8TiNRA&cbp=12,351.93,,1,-0.68
http://maps.google.ie/maps?q=Eccles+Street,+Phibsborough,+Dublin&hl=en&ll=53.359409,-6.263303&spn=0.001194,0.00214&sll=53.401034,-8.307638&sspn=9.730867,17.53418&oq=eccles+stre&hnear=Eccles+St,+Phibsborough,+Dublin,+County+Dublin&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=53.359409,-6.263303&panoid=8IVhmq91U1W-XsyttbbQjQ&cbp=12,278.02,,0,8.35
http://maps.google.ie/maps?q=Eccles+Street,+Phibsborough,+Dublin&hl=en&ll=53.360214,-6.264836&spn=0.000538,0.00214&sll=53.401034,-8.307638&sspn=9.730867,17.53418&oq=eccles+stre&hnear=Eccles+St,+Phibsborough,+Dublin,+County+Dublin&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=53.360214,-6.264836&panoid=mL4s3ZFOGs-XRcz0u8ee_g&cbp=11,251.57,,0,-4.4

That new building is a definite improvement, whether it's the best design or not is another question.

pauld123

The architects are not allowed to have polite chats with the ABP panel. It is a crazy situation. Clearly you are correct there should have been ABP & Planner involvement throughout the process but sadly even for a €650m project the same is as for you building a house. It is a case of you submitting a proposal without any feedback and hoping they like it. What a waste of taxpayers money!!!!!!

All the indications in the in the oral hearing were that the ABP guys had no major objections. It was clearly implied that planning would be granted with a provision for 2-3 floor reduction.

That is why this was such a shock.

jmayo

For people who claim access is not an issue, I would like to remind them that this is a NATIONAL Childrens hospital, not just a hospital for the North Side of Dublin city.

Most people in this country travel by car because it is the only option.
If you are from 80 odd % of this country then you are probably going to travel to Dublin by car and siting the hospital in one of the most inaccessible areas of the city was a joke.

If anything the older hospitals in Dublin city should be moved.
Speaking from experience the likes of Hollis St, the National Maternity Hospital is a joke both in terms of location and the actual building.

So rather than show a modicum of forward thinking and move the new hospital out of the city centre to a green field site, we compound it by sticking it in a very constrained site with very little future proofing.

In fact build it out near Tallaght and then move Hollis St out to it.
How about that for a bit of fooking forward thinking.

Is the Mater site accesible by helicopter at the moment ?
Would a new hospital be accessible by helicopter ?
Is there a security implication with closeness to Mountjoy ?

EDIT:
just as update on xflyer's points.
Having lived on dublin south side and worked in Glasnevin I know the travel implicatiosn would also be there for people who are on South side of the city.

pauld123 wrote: »

Firstly the permission was not denied because of access. location was not an issue for ABP in terms of access.

People need to understand the truth. Access would be easier to get to Tallaght, that is true. But just getting to the hospital is not the only important issue. What happens when you get there is vitally important too.

If you are not in a hurry then an increase in access time of approximately 30 minutes is hardly a critical factor. If you are in a hurry then you are in an ambulance and the difference is actually very little. Parking and access are only really issues for non time-critical journeys and visitors.

So ambulances don't get stuck in city centre traffic ?
Parking is important if you have driven up from the country and have to stay overnight with your sick child.
So would the provision of some form of residential accomodation for parents, etc.

Ehh where is the maternity hospital beside it ?

pauld123 wrote: »

Please, in your concerns about parking do not forget that the chance of saving a critical child's life is based on the standard of treatment. Would you really rather have easy parking and lower standard of treatment, than a bit of delay getting to a hospital to visit a seriously ill child who, when you get there, is receiving the best care available anywhere in Europe?

BTW it is just not people visiting children who need access and parking.
Ask anyone who has ever had to visit the mater for work what parking is like.

The chances of anyone in this country getting the best standard of care in Europe from a public hospital no matter where it is would not be great.
Trust me on that.

Laminations wrote: »

Because we all know that kids get sick en masse and need to be driven to hospital during rush hour.

Thousands of people brave the traffic and descend on the Point (O2) all at the same time and they do that just for a gig. People going to a hospital at different times of day for specialist care for their kids are not going to be put off if the trip happens to coincide with some rush hour traffic. Emergencies would involve ambulances which are used to traffic adults to the Mater and nobody talks about lack of access in these cases.

Let me guess you don't have kids or at least have never had them in the car whilst they are sick.
Normally you are one of the more sane posters around her, but FFS comparing adults driving to a gig at the O2 to driving with a child/children who are not well to a hospital.
If they were bloody well they would not be going to a hospital.
And you are not probably going to get an ambulance unless it is a huge emergency.

And once again I remind all the bleedin Dubs around here this hospital is supposed to be accessible to the entire country.
Yeah take 3 hours to drive the kids from Mayo to Lucan and another 1.5 hours to drive to the Mater.

Laminations wrote: »

Bertie Smertie. The site has been independently judged to be the best. FG/Labour cabinet have concluded it is the best. Bertie may have pulled strings when he had power but to suggest it is being directed towards his constituency STILL for any other reason other than professional advice is obtuse. The Mater site is free, and it has an adult hospital there which the greenfield site does not have. Regarding metro, it is a necessary project, better to plan based on a public transport framework than plonk it on the outskirts because daddy doesn't like a 20min sit in traffic.

Yeah lets do a Tallaght housing estates (no shopping etc for years) and build at the Mater because there might be public transport links in 20 years.

Do you seriously fooking think that someone is going to drive from Kerry, Galway, Leitrim, Wexford, Longford, etc to park up somewhere to then stand in the cold with their children (who face it aren't well if they are going to hospital) waiting for a fooking Luas or somesuch ?

Laminations wrote: »

Do you travel into the city for gigs/shopping/restaurants? If the 'traffic' doesn't put you off for these frivolous ventures then it won't put you off when dropping off or visiting your kids in hospital.

Now you really are pi**ing me off.
Are you seriously comparing driving somewhere with sick children to going to a gig or out to eat ?

xflyer

Good points, JMayo. But even for Dubs. It's appallingly situated. Unless you live in the nearby flats!

Looking at the photos earlier on in this thread which I hadn't seen before. I was amazed. It looks like an alien spaceship has landed on Dublin. Instantly you can see how the design was compromised to make it fit on the site. Yet again the usual Irish bodge.

McDave

It's quote shocking that this plan was ever allowed off the ground. It's actually largely a residential area. And, regardless of John Crown's views on the matter, Mountjoy won't be a prison for ever.

We can rest assured that none of the hospital's backers would ever have to live on the north side of this monstrosity (deprived of light in perpetuity) or deal with the wind eddies the building would cause in the surrounding residential streets.

Really, the Mater Hospital has done enough damage to Eccles St already.

McDave

jmayo wrote: »

In fact build it out near Tallaght and then move Hollis St out to it.
How about that for a bit of fooking forward thinking.

Bang on!

marknjb

wouldnt like to have to take a seriously sick child into the mater the day of a big match in croke park

Laminations

@jmayo

Tallaght doesn't have the specialist care that the Mater does nor does it lie between specialist centres like Beaumont and St Vincent's.

And it's laughable that you'd be happy driving from Mayo to Tallaght (4hrs) but not an extra 20mins to a better located (medically speaking) site. And what do you mean by most inaccessible area of Dublin?

Also you don't drive from Mayo to the NCH in an emergency - you go to your nearest A&E and the child will be transferred by ambulance if necessary.

Your points on parking are confusing - the plans contained ample off-street parking and, I'm open to correction, but the NCH had family rooms in the plan.

I think some people who drive are panicked by high levels of traffic, one way systems and afraid to drive into Dublin city.

It has been chosen as best site by medical expects, I'll believe you about Tallaght when you gain relevant qualifications and produce a comprehensive report.

On the point of perpetual darkness for the residents of Phibsboro? Lol. Have you ever visited a modern city? Alien spaceship? Hate to see you in NYC or London, you'd brick yourself at the site of a big building.

Laminations

marknjb wrote: »

wouldnt like to have to take a seriously sick child into the mater the day of a big match in croke park

Do people think the NCH will be a fecking drop in centre for sick kids with cut fingers and runny noses?

I hate to have to go near the city for anything on the day of a big match - so should we move everything out to the outskirts?

WhatNowForUs?

All I hear is drive drive drive. Why don't we set up a huge park and ride on the M50 and bus people in, im sure it would not be two hard for the planners to develope a high quality bus corridor.

MadsL

Laminations wrote: »

Just to correct a statement I made above re civil servants -
source

I was wrong.
ABP board has recently been cut, salaries too. Maybe ABP are lashing back because they feel they are being targeted? Maybe this is the government reaping what it sows? You make ABP incompetent, you get incompetent decisions.
Same source as above. I now really question their authority on judgements for city skylines

Any judgements you disagree with make ABP incompetent? Interesting line of logic? Did you support the U2 proposal for the Clarence Hotel by any chance?

Lamintations wrote:

The objectors are the usual anti-progress, vested interest, uninformed loud mouths who care more about having to travel to the northside of the city (the Mater area is congested mainly because of the Mater's current inadequate parking) than the health of children. They will veto any impact on Dublins skyline, as if we have a skyline to be proud of, and as if a building having impact is a bad thing. ABP should be disbanded, they have no authority, they are responsible for the urban sprawl, the ghost estates, the horrid monotone development we saw during the boom. They have no vision, they are afraid of change. The photo-montages they use are stupid, as if the view of sky above characterless rooftops on O'Connell street etc determines the character of that street. They cannot see how any hi-rise could improve the sky line and provide much needed landmarks. Frank McDonald is possible the biggest eejit among the objectors. They have the kind of foresight that made the m50 two lanes. No consideration of the public transport plan and contribution of the metro north in making this a good site. They comment on the plans with no idea of the details, and alternative suggestions of 'greenfield' sites which are daft.

Quite the most uninformed piece of diatribe I have read in a long time.

Point by point.

Lamintations wrote:

The objectors are the usual anti-progress, vested interest, uninformed loud mouths who care more about having to travel to the northside of the city (the Mater area is congested mainly because of the Mater's current inadequate parking) than the health of children.

The concept of anti-progress is rather dated Celtic Tiger speak for "we can't get what we want". Numerous ridiculous proposals that would now be in NAMA were objected to by the likes of these "uninformed loudmouths" and referred to ABP; they could actually see through the developer bullsh1t. If you want to see what 'developer bullsh1t' looks like then go to Sandyford or Belmayne or any of the other greed-driven crap around the country. These 'loudmouths' actually saved the country millions if not billions.

Regarding the northside, perhaps you would be suprised to see how many of these 'objectors' live on the Northside; they actually give a damn about it the city, unlike many of the slash and burn 'progressives'.

What 'vested interests' do you think these so-called 'loudmouths' have?

They will veto any impact on Dublins skyline,

The 'loudmouths' have exactly the same right of input into the planning process as you do. There is no veto.

as if we have a skyline to be proud of,

Do you hate Dublin in some way because it isn't New York?

and as if a building having impact is a bad thing.

Impact is one factor, so is scale, mass and context.

ABP should be disbanded, they have no authority

So you don't think that there should be any right of appeal in the planning process? Interesting. Will you be disbanding the Supreme Court next?
Regarding authority, of course they have authority - you may wish to read the various planning acts.

they are responsible for the urban sprawl, the ghost estates, the horrid monotone development we saw during the boom.

Most ghost estates were not appealed to ABP (perhaps with the exception of developer appeals over levy costs or details) and regarding monotone development - ABP don't design buildings, they can only approve or reject applications. There doesn't exactly seem to be massive demand to buy in the Elysian in Cork, nor Hueston South Quarter in Dublin, despite all the hand wringing about not being allowed to build high-rise.

As to urban sprawl, zonings are the key there, as local authorities say the opportunity for development contributions from housing projects, they rezoned. Many of the objectors you are demonising warned of the consequences of this, but were damned as "anti-progress, vested interest, uninformed loud mouths". Many local authorities, Meath for example, rezoned
61 times the amount needed for housing purposes. Yet any attempt to warn on the consequences was met with the same 'anti-progress' mantra. A Meath councillor famously called An Taisce "economic terrorists".

They have no vision, they are afraid of change.

Because change for the sake of change is good, right?

The photo-montages they use are stupid,

They are used by the developer. And, do you really think that using technology to visualise an architectural drawing in context with the existing built environment is 'stupid'. To paraphrase Joe Pesci: Stupid, how?

as if the view of sky above characterless rooftops on O'Connell street etc determines the character of that street.

Hmmm. Characterless. See what you mean.

They cannot see how any hi-rise could improve the sky line and provide much needed landmarks.

Because I often get lost on the Northside, pesky no landmark land. The skyline needs, what was that Tiger-speak favourite? Ah yes, "punctuating".

Frank McDonald is possible the biggest eejit among the objectors. They have the kind of foresight that made the m50 two lanes.

Frank McDonald in M50 two lane shocker? Really, wasn't aware of that...must ring the papers.

No consideration of the public transport plan and contribution of the metro north in making this a good site.

Hello. Newsflash. Metro North...Cancelled. (On hold if you believe the spin, which I don't because MN makes NO economic sense)

They comment on the plans with no idea of the details,

Sorry, who is 'they' again? I'm confused at this stage. Is it ABP? Surely 'they' have all the details? Or is it Frank McDonald? Sure, what does he know about planning what with being only an Honorary member of Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland and an Honorary fellow of the Royal Institute of British Architects and all. Or is it...sorry who is 'they' again?

and alternative suggestions of 'greenfield' sites which are daft.

Because planning and building a purpose-designed hospital with transport links from the ground up on a 'brownfield' (I believe is the term) site next to the M50 is madness, because....???

marknjb

Laminations wrote: »

Do people think the NCH will be a fecking drop in centre for sick kids with cut fingers and runny noses?

I hate to have to go near the city for anything on the day of a big match - so should we move everything out to the outskirts?

i was unfortunete enough to have to drive my unconcious 4 year old to hospital with blood coming out his ears after a fall got him to hospital very quick and got him sedated to take pressure of his brain he came out of it okay in beaumont met another child who had suffered head injuries from a fall ambulance broke down bringing him to hospital he ended up brain damaged i will never forget his poor parents as we left the hospital with our lad and they there holding their lads hand the mother started to cry so in my humble opinion acess makes a big difference

donegal_road

in 2009 two wards of Our Lady's Hospital Crumlin were closed because the government voted not to award the €9.5 million needed to keep them open. Instead it decided to squander €35 million on planning a new hospital that will now not go ahead. If we had elected a bunch of gorillas out of Dublin zoo to run the country, they would have done much less harm to the country, seriously!

whatstherush

Funny MadsL how you laud ABP's decision here yet you support protests against a company currently complying to ABP's decision in the north west of Mayo.

rodento

WhatNowForUs? wrote: »

All I hear is drive drive drive. Why don't we set up a huge park and ride on the M50 and bus people in, im sure it would not be two hard for the planners to develope a high quality bus corridor.

I can just imagine it, you have a very sick baby in the car, you have to park the car somewhere on the M50, try and catch a bus and hope the child doesn't die in the process. If you ever had a sick baby you would understand what an absolute nightmare this would be

Laminations

marknjb wrote: »

i was unfortunete enough to have to drive my unconcious 4 year old to hospital with blood coming out his ears after a fall got him to hospital very quick and got him sedated to take pressure of his brain he came out of it okay in beaumont met another child who had suffered head injuries from a fall ambulance broke down bringing him to hospital he ended up brain damaged i will never forget his poor parents as we left the hospital with our lad and they there holding their lads hand the mother started to cry so in my humble opinion acess makes a big difference

Glad your child is ok. But emotive posts don't make your case. If the NCH was at the Mater you still would go to Beaumont if that is closest and unfortunately the other child would still be brain damaged as that wasn't the result of access but of an ambulance breaking down.

MadsL

whatstherush wrote: »

Funny MadsL how you laud ABP's decision here yet you support protests against a company currently complying to ABP's decision in the north west of Mayo.

Actually, I support both the right of protest and the rule of law. I'm ambivalent as to the outcome of the S2S campaign, I do however wish that development to take place with respect of EU Environmental Law and with the human rights of the protesters to be respected in relation to the policing of that protest.

I don't see any contradiction in that.

You appear to be drawing conclusions based on a quick user search...about as useful as me inferring that you support civil war in Syria.

Farmer Pudsey

This is another total [EMAIL="f@@kup"]f@@kup[/EMAIL] are we suprised no the reason the hospital had to be so high is because the site is too small if you cannot build out you have to build up. The site is totally unsuitable and if the present government have any cop-on they should throw the blame where it belong's and head for a new site on the M50.

The private consultants who carried out the report NEVER VISITED THE [EMAIL="F@@KING"]F@@KING[/EMAIL] country and yet recommended the Mater site I know all the stuff about teaching hospital's and access to burn and other specialists but the reality is the site is not BIG ENOUGH and access is brutal and will only get worse as years go by. A couple of helicopters will solve geting into James the Mater and the other hospitals from a specialist Childern's hospital,

Lets be brutally hosnest how many childerns need to be ferried to other hospital from a specialist childern's hospital VERY FEW the most important thing is good access from all over the country this is going to be the National Childern's Hospital not the Dublin City Center Childern's Hospital

MadsL

OT but I love the sound of the National Childerns Hospital. Can we call it that please, please!!

Laminations

MadsL wrote: »

Any judgements you disagree with make ABP incompetent? Interesting line of logic?

It's more logical if you understand what I said. They have no expertise in urban planning or conservation, there are no architects on the board, that as well as the drivel developments they presided over during the boom when they supposedly had that expertise makes them incompetent.

Did you support the U2 proposal for the Clarence Hotel by any chance?

Yes. Bold. Ambitious. Iconic. Aimed to be in top ten of world hotels. You'd fault them for aiming too high I suppose, spoiling the cherished and ancient Temple Bar skyline.

The concept of anti-progress is rather dated Celtic Tiger speak for "we can't get what we want". Numerous ridiculous proposals that would now be in NAMA were objected to by the likes of these "uninformed loudmouths" and referred to ABP; they could actually see through the developer bullsh1t. If you want to see what 'developer bullsh1t' looks like then go to Sandyford or Belmayne or any of the other greed-driven crap around the country. These 'loudmouths' actually saved the country millions if not billions.

You talk about numerous ridiculous projects but neither you nor ABO have demonstrated that the NCH Mater project is ridiculous, you've just said it is and expect us to agree. You can't have it both ways, the developer greed-driven bull**** happened because the loudmouths objected to innovative modern architecture and allowed the mediocre mundane bull**** pass by. All that **** happened with the ABP in existence.

Regarding the northside, perhaps you would be suprised to see how many of these 'objectors' live on the Northside; they actually give a damn about it the city, unlike many of the slash and burn 'progressives'.

You're full of rhetoric and little more. What was slash and burn about this project? I prefer to care about children's medical care over concerns of a spoiled view.

What 'vested interests' do you think these so-called 'loudmouths' have?

Well they didn't care about the design of the hospital, they just wanted it elsewhere. The usual self-interests of NIMBYS, and many of the loudmouths were people with interests in other possible sites.

The 'loudmouths' have exactly the same right of input into the planning process as you do. There is no veto.

I was referring to ABP re the veto. And they are ridiculously conservative presiding over the droll development of a Dublin populated by samey monotonous unassuming mediocre developments.

Do you hate Dublin in some way because it isn't New York?/QUOTE]

Eh, nope. Embracing modern inspiring design isn't a 'New York' thing. We are discussing the skyline here. What about the uniform low rise featureless skyline do you like?

Impact is one factor, so is scale, mass and context.

They (ABP) said that big buildings aren't inherently bad, they can have a positive impact but this building is bad, according to they, because it is big! They have not justified the negative impact comment.

So you don't think that there should be any right of appeal in the planning process? Interesting. Will you be disbanding the Supreme Court next?
Regarding authority, of course they have authority - you may wish to read the various planning acts.

The Supreme court is filled with qualified judges - see my point on incompetence. An ABP decision can be a bad decision, or an unjustified one - like this one

Most ghost estates were not appealed to ABP (perhaps with the exception of developer appeals over levy costs or details) and regarding monotone development - ABP don't design buildings, they can only approve or reject applications

thats because the loudmouths dont object to mediocrity. So we get endless soulless ghost estates and and sparkle of creativity is shouted down by people afraid of Dublin being anything but Georgian and old.

. There doesn't exactly seem to be massive demand to buy in the Elysian in Cork, nor Hueston South Quarter in Dublin, despite all the hand wringing about not being allowed to build high-rise.

It's the economy, stupid. There is little demand for anything. Given a choice between a building with flare and a shoebox production line bog standard paint by numbers design, I'll always choose the one rhayader pushes the boundaries. You and ABP will choose mediocrity.

As to urban sprawl, zonings are the key there, as local authorities say the opportunity for development contributions from housing projects, they rezoned. Many of the objectors you are demonising warned of the consequences of this, but were damned as "anti-progress, vested interest, uninformed loud mouths". Many local authorities, Meath for example, rezoned
61 times the amount needed for housing purposes. Yet any attempt to warn on the consequences was met with the same 'anti-progress' mantra. A Meath councillor famously called An Taisce "economic terrorists".

Yes, anti-high rise and anti-sprawl. They were a compromising bunch.

Because change for the sake of change is good, right?

Conserving a skyline with no aesthetics in an area viewed as run down is good, right? Change is inevitable.

They are used by the developer. And, do you really think that using technology to visualise an architectural drawing in context with the existing built environment is 'stupid'. To paraphrase Joe Pesci: Stupid, how?

Stupid because like megalome showed the current skyline is ugly and where you are overwhelmed by a modern building peaking into the sky others see those montages as nice. Stupid because showing a picture which you then subjectively interpret as a monstrosity and then trying to use that subjective judgement as an argument is well.... stupid.

Hmmm. Characterless. See what you mean.

So the view of flags might be slightly obscured from one angle? What a disaster, quick someone call the President!

Because I often get lost on the Northside, pesky no landmark land. The skyline needs, what was that Tiger-speak favourite? Ah yes, "punctuating".

The fact that you see landmark buildings purely as navigational aides shows how disconnected you are from modern urban environments. Punctuated may have been a fad word but I prefer that approach than monotonous block of **** development. Seeing as you disagree with punctuation don't reply to me using it, and I'll be sure to avoid your indeterminable waffle.

Frank McDonald in M50 two lane shocker? Really, wasn't aware of that...must ring the papers.

You need to pay more attention to who I refer to and the use of simile.

Hello. Newsflash. Metro North...Cancelled. (On hold if you believe the spin, which I don't because MN makes NO economic sense)

It isn't cancelled. You not seeing economic value in it doesn't make that true, again go get qualified, do up a detailed report and get back to me.

Sorry, who is 'they' again?

They ate people against this project and others because they seem to audacious for them and don't fit their twee dream of Dublin.

Because planning and building a purpose-designed hospital with transport links from the ground up on a 'brownfield' (I believe is the term) site next to the M50 is madness, because....???

The co-location is the most important aspect. You still haven't grasped that. The Mater plan is half a billion with numerous future public transport links. The M50 plan is 2 billion with no amenities, no public transport plans and no centrality to other specialised care

donegal_road

shortfall of €9.6 million means closure of 2 wards at Our Lady's Hospital, 2009

my point was Our Lady's Hospital could have benefited from the €35 million spent on the planning of now cancelled children's hospital... what was the €35 million spent on?

The long awaited cystic fibrosis unit for St. Vincent’s Hospital was to cost approximately €30 million.

rodento

Laminations wrote: »

Because traffic isn't the primary concern. I see driving into the city as necessary because it is what is best medically for the kids. You value a more convenient location over the best possible care for kids. Rush hour maybe covers 4 hours of the day. And even during those hours you are exaggerating how bad the traffic is. AND in an emergency you use an ambulance.

The board also raised concerns about a traffic plan submitted by the developers

I don't know if you have ever had to bring childern to hospital, traffic and traffic management is a very real concern for parents especially if they have to travel from one end of the country to another.

Its far better to build the hospital near the M50 and if any specialist is needed they should either employ them or get to to travel over as needed, it aint rocket science

Also people seem to forget this was an outright refusal, if there were any redeeming features to submission the plan would have passed with conditions, like reduce the number of stories etc.

MadsL

Laminations wrote: »

It's more logical if you understand what I said. They have no expertise in urban planning or conservation, there are no architects on the board, that as well as the drivel developments they presided over during the boom when they supposedly had that expertise makes them incompetent.

Remind me how architects have expertise in planning again. That's like saying there are no solicitors in the Supreme Court? Apologies if you are an architect, but architects are fundamentally technicians, very rarely an artist but mostly a technician.

ABP currently has no architects, awaiting new appointments. That is true.

However Angela Tunney was appointed to the Board on the 10th March, 2000. She was ended her five year term on 6th November, 2011. She is a graduate of U.C.D. holding a Bachelor of Architecture degree and a Masters in Regional and Urban Planning. She has worked as an architect in Germany and England for six years. Joining Aer Rianta in 1991, she has worked in an architectural and project management capacity prior to her appointment to the Board.

Karl Kent was appointed to the Board on the 1st January, 2002. He was reappointed for a five year term until 31st December, 2011. He qualified in architecture (B.Arch) and town planning (Dip.T.P) in UCD and has a post-graduate diploma in Environmental Impact Assessment Management and a Master's in Urban and Building Conservation from the same institution. He is a member of The Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland and of the Irish Planning Institute. After working for some years as an architect in both the private and public sectors, he joined the local authority planning service before joining the Board's staff in 1989. He was a Senior Planning Inspector in the Board until his appointment as a Board member.

To say that ABP has no expertise in urban planning is, frankly, absolutely laughable. See my comments on the makeup of the board below.

Yes. Bold. Ambitious. Iconic. Aimed to be in top ten of world hotels. You'd fault them for aiming too high I suppose, spoiling the cherished and ancient Temple Bar skyline.

Hmm. Did you once have a job writing estate agent copy? You are aware then that ABP granted permission for this?

You talk about numerous ridiculous projects but neither you nor ABO have demonstrated that the NCH Mater project is ridiculous, you've just said it is and expect us to agree.

No, I haven't claimed the project is ridiculous, you have claimed it is viable, and expect us to agree. This is why we have ABP to arbitrate. ABP have decided that it is inappropriate.

You can't have it both ways, the developer greed-driven bull**** happened because the loudmouths objected to innovative modern architecture and allowed the mediocre mundane bull**** pass by. All that **** happened with the ABP in existence

Interesting point of view, but could you show me where these 'innovative modern architecture' projects that were proposed were located? Because An Taisce accepted the DEGW study in 2000 which pretty much meant that there were no submission against anything proposed in the Docklands and Heuston SQ areas. So where are all these award winning 'innovative modern architecture' projects? Alto Vetro? That it? I'll give you the Grand Canal Theatre, but that didn't exactly need 20 storeys did it?

So, what project did ABP trample on that was going to be an 'innovative modern architecture'?

You're full of rhetoric and little more. What was slash and burn about this project? I prefer to care about children's medical care over concerns of a spoiled view.

Hmm..accuse me of rhetoric and then go to 'won't someone think of the children' argument...

Well they didn't care about the design of the hospital, they just wanted it elsewhere. The usual self-interests of NIMBYS, and many of the loudmouths were people with interests in other possible sites.

So at first 'they' don't want to go to the Northside, then 'they' are NIMBYs and then 'they' have vested interest in other sites. Care to be more specific, I'm having trouble tracking 'them' again.

I was referring to ABP re the veto. And they are ridiculously conservative presiding over the droll development of a Dublin populated by samey monotonous unassuming mediocre developments.

Or as we have seen recently, developers built the cheapest thing possible? Hence the mediocrity. Care to cite an example of something exciting ABP turned down? The redesign of Liberty Hall perhaps? Thrilling.

Embracing modern inspiring design isn't a 'New York' thing. We are discussing the skyline here. What about the uniform low rise featureless skyline do you like?

Ohh, lets see. The Four Courts, the GPO, the Customs House, Trinity, Most of the Quays, O'Connell Street, Westmoreland St. Hardly 'featureless', it's not a desert.

They (ABP) said that big buildings aren't inherently bad, they can have a positive impact but this building is bad, according to they, because it is big!

...within the context in which it is placed. Not hard to grasp.

They have not justified the negative impact comment.

Can you quote the relevant paragraph of the Inspectors report you are referring to please.

The Supreme court is filled with qualified judges - see my point on incompetence.

ABP is very qualified in planning, spatial planning, engineering. Until the end of last year there were two architects on the board.

The Board consists of

The Planning and Development Acts 2000 to 2011 provide for the appointment of nine other members of the Board. Eight of the members are appointed by the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government from among persons selected from four groups of organisations prescribed by regulations and representative of :

Professions or occupations that relate to physical planning, engineering and architecture.
Organisations concerned with economic development, the promotion and carrying out of development, the provision of infrastructure or the development of land or otherwise connected with the construction industry.
Organisations representative of local government, farming and trade unions.
Organisations representative of persons concerned with the protection and preservation of the environment and of amenities/voluntary bodies and bodies having charitable objects /rural and local community development, the promotion of the Irish language or the promotion of heritage, the arts and culture/bodies representative of people with disabilities / bodies representive of young people.

The current board is light pending new appointments http://www.pleanala.ie/about/members.htm
Here is the regular makeup of the board up to the end of 2011
http://www.pleanala.ie/about/members2.htm
Heavy with planners as it should be.

An ABP decision can be a bad decision, or an unjustified one - like this one

Of course, I felt the Clarence to be a bad one. You have the option of a Judicial Review of the process if you have the appetite.

thats because the loudmouths dont object to mediocrity.

On the contrary, mediocrity does get objected, like recent cr@p in Smithfield. monolithic boring architecture. However, 51 storeys of mediocrity gets especially objected. Funny how overscaled high-rise coincides with the end of property booms worldwide.

So we get endless soulless ghost estates

Which developers wanted to build and local authorities granted permission for, nothing to do with ABP.

and sparkle of creativity is shouted down by people afraid of Dublin being anything but Georgian and old.

Example of 'sparkles' please.

It's the economy, stupid. There is little demand for anything.

Funny that. How did that happen??

Given a choice between a building with flare and a shoebox production line bog standard paint by numbers design,

Because we have buildings with flair in Docklands and Heuston where they had a free hand to do what they wanted. Apparently they wanted shoeboxes and money. We got shoeboxes anyway. I guess even architects with flair have to listen to their clients budgets and profit objectives.

I'll always choose the one rhayader pushes the boundaries.

Really, didn't think a small town in Wales was so cutting edge.

You and ABP will choose mediocrity.

I don't get to choose anything, only to make the same submissions you do. ABP get to say yay or nay depending on what is put before them, they don't design anything.

In fact many appeals to ABP were made to avoid mediocrity.

Yes, anti-high rise and anti-sprawl. They were a compromising bunch.

You are accusing who of what? I'm confused again.

Conserving a skyline with no aesthetics in an area viewed as run down is good, right? Change is inevitable.

Dereliction clearance philosphy hmm, a good few developers seemed keen on that landbank and let buildings rot technique to try and get some apartments in.

So if an area has been run down we should bulldoze and level it? Fan of 60s Brutalism perhaps?

Stupid because like megalome showed the current skyline is ugly and where you are overwhelmed by a modern building peaking into the sky others see those montages as nice. Stupid because showing a picture which you then subjectively interpret as a monstrosity and then trying to use that subjective judgement as an argument is well.... stupid.

Hmm...so you are obliquely calling me stupid. We can argue over aesthetics but insults are a bit strong no?

So the view of flags might be slightly obscured from one angle? What a disaster, quick someone call the President!

Now you are just restating the point of view in caricature. Not the most effective debating technique.

The fact that you see landmark buildings purely as navigational aides shows how disconnected you are from modern urban environments.

Oh please :rolleyes:, I have lived in 'modern urban environments' all my life, in 4 different countries, but the pathetic excuse for 'landmark' buildings presented during the boom barely qualified. The Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao is a landmark building, the Mater design looked like a badly parked boat. Regardless of the other politics of the location you are surely not claiming it as world-class design. ROFL if so.

Punctuated may have been a fad word but I prefer that approach than monotonous block of **** development. Seeing as you disagree with punctuation don't reply to me using it, and I'll be sure to avoid your indeterminable waffle.

And once again resorting to insult, well done.

You need to pay more attention to who I refer to and the use of simile.

or even analogy :rolleyes:

It isn't cancelled. You not seeing economic value in it doesn't make that true, again go get qualified, do up a detailed report and get back to me.

Grand, if it gets build within the next ten years I'll send you $50 for a pint.
If it doesn't...care to take the bet?

They ate people against this project and others because they seem to audacious for them and don't fit their twee dream of Dublin.

Yeah, because the live-the-dream, highest-rise, build as much as you can on credit worked out so great for everyone!

The co-location is the most important aspect. You still haven't grasped that. The Mater plan is half a billion with numerous future public transport links. The M50 plan is 2 billion with no amenities, no public transport plans and no centrality to other specialised care

Oh, I'm sorry. i thought you wanted the best? How much was MN going to cost again?

femur61

Laminations wrote: »

The co-location is the most important aspect. You still haven't grasped that. The Mater plan is half a billion with numerous future public transport links. The M50 plan is 2 billion with no amenities, no public transport plans and no centrality to other specialised care

What hospitals are Crumlin and Temple St co-located at?

Pete_Cavan

rodento wrote: »

I can just imagine it, you have a very sick baby in the car, you have to park the car somewhere on the M50, try and catch a bus and hope the child doesn't die in the process. If you ever had a sick baby you would understand what an absolute nightmare this would be

If you ever had a sick baby you would not drive him/her to Dublin without knowing whether they needed to go there, you would go to the nearest A&E for immediate treatment and have medical professionals determine if they can be treated there or if they need to be transferred to the National Childrens Hospital.

The NCH is not somewhere for every sick or injured child in the country to be brought immediately. It is to house specialist treatments which would be too expensive to provide in more than one location, and benefit from specialist treatments offered in nearby adult hospitals. The arguments about driving sick children from north west Donegal to the hospital on match days in Croke Park are irrelevant.

The majority of the children in the hospital will be staying there for a prolonged period of time so providing rooms for families to stay is more important than on street parking. Having shops/restaurants/hotels/amenities etc. within walking distance for the family to use is also very important as this would mean the family is not confined to the hospital. Also, the parents of children are not the only people who have to get to the hospital, the staff have to get there too. Sticking it on the side of the M50 will mean several hundred extra car parking spaces will need to be provided and will further clog up the M50. A site on the M50 is totally unsuitable because it would be surrounded by vast car parks, would be inaccessable to anyone without a car and would mean and you would need a car if you wanted to leave the site, even just for some food or a coffee.

Laminations

@Pete Cavan
And the Mater plan provided family rooms. The near 1000 spaces for parking is ample and you are right if it went to an m50 site the parking would be sprawled rather than underground multi storey.

@femur
They aren't, part of the reason they are moving. They are not examples of best practice co-location specialist heavy paediatric care

@madsL
You are obviously not reading my posts. The point on architects and planning experts refers to two different professions, neither of which is on ABP. it is a former member who is criticising the make up of the board and lack of expertise - I've quoted from them, read back, carefully.

The fact that they allowed the Clarence, a project i agree with shows that my virw of ABP arent the result of disagreement. They took the unique element out of the Dublin North Quarter redesign. I'd accept protecting the Moore St buildings but a south facing sloped roof park would be 'unique'. You would see it as ridiculous folly.

It's not rhetoric to say think of the children. It's recognising priorities. Children vs. Skyline - children come first.

ABP said the site was inappropriate because of the buildings size - I've quote the piece from the report and linked the report. Please give a justification as to why? Please point out what about the skyline in that area is worth conserving.

There are many nice buildings in the docklands but restrictions on height made the whole place uniform. I think it was the Mayor Street development that was objected to by a neughbouring developer and upheld by ABP. they demanded height reductions and the maintenance of the campshire wall. We couldve seen more diverse buildings but people have a tendency to object to hi-rise and so it is avoided to ensure projects aren't stalled. Funnily these same people object to urban sprawl so I'm not sure where they expect buildings to go? Welcome to Dublins newest quarter - mole town!

Unless you can give a more than subjective aesthetic reason for NCH to go at Mater than you and the ABP have unjustified stances. It has been repeatedly shown as the best site medically. I'm sure you respect John Crowns opinion in that regard.

rodento

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

rodento wrote: »

I can just imagine it, you have a very sick baby in the car, you have to park the car somewhere on the M50, try and catch a bus and hope the child doesn't die in the process. If you ever had a sick baby you would understand what an absolute nightmare this would be

If you ever had a sick baby you would not drive him/her to Dublin without knowing whether they needed to go there, you would go to the nearest A&E for immediate treatment and have medical professionals determine if they can be treated there or if they need to be transferred to the National Childrens Hospital.

The NCH is not somewhere for every sick or injured child in the country to be brought immediately. It is to house specialist treatments which would be too expensive to provide in more than one location, and benefit from specialist treatments offered in nearby adult hospitals. The arguments about driving sick children from north west Donegal to the hospital on match days in Croke Park are irrelevant.

The majority of the children in the hospital will be staying there for a prolonged period of time so providing rooms for families to stay is more important than on street parking. Having shops/restaurants/hotels/amenities etc. within walking distance for the family to use is also very important as this would mean the family is not confined to the hospital. Also, the parents of children are not the only people who have to get to the hospital, the staff have to get there too. Sticking it on the side of the M50 will mean several hundred extra car parking spaces will need to be provided and will further clog up the M50. A site on the M50 is totally unsuitable because it would be surrounded by vast car parks, would be inaccessable to anyone without a car and would mean and you would need a car if you wanted to leave the site, even just for some food or a coffee.

Think your forgetting that crumlin and temple street etc will close, good few other hospitals don't have full A&E and when I phoned in the past they have said not to bring the little one to the local A&E go straight to crumlin because the staff don't have the facilities or expertise to treat them

rodento

Looks like the review wasn't allowed mention ideal alternative

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/review-panel-not-allowed-refer-to-ideal-greenfield-site-in-final-report-3031391.html

THE head of a review panel for the national children's hospital has claimed a recommendation that a greenfield site was "ideal" was dropped because identifying a new site wasn't allowed.

MadsL

Laminations wrote: »

@madsL
You are obviously not reading my posts. The point on architects and planning experts refers to two different professions, neither of which is on ABP. it is a former member who is criticising the make up of the board and lack of expertise - I've quoted from them, read back, carefully.

And you aren't reading mine. Are you really saying members of the Board with a Masters Degree in Town and Country Planning from Queen's University, Belfast, a graduate in Civil Engineering from Trinity College, Dublin with a holds a DEA in Civil Engineering from the ENS Cachan, France and a Masters Degree in Spatial Planning from the Dublin Institute of Technology and someone with 15 years’ experience in renewable energy, principally in project development, planning and environmental impact assessment are unqualified?

To address your further points about the competence of the board, I'll remind you that the Oral Hearing took place in 2011, before the terms of office of the board members you are bemoaning the loss of took place. So therefore you are in fact saying that the board was competent at the time the Oral Hearing was under consideration.

I also note that you massively misrepresent the output of ABP in relation to this. I'll remind you that a 10 day Oral Hearing was held on 17, 18, 19, 25, 26, 27, 28 October & 1, 2, 3 November 2011. You could have made a submission to that hearing if you felt strongly on the issue, but I suspect that you did not.

You also misrepresent the costs of the report, ABP did incur costs of 100k based on a 10 day Oral Hearing, not on a summary report. There are 35 pages in the Oral Hearing report.

You also misrepresent the LAP and Development Plan guidelines, the permitted hi-rise is not uncapped, it is a 50m limit and the Mater proposal was almost 50% greater than this at 71m. By comparison Liberty hall is 59m tall.

The fact that they allowed the Clarence, a project i agree with shows that my virw of ABP arent the result of disagreement. They took the unique element out of the Dublin North Quarter redesign. I'd accept protecting the Moore St buildings but a south facing sloped roof park would be 'unique'. You would see it as ridiculous folly.

The O'reilly development (now NAMA, and with O'Reilly under investigation with relation to Anglo) was always a overblown pipe-dream for a site that historically sensitive, however it was DCC that instigated the 'skislope' park notion. Joe O'Reilly himself told me he didn't want to do that, and that planners wanted something more 'iconic'. The park in the sky idea was never going to work at that site. Rather puts a hole in your theory that the planning system stifles creative 'sparkle'.

It's not rhetoric to say think of the children. It's recognising priorities. Children vs. Skyline - children come first.

And I would agree with you, but ABP can only work within the framework of planning law. If a Variation to the Development Plan had been agreed then ABP may have had a different view, however the overdevelopment was not the only infrastructure concern of the inspector/board.

Equally the function of the hospital is as a hospital not a landmark. If the site is too tight at Eccles Street then there is no use trying to shoehorn into place.

ABP said the site was inappropriate because of the buildings size - I've quote the piece from the report and linked the report. Please give a justification as to why? Please point out what about the skyline in that area is worth conserving

We could argue all day about the merits of various buildings and Dublin's skyline. That is why we have a Development Plan, a legally binding contract between the city and citizens, which both DCC and ABP have a legal obligation to consider in making their decisions and which can be challenged in the courts if they fail to do so. I do have a point of view about development in the city which is why I made several submissions to DCC over the years in relation to planning and the Development Plan. You had equally opportunity to do so. If you didn't then you can't whine with any basis about planning decisions if didn't bother to participate in the consultation process.

There are many nice buildings in the docklands but restrictions on height made the whole place uniform.

What restrictions on height? There were none, the DEGW Study in 2000 allowed high-rise in the Docklands and Heuston. DCC (and An Taisce concurred to not object to height in the Docklands and Heuston) permitted height in the Docklands..

I think it was the Mayor Street development that was objected to by a neughbouring developer and upheld by ABP.

Case reference please...

they demanded height reductions and the maintenance of the campshire wall.

I strongly agree the integrity of the Liffey campshire line should be maintained, do you differ?

We couldve seen more diverse buildings but people have a tendency to object to hi-rise and so it is avoided to ensure projects aren't stalled. Funnily these same people object to urban sprawl so I'm not sure where they expect buildings to go? Welcome to Dublins newest quarter - mole town!

A common fallacy is that height = density. Dublin has huge opportunity for urban intensification and subsequent density - take Thomas street, stretches along there with less than 20% occupancy as a result of developer landbanking and dereliction. But supposed 'modernists' in Ireland always want to build upwards and away, even though extreme high-rise has been discredited for high carbon-footprint and the reality that it does not bring the densification that more intelligent design does. Tall buildings are generally however in proportion with architect's egos.

Unless you can give a more than subjective aesthetic reason for NCH to go at Mater than you and the ABP have unjustified stances. It has been repeatedly shown as the best site medically. I'm sure you respect John Crowns opinion in that regard.

Read my comments above. There is no basis for considering medical matters in ABP's decision-making process. If the site cannot be accommodated due to space restrictions and overdevelopment concerns then there you have it. I would blame the architects and engineers who drew up the plans, not ABP.

I'd also ask you if a helipad would not be critical to operations of an emergency pediatric hospital, because it would appear that despite numerous renders showing a rooftop heli-pad - this was not included in the applications and there are some serious concerns for the limitations of the fleet that could service a heli-pad at 70m.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=77271443

TLDR; I'm sorry that the plans were not better drawn up and for the delays that this caused, but to be honest if you kick the ball in your own net, you have no right to blame the referee for awarding a goal.

MadsL

"The ideal location would be located on green space, provide for unfettered access, accommodate research and educational activity, provide sufficient space to ensure the aggregation of all patient-care services meeting current and future requirements, and be tri-located with an adult tertiary care and a maternity facility,"

Hmmm...ball dropped methinks.

rodento

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

or if they need to be transferred to the National Childrens Hospital.

The NCH is not somewhere for every sick or injured child in the country to be brought immediately. It is to house specialist treatments which would be too expensive to provide in more than one location, and benefit from specialist treatments offered in nearby adult hospitals. The arguments about driving sick children from north west Donegal to the hospital on match days in Croke Park are irrelevant.

The majority of the children in the hospital will be staying there for a prolonged period of time so providing rooms for families to stay is more important than on street parking. Having shops/restaurants/hotels/amenities etc. within walking distance for the family to use is also very important as this would mean the family is not confined to the hospital. Also, the parents of children are not the only people who have to get to the hospital, the staff have to get there too. Sticking it on the side of the M50 will mean several hundred extra car parking spaces will need to be provided and will further clog up the M50. A site on the M50 is totally unsuitable because it would be surrounded by vast car parks, would be inaccessable to anyone without a car and would mean and you would need a car if you wanted to leave the site, even just for some food or a coffee.

Going to repeat myself here, the plan are to close the three other childerns hospitals in Dublin. That means three childerns A&E's close to make way for one. Already we have lost A&E services in a lot of other adult hospitals, so your choice of where to take sick children is limited if you live in Dublin. The remaining A&E services hospitals don't really cater for young childern, they just are not suitable.

I also don't understand how our current ambulance services will cope with calls from the greater Dublin area to transfer or pick up sick childern and bring them to one central location. We just don't have the ambulance service to do it with out effecting the over all call out rates for others.

Solair

I just think this whole project typifies the gross mismanagement of public money that went on during the previous administration.

Whatever about the current Government, that entire Children's Hospital plan was hatched during the Bertie era.

It strikes me as another Bertie Bowl type project.

The Mater site is clearly not appropriate. So, the question is why was it rammed through when that was blatantly obvious and there were perfectly good alternative sites available - Tallaght, Beaumont, possibly James's and even St. Vincents.

Sickening waste of money and a sickening delay to providing children with proper services.

Had this been done right in the first place, the hospital would be nearly open by now!

Thornton Hall is the other example of money being burnt, plans being screwed up and the end result being no service is provided. Millions spent, site purchased and the whole thing collapsed leaving us with the same over-crowded, dangerous, insecure Victorian prisons in Dublin that we were trying to replace!

NakedNNettles

Horrible big oink of a yoke is all it is.

Why is it that when it comes to designing hospitals in this country there is always trouble and why do we have to keep building these huge monstrosities?

Modernise the existing Mater to a suitable scale and build a new medium sized hospital on the outskirts with easier access for Dublin city and the outskirts. Divide the major resources between the two.

Its killer the amount of cash already spent on this stupidity when it could be spent on resources for patients.

McDave

Solair wrote: »

Thornton Hall is the other example of money being burnt, plans being screwed up and the end result being no service is provided. Millions spent, site purchased and the whole thing collapsed leaving us with the same over-crowded, dangerous, insecure Victorian prisons in Dublin that we were trying to replace!

Heh! Considering John Crown's dissing of the location this is an added irony! Thornton Hall was supposed to replace Mountjoy which itself was being mooted for redevelopment (residential, if I remember).

Crown stated the Mater site was surrounded by hospitals and a prison, and that Dorset St was no 'Champs Elysees' (why not stick in an incinerator and a bus depot while you're at it). Not that the concerns of residents who would have had to have lived in the shadow of this monstrosity mattered one whit.

Pete_Cavan

rodento wrote: »

Going to repeat myself here, the plan are to close the three other childerns hospitals in Dublin. That means three childerns A&E's close to make way for one. Already we have lost A&E services in a lot of other adult hospitals, so your choice of where to take sick children is limited if you live in Dublin. The remaining A&E services hospitals don't really cater for young childern, they just are not suitable.

I also don't understand how our current ambulance services will cope with calls from the greater Dublin area to transfer or pick up sick childern and bring them to one central location. We just don't have the ambulance service to do it with out effecting the over all call out rates for others.

You do not have "of where to take sick children", you take them to the nearest A&E first. There, the doctors will determine if they can be treated there or if they need to be transferred, and if they do need to be transferred it may not be to the National Childrens Hospital. The NCH is not a one-stop-shop for treating every ill or injured child in the country, it is for treating children with serious long term illnesses and ensure all the expertise required is on one site.

All those who oppose the Mater site do so based on the argument "What if I have to bring my child there, we live four hours away?" If you have to bring your child there, there will be a long diagnostic period to determine what is wrong with the child and where best to treat them. If you need to go to the NCH there will usually be weeks of tests and consultations, followed by a planning period to get a bed available for them before they are admitted. The vast majority of sick children will still be treated in their local general hospital or go elsewhere for specialist injuries (Beaumont for head injuries, St James for burns, etc.), only those with serious illnesses will go to the NCH.

People are already planning on rushing their children to the NCH next time they have a runny nose or cut their knee, probably the same people who currently clog up A&E when they should be going to their GP.

NakedNNettles

35 million I heard on the radio today is what they have spent so far.

What the hell did they spend it all on?

McDave

NakedNNettles wrote: »

35 million I heard on the radio today is what they have spent so far.

What the hell did they spend it all on?

Business consultants advice and planning. C****c T***r hubris and wanton waste.

rodento

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

You do not have "of where to take sick children", you take them to the nearest A&E first. There, the doctors will determine if they can be treated there or if they need to be transferred, and if they do need to be transferred it may not be to the National Childrens Hospital. The NCH is not a one-stop-shop for treating every ill or injured child in the country, it is for treating children with serious long term illnesses and ensure all the expertise required is on one site.

All those who oppose the Mater site do so based on the argument "What if I have to bring my child there, we live four hours away?" If you have to bring your child there, there will be a long diagnostic period to determine what is wrong with the child and where best to treat them. If you need to go to the NCH there will usually be weeks of tests and consultations, followed by a planning period to get a bed available for them before they are admitted. The vast majority of sick children will still be treated in their local general hospital or go elsewhere for specialist injuries (Beaumont for head injuries, St James for burns, etc.), only those with serious illnesses will go to the NCH.

People are already planning on rushing their children to the NCH next time they have a runny nose or cut their knee, probably the same people who currently clog up A&E when they should be going to their GP.

Pete just to remind you

THREE childerns A&E units will close in dublin to make way for the mater childerns hospital

Loughlinstown hospital has had its A&E unit downgraded

Vincints has a A&E but its overwhelmed

Crumlan saved my babies life, she would have died if she had to travel further

So I ask you are the other hospitals going to be given extra funds to cater for a increase in demand from seriously sick childern

Laminations

MadsL wrote: »

Hmmm...ball dropped methinks.

This is bizarre. You attack the Mater plan for being unrealistic and then you use an 'ideal' proposal in your attempt to discredit it. You do know what ideal means?

In an ideal world with a limitless budget I would also go for a greenfield site with unfettered access and tri-loacte a load of hospitals there, double up on specialities so you can maintain current levels of expertise in the existing hospitals and have a new site with all of that expertise combined. In an ideal world we wouldn't be having to do this in a recession where hospitals are closing. This is the BEST choice given our spread of specialities, resources and time constraints. ABP rejected it to conserve the skyline, simple as.

You can see this as a monstrosity or 'a towering monument to excellence and compassion, a visually stunning symbol of hope rising from an area that once had the highest infant and child mortality in Europe.'

That is subjective. What is not subjective is the need for a children's hospital, and fast

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/john-crown-farcical-saga-of-childrens-hospital-has-to-end-now-3031772.html

one foot in the grave

rodento wrote: »

Pete just to remind you

THREE childerns A&E units will close in dublin to make way for the mater childerns hospital

Loughlinstown hospital has had its A&E unit downgraded

Vincints has a A&E but its overwhelmed

Crumlan saved my babies life, she would have died if she had to travel further

So I ask you are the other hospitals going to be given extra funds to cater for a increase in demand from seriously sick childern

You know there are children out there that the state failed to save because we do not operate a world class children's medical service?

MadsL

Laminations wrote: »

This is bizarre. You attack the Mater plan for being unrealistic and then you use an 'ideal' proposal in your attempt to discredit it. You do know what ideal means?

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/john-crown-farcical-saga-of-childrens-hospital-has-to-end-now-3031772.html

How is it bizarre to ask why was that committee not allowed to present a recommendation that was the best option? Or 'ideal' option.

In an ideal world with a limitless budget I would also go for a greenfield site with unfettered access and tri-loacte a load of hospitals there, double up on specialities so you can maintain current levels of expertise in the existing hospitals and have a new site with all of that expertise combined. In an ideal world we wouldn't be having to do this in a recession where hospitals are closing.

In many economies stimulus spending is seen as a good thing, yet this committee was handcuffed and gagged from even mentioning it. Democratic eh?

This is the BEST choice given our spread of specialities, resources and time constraints.

and no will to fix the 'spread of specialities and resources' which is the crux of the problem for trying to shoehorn the NPH into the Mater site.

ABP rejected it to conserve the skyline, simple as.

ABP rejected it on this basis

Having regard to the site masterplan for the Mater Campus submitted with this application, it is also considered that the proposed development, as configured, would constitute overdevelopment of the site.

The proposed development would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

In other words, it don't fit. Exactly the same concerns as expressed by the board before 35m was spent trying to make it fit.

However, it emerged yesterday the board had flagged its concerns about the “constrained nature” of the Mater site as a location for the new children’s hospital as early as November 2010 at a meeting with Department of Health officials, long before the planning application was lodged.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0227/breaking6.html

Perhaps everyone can stop screaming that the referee and linesmen now, John Crown included whose article, to be honest, from a Senator is disgraceful.

Laminatations, I understand that you are angry about this project and your concern to get a world-class pediatric hospital in Dublin, however the truth is that the blame for the failure of this project does not lie with ABP.

I'm astonished that the likes of Pat Rabbitte are now saying that "the refusal of permission for the new national children’s hospital demonstrated the new (sic - need?) for a finessing of the planning process"

A bit like complaining about the offside rule after a goal is disallowed.

Laminations

MadsL wrote: »

How is it bizarre to ask why was that committee not allowed to present a recommendation that was the best option? Or 'ideal' option.

Best is not the same as ideal.

I wouldn't think it reasonable for a bachelor to assess his relationship options based on some 'ideal' woman - Greta Garbo or Marilyn Monroe (or whomever one thinks is ideal), you make judgements only on the options available to you, you stay within the choices which can be achieved, so the bachelor chooses between Mary the shop keeper and Helen the yoga instructor but not between these and some ideal unachievable pie in the sky woman.

Likewise the perfect or 'ideal' site would be my preferred one too ( a easily accessed, large greenfield site with tri-located services) but just like I have to work with the body god gave me rather than Brad Pitt's, the international board were told to choose from options available based on budget, concentration/spread of specialities etc.

The review group endorsed the best option based on the very narrow terms of reference which was;

1. To examine and independently verify the estimated cost differentials identified in relation to building, equipping and running the proposed National Paediatric Hospital (a) if constructed on the site currently proposed and (b) if constructed to the same specification on notional alternative sites.
2. To examine whether the potential clinical benefits, if any, of locating a Children’s hospital beside the Adult hospital on the Mater site outweigh:
I. Any cost differential; and
II. Any design issues, including access to the hospital.

Cost and expediency was obviously a large and very realistic factor.

In many economies stimulus spending is seen as a good thing, yet this committee was handcuffed and gagged from even mentioning it. Democratic eh?

That's a point for the troika me thinks. Reality is we don't have the luxury of money for the ideal location, so we go with the best available.

and no will to fix the 'spread of specialities and resources' which is the crux of the problem for trying to shoehorn the NPH into the Mater site.

Reality is we don't have the luxury of time to redress the spread of specialities.

ABP rejected it on this basis

In other words, it don't fit. Exactly the same concerns as expressed by the board before 35m was spent trying to make it fit.

But it quite obviously does fit - upwards. ABP rejected it based on it going upwards - hence its incursion into the skyline.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0227/breaking6.html

Perhaps everyone can stop screaming that the referee and linesmen now, John Crown included whose article, to be honest, from a Senator is disgraceful.

He shouldn't be gagged from giving his professional medical opinion because he is a senator.

Laminatations, I understand that you are angry about this project and your concern to get a world-class pediatric hospital in Dublin, however the truth is that the blame for the failure of this project does not lie with ABP.

I'm astonished that the likes of Pat Rabbitte are now saying that "the refusal of permission for the new national children’s hospital demonstrated the new (sic - need?) for a finessing of the planning process"

A bit like complaining about the offside rule after a goal is disallowed.

More like complaining about the offside rule if it was used to prevent paramedics coming onto the pitch. This is an infringement of the skyline (ABP did not raise major access issues) being used to prevent best 'possible' (not ideal) paediatric care.

It is a relatively minor subjective aesthetic concern trumping a serious health provision concern. It is about priorities.

Anyway, we are obviously in disagreement.

Farmer Pudsey

ABP did not refuse it just because of the skyline impact it also was unhappy with the proposed parking for the site which would be aggravated further if the metro link was not provided and there was no plan in place to provide further parking in this senario. It was also unhappy with all the extra traffic that would have to access the area.

The reality was the site was totally unsuitable Bertie did not get his Bowl so he wanted the Childern Hospital in his constituency for posterity a dog with a mallet up his h##e would know that the site was unfit. How many members of the board of the Childern Hospital Project resigned over this and the fact that they were unable to review other sites.

ABP knew the reality that most people who will want to access the site will use their car. If you are attending a Hospital with a sick child from down the country or even from other parts of Dublin for tests or day procedures you will want to driveto the hospital door if possible. Who in their right minds would want to have to take achild from a warm car in the middle of winter out to wait for a metro or a bus in the cold and the rain.

Speed of access for ambulances would be a problem travelling into the center of Dublin at rush hour. I repeat again this was ment to be a National Childern's Hospital not the Dublin City Center Childern's Hospital. We are only going to hsve one hospital for childern in the country imagine a parent from cork or galwaywith an appointment for 9.30 am trying to access the Mater site

ABP were totally correct and highlighted the issues that have hounded this project from the start size of site and access to it

MadsL

Laminations wrote: »

Best is not the same as ideal.

I wouldn't think it reasonable for a bachelor to assess his relationship options based on some 'ideal' woman - Greta Garbo or Marilyn Monroe (or whomever one thinks is ideal), you make judgements only on the options available to you, you stay within the choices which can be achieved, so the bachelor chooses between Mary the shop keeper and Helen the yoga instructor but not between these and some ideal unachievable pie in the sky woman.

Mind boggles at this analogy...

Likewise the perfect or 'ideal' site would be my preferred one too ( a easily accessed, large greenfield site with tri-located services) but just like I have to work with the body god gave me rather than Brad Pitt's, the international board were told to choose from options available based on budget, concentration/spread of specialities etc.

Were we not even allowed to examine a initial costing on the 'ideal' option??

The review group endorsed the best option based on the very narrow terms of reference which was;

1. To examine and independently verify the estimated cost differentials identified in relation to building, equipping and running the proposed National Paediatric Hospital (a) if constructed on the site currently proposed and (b) if constructed to the same specification on notional alternative sites.
2. To examine whether the potential clinical benefits, if any, of locating a Children’s hospital beside the Adult hospital on the Mater site outweigh:
I. Any cost differential; and
II. Any design issues, including access to the hospital.

Cost and expediency was obviously a large and very realistic factor.

I note they included access, and you haven't addressed my questions about the viability of a helipad at 70m in an urban environment and the suitability of helicopter access. Take a very skilled pilot to run that pad in winter conditions.

That's a point for the troika me thinks. Reality is we don't have the luxury of money for the ideal location, so we go with the best available.

But we can pay junior bondholders, go figure.

Reality is we don't have the luxury of time to redress the spread of specialities.

So we compromise best-practice for another 20-30 years?

But it quite obviously does fit - upwards. ABP rejected it based on it going upwards - hence its incursion into the skyline.

That is a specious argument as you well know.

He shouldn't be gagged from giving his professional medical opinion because he is a senator.

Interesting that you allow his expertise as qualified to spout on planning, yet question ABP's qualifications, how does that work?

More like complaining about the offside rule if it was used to prevent paramedics coming onto the pitch. This is an infringement of the skyline (ABP did not raise major access issues) being used to prevent best 'possible' (not ideal) paediatric care.

Or changing the rules of the game because you don't like the result.

It is a relatively minor subjective aesthetic concern trumping a serious health provision concern. It is about priorities.

Back to emotive appeals...

Anyway, we are obviously in disagreement

This is why we have a planning process and adjudications.

Truth is the NPH probably will be built at the Mater as this Govt will find a way to ignore the ABP verdict.

Another screwup ironed out for the expediency of political promises and influence. No wonder planning is a dirty word in this country.

No-one campaigns for what is best for this city or the country in a planned and logical manner, just what will satisfy and fix whatever clusterfuk has been created by decades of incompetence. Those who stand up and question that process are spit on, even by those in public office. Sickening really.

rodento

Lams what services are you happy to see cut from the proposed hospital if it gets the go ahead on the mater site

MadsL

In regard to Lamentations assertions that the skyline was the only concern (and the unfounded allegation that a mere 6 page report was written)

Here is the full Inspector's Report and reasoning (132 pages!) http://www.pleanala.ie/documents/reports/PA0/RPA0024.pdf

From the Summary

Reason No. 1
The proposed development is located on a site specifically designated in the
Phibsborough/Mountjoy Local rea Plan as a key development site and for which there are key site objectives It is considered that the design, scale and height of the proposed development, is contrary to the objectives of the Phibsborough/Mountjoy Local area Plan having regard in particular to the design, height and length of the ward block element, the extent of which is twice the length of the highest landmark element envisaged in the ‘Indicative Urban Form/Building Heights’ layout Furthermore, the development as proposed fails to incorporate the design and layout elements included
in the indicative site layout to absorb and mitigate the high landmark element envisaged for this site in the Phibsborough/Mountjoy Local rea Plan, thereby militating against the successful integration of a landmark high building on this key site The development as proposed would therefore, adversely impact on the amenity of the local area, the skyline of the city and the setting of protected structures and the historic city centre

Furthermore, failure to provide any open space at ground level and the absence of a defined pedestrian route network through the site militate against the objective to create a clearly defined arrangement of open spaces which integrate into the emerging pedestrian route network for the area and provide north-south and east-west permeability through the site The proposal would therefore fail to comply with the specific objectives for this site as set out in the Phibsborough/Mountjoy Local Area Plan In addition, the development as proposed fails to incorporate the vision for the site in
the design proposed which requires the development of a permeable campus
environment which integrates with the wider urban structure and is ‘centred’ on reinstating and enhancing the existing courtyard structure and introducing permeability The proposal would, therefore, militate against the successful achievement of the objectives for the site as outlined in the Phibsborough/Mountjoy Local Area Plan and would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area

Reason No. 2
The proposed development by reason of its height, design, scale, bulk and mass, located on an elevated site within the Mater Campus, would comprise a dominant and visually incongruous structure which would have a profound negative effect on the appearance and visual amenity of the local and wider city area The development as proposed would be inconsistent with and would adversely impact on the existing scale and established character of the local area and the existing scale and established character of Dublin City from key strategic citywide views The proposal would contravene Policy SC18 of the
Dublin City Development Plan 11-17 which seeks to protect and enhance the
skyline of the inner city and which seeks to ensure that all proposals for mid-rise and taller buildings make a positive contribution to the urban character of the city Policy SC18 also requires that proposals demonstrate sensitivity to areas including the historic city centre, the river Liffey and quays, the historic squares and the city canals, and to established residential areas, open recreation areas and civic spaces of local and citywide importance The proposed development contravenes this policy having regard to the adverse visual impact which would arise in respect of significant streetscapes and
landmarks in the historic city centre and on open recreation areas and on civic spaces of local and citywide importance In addition, the documentation submitted to the Board fails to adequately present an assessment of strategic citywide views as required by key site objective 6 for the Mater Site as set out in the Phibsborough/Mountjoy Local Area Plan
Furthermore, the proposal of itself and also when taken in conjunction with the Adult Hospital currently under construction would have an adversely overbearing visual impact on neighbouring residential properties in the vicinity of the site The proposed development would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area

Reason No. 3
Having regard to adverse impact on:
(a) the Mater Misericordiae Hospital and protected structures on Eccles Street, whereby the proposal would adversely alter the character of the street, the setting of the protected structures and seriously and detrimentally interrupt the views east and west along this street
(b) The setting of the internationally significant St George’s Church on Hardwicke Place, and the significant conflict arising with the existing dominance of the set-piece of St George’s Church within the surrounding streetscapes where the proposal would dominate the skyline
(c) on O’Connell Street, an architectural conservation area, where it would create a significant visual interruption within the skyline of O’Connell Street at the north end with the new form dominating the view, appearing high above the broadly coherent roofline of the principal and iconic boulevard of the Capital City .
Furthermore, having regard to the significant impact on the setting of the General Post Office, a protected structure whose pedimented breakfront and portico would no longer be the dominant punctuation along the parapet line of the west side of the street
(d) Mountjoy Square within the orth Georgian Core and the significant number of protected structures within this planned Georgian Square It is considered that an adverse impact would arise from the presence of the proposal within the view of the Square and would constitute a significant interruption on the skyline of the Square
(e) The important set piece of Belvedere House on Great Denmark Street which is currently framed by the formal brick terraces on orth Great George’s Street and which enjoys a currently uninterrupted skyline
(f) The setting of the conservation areas in the vicinity of the site and protected structures located on same, such as elson Street, Berkeley Street and Blessington Street in addition to the adverse impact on the setting of St Joseph’s Church on Berkeley Road and the conservation areas located at Blessington Basin, Goldsmith Street, St Vincent Street, Sarsfield Street, O’Connell ve, Geraldine Street, on the proposed Architectural Conservation Area at Blessington Basin and environs including Fontenoy Street, and on the proposed Architectural Conservation Area at Great Western Square and Environs
(g) The setting of Leo Street and adjoining streets including the protected structures on Synnott Place and the orth Circular Road and environs in the vicinity of Leo Street
(h) The view along Mountjoy Street and from the Black Church where the proposal can be seen as a termination of a different scale to the existing two, three and four storey urban fabric
It is considered that the development as proposed would impact adversely on the setting and character of protected structures, including structures of international importance, streetscapes and areas of conservation value outlined above both individually and in terms of their collective architectural significance and historical architectural character and scale The development as proposed would negatively and adversely impact on the character and heritage of the historic core of the north inner city, the orth Georgian core and the historic core of Dublin City It is therefore considered that the proposed development would, in particular, contravene policies FC6 & FC7 as set out in the Dublin City Plan 11-17 in respect of the built heritage which seek respectively to protect and conserve the city’s cultural and built heritage; sustaining its unique significance, fabric and character and which seeks the preservation of the built heritage of the city which makes a positive contribution to the character, appearance and quality of local streetscapes In addition the proposal would contravene policy FC1 which seeks to protect and conserve the special interest and character of Architectural Conservation Areas and conservation areas in the development management process

Furthermore, the proposal fails to comply with the requirements
as set out in the Phibsborough/Mountjoy Local rea Plan which require that
development on the subject site take due regard of the established historic character of the adjoining buildings In addition, the development as proposed would fail to have regard to the Guidance set out in the Architectural Heritage Protection Guidelines for Planning Authorities which state that proposals should not have an adverse effect on the special interest of the protected structure or the character of an Architectural Conservation Area The proposed development would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area

Reason No. 4
The Board is not satisfied that the proposed 13% private car modal split for staff, derived from the staff parking allocation proposed, would be reasonable, operable or appropriate having regard in particular to the existing modal split for private car use by staff at the adjoining Mater Misericordiae University Hospital, which is approximately 36% and where staff parking on site is limited to 16 spaces It is considered that the reliance on the 13% private car modal split for staff underestimates the potential impact of traffic generated by staff on the local road network In addition, the Board is not satisfied that the staff parking provision at 36 spaces which provides for 13% of peak staff population would provide an appropriate level of parking to facilitate essential staff onsite at this facility Furthermore, the Board is not satisfied that the limited parking provision proposed, would not negatively impact on the availability of public spaces for patients/visitors within the proposed car park, notwithstanding the charges proposed, or would not impact adversely on the adjoining residential areas The proposed development would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

http://www.pleanala.ie/documents/reports/PA0/RPA0024.pdf

jmayo

Laminations wrote: »

@jmayo

Tallaght doesn't have the specialist care that the Mater does nor does it lie between specialist centres like Beaumont and St Vincent's.

And it's laughable that you'd be happy driving from Mayo to Tallaght (4hrs) but not an extra 20mins to a better located (medically speaking) site. And what do you mean by most inaccessible area of Dublin?

20 mins me ars*.
If your appointment was at some time in the morning, that section of the journey could take over an hour.
Then when you get there where do you park.
Do you realise how easy it is to fill a thousand user car space when the staff in the place probably numbers in the thousands and then add in visitors.

Have you ever driven around the Mater/Mountjoy at rush hour ?

Laminations wrote: »

Also you don't drive from Mayo to the NCH in an emergency - you go to your nearest A&E and the child will be transferred by ambulance if necessary.

Don't ambulances use the roads as well ?

I am not talking about an emergency, although for Dublin/North Wicklow people you are probably talking about emergencies.

And you can tell mr cavanman the same.
For instance a child who is undergoing cancer treatment is not exactly in a healthy condition now are they, but yet they can sit in a car in Dublin traffic.
Driving a child for such treatment is hardly like yourself driving to a concert at the O2 now is it. :mad:

Some other poster around here is on about park and rides for people to dump their cars and then make their way to the hospital.
Yeah your child is going to be undergoing some major treatment, operation, therapy and shure you can dump them on a sidewalk, probably with a load of stuff for the stay whilst you wait for the ever so prompt public transport.

Laminations wrote: »

Your points on parking are confusing - the plans contained ample off-street parking and, I'm open to correction, but the NCH had family rooms in the plan.

How is it amble ?
Can they go down another few levels in a few years time.
Remember how the M50 and it's toll bridge were ample when they were planned. :rolleyes:

BTW how do you get in and out of the parking ?
How many entrances ?
If it was an open site you could build in more open leisure areas, play areas for children, etc.

Laminations wrote: »

I think some people who drive are panicked by high levels of traffic, one way systems and afraid to drive into Dublin city.

No I am not panicked by in the slightest by Dublin's traffic as I have driven in many cities around the world (Melbourne, Sydney, Paris, London, LA, San Fran, Vancouver, etc).
What I am panicked about is ever having my sick children whilst in that traffic.
BTW do you have any children ?

Laminations wrote: »

It has been chosen as best site by medical expects, I'll believe you about Tallaght when you gain relevant qualifications and produce a comprehensive report.

Actually isn't there question marks over the way these reports were set up ?
Hasn't som,ebody questioned their definition of colocation or the supposed number of colocated hospitals they gave ?

WhatNowForUs? wrote: »

All I hear is drive drive drive. Why don't we set up a huge park and ride on the M50 and bus people in, im sure it would not be two hard for the planners to develope a high quality bus corridor.

You are taking the pi**, aren't you ???

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

If you ever had a sick baby you would not drive him/her to Dublin without knowing whether they needed to go there, you would go to the nearest A&E for immediate treatment and have medical professionals determine if they can be treated there or if they need to be transferred to the National Childrens Hospital.

So a child with cancer who needs to go for specialist treatment is not sick in your world ?
Do you think an ambulance is used for every transfer ?

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

The NCH is not somewhere for every sick or injured child in the country to be brought immediately. It is to house specialist treatments which would be too expensive to provide in more than one location, and benefit from specialist treatments offered in nearby adult hospitals.

It will probably be the major emergency childrens hospital for Greater Dublin.

Oh and are the children requiring these specialist treatments not sick ?

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

The majority of the children in the hospital will be staying there for a prolonged period of time so providing rooms for families to stay is more important than on street parking.

And how do the parents and the children get to the hospital ?
Oh yeah they all come in ambulances and public transport. :rolleyes:
Fooking hell has this turned into some fairyland of some sort.

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Having shops/restaurants/hotels/amenities etc. within walking distance for the family to use is also very important as this would mean the family is not confined to the hospital.

BTW you do know walking distance of the Mater is mostly sh**holeville, not some idillic paradise.

Do shops, restuarants, hotels only exist in Dublin 1. :rolleyes:

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Also, the parents of children are not the only people who have to get to the hospital, the staff have to get there too. Sticking it on the side of the M50 will mean several hundred extra car parking spaces will need to be provided and will further clog up the M50.

So if you can clog up the M50 with traffic to the hospital what will that do to the streets surrounding the Mater ?
Checkmate

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

A site on the M50 is totally unsuitable because it would be surrounded by vast car parks, would be inaccessable to anyone without a car and would mean and you would need a car if you wanted to leave the site, even just for some food or a coffee.

You do know you can build multi-story car parks in areas outside the M50 given the will.
And you can build onsite restaurants and catering.
Hell I hear tell there is already places with such facilities outside the city centre. :eek:

Laminations wrote: »

@Pete Cavan
And the Mater plan provided family rooms. The near 1000 spaces for parking is ample and you are right if it went to an m50 site the parking would be sprawled rather than underground multi storey.

Ah ffs.
So your worry about having it outside the city centre is that there would be sprawling car parks.
You do know that multistory car parks are technically buildable outside city centres ?

fly_agaric

MadsL wrote: »

No wonder planning is a dirty word in this country.

However, this decision is another facet of planning disfunction in this state.
We have a country full of structures that are (partly) the result of mad planning decisions - one off houses, ghost estates, shoebox/shíthole apartments that all got the green light from planning bodies up and down the country

At the same time a national hospital project is allowed to proceed quite far before a planning body shoots it down in flames for "aesthetic reasons" (important possibly but given the lack of heed paid to eternal derelict sites, run down buildings, street filth etc in the north inner city in general, a bit of a joke).

There's no sense or consistency here. Not much point expecting that from Ireland and our Betters who run the place I suppose.

MadsL

fly_agaric wrote: »

However, this decision is another facet of planning disfunction in this state.
We have a country full of structures that are (partly) the result of mad planning decisions - one off houses, ghost estates, shoebox/shíthole apartments that all got the green light from planning bodies up and down the country

At the same time a national hospital project is allowed to proceed quite far before a planning body shoots it down in flames for "aesthetic reasons" (important possibly but given the lack of heed paid to eternal derelict sites, run down buildings, street filth etc in the north inner city in general, a bit of a joke).

There's no sense or consistency here. Not much point expecting that from Ireland and our Betters who run the place I suppose.

So there shouldn't be any standards?

Why are people finding the role of ABP so difficult to grasp?

ABP doesn't design buildings, plan infrastructure, or talk to developers - it performs a limited function under the various Planning and Development Acts.

An Bord Pleanala was established in 1977 under the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1976 and is responsible for the determination of appeals and certain other matters under the Planning and Development Acts, 2000 to 2011 and determination of applications for strategic infrastructure development including major road and railway cases. It is also responsible for dealing with proposals for the compulsory acquisition of land by local authorities and others under various enactments. The Board also has functions to determine appeals under Water and Air Pollution Acts and the Building Control Act.

Generally speaking it acts to determine if a particular application meets the terms of the contract between the people and the Local Authority that is formed by the Development Plan and any Local Area Plans. This means that there is a mechanism for the people to take the Local Authority to task for failing to uphold their end of the bargain.

In this case the Local Authority made a contract with the people about permissible height and protection of the skyline (aka the Dublin City Development Plan) and then the Mater made an application to breach that.

There is a potential legal way to have made that exception for the Mater - by way of a Variation to the development plan - a public consultation would have been required and a vote of the city council.

However this did not happen - instead, the Mater put in a Strategic Infrastructure Application with the hope that ABP would look the other way through political pressure and the reporting that this was the only option.

ABP chose to uphold the contract between the city and the people and refused to bow to political expediency and exceptionalism.

Now politicians are taking it in turns to throw in their two cents about how the planning process needs reform...I'd like to say bollox to that, there was a perfectly legally acceptable way to get consensus about a site and the stakeholder arrogantly refused to put that before the people of Dublin for debate.

rodento

An ambulatory care approach means more children can be cared for as close to home as possible, with only the sickest children having to be admitted to the new Children’s Hospital of Ireland where they can get the required care and attention.The Ambulatory and Urgent Care Centre at Tallaght, though a separate facility, is an integral part of the new children’s hospital organisation. It will be under the governance and management of the new Children’s Hospital of Ireland.


Thought the idea was to have everything under one roof, so to speak