Childrens' Hospital Planning Refusal [PR]

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.

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

rodento wrote: »

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

Seems the co-location argument was a little 'overstated';

http://www.examiner.ie/ireland/officials-misrepresented-report-on-childrens-hospital-185269.html

Past and present government officials have been accused of misrepresenting a 2007 report on where the National Children’s Hospital should be based by wrongly claiming the structure of international facilities examined supported an "integrated" co-location site.

The New Children’s Hospital Alliance, a group of medics and parents opposed to the Mater Hospital location, has claimed the 17 facilities reviewed in the 2007 RKW report did not show the site was the best place for the facility.

This claim is in contrast to repeated public statements by senior current and former government officials.

Since 2007, the RKW report, and a 2006 report by outside consultants McKinsey, has formed the basis for the view that the hospital should be based at the Mater.

This is because of comments by former minister for health Mary Harney, former HSE chief executive Brendan Drumm, and current Health Minister James Reilly, that 15 of the 17 hospitals examined in Europe, North America, and Australia supported an "integrated" co-location with an adult hospital.

However, according to the NCHA, the report does not make any such claim. Instead, it says of the 17 facilities, only four are "integrated" child-adult co-location sites like the Mater proposal.

Great Ormond Street is not co-located for example.

Medical oncologist Senator John Crown said on Today FM he may put down a private member’s bill to overturn the ruling.

Or 'throwing his toys out of the pram' as it is sometime known. I note the phrase 'may'.

Good luck with that John....

fly_agaric wrote: »

Yes, An Bord Pleanala are doing their job as a cog in a mad bureaucratic system, I get that...

The upshot is that alot of time + money was wasted here.

Not by ABP who were doing their job.

Without opening a big can of worms, if Mater is actually the best site in terms of how good a job the hospital will do treating Ireland's sick children, this is more important than what ABP is considering.

Nope, patently untrue. This is the best site given the very limited terms of reference given to the review board. They were not allowed to consider the best site, only what the Government were prepared to ring-fence 420m for.

Can we stop talking in emotive terms about 'sick children' because I could equally make the emotive argument that a limit of 420m is all we care about and not the needs of 'sick and dying children' etc.

The things that ABP is considering are continuously undermined both in Dublins north inner city and around the country, usually for reasons of greed or indifference rather than utility/public good.
However no planning body is able or willing to put a stop to it in these cases.

Applied properly planning law should be able to stop it...the Derelict Sites Act for example. ABP has done a good job by and large at protecting protected structures (unlike DCC) but what constantly baffles me is that were this a city in the UK (like Bath for example) these protected structures would be prime real estate.

Out of interest, which cases do you mean?

I think we need to look at how we support re purposing of these buildings (we have Hume hospital lying empty for example within reasonable distance of Holles St.)

Equally, I liked James Nix's idea of co-location at Heuston.

This has a number of key advantages;

• There is already a stalled high-rise on site so foundations for a highrise have been dug and underground car park is in place.
  
• It is right next to Heuston rail links and dual carriageway access to the M50 and on the Luas line.
  
• There is ground level very open helipad access at the big site next to Kilmainham.
  
• The eircom building (how long before they give up the ghost) could be rented or bought to facilitate administration staff.
  
• An all weather under/overground link to James' Hospital could be constructed easily with some co-operation/landswaps with Guinness.
  
• Kilmainham Hospital could be brought back to medical use for either juvenile terminal hospice care and/or family accommodation, with a decent city centre Modern Art Museum created from an empty building in need of restoration.

@John Crown....Regarding challenging/changing the decision.

50.—(1) Where a question of law arises on any appeal or referral, the Board may refer the question to the High Court for decision.

(2) A person shall not question the validity of—

(a) a decision of a planning authority—

(i) on an application for a permission under this Part, or

(ii) under section 179 ,

(b) a decision of the Board—

(i) on any appeal or referral,

(ii) under section 175 , or

(iii) under Part XIV,

otherwise than by way of an application for judicial review under Order 84 of the Rules of the Superior Courts ( S.I. No. 15 of 1986 ) (“the Order”).

That is a process by which the legal procedure can be challenged (ie ABP did not consider the legal requirements correctly) and not to be taken if you don't like the result.