Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Childrens' Hospital Planning Refusal [PR]
Options
Comments
-
Actually, not the AG's opinion but rather a Per curiam finding of the Supreme Court. I would point out that while this is interesting, it doesn't make sense if taken literally - as it would mean neither the planning authority nor ABP could make decisions outside of the plan; which they can.The former Attorney general disagrees...
What I would interpret that as saying is that when the plan is applied by the authority or ABP then it forms an "environmental contract".
I still contend they are a tribunal.They are an administrative court with similar powers to the Labour Court are they not? That is they have powers to make legally binding decisions on 3rd parties not present.
Certainly, but that does not make them law does it? Planning authorities and ABP are fully capable of making determinations outside of the development plans and it is not illegal. In fact, there is only legislation which says they must make them and consider them, not follow them.. But it is the basis on which legal argument is made for or against a development is it not?
You brought them up. I'm distinguishing them from ABP. I have no problem agreeing that ABP makes binding decisions. My problem is with calling development plans "law".But some of them are, as are ABP's decisions.
ABP detirminations are open to judicial review, what is your point?
No, the determinations of planning authorities and ABP are the foundations for the legality.They are the foundation for the legality of development.
I'm not misrepresenting, in fact your point doesn't even really make sense in response to what I said. I never said the courts have expertise; I merely stated that there is a provision for administrative review as they are a quasi-judicial body. None of that makes the development plan a legal instrument.You are misrepresenting again. The reason it is not considered in matters relating to appeal is because the courts cannot be held to have expertise;
O'Keeffe v. An Bord Pleanala (1993) 1 I.R. 39.
And ABP can uphold those decisions which are not in line with the development plan.Which leaves it liable to appeal to ABP. The vast majority of 3rd Party appeals to ABP in recent times have been the result of an LA granting permission in breach of the development plan.
See above.Forgive my shorthand in using a lay definition. It has legal standing, how about that. See the AG remarks on an 'environmental contract'.
Eh. Sort of.Hair splitting tbh. Same outcome.
No, you could say there is plenty of evidence it shouldn't be permitted under the development plan and if ABP agrees with that then you could say it should not be legally permitted.No, but there is no legislation that says that An Post cannot paint the GPO bright yellow either. But you could bring plenty of evidence that shows that it should not be legally permitted based on Development Plan Policies and Objectives.0 -
We could go back and forth on this all day...and it is dull legal hairsplitting for the audience
Let's turn the argument around.
On what basis should ABP's decision be ignored?
edit:
They can, but you or I have the power to bring them into court, I mean, tribunal, I mean Bord Pleanala to justify the decision.as it would mean neither the planning authority nor ABP could make decisions outside of the plan; which they can0 -
So up to 50m is medium rise and allowed in that area, 50m+ is high rise and is allowed in the various circumstances.read Chapter 17 of the Development Plan...
You have height and plot ratio issues with the Mater Plan.
You must admit that the wording is generally vague, it is not by any means clear that these buildings will not be allowed rather opting for phrases like "general development principles" and "indicative standards".
The point being that you cannot say that if they read the development plan they wouldn't have submitted the design.0 -
17.6.3 of the development plan would be a good start.We could go back and forth on this all day...and it is dull legal hairsplitting for the audience
Let's turn the argument around.
On what basis should ABP's decision be ignored?
edit:
They can, but you or I have the power to bring them into court, I mean, tribunal, I mean Bord Pleanala to justify the decision.
You'd have to look at the rules of judicial review if you wanted to see if you qualified to bring a motion against ABP to the High Court.0 -
FreudianSlippers wrote: »So up to 50m is medium rise and allowed in that area, 50m+ is high rise and is allowed in the various circumstances.
You must admit that the wording is generally vague, it is not by any means clear that these buildings will not be allowed rather opting for phrases like "general development principles" and "indicative standards".
The point being that you cannot say that if they read the development plan they wouldn't have submitted the design.
City residents had to fight very hard for even something as specific as that. Dublin Planning has been pushing a high-rise agenda for years, it took probably 50-60 residents groups organising themselves to prevent virtually upper limits or controls whatsoever on height in certain areas in the 2011-17 plan.
What do you mean by "is allowed in the various circumstances" the Mater Plan is 21 metres higher than permitted for the area. I believe a slender tower may have got through on aesthetic grounds but certainly not this massive block. That should have been obvious to the design team reading the Development Plan.
I understand (may be wrong) the medical review team didn't visit the actual site.0 -
Advertisement
-
There is no upper limit in the development plan, just guidelines for the different "bands" for each area. There is nothing that says there is a maximum height that will be allowed in Dublin as far as I could see... if the planning and/or ABP wanted to approve a 100m building, they could.City residents had to fight very hard for even something as specific as that. Dublin Planning has been pushing a high-rise agenda for years, it took probably 50-60 residents groups organising themselves to prevent virtually upper limits or controls whatsoever on height in certain areas in the 2011-17 plan.
What do you mean by "is allowed in the various circumstances" the Mater Plan is 21 metres higher than permitted for the area. I believe a slender tower may have got through on aesthetic grounds but certainly not this massive block. That should have been obvious to the design team reading the Development Plan.
I understand (may be wrong) the medical review team didn't visit the actual site.0 -
I never said the development plan was law. I'm saying planning law has to be taken seriously. It has to be complied with insofar as it is applied by the relevant authorities.FreudianSlippers wrote: »My point is a simple one: the development plan is not a legally binding piece of law, the local authority or ABP can breach it with no worries. Just because legislation says that these plans must be made does not automatically make the contents binding.
I'm not arguing that ABP's decisions are not binding - if I gave that impression I apologise - I'm saying that the development plan is not legally binding.
Generally, I'm more than a little concerned at a view being put about that somehow the decision of An BP has no relevance, or that it is somehow of a lesser order of importance than providing for medical needs (there was a huge PR push to this effect immediately the An BP decision was publicised). I don't think the two are by definition in competition. It's just my view that in this case there was distinct attempt to run roughshod over planning concerns (and maybe the running isn't over!).
I'd be one of the people who would remember well how An BP was emasculated by FF governments only to be put back on the straight and narrow by FG-Labour coalitions. I think we need to respect planning law much more than we do. We also need to respect due process. Incidentally, I think it would also help if we had a higher standard of person steering both our legal and planning systems. In fact, right across the board (no pun intended).0 -
FreudianSlippers wrote: »17.6.3 of the development plan would be a good start.
17.6.3 supports refusal in my view...my comments in red - bolds mine.
All proposals for high buildings must have
regard to the following criteria:
Urban Form and Spatial Criteria
(see also sections 4.4.9 and 16.1)
■ Exhibit exceptional architectural
character and quality, creating a
building which is of slender proportions,
Mater proposal is hardly 'slender'
elegant, contemporary, stylish
debatable..
and in terms of form and profile, makes a
positive contribution to the city skyline,
city structure and topography.
Form and profile - hardly has a profile - more of a brick.
■ Create a positive relationship with the
immediate surroundings, both existing
and proposed buildings and prominent
features in the vicinity, as well as streets
and existing open spaces.
I've posted earlier where the Mater plan makes for a Berlin Wall effect at the end of those streets.
■ Successfully incorporate the building
into the existing urban grain: proposals
to be accompanied by a design
statement.
And again - lack of integration with the urban grain here...
■ Create positive urban design solutions
including new public spaces.
Concerned that they would not be open spaces, rather closed and locked 'roof gardens'.
■ Protect important views, landmarks,
prospects, roofscapes and vistas.
Fail
■ Protect the built and natural heritage of
the city.
Protected structures on site have some improvements, but ruins other vistas.
■ Ensure that the site is of an appropriate
size and context to allow for a welldesigned
setting of lower buildings and/
or landscaped open space.
Again plot ratio causes issues at ground level
■ Include an outstanding ground fl oor and
entrance design.
Meh
■ Ensure that the entrance is
proportionate to the scale of the entire
building and relates directly to the site’s
principal street frontages and allow easy
access for all users.
'Easy access' is part of the fuss is it not?
■ Use materials of the highest quality in
the design of the building façade.
Hmmm.. give it that.
■ Consider signage, branding and lighting
at the outset as part of the overall
design approach and submit details
at the application stage, including an
assessment of potential impacts of light
pollution on the immediate and wider
context.
Haven't seen any light renders
■ Consider the impact on the scale and
quality of existing streetscapes, spaces
and buildings.
Massive impact, largely negative.
■ Consider the impact on protected
structures, conservation areas, and the
architectural character and setting of
existing buildings, streets, and spaces
of artistic, civic and historic importance,
in particular, the building’s relationship
with the historic city centre, the river
Liffey and quays, Trinity College,
Dublin Castle, the historic squares and
precincts, the Phoenix Park, the Royal
Hospital, Kilmainham and the canals.
Massive impact, largely negative.You'd have to look at the rules of judicial review if you wanted to see if you qualified to bring a motion against ABP to the High Court.
Anyone can bring an appeal to ABP, that's what I meant. Therefore the Development Plan is 'enforceable' in a meaningful, legalistic way.There is no upper limit in the development plan, just guidelines for the different "bands" for each area.
Read it again, there are only four areas where 50+m is acceptable. The Mater site is not one, the Heuston site is one and could co-locate with James'.
Can we agree to stop posting over each other? I know I started it...but it is becoming annoying.0 -
The problem with the plan and your points is that it is highly subjective. Another person may look at the building in line with the guidelines in the development plan and reach a completely different conclusion.
As for slender proportions, the building is quite slender when viewed from a head-on angle. Therefore causing minimal visual disturbance when viewed from the city centre/OCS/Trinity, etc. The "side" view was not very obstructive unless viewed from a relatively close proximity.
As for posting over, I'm bored now anyway :P My point was that the development plan is not law and I think that's well and truly hashed out now (to whatever extent - I still say it isn't and I think you disagree).0 -
FreudianSlippers wrote: »The problem with the plan and your points is that it is highly subjective. Another person may look at the building in line with the guidelines in the development plan and reach a completely different conclusion.
Residents fought tooth and nail for better clarity, the city manager presented waffle and aspirations. Apologies, all that time spend on meetings and submissions and we didn't get it clear enough for you. 50m vs 71m is pretty clear though, hey? Try taking an active part through a development plan process sometime, you have to fight for every word and then double and triple check the wording does not get 'accidentally' put back the way it was.FreudianSlippers wrote: »As for slender proportions, the building is quite slender when viewed from a head-on angle. Therefore causing minimal visual disturbance when viewed from the city centre/OCS/Trinity, etc. The "side" view was not very obstructive unless viewed from a relatively close proximity.
If you close your eyes you would't be able to see it either. "Quite Slender" is having a laugh to be honest.
Relatively close being the streets people live on?My point was that the development plan is not law
I never said it was, I said it was a contract - and backed that up with Supreme court opinion
0 -
Advertisement
-
But my point is and has always been there is no rule against 71m buildings per se0
-
It's subjective to the extent that local authorities have considerable freedom to give plans the texture they want. I suppose it's pretty arbitrary for Berlin to impose a general limit of 22m on their building lines. But maybe it's also informed by common sense as well. But the plan once adopted is relatively objective. And it is this stage that we are dealing with.FreudianSlippers wrote: »The problem with the plan and your points is that it is highly subjective. Another person may look at the building in line with the guidelines in the development plan and reach a completely different conclusion.
As for slender proportions, the building is quite slender when viewed from a head-on angle. Therefore causing minimal visual disturbance when viewed from the city centre/OCS/Trinity, etc. The "side" view was not very obstructive unless viewed from a relatively close proximity.
As for posting over, I'm bored now anyway :P My point was that the development plan is not law and I think that's well and truly hashed out now (to whatever extent - I still say it isn't and I think you disagree).
My point is subjective only to the extent that I agree with An BP's determination in this case.
I would say I'm generally (and subjectively) in favour of retaining as much of Georgian (and Victorian) Dublin as is possible. And of a low building line in the core city. Outside the centre, AFAIC pretty much anything goes. If people want a mini-Manhattan down towards the Docks or on the M-50, that's fine with me, so long as it doesn't prejudice the living conditions of local communities. That's my subjective view on visions for Dublin.0 -
FreudianSlippers wrote: »But my point is and has always been there is no rule against 71m buildings per se
(bangs head on wall)
Clearly up to 50m is permitted on the site by the Development Plan. By extrapolation a 71m building is not permitted.
Are there exceptions? Very rarely - and then they must be architectural wet-dreams, and slender - as I have quoted.
Sorry, but this a slug on steroids that you are trying desperately to excuse. And I understand the reasons, and they are noble. But political interference has meant that this was proposed on an unsuitable site. Picking at the development plan will not make the site any more suitable for the quantum of development required.0 -
You've clearly set out the circumstances where a building over 50m will be allowed. It does not follow that a building over 50m is not allowed and you know full well that the development plan does not say this.(bangs head on wall)
Clearly up to 50m is permitted on the site by the Development Plan. By extrapolation a 71m building is not permitted.
Are there exceptions? Very rarely - and then they must be architectural wet-dreams, and slender - as I have quoted.
Sorry, but this a slug on steroids that you are trying desperately to excuse. And I understand the reasons, and they are noble. But political interference has meant that this was proposed on an unsuitable site. Picking at the development plan will not make the site any more suitable for the quantum of development required.
I can't believe people can see "political interference" but refuse to acknowledge the problems with a greenfield site owned by developers who are very vocal about refusing the Mater site (gee I wonder why?)0 -
FreudianSlippers wrote: »You've clearly set out the circumstances where a building over 50m will be allowed. It does not follow that a building over 50m is not allowed and you know full well that the development plan does not say this.
It is in exceptional circumstances and you know full well that this building does not match the criteria laid down in the development plan.I can't believe people can see "political interference" but refuse to acknowledge the problems with a greenfield site owned by developers who are very vocal about refusing the Mater site (gee I wonder why?)
Don't lump me in with that lot Thank YOU!
I've made my support for the James Nix proposal of using failed high-rise development at Heuston, and Steeven's/James' co-location as an alternative site very clear.0 -
I've made my support for the James Nix proposal of using failed high-rise development at Heuston, and Steeven's/James' co-location as an alternative site very clear.
I won't bother to search back on the thread to see if you 'liked' any greenfield site comments (or posted any) but its funny the Mater site is inaccessible but a site 'five minutes away' suddenly has no accessibility issues. Is this the 'ideal' site??MadsL wrote:Go Google Map the distances, are you seriously telling me that 5 minutes additional travel distance (probably 2.5 minutes in an ambulance) should dictate where the NPH should go.
Funny that a Dublin city centre location doesn't bother you for that site, didn't see you respond to those calling this a 'Dublin Children's Hospital'. I mean a greenfield m50 site would be more accessible? Are you finally recognising accessibility shouldn't be the priority and something like access to medical personnel, equipment and speciality should be the main criterion.
Well I don't think you're quite there yet, as it is now even more apparant that you object to the Mater site based on its impact to the skyline. You reject/undermine/ignore the expert medical reviews that have picked the Mater as 'flimsy'. What collaborative international review are you citing instead to support your Heuston idea?
Don't get me wrong, if you can produce a few reports and it turns out that medical experts agree on that site based on its medical benefits then illchange my mind. I'm in a position where I can change my mind based on best available evidence - but you aren't - because you reject the Mater site.
Oh and Heuston would just be 5 minutes extra away from the specialities in Beaumont...and the specialities in the Mater. Actually what specialities would it have on site? you know not being co-located with an adult hospital.0 -
@MadsL
Exactly when did you get behind the James Nix Heuston/James 'proposal'? It is in inverted comments because to equate his opinion piece with a series of reviews from international experts (the last one alone costing over 100,000 euro) is a joke. Was it before or after the Mater proposal was refused by planners?
Its quite odd that you lend your support to this (a one page opinion piece) while calling this, this and this flimsy.
This terms of reference nonsense could drag on for years. What terms of reference would suit you? Ones that considered your favoured proposal? But others could easily say that they then were precluded from considering new sites being offered by farmers or publicans or what about all of the greenfield sites available everywhere else around the country? Its a stitch up, they'd say, the government limit the terms of reference to Dublin sites.
So which of these should be excluded or do you want every proposal to be considered, and reconsidered.
People like you are responsible for the protracted nature of planning in this country. For the luas taking over a decade in planning, for the Metro delayed to a point where we haven't the money to begin, for the docklands only being a half developed mess. A commenter on the James Nix 'opinion piece' summed it up nicelySounds nice - except you subtract a minimum of three years from the start date of the project. Then of course there's the planning objections, the NIMBYs and unending line of vested interests from other sites competing to trip the alternative site up.
Switching sites simply rewards the petulant behavior to switch sites emboldening the begrudges of future government decisions to fight (senselessly or otherwise) for their preferred outcome, well past decision time.
The government needs to stamp it's authority on the debate by introducing retroactive legislation to bypass Pleanala - job done, construction starts.
Who benefits from these delays and reapplications and all of this wrangling?
Hmmmm, in some way lawyers I'd imagine.....0 -
Well you seem to find it hard to read what I wrote a few pages back, this thread is a lot shorter than that report. To my reading consideration of James' seem a bit 'thin'.
Quote:
A further evaluation of the two remaining sites, St James’ Hospital and the Mater Hospital was undertaken which was focused on site capacity. The outcome of the evaluation exercise was that the Mater Hospital
site was chosen as the preferred option on the basis of their submission.
linky
So if you add in site lands at Heuston/Steeven's where the failed high-rise developments are. Doesn't that change the proposition?
That is rubbish - James' was always recognised as having greater site capacity than the Mater, it wasn't pipped at the post for that reason - read the ACTUAL report that I've linked to above - no wait I'll quote it for you seeing as you'd be so good to quote for my sake.7.2.5 Stage 5 (Narrowing down the options)
Governance
As stated earlier in the report all six potential locations demonstrated that they would
meet the criteria in relation to the proposed governance arrangements.
Co-location benefits
Some hospitals have a distinct advantage over others in the context of co-location
benefits. In terms of the breadth of consultant staffing, and therefore the ability to add value
across a maximum number of clinical areas particularly in regard of transitional care,
St James’s Hospital has the greatest number of current consultant appointments,
followed by Beaumont Hospital and the Mater Misericordiae Hospital. With regard
to depth of clinical specialisation Beaumont Hospital, the Mater Misericordiae
Hospital and St James’s Hospital have certain advantages over the other hospitals.
Neurosurgery, neurosciences, the cancer programme, renal transplant and cochlear
implantation are important strengths for Beaumont Hospital. The Mater Misericordiae
Hospital’s cardiothoracic programme, lung transplant and spinal injuries unit are
important strengths in the Mater Hospital. The haematology, burns, pathology units
and the cancer programme are important strengths in St James’s Hospital. These
strengths give these three hospitals added advantages for a paediatric hospital colocating
on their sites. With regard to the specialties that will complement the
development of a level 1 paediatric trauma centre at the new hospital, St Vincent’s
University Hospital and AMNCH, Tallaght and Connolly Hospital, Blanchardstown
are not national centres for Neurosurgery, burns treatment or cardiothoracic surgery.
In the case of AMNCH, Tallaght, while there is a strong orthopaedic team there, the
other hospitals also have considerable orthopaedic capacity.
The current paediatric caseload demonstrates the specific paediatric work done by
Beaumont Hospital particularly in the neurosciences.
The paediatric shared appointments demonstrate the important relationship between
the adult services at The Mater Misericordiae Hospital and the Children’s University
Hospital, Temple Street / OLHSC, Crumlin and between St James’s Hospital and
OLHSC, Crumlin over and above those pertaining elsewhere.
All the hospitals demonstrated research output with publications in key international
journals. However the volume and import of the academic output of hospitals is a
product of the size of their workforce. Hence the larger adult hospitals have an
advantage in this regard.
Taking all these elements into consideration, the Joint Task Group concluded that
Beaumont, St James’s and The Mater Misericordiae hospitals have a clear advantage
over the other proposed hospitals in terms of clinical co-location benefits.
In the absence of a detailed evidence base that gives greater value to one specialty
over another, and in light of the existing configuration of existing specialties between
the hospitals under consideration, it was not possible, utilising the clinical co-location
benefits to further separate the hospitals concerned. It is important to note that all
three bring significant benefits to a tertiary paediatric hospital; however, none have
the full range of services required to support a Level 1 paediatric trauma centre within
the paediatric hospital.
Access
Following detailed assessment of the adult hospital sites in relation to the criteria
under “access” described elsewhere in this report, it was considered that Beaumont
Hospital was significantly less suitable than St. James’s Hospital or the Mater Misericordiae Hospital in terms of ease of access, particularly for the secondary
catchment population.
Consequently subsequent detailed assessment focused on St. James’s and the Mater Misericordiae hospital sites. Planning and development considerations - St. James’s and Mater Misericordiae hospital sites.
Having considered the narrowing of options under the headlines of “Governance”
“Co-location benefits” and “Access” as noted above, it was concluded by the Joint
Task Group that further detailed assessment from a planning and development
perspective should concentrate on the two hospital sites that offered greatest
advantages, namely the Mater Misericordiae Hospital and St. James’s Hospital.
Both of these sites share a number of critical characteristics, particularly their:
• Urban location
• Intensity of current use
• Varied building stock in terms of age, condition and function
• Issues of site access during construction
• Issues of maintaining acceptable clinical conditions during construction
• Potential for community gain and urban regeneration
Since the size, complexity, direct costs and programme for the construction phase of
the Children’s Hospital project will be essentially the same for these two urban
locations, the assessment focused on areas where differences were most apparent.
The key relative advantages and disadvantages of each of these two sites, the Mater
Misericordiae Hospital and St. James’s Hospital, from a planning and development
perspective only, are summarised below:
1. The Mater Misericordiae Hospital:
Advantages:
�� Relatively clear site
�� Substantial portion of the enabling works required have already been
completed
�� Demonstrable planning clarity, and ‘back to back’ synergy of
concurrent adult and children’s development
�� The future availability of the adjacent Temple Street
Disadvantages:
�� Smaller site (6.15 hectares on main hospital campus plus buildings
along Eccles St. and Nelson St.)
�� Less capacity to accommodate further developments
�� More sensitive planning and development context
2. St. James’s Hospital:
Advantages:
�� Greater site area and capacity (24.3 hectares)
�� Clearer ability to accommodate further developments
Disadvantages:
�� Greater need for ‘enabling’ works
�� Greater future costs associated with site preparation
�� Potentially longer programme to delivery
From a planning and development perspective, both the Mater Misericordiae Hospital
and St. James’s hospitals demonstrated capacity to accommodate a paediatric hospital
of up to 585 beds with ensuing research capacity and a full maternity hospital
Oh and I'll quote this paragraph because you obviously missed itMaximising paediatric access to relevant off site adult sub-specialties. Because of the historic development of adult specialties in Dublin, neither hospital has the full range of adult sub-specialties that ideally would be available in the colocated hospital. Thus the selected location, which will have all paediatric subspecialties (including clinical capacity in neurosurgery, cardio-thoracic and burns management), will have to develop clear cross-site, team-working arrangements with
the corresponding adult specialist teams where these are based at other off –site adult hospitals. In the context of the current configuration of adult specialties, the Mater Misericordiae Hospital is in a better geographical position to facilitate a clinical network of critical adult and paediatric specialties, particularly in acute services such as neurosurgery and in terms of the neuroscience services available across the Mater Misericordiae Hospital and Beaumont Hospital. Siting the paediatric hospital at the Mater Misericordiae Hospital site would place it between the neurosurgical and 4 6 transplant teams in Beaumont Hospital and the haematology/radiotherapy and burns staff in St James’s
So READ the reports before making comments likeAs I quoted for you earlier, perhaps you could point me to where James' was ruled out "based on lack of proximity to the specialities in Beaumont".
It wasn't a reason James' was ruled out, but another reason the Mater was chosen
This is what we get from our education system. People relying on newspaper opinion pieces to make their mind up rather than well considered expert international panel reports. But of course those reports are not 'well considered' because they didn't quite consider someones favoured proposal enough, as in consider it to the point of choosing it.
They considered James' and they ruled out James'. The Mater was chosen based on best international medical advice and is now being stopped/delayed based on a planning decision. Whether that planning decision is based on a DCC development plan or otherwise is irrelevant. As FS has argued, the development plan constitutes interpretable guidelines, and did not envision the need for a high rise childrens hospital in this area. The need has arisen. Planning must be flexible to the exceptional needs of society.0 -
Generally, I'm more than a little concerned at a view being put about that somehow the decision of An BP has no relevance, or that it is somehow of a lesser order of importance than providing for medical needs (there was a huge PR push to this effect immediately the An BP decision was publicised). I don't think the two are by definition in competition. It's just my view that in this case there was distinct attempt to run roughshod over planning concerns (and maybe the running isn't over!).
Run roughshod? Run? It has been six years in planning and consultation. If this was a private development, a casino, hotel or shopping centre (some non-vital project) rather than a key state facility then you would have a point. Your view of a totally inflexible ABP that is tied by a development plan is scarier than the strawman you build about 'ABPs decision having no relevance'. Of course the planning advice should be considered - in the round with all the other considerations, and the medical advice should have priority.
Imagine if for some reason (climate change, solar storm, insert unlikely reason here) we needed to erect 100m towers dotted around the city to protect the health of citizens, there would be STICKLERS like yourself saying 'ah wait a minute lads, thats not in the development plan'. Get your priorities straight. This is an exceptional project, nobody is arguing that every proposal should get to circumvent planning, this is a badly needed piece of state infrastructure that is best placed in the Mater site based on an independent international review. If you cannot make planning exceptions in cases like this then the whole planning system has swung like a pendulum from being too lax to being restrictive.0 -
Laminations wrote: »I won't bother to search back on the thread to see if you 'liked' any greenfield site comments (or posted any) but its funny the Mater site is inaccessible but a site 'five minutes away' suddenly has no accessibility issues. Is this the 'ideal' site??
Sorry? I thought you wanted a co-location site? If the Mater won't work (and there are also expansion issues such as the 20% growth limitation that no-one seems to be addressing. See my comment earlier about Crumlin's growth of 40% in ten years.) then James' co-location seems to be an acceptable alternative.
Go have a good look at the accessibility for that site; a National route connecting within 5 minutes to the M50. A major rail hub, and a LUAS connection. Compare that with the bus to the Mater.
Why is it funny? I have never opposed high-rise in the Dockland's or Heuston. The U2 tower was ego-maniacal but other than that I think Heuston is fine for high-rise.Funny that a Dublin city centre location doesn't bother you for that site,
Direct rail access at Heuston would address a lot of those concerns would it not. Would it not be better to site this next to a major rail hub, than a pie-in-the-sky 'Metro' project only proposed to keep a certain Swords developer pumping the money into FF.didn't see you respond to those calling this a 'Dublin Children's Hospital'.
Where did I support the M50 site?I mean a greenfield m50 site would be more accessible?
I have always recognised that, but the Mater simply doesn't work as a site can you not recognise that?Are you finally recognising accessibility shouldn't be the priority and something like access to medical personnel, equipment and speciality should be the main criterion.
Medical, not planning.Well I don't think you're quite there yet, as it is now even more apparant that you object to the Mater site based on its impact to the skyline. You reject/undermine/ignore the expert medical reviews that have picked the Mater as 'flimsy'.
There isn't one because the reviews were not allowed to consider other sites.What collaborative international review are you citing instead to support your Heuston idea?
There are a number of medical experts who have been vocal against the Mater site, why are they wrong and your other experts right?Don't get me wrong, if you can produce a few reports and it turns out that medical experts agree on that site based on its medical benefits then illchange my mind.
Stuck record. So even if you have to scale back the quantum of development it has to be the Mater. Do you work there or something?I'm in a position where I can change my mind based on best available evidence - but you aren't - because you reject the Mater site.
http://www.stjames.ie/AboutUs/Specialties/ and you have answered that in your own quote "haematology, burns, pathology unitsOh and Heuston would just be 5 minutes extra away from the specialities in Beaumont...and the specialities in the Mater. Actually what specialities would it have on site? you know not being co-located with an adult hospital.
and the cancer programme are important strengths in St James’s Hospital. "
What would be difficult about movement between Heuston and James'? It could actually have people-mover underground or overground linkages.
As the crow flies it is less than 1km to that site.
For all your talk about specialties at Beaumont - Beaumont is 5km away from the Mater. Five times the distance.
Oddly enough both the Beaumont and James' got oncology upgrades recently. I don't see anyone kicking up a stink about a National Cancer Hospital.Run roughshod? Run? It has been six years in planning and consultation. If this was a private development, a casino, hotel or shopping centre (some non-vital project) rather than a key state facility then you would have a point. Your view of a totally inflexible ABP that is tied by a development plan is scarier than the strawman you build about 'ABPs decision having no relevance'. Of course the planning advice should be considered - in the round with all the other considerations, and the medical advice should have priority.
Oh it's a hospital??? The "won't someone think of the children" argument once more - well in that case...you win. Please. It's a tired argument that you keep bring up - do give it a rest.Imagine if for some reason (climate change, solar storm, insert unlikely reason here) we needed to erect 100m towers dotted around the city to protect the health of citizens, there would be STICKLERS like yourself saying 'ah wait a minute lads, thats not in the development plan'.
Talking of strawmen, can you see the one in the scenario above. In the case you mentioned, the need for the towers is not is dispute. However the specific location of these mythical towers could be disputed. You are saying the Mater must be the site. Others are saying that there are alternatives, you are making the case that because a report considered a couple of alternatives that the ONLY suitable site is the Mater. That is patently absurd.
Thanks. I'll bear it in mind.Get your priorities straight.This is an exceptional project, nobody is arguing that every proposal should get to circumvent planning, this is a badly needed piece of state infrastructure that is best placed in the Mater site based on an independent international review.
Let me rephrase that slightly.
This is a planning cock-up, that has had a review limited in scope and shaped to fit the PR view that this is the best site and we would like everyone to ignore planning and look the other way for a bit while we build it.
It cost future generations billions in bailouts when it was too lax so now we don't have the money to build hospitals. Those trying to reform planning are now the bad guys??If you cannot make planning exceptions in cases like this then the whole planning system has swung like a pendulum from being too lax to being restrictive.
So let me ask you, if you could deliver the same level of medical care and capacity in the same time frame at a Heuston/Steeven's/James' co-location site (with a few landswaps/access permisions from Diageo) would you oppose it because you are so convinced that the Mater site is so gold-plated?0 -
Advertisement
-
It is in exceptional circumstances and you know full well that this building does not match the criteria laid down in the development plan.
Don't lump me in with that lot Thank YOU!
I've made my support for the James Nix proposal of using failed high-rise development at Heuston, and Steeven's/James' co-location as an alternative site very clear.
James's is indeed the only other hospital suitable to co-locate with the NCH. However the specialties in the Mater have the edge (as well as having great potential to expand specialties into pediatrics) and it's a pity that site is causing so much friction. James's is no more or less accessible than the Mater.0 -
There are a number of medical experts who have been vocal against the Mater site, why are they wrong and your other experts right?
So let me ask you, if you could deliver the same level of medical care and capacity in the same time frame at a Heuston/Steeven's/James' co-location site (with a few landswaps/access permisions from Diageo) would you oppose it because you are so convinced that the Mater site is so gold-plated?
I think it's important to point out that the medical experts opposed to the Mater are not impartial (living and working in Dublin). Some do not want co-location (or amalgamation)and would like to see e.g. Crumlin upgraded and expanded. This is simply not best practice and I'm not sure whose interests are being served in this regard.
The last report instigated by Minister Reilly was very clear in pointing out that our pediatric services are fractured and our sick children would be served best by a NCH, that would be co-located with an adult teaching hospital. The four international leading pediatricians were very firm in their views. The Mater has the edge over St James. They concluded that ....
""The co-location of the NPH with an adult hospital was seen as advantageous by almost all of the stakeholder groups who presented to the clinical review team. The review team agrees with this view". The Mater site is not perfect. There is no perfect location in Dublin. ... "It is sometimes said that ‘the enemy of excellence is perfection’. Of all those who were critical of this site, none offered concrete alternatives. Rather, there was comment about the specific attributes of an ideal location that were absent from the Mater site.
The reality is that no perfect site is available, and consequently the review team considered those options that are viable and achievable. We understand that no one site has all of the requisite adult and current paediatric services that make that site a perfect choice. Given those services that are available, and the plan to consolidate others at the Mater site, our recommendation is again reinforced.
We unequivocally believe that co-locating with tertiary adult and maternity hospitals is essential to the development of an excellent paediatric service. This has become best practice internationally and was recognized in the McKinsey report. A good community based children's hospital could be developed on a green field alternative but it would not be able to offer the full range of tertiary and quaternary services that can be developed in concert with adult and maternity services. In effect the current fragmentation of services would persist".
The four doctors were ...
Dr James Mandell, paediatric urologist, Chair of the Board, National Association of Children’s hospitals (North America); Chief Executive of the Children’s Hospital Boston; Chair of the Clinical Review Team.
Dr James Shmerling, Chief Executive Officer of the Children’s Hospital of Colorado.
Dr Peter Steer, paediatrician and neonatologist, Chief Executive Officer of Children’s Health Services, Queensland, Australia.
Dr Jane Collins, paediatric neurologist and Chief Executive of the Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children.0 -
We unequivocally believe that co-locating with tertiary adult and maternity hospitals is essential to the development of an excellent paediatric service.
Three words to prove the exception to the rule - Great. Ormond. Street.
I'm generally in agreement with the sentiment but isn't the case that only a few of the locations selected in that report for comparison were co-located?0 -
Three words to prove the exception to the rule - Great. Ormond. Street.
Dr Jane Collins, paediatric neurologist and Chief Executive of the Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children recommended the Mater.
Look there is no debating with you. You reject an independent report from international experts while using a newspaper opinion piece as support for an alternative site. The poster above is correct, many of the Irish experts have vested interests. And there will always be alternative sites. If they were to consider yours people would still cry foul as they didn't consider Cork or Athlone or some newly offered land in Sillogue...
And they've already assessed James'. The Marer won out. As for me accepting James', I would if an international independent panel of experts recommended it - they didn't. If it offered all of the clinical benefits of the Mater it would've been the chosen site. It wasn't. Sorry if this sounds like a stuck record but facts don't seem to be sinking in with you so repetition is necessary.
I could ask a similar question to you - if you couldn't deliver the same level of medical care and capacity in the same time frame at a Heuston/Steeven's/James' co-location site would you still support it?
Because in spite of a comprehensive review you still support somewhere other than the Mater......based on what? A newspaper opinion piece. Reminds me of the very intelligent folk who on the one hand have mountains of scientific evidence about the reality of climate change but decide to believe its not happening based on the ramblings of someone like Jim Corr. There is no getting through to someone like that. So, I'm out. Maybe you could get a bunch of opinion pieces and compile them all in a dossier and mark it with felt pen 'my hospital proposal' and submit that to the government?
Oh and personal abuse? If the 'proposal' you support is based on nothing but opinion when the Mater plan is based on independent reviews (which took your site into consideration and still picked the Mater) then expect to be called out on it. You have this fascination in your head that 'I' chose the Mater site and I'll stick with it regardless for personal reasons. Truth is if the independent body picked Athlone I'd go along with them and if another international expert review panel suggested that another site was equally suitable I'd support that - but I'm not going to switch my support based on your 'opinion' or James Nix's opinion (Nix BTW can't calculate distances or area to save his life. Your 1km is far more accurate than his 90m distance between Heuston and James'. But hey, underground tunnels, wow, tell me more about those)
You are wrong. The evidence is against you. You refuse to accept the recommendation of international experts. Produce a report from a panel of independent experts with similar or better credentials and you'll start to have a case, you can't so you don't. You'll remain wrong but you'll do it with conviction. You'll 'belieeeve' you are right and the experts aren't as smart as you.0 -
MOD NOTE:
This thread is going around in a death spiral circles. If nobody has anything new to add, I suspect we may be done here.0 -
Laminations wrote: »Dr Jane Collins, paediatric neurologist and Chief Executive of the Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children recommended the Mater.
You missed the point, Great Ormond Street is not co-located, neither are the majority of the other Children's Hospitals considered as world-class examples.Look there is no debating with you.
No? So you resorted to personal abuse instead.You reject an independent report from international experts while using a newspaper opinion piece as support for an alternative site.
I've expressed my views as to why the Mater is unsuitable for that quantum of development. ABP rejected the plans, I indicated that a site at Heuston would be suitable in my view, but ultimately it is up to the project team to figure that one out. Yet, you want to crucify anyone who dares to suggest anywhere else but the Mater? Why is that? Is there no debating with you either>
Therefore the Mater is the only option?The poster above is correct, many of the Irish experts have vested interests. And there will always be alternative sites. If they were to consider yours people would still cry foul as they didn't consider Cork or Athlone or some newly offered land in Sillogue...And they've already assessed James'. The Marer won out.
They assessed the James' site alone, not a mix of James' and other land adjacent to James'.
So you won't take the second choice? So you would prefer a cut-down down version of the original proposal verses a full-size version at James'??As for me accepting James', I would if an international independent panel of experts recommended it - they didn't.If it offered all of the clinical benefits of the Mater it would've been the chosen site. It wasn't. Sorry if this sounds like a stuck record but facts don't seem to be sinking in with you so repetition is necessary.
Clinical is one consideration, access is another, planning and urban considerations are another. You don't seem to want to see any other considerations. Repeat all you want, ABP made a decision, now the team need a plan.I could ask a similar question to you - if you couldn't deliver the same level of medical care and capacity in the same time frame at a Heuston/Steeven's/James' co-location site would you still support it?
You haven't show that it is not possible, adding additional site capacity at Heuston eliminates the basis for the rejection of James' in the first placeDisadvantages:
Greater need for ‘enabling’ works
Greater future costs associated with site preparation
Potentially longer programme to delivery
The site prep is done for highrise at Heuston, and the 'potentially longer programme' to delivery could be substantially shortened give some agreements with ABP given existing permissions for the site. As the report is vague on 'enabling' I don't know what they meant by that.Because in spite of a comprehensive review you still support somewhere other than the Mater......based on what?
Based on 2nd choice of the 'comprehensive review' you keep banging on about, and some common sense.A newspaper opinion piece. Reminds me of the very intelligent folk who on the one hand have mountains of scientific evidence about the reality of climate change but decide to believe its not happening based on the ramblings of someone like Jim Corr.
More personal abuse. Thanks.
All or nothing eh?There is no getting through to someone like that. So, I'm out.Maybe you could get a bunch of opinion pieces and compile them all in a dossier and mark it with felt pen 'my hospital proposal' and submit that to the government?
Maybe you could stop with the sarky tone?Oh and personal abuse? If the 'proposal' you support is based on nothing but opinion when the Mater plan is based on independent reviews (which took your site into consideration and still picked the Mater) then expect to be called out on it.
Show me where Heuston SQ was considered in your report and I'll agree with you. Thank you for 'calling me on it', I feel suitably chastened. Perhaps you might answer my previous comments now about planning concerns.You have this fascination in your head that 'I' chose the Mater site and I'll stick with it regardless for personal reasons.
You don't seem to credit anyone who opposed the Mater as having any intelligence. I'm not the only one, including medical experts.
Truth is if the independent body picked Athlone I'd go along with them and if another international expert review panel suggested that another site was equally suitable I'd support that -
Great, lets get a proposal together, reviewed by a panel of international experts and off we go. End of problem.but I'm not going to switch my support based on your 'opinion' or James Nix's opinion
So lets get a panel of experts to consider the options now the Mater is off the table - would that be ok? Or will you continue to whine?(Nix BTW can't calculate distances or area to save his life. Your 1km is far more accurate than his 90m distance between Heuston and James'. But hey, underground tunnels, wow, tell me more about those)
I believe he was referring to Steeven's as 90m away. And underground connections are more likely to be built than Metro North....You are wrong. The evidence is against you.
No - the planning team got it wrong. Why do you insist on personally attacking someone with a different view.You refuse to accept the recommendation of international experts.
You refuse to accept the recommendation of An Bord Pleanála. Now what is Plan B - is there one?
What a nonsensical argument, you might as well say produce a blue banana. The report is there in front of you from ABP, the site does not work from a planning point of view. Now, either come up with a different plan (I don't think you really want an underground hospital) or find another site.Produce a report from a panel of independent experts with similar or better credentials and you'll start to have a case, you can't so you don't.You'll remain wrong but you'll do it with conviction. You'll 'belieeeve' you are right and the experts aren't as smart as you.
Again with sarcasm and ridicule, a real pleasure debating with you.0 -
Rosie; Apologies - saw your post after I was responding.
I agree that discussion of the ABP decision has run it's course. Perhaps we could move away from the decision into the Plan B discussion.
So what now? A cut-down Mater plan or an alternative site?0 -
I'd rather see an alternative (co-located inner city) site than a "cut down" Mater site. How high or what "shape" would you like to see the Mater alternative?Rosie; Apologies - saw your post after I was responding.
I agree that discussion of the ABP decision has run it's course. Perhaps we could move away from the decision into the Plan B discussion.
So what now? A cut-down Mater plan or an alternative site?
I still believe that the Mater is the best site for this, but will a 50m building be enough? Will 50m even be acceptable to ABP?0 -
Rosie; Apologies - saw your post after I was responding.
I agree that discussion of the ABP decision has run it's course. Perhaps we could move away from the decision into the Plan B discussion.
So what now? A cut-down Mater plan or an alternative site?
How can we speculate on plan B? The review group would decide that. I'd probably be of the same opinion as FS but when I pit my opinion against a multi site review the panels expertise wiuld win out. In other words I'll accept their expert judgement.
Plan B involves another review. And a report in about two months. So what if this review doesn't look at your suggested site? Would you accept it's recommendations? What if it looks at your site but doesn't chose it? Would you accept it's recommendations? What if it choses your site? Would you accept it's recommendations?
Now imagine it makes it's decision after reviewing multiple options including your preferred one. And imagine we have another person SadsF who complains that their favoured site wasn't included in the review. Now there is a multitude of people like that, all with their own opinions. Can you see the the review will never please everyone, why do you expect it to satisfy your suggestions?
And you didn't give a great answer to the 100m tower scenario. Imagine everyone agrees they are necessary and like you say a dispute arises about location (just like the NPH). And an independent international panel of experts gives their decision as to the best location. And it contravenes the development plan. In that case would you push for a second best less effective location or strive for best option? Would you suggest the towers go in the best location but be truncated damaging their usefulness?0 -
Advertisement
-
Laminations wrote: »How can we speculate on plan B? The review group would decide that. I'd probably be of the same opinion as FS but when I pit my opinion against a multi site review the panels expertise wiuld win out. In other words I'll accept their expert judgement.
Plan B involves another review. And a report in about two months. So what if this review doesn't look at your suggested site? Would you accept it's recommendations? What if it looks at your site but doesn't chose it? Would you accept it's recommendations? What if it choses your site? Would you accept it's recommendations?
Of course we can speculate, but you are right in saying there will be another review. I'm not campaigning for Heuston per se, but I can see the merits. Can you not see any merit in that site?Now imagine it makes it's decision after reviewing multiple options including your preferred one. And imagine we have another person SadsF who complains that their favoured site wasn't included in the review. Now there is a multitude of people like that, all with their own opinions. Can you see the the review will never please everyone, why do you expect it to satisfy your suggestions?
SadsF - oh, I see what you did there, very good. More personal abuse and sarky tone from you.why do you expect it to satisfy your suggestions?
Err, where am I saying that? All I'm asking is for the site, the same as any other development, is to satisfy planning requirements. They are not MY suggestions but you insist on personalising this debate. It is not about me. It is about sustainable planning and development.
Actually I did, I identified it as a strawman. It is. Your tower scenario is not the same as building a hospital.And you didn't give a great answer to the 100m tower scenario.Imagine everyone agrees they are necessary and like you say a dispute arises about location (just like the NPH). And an independent international panel of experts gives their decision as to the best location. And it contravenes the development plan. In that case would you push for a second best less effective location or strive for best option? Would you suggest the towers go in the best location but be truncated damaging their usefulness?
Your analogy presupposes an number of preconditions that simply are not present with the NPH, but continue concocting fantasies. I prefer to deal with the plans as submitted in the real world.
Now, let me ask you a question as I did earlier, would you rather see an alternative (co-located inner city) site than a "cut down" Mater site?0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement