Annabella1 wrote: » I think the findings from the Planners were reasonable.
murphaph wrote: » Whatever about the rights and wrongs of the decision....it is unfathomable that a large scale infrastructure project like this could be planned to this stage without being sure of securing PP. ABP should be involved from day one on a project of this scale and it should never happen that they do all this planning and then get a "REJECTED" letter back. This is where taxpayers money gets wasted folks-complete incompetence.
Frank McDonald wrote: In the view of An Bord Pleanála, echoing numerous objections made at the oral hearing last autumn and the findings of its own planning inspector, Una Crosse, this would “result in a dominant, visually incongruous structure” that would have a “profound negative impact on the appearance and visual amenity of the city skyline” and the northside Georgian core of the capital.
THE HEIGHT, bulk, scale and mass of the proposed children’s hospital of Ireland on the already elevated Mater site in Dublin “would have a profound negative impact on the appearance and visual amenity of the city skyline”, according to An Bord Pleanála. In what An Taisce described as “one of the most significant planning decisions in its history”, the board refused permission for the €650 million scheme, saying it would result in a “dominant, visually incongruous structure” in the northside Georgian core.This would contravene the Dublin City Development Plan (2011-2017), which “seeks to protect and enhance the skyline of the inner city and to ensure that all proposals for mid-rise and taller buildings make a positive contribution to the urban character of the city”.The limited site area available at the Mater to accommodate the hospital’s substantial floor of 100,000sq m (1,076,400sq ft) had resulted in a building of “very significant” bulk and height, including a 164m-long ward block, rising to 74m above ground. Notwithstanding its design quality, this would “adversely affect” the area and “seriously detract from the setting and character of protected structures, streetscapes and areas of conservation value and, in particular, the vistas of O’Connell Street and North Great George’s Street”.Although An Bord Pleanála referred to the “general acceptability of the proposal in terms of medical co-location on this inner-city hospital site”, the project “would constitute overdevelopment of the site . . . having regard to the site masterplan for the Mater campus submitted with this application”. The board – now reduced to just four members – considered the matter at five meetings and made its decision to refuse by three votes to one, saying the proposed scheme “would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area” for the reasons already given.However, it did not agree with senior planning inspector Una Crosse, who presided at an oral hearing last autumn, that the hospital would contravene Dublin City Council’s Phibsborough-Mountjoy Local Area Plan (LAP) or that the provision of off-street car parking on the site was inadequate.At the end of her 132-page report, Ms Crosse concluded that the application before the board was “the culmination of a process where the consideration of the impacts on the receiving environment have been second to clinical requirements”, and that this was “the crux of the issue”. She argued that the architects (O’Connell Mahon) had taken just one element of the LAP – its allowance for a building of “exceptional height” to accommodate the children’s hospital – and applied it right across the site “in order to provide for the clinical requirements of the proposed facility”.Ms Crosse also noted that there would be “little change in the visual impact of the proposal should the board decide to remove two floors . . . In addition to not solving the visual impact of the problem, removing floors would militate, in my opinion, against the provision of a suitable facility.”Even the environmental impact statement submitted by the applicants had shown an “adverse impact on the internationally significant St George’s Church of the highest order”, and she believed that such impacts would “negatively affect” Dublin’s candidacy as a Unesco World Heritage Site.Referring to traffic issues, Ms Crosse said the applicants’ assumption that only 13 per cent of the hospital’s staff would travel to work by car was “unrealistic and without adequate foundation”, as 36 per cent of staff at the adjoining Mater hospital, “with limited on-site parking” used their cars. She prefaced her conclusions by stating that the need for a children’s hospital was not in dispute. “I consider it essential that our country’s children are provided with a facility of exceptional standard, a centre of excellence”. It was just that this was “outweighed” by the proposal put forward. An Bord Pleanála decided that the National Paediatric Hospital Development Board would have to pay a total of €128,437.50 as a “reasonable contribution” towards its own costs and those of others – including Dublin City Council and third-party objectors – in dealing with the application.Some €30 million has already been spent by the hospital board – mainly in fees to architects, engineers and other consultants or experts – in progressing its plans. The Government was prepared to allocate €200 million from the proceeds of a sale of the National Lottery to the hospital project.
murphaph wrote: » Why don't we just abandon Dublin City Centre and leave it to rot? All this "move it to the M50" talk really bugs me: not everyone is in a position to own a car. The hospital's location should not be determined by "how easy is it to get to by car". Sometimes the harder option is the right one: develop the Mater site and provide the quality public transport a capital city like Dublin actually needs anyway to get to it. We always seem to look for the easy option in Ireland, whcih is why the country is such a shambles probably. All this talk of "if I have a screaming sick child in the back seat" is emotive and unlikely. If you have a seriously ill child you won't be taking the time to look for a parking space. You'll stop outside A&E and leave your car with the keys in the ignition as you run in with your child - you won't be looking for a pay and display machine ffs. If we are talking about visiting chronically ill kids in hospital then we are back to the public transport debate.
20Cent wrote: » I'm not talking about looking for parking I meant actually getting there. Getting through the city center in rushour, around Dorset St most days its very slow moving.
Laminations wrote: » Also the site is over what will be a metro station, just a short walk from Drumcondra train station and the proposed Phibsboro luas stop. If you value the 20mins journey time by car you save by having it on the outskirts of Dublin over providing the best care for your kids then I would guess you are in a minority I mean you are presumably willing to sit in traffic for every other amenity you can find in the city, but not for the welfare of a child.
20Cent wrote: » Sticking a children s hospital in the middle of a big traffic bottleneck is incredibly dumb. Its only proposed to put it there because of Bertie. Wouldn't be holding my breath about Metro North its been deferred already anyway. One developer is offering a free greenfield site, there must be Nama sites that would also be more suitable.
Since its inception in 1977, a civil servant was also a member, but this ceased in 2009
One former board member said: “The concern is palpable. There is not just no architectural or urban design expertise, there isn’t even conservation expertise. And with the departure of long-serving board members, there has been a loss of corporate memory.”
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. 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.
oppenheimer1 wrote: » Preserving the Georgian core, but at what cost? The city must be useful for its current residents, not just a preserved relic of times past.
20Cent wrote: » How about just putting the thing somewhere away from traffic in the first place. Makes more sense. I live in the city center and wouldn't fancy driving there in an emergency. People from outside of Dublin having to drive into the city unnecessarily is crazy imo.
The recent retirement of the previous long-serving chairman, the forthcoming retirement of the chief officer and the non-renewal of the terms of a number of existing board members, including the deputy chairman, gives rise to a real concern that there may be a loss of corporate memory at board level and within the management structure. This has the potential to impact upon decision-making by the board, particularly on complex cases, including strategic infrastructure development, and could leave it more vulnerable to successful legal challenge.
Annabella1 wrote: » Yes,the expert medical reports suggested that the Mater Site would be suitable but did anyone bother to ask ABP?? It is unbelievable that nobody had an inkling that this would have been refused by Planners. Looks like the taxpayer have paid 35million for a set of Architectural Drawings which will never be built. Time to look at a new site..I dont care where it's built as long as they get on with it
The proposed Children’s Hospital of Ireland, by its nature, requires a substantial floor area, in excess of 100,000 square metres, to accommodate the operational needs of the hospital. However, the footprint afforded to the proposed development on the Mater Campus, (circa 2 hectares), has resulted in a proposal for a very significant building in terms of bulk and height, including a 164 metre long ward block, rising to 74 metres above ground. Notwithstanding the general acceptability of the proposal in terms of medical co-location on this inner city hospital site, it is considered that the proposed development, by reason of its height, scale, form and mass, located on this elevated site, would result in a dominant, visually incongruous structure and would have a profound negative impact on the appearance and visual amenity of the city skyline. The proposed development would contravene policy SC18 of the Dublin City Development Plan, 2011-2017, which seeks to protect and enhance the skyline of the inner city and to ensure that all proposals for mid-rise and taller buildings make a positive contribution to the urban character of the city.
MadsL wrote: » A few renders for the forgetful...
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
marknjb wrote: » wouldnt like to have to take a seriously sick child into the mater the day of a big match in croke park
