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
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Childrens' Hospital Planning Refusal [PR]

1235

Comments

  • #202
    Laminations
    Registered Users Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    Re: opinion polls, most polls show the public is majority in favour of a different site.

    http://www.independent.ie/national-news/childrens-hospital-60pc-back-different-site-3038961.html

    http://www.thejournal.ie/poll-where-should-the-new-national-childrens-hospital-be-built-363511-Feb2012/

    http://www.irishhealth.com/poll.html

    and were against the mater site before ABP rejected the plans

    http://www.irishtimes.com/polls/index.cfm?fuseaction=yesnopoll&pollid=9561


    But since when does majority opinion make a decision right? Especially since none of those polled were screened based on their medical knowledge or whether they knew why the Mater was chosen - they'd likely think it was 'for Bertie'. Show me a poll of expert medical professionals who deem the Mater to be the wrong site, people who know the most important criteria on which to judge such a decision.

    Actually such a poll was conducted. The expert panel after a rigorous assessment chose the Mater site. Now we have people offering greenfield sites in Silloge and thinking thats all that is needed. And the public think 'Ooooh a free site, next to a motorway!!! that'll work'. Well are these farmers financing the replacement of the specialist services and consultants that would need to move from the Mater and nearby facilities? Or are they going to finance the hiring of all new specialist staff? A second site would require the duplication of services and would be more costly.

    See here for the (second) expert review group's conclusion on cost

    [Minister Reilly] said he noted the review's opinion that no site provided the perfect solution and that 'the enemy of excellence is perfection.'

    Yeah, keep looking for your 'ideal' site....


  • #203
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    Laminations wrote: »
    I doubt my objections to your objections would be noted. You certainly aren't noting them here.

    So you didn't bother making an observation, now you are crying foul. You had a legal process that gave you a voice but you didn't use it, what do want me to do now?

    As far as here is concerned your objections are duly noted. Now what?
    And their subjectivity is what? more objective then mine?
    'A small vote but so far 75% back ABP decision re childrens hospital on archiseek'
    Just bringing it to your attention, naturally quite a number of architects read that forum.
    Don't pretend you object based on it breaching DCC guidelines. If they changed the guidelines, then you would still object.

    You are missing the point. They are not guidelines, but a legal contract. That is why there is a statutory public consultation and it takes many months of consulatation and many nights of council meetings to agree the plan. Read any observation by An Taisce, they always make the legal argument based on the Development Plan.
    Also QUOTE the direct piece which forbids high rise development.

    God you have me there...:rolleyes: Now I'm stumped. FFS. Are you that lazy? Go read the development plan! It is your contract with the city. If you can't be bothered to read it to know what is in, then how do you expect me to educate you after the fact. However, as I'm feeling gracious here is a history lesson;

    ‘Maximising the City’s Potential: A Strategy for Intensification and Height’ was prepared and put on public display as a draft discussion document for consultation with the agreement of the Economic Development, Planning and European Affairs Strategic Policy Committee in November 2007 and the City Council in December 2007.The public display and consultation period extended over a three month period from January to April 2008. Further consultations by way a Conference held in Croke Park in April 2008.

    So you had ample opportunity to make your views heard by the city. The City Manager in particular would have been delighted had you made plea for 150m tall buildings.

    However, residents of the city made their voices heard and after much back and forth and clever wording being proposed you will read in the Dublin City Development Plan such words as;
    Dublin City Council acknowledges the intrinsic quality of Dublin as a low-rise city and it is policy that it should predominantly remain so.
    It is an objective of the Council to promote streets and public spaces which are human-scaled,
    For large developments (e.g. occupying more than 20m of street frontage) the height of buildings and how they positively relate to the scale of other buildings along the whole length and on both sides of the street must
    be demonstrated.
    Areas with Potential for 50m plus (12
    storey office / 16 storey residential)
    ■ Docklands Cluster*
    ■ Connolly*
    ■ George’s Quay *
    ■ Heuston Area *
    Areas with Potential for up to 50m
    ■ Digital Hub
    ■ Phibsborough
    ■ Grangegorman *
    ■ North Fringe*
    ■ Clonshaugh Industrial Estate *
    ■ Ballymun*
    ■ Pelletstown*
    ■ Park West / Cherry Orchard*
    ■ Naas Road Lands*

    * Low-rise pending LAP/SDZ (see also 17.6.2) Within the identifi ed areas, a series of General Development Principles as well as a number of Key Development Principles specifi c to each identifi ed area shall apply
    to guide the provision of high buildings within these areas. Where an LAP/SDZ is approved for an area identifi ed for height, the heights set in the relevant LAP/SDZ will be those against which planning applications are assessed. Proposals for High Buildings should be in accordance
    with these principles and the policies and objectives of the relevant LAP/SDZ in addition to the assessment criteria for high buildings and general development standards.

    The Guiding Principles are set out in section 16.4, Building Height in a
    Sustainable City.

    Anyway, go read it. You'll find it answers all those enraging 'only refused on aesthetic grounds' delusions you have been having.

    http://www.dublincity.ie/Planning/DublinCityDevelopmentPlan/Documents/Dev_Plan_-_Vol_1_-_Written_Statement.pdf


    As far as I'm aware ABP said it was allowed unless it has a 'negative impact' on the 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.'

    Have you read SC18?

    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,
    having regard to the criteria
    and site principles set out in the
    Development Standards Section
    (see Chapter 17).

    They are very clear where and how high is permitted.
    Well YOU can't no.
    Given enough money and a planning application. Would you object?
    And maybe we'd all be in agreement about the ugliness of such a structure? Also it would depend on the purpose of such a building.
    Why does the purpose of a building 'excuse' it somehow?
    So you have been misled. Another poster has since said it is to be located on the roof of the Adult hospital.
    And we have any evidence for that?
    Never work? Proof? Because to disprove you I just need to find one example of a roof garden.....and they pretty much exist on top of every apartment complex built during the 'boom'.... so unless I missed a spate of roof garden closures?
    They are private spaces. Can you name any major public building in Dublin that has a roof garden or public space successfully opened to the public. Liberty Hall had one. Closed. Find me another successfully open.
    Did they not disagree over the traffic issues? What traffic issues did they highlight that would not be experienced in any other capital city?
    The capacity for parking at the site.
    'The board which is now comprised of just four members (none of whom are architects), made its decision to refuse by three votes to one, in disagreement with senior planning inspector Una Crosse. 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.'
    That quote is a mistake, ABP supported the inspectors decision. Read the report, stop relying on sloppy journalism.
    I want the best medical facility for the money we have. I also want this fast. You haven't suggested a better alternative.

    Ah the old quality triangle, you can have it cheap, fast, good. Pick two.

    Actually I have supported the suggestion of a workable alternative site. You really are quite sloppy in your reading habits, you might want to review this thread again.
    But since when does majority opinion make a decision right? Especially since none of those polled were screened based on their medical knowledge or whether they knew why the Mater was chosen - they'd likely think it was 'for Bertie'. Show me a poll of expert medical professionals who deem the Mater to be the wrong site, people who know the most important criteria on which to judge such a decision.

    Ah, I see, medical knowledge is required to make a decision about planning. When can we expect the appointment of a doctor to ABP?

    Actually such a poll was conducted. The expert panel after a rigorous assessment chose the Mater site. Now we have people offering greenfield sites in Silloge and thinking thats all that is needed. And the public think 'Ooooh a free site, next to a motorway!!! that'll work'.
    Do you think if they had not had their choices limited they would have chosen the same site?
    Well are these farmers financing the replacement of the specialist services and consultants that would need to move from the Mater and nearby facilities? Or are they going to finance the hiring of all new specialist staff?
    They financed the planning cock-up, as did all other taxpayers.
    A second site would require the duplication of services and would be more costly.
    An empty site sure, not a different co-location site.

    On that link you posted, what is your explaination for the expert group only considering Tallaght Hospital, Newlands Cross and aConnolly Hospital in Blanchardstown?

    Why would other city-centre sites be rejected from even being considered in your view?
    Yeah, keep looking for your 'ideal' site....

    Yeah, cus it's all me, me, me :rolleyes:


  • #204
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    Looks like Reilly is getting sent a pretty clear message about including planning expertise in future..

    http://www.independent.ie/national-news/future-of-new-childrens-hospital-in-doubt-if-government-fails-to-put-planner-on-special-review-group-experts-3045610.html

    I see alternative sites are now being allowed consideration :rolleyes: €33m later.
    It really is extraordinary how this project wasn't allowed to be properly considered by the Review panel with appropriate planning advice.


  • #205
    Tragedy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,056 ✭✭✭Tragedy


    I see the person spearheading the review group is Dr. Frank Dolphin, latterly Chairman of CUH Temple Street and member of the Mater's board. Did they not think his appointment might appear a little bit suspect to people?


  • #206
    rodento
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,728 ✭✭✭rodento


    This is the view about the site by one of the previous chairpersons

    http://www.thenewchildrenshospital.ie/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Lynch.pdf


  • #207
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    There is something very smarmy about the people who start crawling out of the woodwork saying "I told you so" when these types of scenarios arise. Mr Lynch is probably the exact one who would be trumpeting his own achievements in getting the hospital built if it was going ahead.

    Oh, and remember a few pages back where someone said I was generalising (or some other such nonsense) about there being a generally anti high rise mentality in Ireland as well as saying that they will just plonk down a 4 floor maximum sprawled out building on a greenfield site? Someone proclaimed, that will not happen! :rolleyes: FTA:
    ‘I could imagine a far better facility
    built at one or two-storey level, no
    underground car parking, plenty of
    estate and gardens, and connectivity
    to the Luas.


    Sigh.


  • #208
    rodento
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,728 ✭✭✭rodento


    That article was written a year ago :rolleyes:

    Sigh


  • #209
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    So it was. Lynch is still a massive knob with vested interest in this being built on his pal Noel Smyth's greenfield site.


  • #210
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    Regardless of who is a 'knob' why was the panel restricted in the choice of sites in the first place? And I mean from the point of view of co-location with James' or Crumlin rather than greenfield locations.


  • Advertisement
  • #211
    southsiderosie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,565 ✭✭✭southsiderosie


    rodento wrote: »
    That article was written a year ago :rolleyes:

    Sigh
    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    So it was. Lynch is still a massive knob with vested interest in this being built on his pal Noel Smyth's greenfield site.

    MOD NOTE:

    I don't see how tragic sighing, rolley-eyes and calling people knobs contributes to debate.

    Please keep it civil, or refrain from posting.


  • #212
    rodento
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,728 ✭✭✭rodento


    After reading the article I'm delighted the planning was turned down, just think of removed 100 thousand tonnes of soil from the site, or trying to get the foundations right to hold such a massive structure in place.

    Project was bound to cost billions


  • #213
    Laminations
    Registered Users Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    @MadsL

    Your smart comments about doctors being on the board of ABP for their planning expertise misses the point. You've missed the point throughout. Planning is important, and in most cases is most important, but for major infrastructural projects where there are other concerns it should be weighed up as one concern and not the overriding factor. Here planning issues - which I still maintain are mainly aesthetic- took precedent Over medical concerns.

    Put it this way, religion is important but in a decision on blood transfusion it is not the priority concern. Medical opinion will win out if Jahovah Witnesses try and exert their religious wishes over the care of their child.

    Here we have a choice of compromising on medical grounds to adhere to planning guidelines or bending the planning guidelines to accommodate best medical practice. ABPs 'input' should be considered but it should not take priority over best medical advise.

    As for your point on James's and Crumlim, did you not read the report? These sites were considered and then excluded. James's actually reached the final two and was ruled out based on lack of proximity to the specialities in Beaumont. Really don't scold me on my reading skills when you haven't read the report you criticise.

    @rodento
    That article is pure rubbish. The headline of most expensive 1bullion euro carpark? in the article it says the carpark and foundations cost 120million?
    And I agree with FS that the previous 'businessman' chairperson is an idiot. He compares the high rise hospital with Ballymun FFS. He also seems to lack any medical expertise caring only of a possible free site at Newlands Cross. He obviously doesn't even acknowledge the importance of co-location. He moans of soaring costs at the Mater and welcomes a report from an expert group on the cost issue. News flash that group reported and their conclusion was that nowhere would be much cheaper. Yet you still tow Mr Lynchs line on the Mater? The report he welcomed proved him wrong. The article was from a year ago - information has emerged since that prove him wrong and his views irrelevant.
    rodento wrote: »
    Project was bound to cost billions

    And that's your 'expert' opinion after all your 'analysis'?

    It's amazing - Mr Lynch pulls figures out his ass and you believe him, he suggests another site based on his thorough back of a cig packet analysis and you go along with him. Meanwhile an expert group recommends the Mater and a second expert group reports on relative costs and you quote an opinion piece from Mr Lynch....

    Until there is expert medical opinion on the benefits of another site I still maintain we shouldn't compromise on best medical practise to assuage the planners for uniformity and blandness.


  • #214
    McDave
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,398 ✭✭✭McDave


    Laminations wrote: »
    @MadsL

    Your smart comments about doctors being on the board of ABP for their planning expertise misses the point. You've missed the point throughout. Planning is important, and in most cases is most important, but for major infrastructural projects where there are other concerns it should be weighed up as one concern and not the overriding factor. Here planning issues - which I still maintain are mainly aesthetic- took precedent Over medical concerns.
    Planning is about far, far more than aesthetics. It's about thinking forward. It's about developing places to live, work and socialise in. It's about providing for infrastructure, amenities and services. It's about setting priorities and making decisions that stand the test of time.

    There are plenty of good planning reasons for voting down the Mater proposal. It seems pretty clear to me that at least the the planners were doing their job. The proposers of the development clearly did not. It seems they were ready to assume the project would be railroaded past normal channels, and were happy to ignore all the implicit and explicit warnings that their proposal was unsuitable. That sails far too close to cronyism for my liking.

    The 'medical concerns' point is to my mind a canard. It's not a matter of medicine versus planning. The hospital proposal was simply ill-considered.

    As for planning, it would make far more sense to have a large development (if one is needed) on a greenfield site (or in Tallaght) close to the M50 (accessible by car from all over the country - it is after all a proposed national hospital) and serviced by public transport from Dublin city centre. How this wasn't considered as a preferred option is beyond me.


  • #215
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    McDave wrote: »
    Planning is about far, far more than aesthetics. It's about thinking forward. It's about developing places to live, work and socialise in. It's about providing for infrastructure, amenities and services. It's about setting priorities and making decisions that stand the test of time.
    It's about choosing a site and building something that works on that site both aesthetically and functionally. Whether one likes it or not, this hospital at the Mater site would have been as functional as anywhere else in the city. There are drawbacks to all locations; the Mater had the least. Say what you want about cosmetics, to each their own, but nothing higher than 4-5 floors will ever be liked by the majority of people in this country. IDK why, but that's just the way it is.
    There are plenty of good planning reasons for voting down the Mater proposal. It seems pretty clear to me that at least the the planners were doing their job. The proposers of the development clearly did not. It seems they were ready to assume the project would be railroaded past normal channels, and were happy to ignore all the implicit and explicit warnings that their proposal was unsuitable. That sails far too close to cronyism for my liking.
    But isn't it equally as poor to push for a greenfield site owned by you and your corporate bedfellows?
    The 'medical concerns' point is to my mind a canard. It's not a matter of medicine versus planning. The hospital proposal was simply ill-considered.

    As for planning, it would make far more sense to have a large development (if one is needed) on a greenfield site (or in Tallaght) close to the M50 (accessible by car from all over the country - it is after all a proposed national hospital) and serviced by public transport from Dublin city centre. How this wasn't considered as a preferred option is beyond me.

    If you completely ignore the massive benefit of co-location then maybe. It also completely ignores that fact that although it is a National Hospital for Children, Tallaght is far less accessible for people actually in Dublin than a city site like the Mater or even James.

    Plus you'd think that these people who are complaining about traffic to the Mater have literally never been on the M50. Far more potential for traffic on the M50 than N1.


  • #216
    Laminations
    Registered Users Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    McDave wrote: »
    happy to ignore all the implicit and explicit warnings that their proposal was unsuitable.

    Yes. And this is my point. It is far more important to be suitable to medical requirements than to planning requirements.
    As for planning, it would make far more sense to have a large development (if one is needed) on a greenfield site (or in Tallaght) close to the M50 (accessible by car from all over the country - it is after all a proposed national hospital) and serviced by public transport from Dublin city centre. How this wasn't considered as a preferred option is beyond me.

    Glad to see you're happy to ignore all the medical warnings that such a site is unsuitable. Like I said, some people prefer to compromise on the medical issues to satisfy the planning issues. I, and others, disagree.


  • Advertisement
  • #217
    mikemac1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,395 ✭✭✭✭mikemac1


    The entire thread about Dublin

    Did the planners even look at Cork University Hospital?
    There is a site and space nearby, it's a teaching hospital and can cover maternity and as many other services of other hospitals
    It's one of the best hospitals in the country :)

    I see all these posts about sites in Dublin
    Was Cork even looked at?

    The border counties won't be happy but no matter where you go in Ireland somebody will be disappointed


  • #218
    n900guy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 288 ✭✭n900guy


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    If you completely ignore the massive benefit of co-location then maybe. It also completely ignores that fact that although it is a National Hospital for Children, Tallaght is far less accessible for people actually in Dublin than a city site like the Mater or even James.

    It's not a Dublin Children's Hospital, it's a national one. And the majority of children who will be benefiting from a national centre of excellence are outside Dublin. Dublin already has several children's hospitals.

    Way way way way way more people with kids will be coming to this hospital from outside Dublin than within Dublin. It's stupid for it to be located in Dublin; the only reason is the ass backwards politics of Dublin that is a cancer on the country.


  • #219
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    mikemac1 wrote: »
    The entire thread about Dublin

    Did the planners even look at Cork University Hospital?
    There is a site and space nearby, it's a teaching hospital and can cover maternity and as many other services of other hospitals
    It's one of the best hospitals in the country :)

    I see all these posts about sites in Dublin
    Was Cork even looked at?

    The border counties won't be happy but no matter where you go in Ireland somebody will be disappointed
    I hope you're kidding? Why would they put a National Children's Hospital in the furthest possible location from the majority of the country?

    Also, the Greater Dublin Area has a population from the 2011 census of 1,801,040 which represents 39.3% of the population of the country. Greater Cork is about 380,000 and the entire county is only 518,218 people.

    As for Cork University Hospital being one of the "best in the country", I think you'll find you got that backwards. It was listed as the absolute worst hospital in the country by the HSE in 2010 (source, source) and has slightly improved last year but is still the worst (although no longer in the "red" category).


  • #220
    mikemac1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,395 ✭✭✭✭mikemac1


    Well I'm seeing moaning on this thread about getting from around Dublin to Tallaght

    Some won't be happy no matter where it goes

    All I asked was if the planners looked at it


  • #221
    McDave
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,398 ✭✭✭McDave


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    Say what you want about cosmetics, to each their own, but nothing higher than 4-5 floors will ever be liked by the majority of people in this country. IDK why, but that's just the way it is
    High rise is allowed by plans in plenty of locations outside the city core (that includes the north inner city which is just as Georgian as the more salubrious south), Docklands, Heuston, M50. And there are plenty of existing buildings to testify to it. The Children's hospital could be built in any number of locations other than the city core.


  • Advertisement
  • #222
    McDave
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,398 ✭✭✭McDave


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    If you completely ignore the massive benefit of co-location then maybe. It also completely ignores that fact that although it is a National Hospital for Children, Tallaght is far less accessible for people actually in Dublin than a city site like the Mater or even James.
    It's not a Dublin hospital. It's a national hospital. Dublin people can just as easily drive to, e.g., Tallaght as Dorset St. And people from anywhere in Ireland can get to Tallaght more easily than Dublin city centre.


  • #223
    McDave
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,398 ✭✭✭McDave


    Laminations wrote: »
    Yes. And this is my point. It is far more important to be suitable to medical requirements than to planning
    No actually it is not. Any facility must conform to both. Planning law is law. It must be complied with. No ifs or buts about it.

    The fact that the proponents of the Mater plan chose to ignore this is their fault. And any resulting consequence for the delay to the facility must rest at their doorstep.


  • #224
    McDave
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,398 ✭✭✭McDave


    Laminations wrote: »
    Glad to see you're happy to ignore all the medical warnings that such a site is unsuitable. Like I said, some people prefer to compromise on the medical issues to satisfy the planning issues. I, and others, disagree.
    Again, planning *law* must be complied with.

    If medical and other people chose to ignore the likely impact of the law, they simply didn't carry out due diligence on the project with any real care. That's testimony to their (in)competence.


  • #225
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    McDave wrote: »
    It's not a Dublin hospital. It's a national hospital. Dublin people can just as easily drive to, e.g., Tallaght as Dorset St. And people from anywhere in Ireland can get to Tallaght more easily than Dublin city centre.
    You've got that backwards, it's just as easy for people coming from outside Greater Dublin to get to the Mater, whereas it's more difficult for residents in Dublin to get to a location like Tallaght.

    It is not a Dublin hospital, but we need to take into account that Dublin is just shy of 40% of the country's population.
    McDave wrote: »
    No actually it is not. Any facility must conform to both. Planning law is law. It must be complied with. No ifs or buts about it.

    The fact that the proponents of the Mater plan chose to ignore this is their fault. And any resulting consequence for the delay to the facility must rest at their doorstep.
    McDave wrote: »
    Again, planning *law* must be complied with.

    If medical and other people chose to ignore the likely impact of the law, they simply didn't carry out due diligence on the project with any real care. That's testimony to their (in)competence.

    I think you'll find that you're incorrect here. Please cite the said "law". You're talking about development plans which are not legislation.


  • #226
    McDave
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,398 ✭✭✭McDave


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    I think you'll find that you're incorrect here. Please cite the said "law". You're talking about development plans which are not legislation.
    Development plans are provided for in legislation. Challenges of decisions relating to the planning process can ultimately be appealed to An Bord Pleanala which is the statutory body. An appeal on a point of law to the High Court is possible.

    An Bord Pleanala is part of a legal process.

    Planning law and development plans are not some optional extra.


  • #227
    n900guy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 288 ✭✭n900guy


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    I hope you're kidding? Why would they put a National Children's Hospital in the furthest possible location from the majority of the country?

    Also, the Greater Dublin Area has a population from the 2011 census of 1,801,040 which represents 39.3% of the population of the country. Greater Cork is about 380,000 and the entire county is only 518,218 people.

    As for Cork University Hospital being one of the "best in the country", I think you'll find you got that backwards. It was listed as the absolute worst hospital in the country by the HSE in 2010 (source, source) and has slightly improved last year but is still the worst (although no longer in the "red" category).

    Cork is the only Level 1 Trauma Centre in Ireland, and there are 1.8 million people within 100km of Cork city.


  • #228
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    Laminations wrote: »
    @MadsL

    Your smart comments about doctors being on the board of ABP for their planning expertise misses the point. You've missed the point throughout.

    I've referred you to planning law and the contract made between the citizens and the city. You claim that misses the point, but you are missing the enforceable contract. You even asked me to quote from it, I did. You seem to have stopped claiming that it doesn't prohibit high-rise at this site. As for 'smart comments' isn't making this decision on medical advice whilst going 'la-la-la-la-la' to the planning issues exactly what you are advocating?
    Planning is important, and in most cases is most important, but for major infrastructural projects where there are other concerns it should be weighed up as one concern and not the overriding factor.

    But that is not what Planning Law says. Unless you think ABP should be given some sort of 'justifiable metrocide' clause.
    Here planning issues - which I still maintain are mainly aesthetic- took precedent Over medical concerns.

    And I have shown you that those 'issues' are dealt with by documented policy in a Development Plan agreed with the people of Dublin.
    Put it this way, religion is important but in a decision on blood transfusion it is not the priority concern. Medical opinion will win out if Jahovah Witnesses try and exert their religious wishes over the care of their child.
    Back to the emotive 'think of the children arguments'. Please stop doing this.
    Here we have a choice of compromising on medical grounds to adhere to planning guidelines...
    You make it sound like the Development Plan was a surprise someone sprung on the poor auld Hospital Board. They spent €33m on this, surely someone read the Development Plan.

    or bending the planning guidelines to accommodate best medical practice.

    'bending'?? - Almost 25% Over development on the site is not 'bending'. It is tearing it up.
    ABPs 'input' should be considered but it should not take priority over best medical advise.

    After all of this do you really not understand how ABP's 'input' is a legally binding force of law.
    As for your point on James's and Crumlim, did you not read the report?
    Yes I did. Did you read what site I supported. Heuston, in proximity and co-location to James'. Read back.
    These sites were considered and then excluded. James's actually reached the final two and was ruled out based on lack of proximity to the specialities in Beaumont.

    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.

    As 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".

    I believe pediatric oncology will still be at James' will it not? What about those patients?

    Also given that the whole Metro North thing is likely cancelled (ok, deferred if you a strage kind of optimist) doesn't that swing the whole balance back to James'?

    Equally I believe all modelling has ben done on a 20% expansion rate. Crumlin has expanded 40% in a similar timeframe. What happens when the Mater site reaches it's 25% capacity?
    "The HSE is allowing for an expansion of 20% to 21% on the Mater site, whereas Crumlin has had a 40% expansion in 10 years." 'Mater site could risk children's lives'

    Really don't scold me on my reading skills when you haven't read the report you criticise.

    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'.
    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?


  • #229
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    McDave wrote: »
    Development plans are provided for in legislation. Challenges of decisions relating to the planning process can ultimately be appealed to An Bord Pleanala which is the statutory body. An appeal on a point of law to the High Court is possible.

    An Bord Pleanala is part of a legal process.

    Planning law and development plans are not some optional extra.
    If you completely misunderstand quasi-judicial functions then I guess you could say that it is a "part of the legal process"; you'd be wrong, but ok.

    ABP is an administrative tribunal and there is legislation (2006 Act) which says you can apply to the High Court by Motion on Notice to have their decision quashed. But ABP are not a "part of the legal process" and there is nothing in planning law that puts height restrictions on buildings; they allow for development plans as guides, but they are not legislation.

    It is not "against the law" to build over a certain height. Sure, the development plan gives a guide to height restrictions, but these are not law. Again, if one doesn't understand these things it can give that impression... but there is no legislation that describes what you are referring to.


  • #230
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    MadsL wrote: »
    I've referred you to planning law and the contract made between the citizens and the city. You claim that misses the point, but you are missing the enforceable contract.
    We must all be missing it. There is no contract "made between the citizens and the city" - please show the "enforceable contract" if there is one. Spoiler alert: the development plan is not a contract and is not "law".
    But that is not what Planning Law says. Unless you think ABP should be given some sort of 'justifiable metrocide' clause.
    What does "planning law" say about height restrictions? Other than allowing developments plans to be set which recommend height restrictions.
    You make it sound like the Development Plan was a surprise someone sprung on the poor auld Hospital Board. They spent €33m on this, surely someone read the Development Plan.
    What part of the Development Plan did this design not comply with?
    After all of this do you really not understand how ABP's 'input' is a legally binding force of law.
    Nope, it can be brought to the High Court by Motion on Notice - that decision is legally binding.

    I believe pediatric oncology will still be at James' will it not? What about those patients?
    If the NCH was built; no it would be there.
    Equally I believe all modelling has ben done on a 20% expansion rate. Crumlin has expanded 40% in a similar timeframe. What happens when the Mater site reaches it's 25% capacity?
    The plan had expansion space of an additional 20%, but the current design was sufficient to 2025 IIRC.


  • #231
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    n900guy wrote: »
    Cork is the only Level 1 Trauma Centre in Ireland, and there are 1.8 million people within 100km of Cork city.
    Ok, the HSÉ still found it the worst hospital in the country for the last 2 years (at least)


  • Advertisement
  • #232
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    If you completely misunderstand quasi-judicial functions then I guess you could say that it is a "part of the legal process"; you'd be wrong, but ok.

    Arguing 'legal process' with a lawyer, sigh - here we go....

    So, in a nutshell, is ABP's decision legally binding on the developer? - that is if they build it anyway would that be in breach of Planning Law? Try for a Yes/No answer.
    ABP is an administrative tribunal

    Established by the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act 1976 and given legal powers under that and subsequent Acts. It is actually an Administrative Court - and unless you want to dismiss powers f the Labour Court and the Employment Appeals Tribunal i think you would find it hard to argue that it's findings are not binding.

    and there is legislature (2006 Act) which says you can apply to the High Court by Motion on Notice to have their decision quashed.

    Now you are being very simplistic...

    The leave to have a Judicial Review is complex - Motion on Notice I believe only allows gives you leave to bring Judicial Review challenge the proceedings; the case still needs to be heard and the scope is limited to the question of if the decision was improperly conducted or illegally made (in breach of other legal concerns ie: EU Law)
    A person wishing to challenge the validity of a Board decision may do so by way of judicial review only. Sections 50, 50A and 50B of the Planning and Development Act 2000 (as substituted by section 13 of the Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Act 2006 and as amended/substituted by sections 32 and 33 of the Planning and Development (amendment) Act 2010) contain provisions in relation to challenges to the validity of a decision of the Board.

    The validity of a decision taken by the Board may only be questioned by making an application for judicial review under Order 84 of The Rules of the Superior Courts (S.I. No. 15 of 1986). Sub-section 50(6) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 requires that subject to any extension to the time period which may be allowed by the High Court in accordance with subsection 50(8), any application for judicial review must be made within 8 weeks of the decision of the Board. It should be noted that any challenge taken under section 50 may question only the validity of the decision and the Courts do not adjudicate on the merits of the development from the perspectives of the proper planning and sustainable development of the area and/or effects on the environment. Section 50A states that leave for judicial review shall not be granted unless the Court is satisfied that there are substantial grounds for contending that the decision is invalid or ought to be quashed. Section 50B contains provisions in relation to the cost of judicial review proceedings in the High Court relating to specified types of development (including proceedings relating to decisions or actions pursuant to a law of the state that gives effect to the public participation and access to justice provisions of Council Directive 85/337/EEC i.e. the EIA Directive and to the provisions of Directive 2001/12/EC i.e. Directive on the assessment of the effects on the environment of certain plans and programmes). The general provision contained in section 50B is that in such cases each party shall bear its own costs
    http://www.pleanala.ie/publications/2010/judicialreview.htm

    But ABP are not a "part of the legal process"
    In what was are they not legally constituted, and in what way do their decisions not have force of law?
    and there is nothing in planning law that puts height restrictions on buildings; they allow for development plans as guides, but they are not legislation.

    It is not "against the law" to build over a certain height. Sure, the development plan gives a guide to height restrictions, but these are not law.

    A local authority has a legal duty to uphold its development plan...
    15.—(1) It shall be the duty of a planning authority to take such steps within its powers as may be necessary for securing the objectives of the development plan.
    Planning & Development Act 2000

    Failing to do so leaves them open to challenge by appeal to ABP - who can issue a decision that is is binding on the local authority and the developer.

    Again, if one doesn't understand these things it can give that impression...
    Patronise much? You seem to be making the argument that these decisions are 'optional'. Show me how that is the case if that is your contention.

    but there is no legislation that describes what you are referring to.

    As quoted above Sections 50, 50A and 50B of the Planning and Development Act 2000 (as substituted by section 13 of the Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Act 2006 and as amended/substituted by sections 32 and 33 of the Planning and Development (amendment) Act 2010) deal with the validity of ABP decisions. Do you dispute that? Or are they not legislation?

    We had a bloody minister waffling about laying down a Private Member's bill a while back...does anyone understand ABP's role?


  • #233
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    Fruedian_Slippers wrote:
    We must all be missing it. There is no contract "made between the citizens and the city" - please show the "enforceable contract" if there is one. Spoiler alert: the development plan is not a contract and is not "law".

    I quoted it above: Section 15 of the Planning and Development Act 2000.

    The making of a Development Plan is also a statutory process governed by rule of law covered by section 12 of the same Act.

    I'm sure you must have textbook on Irish Environmental Law somewhere to hand...
    please show the "enforceable contract" if there is one

    How would I as a private citizen be able to bring an appeal to ABP if the 'contract' was unenforceable ?? Spoiler Alert: Fruedian Slippers will now patronise me as I'm not a lawyer and start banging on about torts.


  • #234
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    What part of the Development Plan did this design not comply with?

    Will I quote it again???

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77496828&postcount=203


  • #235
    McDave
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,398 ✭✭✭McDave


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    If you completely misunderstand quasi-judicial functions then I guess you could say that it is a "part of the legal process"; you'd be wrong, but ok.
    As it happens, I've a pretty good understanding of law. In this case, the Oireachtas has delegated a certain function to a statutory body to make rulings on disputes arising from legislation of the Oireachtas. Local authorities adopt a plan which guides local development and helps inform An BP.

    I'm not arguing that An BP is a court. But it's decision is binding on the parties unless overturned by the High Court on a point of law, or by a decision of the minister. Neither am I arguing that there's a statutory height restriction. That's normally a matter of local policy, as per the development plan.

    I think you're underplaying the legal function of An BP. The board has defined and potentially binding functions. Now if you want to argue that we're not talking about a legal context and rulings within it, that's your business. But as things stand, the Mater proposal has been rejected by the Board and unless overturned in the courts or by the minister, their decision will bind the parties concerned.


  • #236
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    MadsL wrote: »
    Arguing 'legal process' with a lawyer, sigh - here we go....

    So, in a nutshell, is ABP's decision legally binding on the developer? - that is if they build it anyway would that be in breach of Planning Law? Try for a Yes/No answer.
    It's not that easy. Technically ABP's decision is legally binding, but that does not mean the development plan is legally binding.
    Yes, ABP is a quasi-judicial body created by legislation which dictates that they must create a development plan every 6 years.

    To build without permission is against the P&D Act 2000. What I'm saying is that the development plan is not law. I
    Established by the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act 1976 and given legal powers under that and subsequent Acts. It is actually an Administrative Court - and unless you want to dismiss powers f the Labour Court and the Employment Appeals Tribunal i think you would find it hard to argue that it's findings are not binding.
    The bord is not a court, it is a tribunal. It is given powers to act as a quasi-judicial body. The Labour Court is also misleading, as it isn't a court but a tribunal; not all of its decisions are legally binding either.
    EAT determinations are legally binding, but open to appeal.

    It doesn't make development plans "law" in any event.


    Now you are being very simplistic...

    The leave to have a Judicial Review is complex - Motion on Notice I believe only allows gives you leave to bring Judicial Review challenge the proceedings; the case still needs to be heard and the scope is limited to the question of if the decision was improperly conducted or illegally made (in breach of other legal concerns ie: EU Law)
    Yes, judicial review of legal validity once your appeal process has been expended in ABP. My point is that the development plan is not considered a legal instrument for this purpose.
    In what was are they not legally constituted, and in what way do their decisions not have force of law?
    Poor choice of words on my part there. Tribunals are a part of the legal process, sure.
    A local authority has a legal duty to uphold its development plan...
    Actually it doesn't, it has a general duty to secure the objectives of its development plan (as you correctly quoted), but there is plenty of scope to go outside of that plan.
    Failing to do so leaves them open to challenge by appeal to ABP - who can issue a decision that is is binding on the local authority and the developer.
    True, but it doesn't make the development plan "law"

    Patronise much? You seem to be making the argument that these decisions are 'optional'. Show me how that is the case if that is your contention.
    Perhaps I've been taken up incorrectly: development plans are not law.
    ABP, as a tribunal, is legally entitled to a final decision giving due considerations to the scope and intent of the plan.


    As quoted above Sections 50, 50A and 50B of the Planning and Development Act 2000 (as substituted by section 13 of the Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Act 2006 and as amended/substituted by sections 32 and 33 of the Planning and Development (amendment) Act 2010) deal with the validity of ABP decisions. Do you dispute that? Or are they not legislation?

    We had a bloody minister waffling about laying down a Private Member's bill a while back...does anyone understand ABP's role?
    I don't think we're on the same page here. You've misquoted me - I've said there is no legislation that sets a height limit.


  • #237
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    MadsL wrote: »
    Will I quote it again???

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77496828&postcount=203
    I've seen it, SC18 or something which was breached by the general size, but I don't think there is a guideline size is what I meant. So it's hard to say that they didn't read the guidelines.


  • #238
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    McDave wrote: »
    As it happens, I've a pretty good understanding of law. In this case, the Oireachtas has delegated a certain function to a statutory body to make rulings on disputes arising from legislation of the Oireachtas. Local authorities adopt a plan which guides local development and helps inform An BP.

    I'm not arguing that An BP is a court. But it's decision is binding on the parties unless overturned by the High Court on a point of law, or by a decision of the minister. Neither am I arguing that there's a statutory height restriction. That's normally a matter of local policy, as per the development plan.

    I think you're underplaying the legal function of An BP. The board has defined and potentially binding functions. Now if you want to argue that we're not talking about a legal context and rulings within it, that's your business. But as things stand, the Mater proposal has been rejected by the Board and unless overturned in the courts or by the minister, their decision will bind the parties concerned.
    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.


  • #239
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    MadsL wrote: »
    I quoted it above: Section 15 of the Planning and Development Act 2000.

    The making of a Development Plan is also a statutory process governed by rule of law covered by section 12 of the same Act.
    That's not a contract and as I said elsewhere, requiring the creation of development plans does not make those plans themselves "law"
    I'm sure you must have textbook on Irish Environmental Law somewhere to hand...
    Thankfully, no.
    How would I as a private citizen be able to bring an appeal to ABP if the 'contract' was unenforceable ?? Spoiler Alert: Fruedian Slippers will now patronise me as I'm not a lawyer and start banging on about torts.
    It's legislative rather than contract. *insert irrelevant condescending tort comment here I guess* :P


  • #240
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    It's not that easy. Technically ABP's decision is legally binding, but that does not mean the development plan is legally binding.
    The former Attorney general disagrees...
    ‘The plan is a statement of objectives; it informs the community, in its draft form, of the intended objectives and affords the community the opportunity of inspection, criticism, and, if thought proper, objection. When adopted it forms an environmental contract between the planning authority, the council, and the community, embodying a promise by the council that it will regulate private development in a manner consistent with the objectives stated in the plan . . .’ The Attorney General (McGarry) v. Sligo County Council [1991] 1 I.R. 99
    Yes, ABP is a quasi-judicial body created by legislation which dictates that they must create a development plan every 6 years.

    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.
    To build without permission is against the P&D Act 2000. What I'm saying is that the development plan is not law
    . But it is the basis on which legal argument is made for or against a development is it not?

    The bord is not a court, it is a tribunal. It is given powers to act as a quasi-judicial body. The Labour Court is also misleading, as it isn't a court but a tribunal; not all of its decisions are legally binding either.

    But some of them are, as are ABP's decisions.
    EAT determinations are legally binding, but open to appeal.
    ABP detirminations are open to judicial review, what is your point?
    It doesn't make development plans "law" in any event.

    They are the foundation for the legality of development.
    Yes, judicial review of legal validity once your appeal process has been expended in ABP. My point is that the development plan is not considered a legal instrument for this purpose.
    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.
    The Court held inter alia that:
    Under the provisions of the Planning Acts the legislature has unequivocally and firmly placed questions of planning, questions of the balance between development and the environment and the proper convenience and amenities of an area within the jurisdiction of the planning authorities and the Board which are expected to have special skill, competence and experience in planning questions. The court is not faced with that jurisdiction, nor is it expected to, nor can it, exercise discretion with regard to planning matters. I am satisfied that in order for an applicant for judicial review to satisfy a court that the decision-making authority has acted irrationally in the sense which I have outlined above so that the court can intervene and quash its decision, it is necessary that the applicant should establish to the satisfaction of the court that the decision-making authority had before it no relevant material which would support its decision."

    Poor choice of words on my part there. Tribunals are a part of the legal process, sure.
    Poor choice of words on my part. I would have stated 'legal process' rather than law earlier.

    Actually it doesn't, it has a general duty to secure the objectives of its development plan (as you correctly quoted), but there is plenty of scope to go outside of that 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.

    True, but it doesn't make the development plan "law"
    Forgive my shorthand in using a lay definition. It has legal standing, how about that. See the AG remarks on an 'environmental contract'.
    Perhaps I've been taken up incorrectly: development plans are not law. ABP, as a tribunal, is legally entitled to a final decision giving due considerations to the scope and intent of the plan.
    Hair splitting tbh. Same outcome.
    I don't think we're on the same page here. You've misquoted me - I've said there is no legislation that sets a height limit.

    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.


  • Advertisement
  • #241
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    I've seen it, SC18 or something which was breached by the general size, but I don't think there is a guideline size is what I meant. So it's hard to say that they didn't read the guidelines.

    read Chapter 17 of the Development Plan...

    You have height and plot ratio issues with the Mater Plan.


  • #242
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    MadsL wrote: »
    The former Attorney general disagrees...
    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.
    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".

    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.
    I still contend they are a tribunal.
    . But it is the basis on which legal argument is made for or against a development is it not?
    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 some of them are, as are ABP's decisions.


    ABP detirminations are open to judicial review, what is your point?
    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".
    They are the foundation for the legality of development.
    No, the determinations of planning authorities and ABP are the foundations for the legality.
    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.
    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.


    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.
    And ABP can uphold those decisions which are not in line with the development plan.
    Forgive my shorthand in using a lay definition. It has legal standing, how about that. See the AG remarks on an 'environmental contract'.
    See above.
    Hair splitting tbh. Same outcome.
    Eh. Sort of.

    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.
    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.


  • #243
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    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:
    as it would mean neither the planning authority nor ABP could make decisions outside of the plan; which they can
    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.


  • #244
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    MadsL wrote: »
    read Chapter 17 of the Development Plan...

    You have height and plot ratio issues with the Mater Plan.
    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.


  • #245
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    MadsL wrote: »
    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.
    17.6.3 of the development plan would be a good start.

    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.


  • #246
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • #247
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    MadsL wrote: »
    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.
    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.


  • #248
    McDave
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,398 ✭✭✭McDave


    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.
    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.

    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).


  • #249
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    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.


  • #250
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    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).


  • #251
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    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 :D


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement