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]

12346»

Comments

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


    But my point is and has always been there is no rule against 71m buildings per se


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


    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).
    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.

    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.


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


    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.


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


    MadsL wrote: »
    (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.
    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.

    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?)


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


    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.


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


    MadsL wrote: »
    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.


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


    @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 nicely
    Sounds 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.....


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


    MadsL wrote: »
    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 it
    Maximising 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 like
    MadsL wrote: »
    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".

    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.


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


    McDave wrote: »
    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.


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


    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.
    Funny that a Dublin city centre location doesn't bother you for that site,
    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.
    didn't see you respond to those calling this a 'Dublin Children's Hospital'.
    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.
    I mean a greenfield m50 site would be more accessible?
    Where did I support the M50 site?
    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.
    I have always recognised that, but the Mater simply doesn't work as a site can you not recognise that?
    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'.
    Medical, not planning.
    What collaborative international review are you citing instead to support your Heuston idea?
    There isn't one because the reviews were not allowed to consider other sites.
    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.
    There are a number of medical experts who have been vocal against the Mater site, why are they wrong and your other experts right?
    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.
    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?
    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.
    http://www.stjames.ie/AboutUs/Specialties/ and you have answered that in your own quote "haematology, burns, pathology units
    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.

    Get your priorities straight.
    Thanks. I'll bear it in mind.
    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.
    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.
    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??

    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?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 55 ✭✭one foot in the grave


    MadsL wrote: »
    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 55 ✭✭one foot in the grave


    MadsL wrote: »


    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.


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


    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?


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


    MadsL wrote: »
    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,565 ✭✭✭southsiderosie


    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.


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


    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>
    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...
    Therefore the Mater is the only option?
    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'.
    As for me accepting James', I would if an international independent panel of experts recommended it - they didn't.
    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'??
    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 place
    Disadvantages:
    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.
    There is no getting through to someone like that. So, I'm out.
    All or nothing eh?
    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?
    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.
    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.
    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.


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


    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?


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


    MadsL wrote: »
    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'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?
    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?


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


    MadsL wrote: »
    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?


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


    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.
    And you didn't give a great answer to the 100m tower scenario.
    Actually I did, I identified it as a strawman. It is. Your tower scenario is not the same as building a hospital.
    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?


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


    Personally I think they should put in a couple of applications covering different sites, on the grounds that if one fails than at least there are other options


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


    MadsL wrote: »
    Actually I did, I identified it as a strawman. It is. Your tower scenario is not the same as building a hospital.
    Your analogy presupposes an number of preconditions that simply are not present with the NPH

    Can you point out the did similarities?
    Both share
    1) an agreed need for the structure
    2) a dispute over best location
    3) a recommendation from experts as to the best location
    4) this location contravening some planning guideline.
    It is not about me. It is about sustainable planning and development.

    That's where we differ and have done throughout. To me it's about building the best children's hospital that money* can buy.

    *thats money that we have (versus some fantasy budget) which is a real barrier as opposed to planning guidelines.

    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?

    I've answered this. I'd support the best site, which when you limit my options like that would be the full co-location site. But I wouldnt see another site as best if it was being compared to a handicapped Mater plan. If a new review only considers a scaled-back Mater plan it isn't really comparing its full potential to other sites so you'd be steering my support to whatever site you wanted.

    Which is better chicken or fish. Hmmm fish. Well you can't have fish, only fish heads, now which is better?


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


    You havent addressed my point on how to choose the right number of alternatives to review?

    What about alternatives to these alternatives? Like grangegorman or co-locating with the Mater site at Dalymount, or out in the Ward, or Sillogue? Or maybe they should reconsider Tallaght with some extra bit of land tacked on, or Cork or Athlone?

    It's a situation of a decision being made and then pushed off the table based on planning issues. So planning superseding best clinical advice. You won't answer my towers scenario because it tests you conviction to planning guidelines to the limit. Do you choose a second best location on something as important as health care provision. You've consistently argued that a hospital is not a specialist/exceptional case, but it is.


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


    That's where we differ and have done throughout. To me it's about building the best children's hospital that money* can buy.

    *thats money that we have (versus some fantasy budget) which is a real barrier as opposed to planning guidelines.

    edit: Incidentally, isn't that money we may have if we sell off the Lotto?

    And you seem to imply that somehow I oppose that? Aren't we back to 'think of the children'?
    planning guidelines

    read back to the comments about the Development Plan being 'an environmental contract with the people'. Planning is not some optional extra.

    Could you stop posting twice:
    It's a situation of a decision being made and then pushed off the table based on planning issues. So planning superseding best clinical advice. You won't answer my towers scenario because it tests you conviction to planning guidelines to the limit. Do you choose a second best location on something as important as health care provision. You've consistently argued that a hospital is not a specialist/exceptional case, but it is.

    Your tower scenario is as real as saying "we have to give everyone a pill to save their lives, but it will make unborn babies spontaneously abort" Should we issue the pill?

    It's a strawman trying to push an outcome. I'm not playing games.


    Hospitals are not extraordinary/exceptional cases as much as you want to tug at heartstrings to make them so.


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


    Run roughshod? Run? It has been six years in planning and consultation.
    I would say 'run roughshod' is a reasonable depiction. There are very strong suspicions that the location was politically motivated. A high profile member left the project board intimating as much. And Norah Casey was a little bit too 'Marie Antoinette' in condemning the An BP decision. To my mind (and of course I can't prove this) that betrayed that the mindset of a coterie was at work. A coterie that was expecting the project to go through on the nod, without bothersome interference from statutory bodies exercising their statutory functions.

    BTW, it's not the planning board's or the planning process's fault that the P&C process took six years. Or that it ignored representations over a year ago that the planning application would fail.


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


    Of course the planning advice should be considered - in the round with all the other considerations, and the medical advice should have priority.
    This comment is so far wide of the mark, it's really hard to credit.

    Planning law and the planning process exists in its own right and on a statutory basis. Statute law passed by the Oireachtas. It is not an optional extra. It is not a mere and casual offer of advice. It can only be overturned on appeal or by specific mandate from the minister.


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


    McDave wrote: »
    This comment is so far wide of the mark, it's really hard to credit.

    Planning law and the planning process exists in its own right and on a statutory basis. Statute law passed by the Oireachtas. It is not an optional extra. It is not a mere and casual offer of advice. It can only be overturned on appeal or by specific mandate from the minister.

    Jesus, if you are still trying to explain planning to me you've obviously misunderstood me throughout the entire thread. I know how planning is, I'm arguing about how it should be i.e. not the be all and end all in every single project.

    You might avoid answering on the tower scenario (and inappropriately compare it to 'abortion pills') but if planning can't adapt to a particular need or concede to particular expert advice from another domain then it has gone like I've said from too lax to too restrictive. We disagree on this as well as on the much needed hospital being an exceptional case.

    And I think MadsL, this being a children's hospital and all, think of the children is a more appropriate sentiment than think of the skyline.


    PS tell me more about the bit in bold


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


    McDave wrote: »
    I would say 'run roughshod' is a reasonable depiction. There are very strong suspicions that the location was politically motivated. A high profile member left the project board intimating as much. And Norah Casey was a little bit too 'Marie Antoinette' in condemning the An BP decision. To my mind (and of course I can't prove this) that betrayed that the mindset of a coterie was at work. A coterie that was expecting the project to go through on the nod, without bothersome interference from statutory bodies exercising their statutory functions.

    How did Bertie politically motivate an independent international panel to choose the Mater? And how after 3 to 4 years out of office did he influence the recent reviews that recommended the Mater? The current Taoiseach is from Mayo, why is he politically motivated to push this site? Oh but to fit your conspiracy theory you'll point to the health minister being from the northside.... Where was minister Harney from?
    BTW, it's not the planning board's or the planning process's fault that the P&C process took six years. Or that it ignored representations over a year ago that the planning application would fail.

    I never said it was.


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


    Environmental contract is nothing but judicial fluff. There is no such thing and the development plan is not a binding contract.

    Before you get all moany again, of course the act is law but that doesn't make the development plan law. A development plan which does not impose maximum limits for height but rather imposes subjective guidelines for buildings over 50m


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


    Interesting reading

    http://thenewchildrenshospital.ie/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/BLEND-Residents-Pauline-Cadell.pdf

    http://thenewchildrenshospital.ie/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/BLEND-Residents-Valerin-OShea.pdf

    The latter is a long and detailed document full of direct quotations from LAP and DCDP etc but is wholly based on false assumptions
    The Dublin City Development Plan is a statutory contract between Dublin City Council (‘DCC’) and the people of the city.

    Hmmm, I wonder who has been quoting from this?

    It's funny that she shows such deference to the DCDP but rubbishes the National Development Plan later in her submission as that document cites the Mater as the location for the NCH.
    Our interpretation of the statuatory documents is that of the ordinary citizen, which is as it should be, since the Dublin City Plan, being a contract with the people of the city is intended to be read and understood by the people.

    My interpretation of the documents is as an ordinary citizen and is at total odds with hers.
    Obviously when considering the optimum site for development of any sort, the prime consideration must be the planning requirements.

    Why is that 'obvious'? That's her opinion.

    While she does make good points she also seems to be the source for the interpretation that the project would negatively impact the skyline. She also shows grave misunderstandings and makes huge logical errors
    n relation to paediatric access to off-site adult sub-specialties, I must state that I have no expertise in medical matters but am very puzzled by the following statement which is offered as the deciding factor in this regard:
    “Siting the paediatric hospital at the Mater Misericordiae Hospital site would place it between the neurosurgical and transplant teams in Beaumont Hospital and the haematology/radiotherapy and burns staff in St. James’s Hospital thereby maximising access to the relevant off site expertise.”
    This conclusion appears illogical to us. How can the Mater Hospital site be better placed to access haematology/radiotherapy (2 of the sub-specialities identified in the McKinsey Report) and the burns medical teams, than St. James’s Hospital, when they are actually located on the St. James’s Hospital site?
    It is extraordinary that the Joint Task Group has taken what is one of the strengths of the St. James’s site and called it an advantage for the Mater site thereby turning what was an advantage for St. James into a disadvantage.

    I don't know whether that's purposely playing dumb but it's a total misrepresentation of the Mater having the benefit of centrality between the other specialities.
    The reality is that if this scheme is permitted to go ahead, it will mean in effect that one government policy i.e. the policy relating to the location of the National Children’s Hospital, would trump all other Government Policy relating to proper planning. The policy to locate the new Children’s Hospital on this site must not be viewed in isolation and certainly cannot be permitted to totally disregard and run rough-shod over other Government Policies as they relate to proper and sustainable development.

    Why must it not be viewed in isolation? Why should health policy trump planning policy?

    And there's that word rough-shod! I wonder who else has been reading this.


    Anyway interesting reading.


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


    Environmental contract is nothing but judicial fluff. There is no such thing and the development plan is not a binding contract.

    Before you get all moany again, of course the act is law but that doesn't make the development plan law. A development plan which does not impose maximum limits for height but rather imposes subjective guidelines for buildings over 50m

    You might note that those 'subjective guidelines' are not objective through lack of trying on the part of residents.

    Perhaps you believe we should be told what is good for the city by rather autocratic city managers than by the Democratic process of the making of a Development Plan?? Are you also claiming that the Development Plan has no legal standing?
    the benefit of centrality
    Seriously?
    Hmmm, I wonder who has been quoting from this?
    And there's that word rough-shod! I wonder who else has been reading this.

    More sarky digs. At me I assume. No I haven't been quoting from this, I've been involved in planning activism far longer than that site has had a DNS record. I am actually capable of independent thought.

    Now I'm getting pretty sick of your sarcastic personal attacks, and I'm simply not going to tolerate them anymore. Take that tone again and I'm hitting the report button. I think I've been tolerant enough.


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


    MadsL wrote: »
    Seriously?
    .

    If this is the quality of response then you can see why you are getting sarky comments. And please can we have less of the scolding comments like I am a bold child. They are not personal attacks, they are criticisms of your responses and opinion.

    Now. Yes, seriously. O Sheas misrepresentation of the reports noted benefits of the Mater site in terms of off-site access to specialities is either purposeful or idiotic.

    You want to build a house. You want a shop, a post office and a Garda station in close proximity-but as these are qualitatively different you have no preferences or hierarchy. Now there is a house beside the shop, from here the Garda station is 1km to the east and the post office is 2kms to the east. There is a house by the post office, from here the Garda station is 1km west and the shop is 2kms west. And there is a house beside the Garda station where the shop is 1km west and post office is 1km east. Choosing this last house for its central location does not mean you think it subsumes the functions of the others. You know this point and being obtuse is what makes me get sarcastic with you. Similar effect likening my tower analogy to abortion pills or posting pictures of prams (even if you delete them).


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


    MadsL wrote: »
    I've been involved in planning activism far longer than that site has had a DNS record. I am actually capable of independent thought.

    Just out of interest, can you name 5 projects that you've actively campaigned in support of?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    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.

    Mod

    On that note I think the time has come.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement