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 all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

€1bn cost overrun for new Children's Hospital

Options
1…457910…42

Comments

  • Options
    #182
    Wildly Boaring
    Registered Users Posts: 3,629 ✭✭✭Wildly Boaring


    Tefral wrote: »
    Actually the GCCC form of contract is a fixed price contract. There must have been additional items added to the drawings and specifications byt he design team. I also know this to be true as i know quite a few suppliers working away in the back ground on this.

    I also know BAM's MO is to go in low and then flood the design team with Clause 10 claims for information and extensions of time etc.

    Yeah no involvement in this project but this is the nutshell here.

    GCCC is fixed price lump sum and generally design and build.

    I have been on a major HSE job, again not this one.

    The client and their architect were ill prepared. Small examples room arrangements changed after raft poured.
    Additional service requirements after energy centre complete..........

    I am aware on this project of some major groundwork claims. Some substantial uncharted sewers.

    But once you get out of the ground that should be the end of it. Obviously BAM have plenty of opportunities on this project to find cost and EOT

    The HSE are unfit to manage a contract at this stage and no one will be held accountable


  • Options
    #183
    The Bishop Basher
    Registered Users Posts: 4,279 ✭✭✭The Bishop Basher


    salmocab wrote: »
    Well the move needs to happen and can’t be delayed much more. It’s almost certainly not the optimum long term plan but it’s committed to now and looks like it will happen despite many reasons it shouldn’t but the medical reasons for doing it outweigh the financial not to atvthis stage.

    I don’t buy the medical reasons.

    They talk about centres of excellence but it’s just people and machines at the end of the day, both of which can be moved..

    This project should be stopped now regardless of how much has already been wasted but it won’t and the waste will be astronomical by the time they’re done.

    The taxpayer loses yet again.


  • Options
    #184
    salmocab
    Registered Users Posts: 11,283 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    Rennaws wrote: »
    I don’t buy the medical reasons.

    They talk about centres of excellence but it’s just people and machines at the end of the day, both of which can be moved..

    This project should be stopped now regardless of how much has already been wasted but it won’t and the waste will be astronomical by the time they’re done.

    The taxpayer loses yet again.

    Well without any real knowledge of these things I can see that having specialists on site that otherwise might be miles away makes sense and I’m sure there is plenty of crossover I can’t even imagine that would be beneficial. The site is just too small has no room for expansion, will limit parking and isn’t particularly accessible because people won’t by and large be bringing children to hospital on public transport no matter what anyone thinks should happen.
    So it may be the right thing to do medically but it’s a poor location and a ridiculous price.


  • Options
    #185
    The Bishop Basher
    Registered Users Posts: 4,279 ✭✭✭The Bishop Basher


    salmocab wrote: »
    So it may be the right thing to do medically but it’s a poor location and a ridiculous price.

    That’s just it though. Why is it the right thing to do medically ?

    We’re talking about dragging sick kids across the country and through the capital city on public transport. I don’t understand what it is that can’t be physically moved from one location to another to resolve these access issues.

    I do understand the desire for co-location which is why I believe we should be building 2 hospitals in an accessible location outside the city.

    Sure it would be expensive but it could be done over time and we’d have a genuine solution that would benefit many generations to come.

    As it stands we’re going to get the most expensive hospital in the world in an inaccessible location which is absolutely nuts.


  • Options
    #186
    salmocab
    Registered Users Posts: 11,283 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    Rennaws wrote: »
    That’s just it though. Why is it the right thing to do medically ?

    We’re talking about dragging sick kids across the country and through the capital city on public transport. I don’t understand what it is that can’t be physically moved from one location to another to resolve these access issues.

    I do understand the desire for co-location which is why I believe we should be building 2 hospitals in an accessible location outside the city.

    Sure it would be expensive but it could be done over time and we’d have a genuine solution that would benefit many generations to come.

    As it stands we’re going to get the most expensive hospital in the world in an inaccessible location which is absolutely nuts.

    I don’t get what you mean by physically moved from one location to another. Do you mean moving the whole thing or just moving parts of it around as suits


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #187
    The Bishop Basher
    Registered Users Posts: 4,279 ✭✭✭The Bishop Basher


    salmocab wrote: »
    I don’t get what you mean by physically moved from one location to another. Do you mean moving the whole thing or just moving parts of it around as suits

    I mean move it all, adult, children’s and maternity hospitals, lock stock and barrel out to a site on the M50 with ample parking where everyone in the country could access it easily by private car and / or public transport.

    It would be expensive but I’d prefer to see us spend lots of money on a workable solution than waste billions on a less then perfect solution which has problems and hidden costs from the outset.


  • Options
    #188
    Wildly Boaring
    Registered Users Posts: 3,629 ✭✭✭Wildly Boaring


    Rennaws wrote: »
    That’s just it though. Why is it the right thing to do medically ?

    We’re talking about dragging sick kids across the country and through the capital city on public transport. I don’t understand what it is that can’t be physically moved from one location to another to resolve these access issues.

    I do understand the desire for co-location which is why I believe we should be building 2 hospitals in an accessible location outside the city.

    Sure it would be expensive but it could be done over time and we’d have a genuine solution that would benefit many generations to come.

    As it stands we’re going to get the most expensive hospital in the world in an inaccessible location which is absolutely nuts.

    As far as I'm concerned it was purely to keep the consults nice and close to their private practices.

    There was free land offered out by Newlands 10 years ago.

    Imagine driving from donegal and then having to get through Dublin traffic. Load of crap. No way ot should be inside the M50.


  • Options
    #189
    salmocab
    Registered Users Posts: 11,283 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    Rennaws wrote: »
    I mean move it all, adult, children’s and maternity hospitals, lock stock and barrel out to a site on the M50 with ample parking where everyone in the country could access it easily by private car and / or public transport.

    It would be expensive but I’d prefer to see us spend lots of money on a workable solution than waste billions on a less then perfect solution which has problems and hidden costs from the outset.

    I’d very much agree with that, it’s what I think should have happened.


  • Options
    #190
    Amirani
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,521 Mod ✭✭✭✭Amirani


    75% of the hospital's patients are going to be from the Dublin area (as per Dolphin) report. We should not be trying to locate it on a green field site to suit the <1% of patients coming from Donegal, particularly when that means losing out on the benefits of co-location, which is absolutely essential if you want the best patient outcomes. If you're happy to go without co-location, than you are happy for the children of Ireland to receive sub-optimal care by any medical metric.

    Moving an existing adult hospital or building a new one is prohivitavely expensive and makes this overrun seem like peanuts. In terms of the 6 hospitals available in Dublin; Vincent's didn't want it, Connolly isn't of the required standard and would require significant investment. In terms of consultant access and speciality care, Tallaght is not on the same level as the other 3, and the proposed site is very constrained.

    Both the Coombe and Crumlin recommended James's. The medical experts recommended James's (even over the Mater as James's proposition has improved since original plan). Anyone in this thread without at least a medical degree suggesting that a green field site would be as good for patient outcomes is deluded.


  • Options
    #191
    Amirani
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,521 Mod ✭✭✭✭Amirani


    Rennaws wrote: »
    I mean move it all, adult, children’s and maternity hospitals, lock stock and barrel out to a site on the M50 with ample parking where everyone in the country could access it easily by private car and / or public transport.

    It would be expensive but I’d prefer to see us spend lots of money on a workable solution than waste billions on a less then perfect solution which has problems and hidden costs from the outset.

    What tax rate are you willing to pay to fund the 10 figure sum needed to pay for all this? Do you know how long this would take? We'd be without a National Children's Hospital for another decade at least under your solution.

    Read the Dolphin report, your suggestion was thrown away right at the start because it's a terrible suggestion in medical and fiscal terms.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #192
    Wildly Boaring
    Registered Users Posts: 3,629 ✭✭✭Wildly Boaring


    Amirani wrote: »
    75% of the hospital's patients are going to be from the Dublin area (as per Dolphin) report. We should not be trying to locate it on a green field site to suit the <1% of patients coming from Donegal, particularly when that means losing out on the benefits of co-location, which is absolutely essential if you want the best patient outcomes. If you're happy to go without co-location, than you are happy for the children of Ireland to receive sub-optimal care by any medical metric.

    Moving an existing adult hospital or building a new one is prohivitavely expensive and makes this overrun seem like peanuts. In terms of the 6 hospitals available in Dublin; Vincent's didn't want it, Connolly isn't of the required standard and would require significant investment. In terms of consultant access and speciality care, Tallaght is not on the same level as the other 3, and the proposed site is very constrained.

    Both the Coombe and Crumlin recommended James's. The medical experts recommended James's (even over the Mater as James's proposition has improved since original plan). Anyone in this thread without at least a medical degree suggesting that a green field site would be as good for patient outcomes is deluded.

    Ok sorry. Donegal, mayo, Kerry, cork, Waterford.

    You know anywhere that isn't Dublin.
    Rest of us exist too.

    Getting into James's is painful and does not suit the needs of the country's patients.


  • Options
    #193
    salmocab
    Registered Users Posts: 11,283 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    Amirani wrote: »
    75% of the hospital's patients are going to be from the Dublin area (as per Dolphin) report. We should not be trying to locate it on a green field site to suit the <1% of patients coming from Donegal, particularly when that means losing out on the benefits of co-location, which is absolutely essential if you want the best patient outcomes. If you're happy to go without co-location, than you are happy for the children of Ireland to receive sub-optimal care by any medical metric.

    Moving an existing adult hospital or building a new one is prohivitavely expensive and makes this overrun seem like peanuts. In terms of the 6 hospitals available in Dublin; Vincent's didn't want it, Connolly isn't of the required standard and would require significant investment. In terms of consultant access and speciality care, Tallaght is not on the same level as the other 3, and the proposed site is very constrained.

    Both the Coombe and Crumlin recommended James's. The medical experts recommended James's (even over the Mater as James's proposition has improved since original plan). Anyone in this thread without at least a medical degree suggesting that a green field site would be as good for patient outcomes is deluded.

    A greenfield site on the m50 would be much easier to get to than Rialto for the majority of Dubs. Rialto is a pain of a place to get to. People with sick children will rarely think I’ll time a bus they’ll just drive.


  • Options
    #194
    Subcomandante Marcos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,683 ✭✭✭Subcomandante Marcos


    Wildly Boaring wrote: »
    As far as I'm concerned it was purely to keep the consults nice and close to their private practices.

    It has literally nothing to do with that.

    Part of the reason is because in a centre of excellence like this is planned to be you need to be academically connected to a university. Being in town allows students and teaching doctors to between both campuses easier. It also allows researchers from the university easier access to the hospital for practical work.

    The location picked allows students and professors from the country's three leading medical schools (RCSI, UCD and Trinity) to interact easily with the campus.


  • Options
    #195
    Amirani
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,521 Mod ✭✭✭✭Amirani


    salmocab wrote: »
    A greenfield site on the m50 would be much easier to get to than Rialto for the majority of Dubs. Rialto is a pain of a place to get to. People with sick children will rarely think I’ll time a bus they’ll just drive.

    Have you travelled on the M50 lately? It's constantly jammed.

    There is only 1 potential site close to the M50 that would suit this and it's Tallaght Hospital. That said, it's an inferior option in medical terms than James's/Mater/Beaumont, the campus doesn't have a particularly suitable site for the proposed NCH or expansion and is more painful than James's to get to for most people in Dublin - and I say that as someone who lives 15 mins from Tallaght village.

    I'd recommend reading the Dolphin report, it deals with all these issues in much detail. Of particular important I think are the clinical recommendations.

    Any child needing urgent care will have helicopter and ambulance services available. Regarding car parking, there is more in the James's plan than the Tallaght plan.


  • Options
    #196
    Wildly Boaring
    Registered Users Posts: 3,629 ✭✭✭Wildly Boaring


    Subcomandante Marcos wrote: »
    It has literally nothing to do with that.

    Part of the reason is because in a centre of excellence like this is planned to be you need to be academically connected to a university. Being in town allows students and teaching doctors to between both campuses easier. It also allows researchers from the university easier access to the hospital for practical work.

    The location picked allows students and professors from the country's three leading medical schools (RCSI, UCD and Trinity) to interact easily with the campus.

    Unfortunately anyone who knows anything about engineering projects will know you chose greenfield every time or you run the risk of cost over runs.

    Employ BAM and give them brownfield, involve the HSE and guarantee over runs.

    If sitting in Dublin it had to stick to budget and not push out every other health project in country.

    Nope go from €450 million to €1750 million and kill off every other project.

    Kids in ICU in castlebar or cork or wherever are having to be carried to Dublin. At least now its crumlin which you can usually drive. Feckin James's and no parking....typical idiocy


  • Options
    #197
    laserlad2010
    Registered Users Posts: 514 ✭✭✭laserlad2010


    Wildly Boaring wrote: »
    Unfortunately anyone who knows anything about engineering projects will know you chose greenfield every time or you run the risk of cost over runs.

    Employ BAM and give them brownfield, involve the HSE and guarantee over runs.

    If sitting in Dublin it had to stick to budget and not push out every other health project in country.

    Nope go from €450 million to €1750 million and kill off every other project.

    Kids in ICU in castlebar or cork or wherever are having to be carried to Dublin. At least now its crumlin which you can usually drive. Feckin James's and no parking....typical idiocy

    Did you... did you just describe a child in an "ICU" (we won't delve into regional paediatric intensive care provision) having to be carried to Dublin?

    These children are transported by ambulance, you do... realise… this?


  • Options
    #198
    Wildly Boaring
    Registered Users Posts: 3,629 ✭✭✭Wildly Boaring


    laserlad2010 wrote: »
    Did you... did you just describe a child in an "ICU" (we won't delve into regional paediatric intensive care provision) having to be carried to Dublin?

    These children are transported by ambulance, you do... realise… this?


    My child is in PICU1 in crumlin today. Brought by ambulance.

    Sorry for using the word carried for ambulance. Assumed all would know


  • Options
    #199
    Amirani
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,521 Mod ✭✭✭✭Amirani


    Wildly Boaring wrote: »
    Unfortunately anyone who knows anything about engineering projects will know you chose greenfield every time or you run the risk of cost over runs.

    Employ BAM and give them brownfield, involve the HSE and guarantee over runs.

    If sitting in Dublin it had to stick to budget and not push out every other health project in country.

    Nope go from €450 million to €1750 million and kill off every other project.

    Kids in ICU in castlebar or cork or wherever are having to be carried to Dublin. At least now its crumlin which you can usually drive. Feckin James's and no parking....typical idiocy

    Cost wasn't the most important factor here, medical outcomes was.

    Co-location was an absolute must. Green field site doesn't give you that so it was ruled out.

    As has been stated, James's option will have more parking than many of the alternatives. Not that that will be important to kids sitting in ICU as you seem to imply...


  • Options
    #200
    salmocab
    Registered Users Posts: 11,283 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    I drive it twice a day, it’s rammed in the morning and afternoon rush hours, the city is also rammed at these times you may be shocked to hear and Rialto is a bottleneck. Lots of people would need to use the m50 just to get to Rialto anyway and not just country folk. Lots of suburban north siders would go that way and people coming in from the dun laoighre side too.
    The m50 may in time be fixed but James will forever be too small a site.


  • Options
    #201
    laserlad2010
    Registered Users Posts: 514 ✭✭✭laserlad2010


    Wildly Boaring wrote: »
    My child is in PICU1 in crumlin today. Brought by ambulance.

    Sorry for using the word carried for ambulance. Assumed all would know

    And your child would still have been brought quickly by ambulance if the hospital was on the St. James' site.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #202
    The Bishop Basher
    Registered Users Posts: 4,279 ✭✭✭The Bishop Basher


    Amirani wrote: »
    If you're happy to go without co-location, than you are happy for the children of Ireland to receive sub-optimal care by any medical metric.

    Moving an existing adult hospital or building a new one is prohivitavely expensive and makes this overrun seem like peanuts.

    What we’re getting is sub optimal and prohibitively expensive. The scary thing is we have no idea just how expensive it’s going to be. Many of us predicted massive overruns and here we are with massive overruns.
    Amirani wrote: »
    Anyone in this thread without at least a medical degree suggesting that a green field site would be as good for patient outcomes is deluded.

    Nonsense. We’re not only paying for it but we’re also future customers and the vast majority of people I’ve discussed this with, including medical people, are of the view that James’s is a nightmare to reach, including from many parts of Dublin.
    Amirani wrote: »
    What tax rate are you willing to pay to fund the 10 figure sum needed to pay for all this? Do you know how long this would take? We'd be without a National Children's Hospital for another decade at least under your solution.

    Well I pay the top rate and i’d be happy to see it go towards a purpose built hospital in an accessible location. I’m not happy paying for the massive waste and missed opportunity that we’re currently throwing a few billion at. As for waiting a decade ? We’ve already waited for nearly 3 decades. I’d prefer to wait another and do it right then rush it and get it wrong.


  • Options
    #203
    Wildly Boaring
    Registered Users Posts: 3,629 ✭✭✭Wildly Boaring


    Amirani wrote: »
    Not that that will be important to kids sitting in ICU as you seem to imply...

    My point was about distraught families from miles away attempting to access James's while their kids are in ICU.

    This is probably worse for cancer sufferers or any seriously ill patients with ongoing care.

    Its seems incredible to me that a city centre location be chosen logistically or commercially.

    I also have a lot of experience of the vested interests in Irish construction projects and the incompetence of the HSE when dealing with large scale projects.

    I am impressed with the answers on the location from medical side. In fact the answers here have opened my eyes to be honest.


  • Options
    #204
    The Bishop Basher
    Registered Users Posts: 4,279 ✭✭✭The Bishop Basher


    Amirani wrote: »
    Cost wasn't the most important factor here, medical outcomes was.

    Yes to the detriment of the patients who were ignored. Not much point taking about medical outcomes when it’ll take people hours to get there.
    Amirani wrote: »
    Co-location was an absolute must. Green field site doesn't give you that so it was ruled out.

    Big problems require big solutions. There’s no reason why an adult hospital couldn’t be built along side a childrens hospital. If cost was genuinely an issue we wouldn’t be building in James’s where we have no idea what the final cost will be. 2 billion and counting !!


  • Options
    #205
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Amirani wrote: »
    75% of the hospital's patients are going to be from the Dublin area (as per Dolphin) report. We should not be trying to locate it on a green field site to suit the <1% of patients coming from Donegal, particularly when that means losing out on the benefits of co-location, which is absolutely essential if you want the best patient outcomes. If you're happy to go without co-location, than you are happy for the children of Ireland to receive sub-optimal care by any medical metric....

    The wording in McKinsey was ....
    1. Space

    • Ability to meet projected tertiary and secondary needs (including potential to accommodate research and education facilities).
    ...International experience shows that it is important to weigh a decision to co-locate against pragmatic considerations, including: space and quality of
    access to potential sites;...
    ¶ A single tertiary centre (also providing secondary care needs for its local
    catchment)

    ¶ Co-located with an adult teaching hospital

    ¶ Linked with other paediatric regional centres, within the context of a
    clearly defined integrated service

    ¶ Additional considerations included accessibility to public transport and
    roads, and space to expand for research and clinical needs
    The preferred option would be co-location. If so, needs to be specific about level of integration and sharing of services. If not co-located, need to be specific about how to address the challenges of isolation from adult services.
    4. Access

    • Comprehensive outreach programme with other hospitals providing in-patient paediatric services in critical sub-specialties.
    • National retrieval plan and ambulance diversion protocol for Dublin.
    • Clear referral protocol and supporting liaison with Dublin A&E centres.
    • Provision for “hospital hotel” facilities and family accommodation on site.
    • Good public transport and road links.
    • Parking for families and staff.

    So I don't know where "absolutely essential" came from, at the loss of most of the practical considerations.

    One of the advantages of co-location was economy of scale and shared resources. That it would be less expensive than a greenfield site.

    Well that ship has well and truly sailed.


  • Options
    #206
    Amirani
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,521 Mod ✭✭✭✭Amirani


    Wildly Boaring wrote: »
    My point was about distraught families from miles away attempting to access James's while their kids are in ICU.

    This is probably worse for cancer sufferers or any seriously ill patients with ongoing care.

    Its seems incredible to me that a city centre location be chosen logistically or commercially.

    I also have a lot of experience of the vested interests in Irish construction projects and the incompetence of the HSE when dealing with large scale projects.

    I am impressed with the answers on the location from medical side. In fact the answers here have opened my eyes to be honest.

    I understand your concerns and I think you're spot on as regards vested interests from a construction point of view - the project overrun speaks to this. If we were picking a site on purely a cost-basis, it would be an M50 site.

    But the medical reasoning was definitely the most important here, Co-Location was essential, and there were only a select few hospitals where this could be achieved.

    As regards parking for parents. The site does have a reasonably large number of spaces available, but won't be able to accommodate all of them. A dedicated park and ride with access to the Luas or Houston train should help this, and there are other parking facilities that may be used also. No option, even a green field M50 site, would have ample parking for all parents and hospital staff if we were to build a large co-located facility.


  • Options
    #207
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Wildly Boaring wrote: »
    ...I am impressed with the answers on the location from medical side. In fact the answers here have opened my eyes to be honest.

    You should consider does James currently handle everything on site, or does it refer people to other locations in Dublin for certain specialities. Maternity for example.


  • Options
    #208
    Wildly Boaring
    Registered Users Posts: 3,629 ✭✭✭Wildly Boaring


    Amirani wrote: »
    I understand your concerns and I think you're spot on as regards vested interests from a construction point of view - the project overrun speaks to this. If we were picking a site on purely a cost-basis, it would be an M50 site.

    But the medical reasoning was definitely the most important here, Co-Location was essential, and there were only a select few hospitals where this could be achieved.

    As regards parking for parents. The site does have a reasonably large number of spaces available, but won't be able to accommodate all of them. A dedicated park and ride with access to the Luas or Houston train should help this, and there are other parking facilities that may be used also. No option, even a green field M50 site, would have ample parking for all parents and hospital staff if we were to build a large co-located facility.

    I realise the ship has sailed.

    But actually getting there is the huge issue. I don't think dubs who are used to your ****e traffic realise just how bad it is. Dublin is paralysed for several hours a day. How are cancer patients to get in for 9am treatments? Get up at 5??

    It's a great aim to have to ignore cost and provide the optimal medical solution. But we now have spent the health capital spend for the next 20 years. A minor recession and Cork, Limerick and Waterford can put paid to any planned works. The location and brownfield is a substantial part of this. (Hse uselessness is going to transpire to be most of it I fear)


  • Options
    #209
    Idbatterim
    Registered Users Posts: 17,840 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    salmocab wrote: »
    In fairness it’s much needed the two children’s hospitals are very old and need replacing or complete overhauls. They could be done up cheaper but they can’t really be expanded. More space is needed for beds and new technologies. I’ve been to our lady’s a few times over the years and there is a lot of queuing in corridors going on, it’s just too small for what’s in it now.

    how long before we hear the new childrens hospital doesnt have enough beds etc? the usual bull**** we expect from here? Its laughable, how long has it taken to get here? over two decades? then the cost isnt far off two billion?

    No doubt it could have been done for a fraction of the price during the recession! Laughable! Also when I hear the word "expert" being used, in Ireland, please, just please... dont!

    that james site seems a sprawling low density mess, if there is an issue with parking, surely they can demolish a building or find a site for a several storey car park?


  • Options
    #210
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    I'll answer my own question. Co-location changed from preferred to essential because its the only plus for certain politically advantageous locations.
    Locations which are otherwise entirely unsuitable.

    Someone mentioned Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH) is landlocked, and doesn't have parking on site, and is difficult to drive to.

    Its also not co-located.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #211
    Idbatterim
    Registered Users Posts: 17,840 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    beauf wrote: »
    I'll answer my own question. Co-location changed from preferred to essential because its the only plus for certain politically advantageous locations.
    Locations which are otherwise entirely unsuitable.

    Someone mentioned Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH) is landlocked, and doesn't have parking on site, and is difficult to drive to.

    Its also not co-located.

    is the co-location a must in non banana republics? because as you say, nothing would surprise me here, they'd gladly cost the taxpayers hundreds of millions if their mates could make an extra few euro out of it...


Advertisement