I couldn't agree more. By any standard, this development breached countless statutory planning provisions. The fact that nobody could be bothered to engage meaningful planning input during the process, in some form of bizarre don't ask, don't tell ritual, does not excuse any blind granting of permission for the project.
gunter wrote:I've read the City Council's submission and, I have to say, I think they got it about right. They had concerns about aspects of the design which it is clear they would have sought modifications to - via a request for additional information - had the application been made to them in the first instance, and they wanted someone to compensate them for the loss of on-street parking revenue, but in general they appear to have felt that the aesthetic challenge of the bulk/scale/mass was close to finding its design resolution.
The inspector's report doesn't record who in Dublin City Council was the author of their impressive submission, but I'm guessing it wasn't the guy responsible for putting down slopy lawns on Smithfield, or the guy with the tarmac fetish on Fade Street.
I couldn't disagree more. The City Council submission is a complete fudge - as with the DOE's - adopting the usual mindless anodyne corporate position, tossing positives against negatives like apples and oranges and arriving with a pineapple on its head. Literally, in this instance. No matter what this proposal was, DCC would have granted permission. I have no question in my mind on that. The pressure to get this passed on a number of fronts was enormous and there was no way management were going to say no to this. Even for the Board to make the decision they did was a very ambitious move - even if the very concept of an 'ambitious' decision by a statutory board reviewing statutory instruments being preposterous. A highly regarded former member of the Board has observed that the indirect pressure on ABP with this decision was colossal, and is firmly of the belief that it will have repercussions for how it operates in the future, which is profoundly regrettable in this day and age.
Simply put, the government put all its eggs in one basket with a preposterous 'review panel' late last year, costing over €200,000 of 'consultants' time, without one ounce of planning expertise. This is widely agreed to be the nub of the issue; they can no longer blame the previous government for this location choice, and must now clean up a mess which they single-handedly created - one which first year planning students, free of charge, could happily have informed them about before ever lodging a single planning file.
Frank Taylor wrote:ABP weighed up this project and, without offering an alternative, they cancelled it as if they were cancelling a supermarket or a housing development. In this case multiple medical expert committees have judged that this site is optimal for patient outcomes, anything less is at the cost of public health. Something is wrong with ABP's mandate that they have chosen to preserve their idea of the aesthetic purity of a tawdry Dublin district at the expense of children's survival rates. Clearly ABP have no mandate to balance the aesthetic against the functional gain to the city.
The buildings that currently surround St George's Church are abominable indictments of previous planning decisions. Low rise, depressing socially segregated ghetto blocks, cars strewn in front. pastiche georgian meets brutal 60s redbrick cuboid poverty grids meets noughties low cost apartments. This is shitsville and a new hospital will not make it worse. Even if its shiny corners can be seen over the rooftops.
Frank, you are justifying bad planning with bad planning. Also, to couch this decision as an 'aesthetic' argument is simplistic and ill-informed. Read the 130-page plus report before drawing conclusions.