Angry Rebel wrote:
They are entitled to object, but on grounds that actually mean something from a planning perspective. Why should the grant of permission for Riga have any impact on the funding of a public hospital? Riga is privately funded so it's not an either/or situation. Even if it was, the planning system is not the correct place for that debate.
i agree that the specific objections made by mr o reilly are flawed, but is it really good planning to have 5 private hospitals in a city and county with only 1/2 million population? (bons, shanakiel, new beacon at cuh, new lancaster quay, new sheehan group in mahon). too much or too many of any type of facility in an area, be they shopping centres, incinerators, factories, houses, hospitals, must surely be a matter for the planners. after all, they comment on having too few facilites (schools, etc) all the time
Similarly, one of the grounds for objection is the potential loss of jobs (see Irish Examiner article)...aside from the fact that the facility will result in a net addition of medical posts for the city, why is this grounds for a planning objection?
it is not a reason to object to the development, but you are incorrect to say it is a fact that there will be a net increase in medical posts in the city because of this hospital
On an unrelated note, the reporter describes the objector as being employed by the HSE as a shop steward? Does the taxpayer really pay the wages of union officials? I knew that some public sector employers (e.g. CIE) gave huge amounts of time to union officials to "conduct union business" [even though this was never monitored and most just go home early] but a dedicated shop steward?! I hope this guy has a "day job" as well or we may as well throw our hat at any kind of meaningful public sector reform...
you point out mistakes by the reporter, yet you use them to criticise the objector. why?
1. all employers, public and private
, are required to give reasonable time to employees to carry out their duties as union representatives. just because that may have been abused in other situations does not imply that it has been abused in this situation. he is employed to do hospital work, not to act full time as a shop steward.
2. the mercy is a voluntary hospital, and therefore the gentleman in question is an employee of mercy university hospital limited, not the hse directly.
on both these issues, the reporter was in error. if you have a problem with that, write to ms kennedy, rather than use an architecture forum.
don't cast aspersions on a hospital employee.