Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
AN TAISCE HAS failed in its bid to prevent €89 million plans by the Mater Hospital in Dublin to construct a nine-storey extension block for Covid-19 emergency planning.
The hospital had lodged the plans last year to address what it termed “the ongoing emergency” with the development of the new purpose-built facility.
It will contain 98 beds spread across single rooms to prevent the spread of disease.
But the wider plans were objected to by heritage body An Taisce, which claimed the development showed a lack of regard for the Georgian era Eccles Street, with it contending that the quality of the hospital’s design is not fitting with the importance of the area.
In its decision, An Bord Pleanála found that the development would be appropriately located and would have a “positive impact” on the character of Eccles Street and the north Georgian core of Dublin and would not detract from the setting of any protected structures there.
Planning inspector Stephen J. O’Sullivan noted that the hospital stated in its submissions that the Covid-19 pandemic demonstrated the need for hospitals to deal better with infectious disease, with the Mater’s current facilities remaining “under significant pressure” earlier this year during examination of the issue.
“Remedying this deficiency is a priority under national, regional and local planning policy,” he said, adding that the site is not zoned to conserve architectural heritage, but is instead zoned for uses including hospitals.
Planning consultants on behalf of the Mater previously said that the new emergency wing “will greatly enhance the hospital’s ICU capacity and provide specialist isolation rooms for the care of highly infectious patients”.
However in a submission lodged with the city council, An Taisce argued that the proposed development “should be refused permission or significantly revised in its design and scale”.
In the An Taisce submission lodged previously with Dublin City Council, it argued that he proposal “undermines the whole basis of Georgian urban planning which is based on calm and ordered streets, common parapets, height to width ratios and coherent views and termination points”.
It said the application site is in an immensely important location facing onto Eccles Street and is part of a site where original Georgian houses were controversially demolished in the 1980s.
The Mater commenced work on the project under emergency legislation without the need to seek planning permission and had commenced enabling works, as Ireland faced a a third wave of Covid 19 in December 2020.
In a separate submission, the Irish Georgian Society said it had “considerable reservations”, claiming that the project’s scale will dominate Eccles Street.
Taking this into account, O’Sullivan said the society’s call to reinstate the prior streetscape in the manner would not be doable.
Instead, the hospital will “enhance the visual presence” of the hospital on Eccles Street and would provide a new entrance to the hospital from the street.
“The proposed development would properly integrate into that streetscape. As such it would improve the setting of the protected structures across the road,” O’Sullivan added.
A number of conditions were attached to the granting of the works, partly to protect street amenities during construction.
Welcoming the board’s decision, a spokesperson for the Mater said it will add “much needed capacity” to the hospital.
“The Mater Hospital proceeded with the construction of the new wing in December 2020 under emergency legislation in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and the critical need to increase bed capacity and especially intensive care infrastructure nationally,” the spokesperson said.
“The delivery of this development in such a short time frame is a testament to the Mater Hospital’s dedicated staff who drove it in collaboration with HSE colleagues.”
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Good stuff. Screw you eircom
It won’t change anything for Eircom customers. They’re quite happy to block the website is it means they can continue any secret deal with IRMA and protect their own music service.
In any event, Eircom’s days are numbered due to their massive debt.
@Liam massive debt ? I thought it was bought at a profit everytime its put on the market, apart from the time everybody bought shares in it.
You poor bastard
Getting around the Eircom block is easy. They are not going to tell me where to go on the Internet so I find ways around their ridiculous ban. Today the Pirate Bay tomorrow who knows. There are countries having revolutions for freedoms and the right to use the Internet. What do we have? Eircom and it’s censorship of the Internet.
This is brilliant news and results like this are why we’re better off in Europe, if Irish authorities had they’re way we’d be blocked from everything bar mass and the rte website.
Blocked from everything except mass eh? You’d like that wouldn’t you, Mr. BigBalls?
bahahahahahahahahahahahaha :-D its true though. The Irish government behave like China a lot going round tellin folk what to do and how to think. they should really frakin stop that Shite and sort important things like the health and social welfare services out and stop trying to nanny us about the place
The entertainment industry needs to realise that the population isn’t going to put up with their ridiculous prices. Rather than accepting that their prices are too high, they’re trying to change the law to suit their own greediness.
Liam, do you think that 99c for a song or <10 euros for an album is to expensive ? i suspect that music has never been cheaper than it is now. as for movies they can be rented or purchased from a range of online services (itunes, etc) for less than going to xtravision without the hassle of going, renting and returning media.
either way thats not the point, as when people can get something for free 9/10 will do so thats the biggest problem, how does the industry compete with free ?
The way to compete with free is the provide a better, easier, more convenient model. The way iTunes, Netflix, etc do.
@ Conor Foley: But Conor…I like free!!!
I may as well weigh in as I’m a Conor… go Conors! first time i’ve written ‘conors’ without it being a lazy neglektypo. Musicians work hard to produce quality… they deserve fair pay. However the Industry big boys smother creativity and stratify the wealth to… themselves. so, screw em, free access on net= democratisation of music industry
@Conor
Unfortunately, I do think it’s too expensive. Especially when you consider how much it costs for them to produce a CD.
99c (digital download) is nothing to complain about and it’s very convenient to get it that way. But charging 10€ and upwards for albums that are decades old, is criminal. I’m not saying that great songs or albums lose value over time, but the record company is making pure profit on a lot of this stuff through re releases and greatest hits albums. They don’t respect the customer.
In terms of movies, they’re another rip off, even just to rent them. Hopefully Netflix will bring their flat monthly fee with them to this country and i’ll be happy to bite.
Hey, is it piracy if I sing along? How about if I sing it later in the shower? Or in a pub? While playing a banjo? And people tip me?
The whole thing is too fuzzy.
Records used to be a way of advertising the live performances. If I pay for music I want it performed live in front of me.
Dance Monkeys Dance!
Right on!
Maybe I’m alone in this, but if I download an album and I like it, then I buy it.
Same way as before, I would get someone to make me a copy and if I liked it enough – I’d buy it.
There are however a load of albums out there with one or two good songs and the rest is filler. Why should I pay the same amount for a crap album as I do for one I like?
Try before you buy, that’s all it is. If I like it enough I want to have some revenue go to the artist.. Mind you, the way recording contracts are actually worked out, sweet f.a. of what you pay for your CD goes to the artist. If you wanna support the artist, go to their shows and buy their merchandise – they make more money from that.
errorcom, you may once again get one if your untrained salesforce to contact me on my unlisted number, I may have advised rather forcefully to shove both router and 25meters of cat5 cabling into a rather unpleasant area, if you think I was going to go back you when you were blocking sites that carry both legal and illegal code, I might still be upset with your term high speed, and your offer of an emobile. hopefully you will see sense to remove this restriction.
Johnny buys a Mars bar. Tony steals Johnny’s Mars bar. Now, Johnny as no Mars bar. – Theft
Johnny buys a Mars bar. Tony makes a copy of Johnny’s Mars bar. Now, the two boys have Mars bars. Piracy.
‘Takes a copy of Johnny’s Mars bar’?
With the magic Mars bar copying machine? You should use an analogy that makes sense at least.
Ara ye’re funny the pair of ye. :-D
it’s not exactly trying to divide by zero…
stealing from a ship deprives the owner of a product. digital copies cost zero to make.its very differeng. if they can’t keep up with changin g times, too bad. same thing during industrial revolutions
Digital copies cost zero to make. By what logic is this true.
right click. copy. paste. the only costs is during the creation and marketing of the product, everything after that costs zero. things should cost less, considering the reductions in cost associated with needing factories, ppl to work in them etc etc…why does a track online cost the same as a physical cd? surely bandwith cant cost more than the old school way of making things
It obviously does not “cost zero” to distribute digital copies of things. In even the most basic scenario, somebody has to pay for the energy that powers the computers that host the content, and some portion of the costs of the network that connects the consumer to the content provider. This may be significantly cheaper than manufacturing and distributing physical media (and with technologies like bittorrent, can be largely distributed amongst the consumers of the content), but it is certainly not free.
That’s going by the old model. All you need is the initial file,release it onto torrents, and the rest is history, you got the masses sending it around. Perhaps a voluntary payment schrme directly to artists would work better. Some people are, but not all aren’t willing to pay for good work. Iftesco takes back unsatisfactory products, why shouldn’t the music industry
Yes, like I said. But I’d rather pay for http downloads, thank you very much, as long as the price is reasonable, the selection is exhaustive, and there is no crap proprietary software to be installed.
Well said @Justin Chan Hsian Loon distributing music is more or less free using bittorrent. Musicians need not fear free music. Records were invented as promotional devices to be given to radio stations to play, this popularised the musicians work and they reaped the benefit through large attendances at their gigs. This model is returning, the only loser is record companies and uber-groups U2/Metallica/Rolling Stones, my heart bleeds for them.
Never have so many people listened to so much music and consequently attended so many gigs. Remember in the 80′s when the only big gig was Slane, now we have the Elec Pic/Oxegen/Marlay Park/The O2 etc etc… as record companies die the live music industry blooms and it’s consequent employment and other economic benefits accrue. As uber-groups die a thousand more eclectic bands are born and find an audience :). Free music is great EMBRACE IT.
We pay these internet service providers
More than enough each month for there average broadband they provide.so we should be free to surf and download what we want.good news
you (assumably) pay the government your road tax every month also, does that make you free to behave on the roads any way you see fit ?
No, Conor. It does not allow you to “behave on the roads any way you see fit” but it does allow you to go anywhere on the public road system that you want. Blocking access to sites that offer downloading of copyrighted material is like blocking someone from driving down a road where there’s a house that sells drugs. Blocking access to TPB is not the same as stopping someone from drinking 12 pints and driving home.
Conor just got owned by barry..fair play
sorry Barry but thats a frankly over simplification as it implies that anything created can be copied without depriving the creator in anyway.
previous reply was intended for the comment on theft v piracy on Martin O Donnells original comment.
regarding the road analogy the point was that paying for internet access to a ISP does not give you the right to download what you want in the same way that paying to use a road does allow you to behave as you want.
fwiw i’m supportive of net neutrality and disagree with the concept of ISP’s blocking sites at the behest of others (though there are some valid exceptions), that however does not give people to right to download copyrighted materials “cos they’d paid the ISP for the internet”
@Conor Foley “fwiw i’m supportive of net neutrality and disagree with the concept of ISP’s blocking sites at the behest of others”
Obviously not. I was starting to think you worked for IMRO from the tone of your comments on this page.
3D printers will be the next thing that major companies will want banned. Instead of buying items you can print them.
I recently printed out a replacement piece of plastic for my car after the plastic bleed valve on the radiator broke.
Saved myself time, money and screwed over the expensive car part dealers.
Copyright and patents are the biggest stifle of innovation. Until we throw them out we will have to deal with ridiculous prices and low quality products.
about time …we are free to download what we want
but is it ok to walk into a store and take what you want ? conceptually its the same thing. you are depriving the creator of the material renumeration for his/her work.
the problem is that the vested interests in the industry (labels, publishers, distributors) are either unwilling or unable (or both) to evolve to meet this new business world and are using legal means to try and protect their revenue streams (and margins) without innovating and changing.
No, Conor. Conceptually it is not the same thing.
http://jkeyaudio.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/piracy-vs-theft.jpg
I wouldn’t steal a car but I would download one if I could.
Not quite the same thing when the shop still has the original item Conor.
Conor, in a store the big muso companies get the cream of the profits. Musicians work hard to produce quality… they deserve fair pay. However the Industry big boys smother creativity and stratify the wealth to… themselves. so, screw em, free access on net= democratisation of music industry
This COMPLETELY surprises me. I think this is he first time that music industry lobbyists have been smacked in the face. Yesterday Kevin Cardiff and today this.I’ll be less critical of Europe. ACTA fail.
Conor your fighting a losing battle here mate :)
I think the biggest issue is value for money. I purchase music from iTunes as i refuse to pay anything over €10 for a single cd album. HMV have learned the hard way by having a massive markup on CDs and DVDs for years. I remember CDs costing over €20 in HMV a few years back. Ridiculous. They are now fighting for survival on the high street.
There will always be people who download but i think the music and film industries need to do more to make the CDs and DVDs actually worth purchasing and owning them by providing proper value for money. Additional content, special offers and bonus items would be nice for a start.
They need to do more to make their own online offerings more attractive: better selection, cheaper prices, better quality, more convenience. They can definitely compete with free, despite frequent protestations to the contrary, because free often means inconvenience and poor quality. Content distributors need to offer something better than pirates do, but they consistently refuse to do so, instead encumbering their offerings with geographical restrictions, poor choice and proprietary software requirements.
If there was no free downloading new cd’s would cost over 30 euros by now. Record companies ate themselves, greedy hippos. Time and tide wait for no one.
Ha ha lovely
@ Connor Foley. If you believe the likes of IRMA and the major record labels,you are exactly right,how can artist compete with “free” on their creations? The reality of the situation is an artist gets very little for their recorded creations.They in fact have to sign over all their rights to a label,who can chose not to release they’re creation if they so choose..Artist’s make their money from touring and merchandising,unless you are U2 or the like’s where you can command a percentage on your creation.Record labels have been ripping off their own artists and their customers for years,but since the inception of the internet,they are feeling the pinch and now using the law to crawl back some of that over inflated revenue.If you want to support local artists.
The whole debate is academic. The indiscriminate availability of music works in favour of new acts and against old acts. I love independent music. Always have. In the 80s if I wanted a new album by a relatively unknown band like Husker Du or Big Black I had to pay 5 to 10 quid over the regular price. Not only that but these bands never played here because nobody knew them enough to make it economically viable to play here. Now we have many small venues and many new acts playing here because we download their music for free and attend their gigs to pay them back for the pleasure. Example, Crystal Castles, Battles, Holy Fk. Never would have heard of them without free downloads. Great gigs though. It also works for small bands from the past, still going in the present. Still going because their music is freely available and old and new audiences go to their gigs. Say 500 people at 20 quid a go gives 10k, 5 for the band, 5 for the venue and off they go to the next small venue. Fantastic. Long may it last and to hell with IRMA.
Freedom !
@ Connor Foley: your living in the past dude…
I would think the general lack of disposable income has a significant effect on the increasing rate of illegal downloading. People just can’t afford it anymore.
Well a great read…
I must agree that the whole drive for open source has transformed the business model of the know world. it centres around putting in the work to make something free that will benefit a wider market for the betterment of them as a whole…
I am polite to my neighbour and i thank staff and it has a knock on effect in some small way to all the people they deal with.. Open source and sharing have brought many good things and the opposing forces are trying to stop us accessing items (read media) for free because they are stuck into an old business model…
The very man (steve jobs) decided to wrip this whole thinking apart and offer all you needs for a fraction of the cost because we wanted it that way… its a tribute to how he say what we wanted correctly that apple is the largest and richest company in the world today… He didn’t fight what we wanted as microsoft did but rather listened and offered us exactly what we wanted…
Itunes has transformed music and how it is delivered… the application store also is transforming a world hereford didn’t exist. you now have an application which can help you cook or aid you in administering life saving first aid to an endless list of applications all for 79.cent or similar…
The world is changing for the better and the old dinosaurs like Eircom who have proved to screw people in the past are set to be proved wrong again.. Eircom has got it wrong before and its what it does best… RTE is also in a bind for what they have done in scarring and disgracing a honest man of the cloth…
The end is nigh for the old world and open source and free items for the betterment of mankind are free and always will be..
To fight that is folly…
I for one will pay what i see as fair for a song and a programme.. i shouldn’t be held to ransom so bill gates can reap in another billion dollars… There is enough to go around and anything which helps spread the wealth is good by my books…
Ireland and the irish over classes have always been self serving and lean on the common man for their own ends…
It will come as no surprise that they will fight at anything that erodes that in any away shape or form…
its a no brainier
RIP steve jobs
sorry about the type errors folks but trying to type on my iPhone while on the luas which is another example of how the world has transformed for the better…
remember the effect twitter and Facebook have had on the world
BOTH FREE…..
THANK GOD FOR OPEN SOURCE
Neither Facebook or Twitter are open source.
Nor your iPhone for that matter.
Also, going on about Apple/Steve Jobs while seemingly praising open source is ludicrous in the extreme. Apple are the most secretive, proprietary and closed company in technology. They wouldn’t know open source if it bit them on the arse.
Fair play about the only sensible decision they could have made! And I will start worrying about financial loss of music and movies companies when they stop flashing their pads at MTV cribs, poor things how they even meet ends?
On a lighter note , my mate bomber uses grooveshark.com as his personal stereo library and anyone on here who knows an eircom customer might want to have a chat with them if you ever visited a website called hidemyass.com
Best wishes
‘Do gach bó a lao, agus do gach leabhar a cóip’
Recording devices change, but legal principles last longer.
Tá sé sin ceart.
oh don’t i know it :)
completely agree on itunes v buying CD’s though the costs seem far closer than ever now (though stil don’t want a pile of CD’s cluttering up the place)
i do suspect that the “record shop” and dvd store as we knew them are ultimately doomed to go the way of the travel agent, etc as downloading becomes the default delivery model
I suspect Eircom’s blocking of Pirate Bay has more to do with ensuring they can get the licensing deals for Music Hub.
have your say