Plans for primary-care hub on site of Baggot Street hospital on hold amid residents' fears it may include methadone clinic
Several appeals have been lodged with An Bord Pleanála against the recent decision of Dublin City Council to grant planning permission for a proposed new medical centre to be located at the rear of the main hospital building on Baggot Street Upper.
The HSE is hoping to develop the new primary-care centre, including a pharmacy, in vacant buildings that form part of the former Baggot Street Hospital site at the junction of Haddington Road and Eastmoreland Lane.
The red-brick building, known formally as the Royal City of Dublin Hospital, has been closed as a hospital since 1987.
The new facility, to be known as The Haddington Road Primary-Care Centre, will incorporate an existing three-storey Victorian building and a newly constructed building up to six storeys in height.
However, the HSE has separately appealed against a condition imposed by Dublin City Council as part of the grant of planning permission to omit one floor of the proposed development because of the local authority's serious concerns about the height of the structure.
The HSE claims the requirement to omit one of the six storeys would have minimal impact on the overshadowing of neighbouring properties but would make the development of the primary-care centre 'unfeasible'.
The council's ruling is also being appealed against by several local residents and business owners, including the Pembroke Road Association.
Although the residents' group recognised the need for a new primary-care centre in the area, it criticised its proposed height, which it said would be 'disruptive' and 'entirely excessive'.
Together with other individual appellants, the Pembroke Road Association also expressed concern that a methadone clinic is being considered as part of the new facility.
The group claims the layout of the proposed centre with an entirely separate pharmacy 'would indicate a methadone dispensing service'.
ADVERTISEMENT
However, Dublin City Council said any issue of the medical centre being used for dispensing methadone was under the remit of the HSE's operational governance and healthcare regulations rather than planning control.
Planning files submitted by the HSE make no reference to any type of drug-treatment clinic being proposed.
The HSE said it had identified a need to provide a new primary-care centre in a modern purpose-built building to serve the healthcare needs of the local community in the Baggot Street and Sandymount areas.
The new facility will provide a range of services including public-health nursing, occupational therapy, physiotherapy, social work, speech and language therapy and dietetics, as well as a pharmacy.
Separately, council planners expressed concern about the lack of any future plans for development of the former hospital building, which it described as 'a sensitive protected structure' and asked the HSE to re-examine its potential reuse.
However, the HSE said a report into the potential use of the building for use for healthcare purposes, which was carried out in October 2022, had concluded that it would 'present a number of serious challenges in terms of structure, fire safety, access, services, conservation, cost and time'.
The HSE claimed the proposed development would not involve any works that would affect the special character of the protected structure or result in the removal of significant original fabric or features of interest.
The HSE's chief executive, Bernard Gloster, informed the Department of Health last year that the former hospital is surplus to its needs as it is no longer deemed suitable for delivering public healthcare services.
Last month, the HSE indicated the building is to be sold on the open market as no state agency wanted to use the premises. whose condition has deteriorated over the years.
However, the HSE said the absence of a confirmed use for the buildings should not hinder the development of the proposed primary-care centre.
Council planners said a masterplan for the entire site would have been better 'in terms of a meaningfully developed site rather than the current proposal'.
'The redevelopment of part of this site without consideration of this structure is worrying and is not considered planning best practice,' they added.
The council said it has included 'robust conditions' to the grant of planning permission as the response of the HSE to a wide range of concerns raised over the plans was 'disappointing'.
'Minimal alterations were made which did not address these concerns,' it observed.
The council acknowledged that they might affect the functionality of the new facility but said it had to ensure the amenity of adjoining structures and the future development potential of adjoining sites was protected.
It also expressed disappointment with the delay by the HSE in disposing of the main hospital as it had a detrimental impact on the fabric of the building that was being protected.
A ruling by An Bord Pleanála on the various appeals is due by early October.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Times
2 hours ago
- Irish Times
Children's health crisis will roll on until there is transparency about how public money is spent
The fallout concerning the use of funding from the National Treatment Purchase Fund (NTPF) in a Children's Health Ireland (CHI) hospital continues. The story that emerged in the media over a week ago painted a picture of a rolling crisis, after a confidential internal report raised concerns about abuse of waiting lists and a toxic work culture . That report will now be referred to gardaí by the HSE. The report in question focused on five special weekend outpatient clinics for 179 children carried out by a consultant at a public hospital. These clinics were funded by the NTPF and the consultant received €35,800 for seeing the patients. However, the report questions whether the young patients could have been seen during the consultant's HSE contracted hours or referred to his colleagues. There were also concerns about potential clinical failures regarding vulnerable children, who may have been left waiting longer than they should have been for important treatment. READ MORE And yet again, the report raises serious questions about professional ethics, conduct and clinical care in CHI, coming hot on the heels of the publication of two separate damning reports on children's orthopaedic surgery failures. We still know don't exactly what actions were taken to address the alleged potential misuse of NTPF funds and whether there may be further similar cases in CHI. The news that the report has been referred to gardaí – amid temporary pausing of NTPF funding, which is now due to be lifted 'imminently' – and promises of action and reviews, as well as the 'ongoing' roll-out of a new central referral management system for all services in CHI, suggests that there is much more to come. Whatever happens, it is unacceptable if the Department of Health , the Minister, the NTPF and the HSE were left in the dark about the whole affair until it was reported in the media, as has been suggested. We are expected to accept promises that it won't happen again, that action is being taken, and – well, you know the drill. But what about the bigger picture – oversight and transparency on how we are spending our healthcare budget, and, crucially, if it is being best used to provide care for patients? This year the HSE has a record €26.9 billion in funding , and staffing levels have increased by 23 per cent in the last five years. There are many new services, and bed numbers are continuing to grow to meet escalating demand. Our population is now 5.3 million. The Irish health system seems inexplicably reluctant to carry out routine audits and set standardised targets, as the continued large variations in productivity between services, gaps in basic performance data, and resistance to many oversight initiatives shows The question is whether we are getting the best value for money and access to services commensurate with these increases in resources. And where does the NTPF fit into all this? It was set up over 20 years ago to help relieve waiting list pressure in the public system, and was regarded by some as a sort of pressure safety valve to get public patients seen, diagnosed and treated faster; and by others as a sticking plaster for inadequate public capacity. Its budget for this year is an increased €230 million. Last year it facilitated outpatient appointments, diagnostic scans and procedures for approximately 251,000 public patients. It initially purchased appointments in the private sector for patients waiting too long on public waiting lists – known as outsourcing – but in recent years it has moved towards increased use of 'insourcing'. This is essentially overtime: using spare capacity in public hospitals over and above core activity. All governance for insourcing remains with the treating hospital, the NTPF took pains to point out last week. So it, and by extension the HSE itself, claims no responsibility for how its – or rather public – money is spent, once the forms are filled in. The NTPF does publish data on how many procedures and appointments it has paid for, which is more information than many of our health services publicly provide. And now it has written to all public hospitals with whom it funds insourcing work to obtain further confirmation that all work is carried out in line with agreed terms. There has always been the potential for abuse of NTPF funding as consultants can refer their own public patients to their private clinics, or public overtime. There is supposed to be data collection on how often this occurs, with the appropriate governance applied. And in cases where there are only one or two consultants in a highly specialised disease or geographic area, it makes sense to allow them to see these patients in a private/public overtime capacity if they are on a very long waiting list, to ensure timely access where needed and longer-term continuity of care. But surely audit and inspections of the use of NTPF funding in individual institutions should be routine? Each hospital should always be able to fully account for the need for insourcing funds, proving that its own resources, and staffing time, have been maximised under allocated HSE funding. Newer contracts for various healthcare staff allow for longer core weekday working hours and weekend work as normal, but implementation has been piecemeal in some specialities and services, despite the increased cost and staffing numbers. [ 'Fear and distrust': why children's healthcare is in crisis Opens in new window ] In this case, was the CHI hospital paying attention to how many patients were on individual consultant lists? How many they were seeing, and how long were individuals waiting before signing off the NTPF funding applications? The Irish health system seems inexplicably reluctant to carry out routine audits and set standardised targets, as the continued large variations in productivity between services, gaps in basic performance data, and resistance to many oversight initiatives shows. Last year, then-Minister for Health Stephen Donnelly presented data to the HSE board showing a significant drop in the average number of patients seen per consultant, with obvious ramifications for our long waiting lists. And in correspondence on the 2025 HSE budget, he asked the HSE to apply a standardised approach to maximising productivity through agreeing outpatient clinic targets for individual consultants, departments and specialities, and sharing data on outpatient numbers between consultants. A health minister should not have to specifically request what should be done as a matter of course. Our complicated public healthcare system, comprising public, voluntary and private overlapping services – and a combination of old and new working contracts – continues to muddy the waters of accountability and transparency. A key underpinning element of Sláintecare is the unpicking of the various conflicts and competing interests within our health service, increased governance and standardisation. Until its full implementation, whenever that is, far more oversight of all publicly funded services must be applied.
Irish Times
2 hours ago
- Irish Times
Two HSE staff suspended with pay or on administrative leave for 11 years
Two employees in the health service have been suspended with pay or have been on administrative leave for 11 years. Another HSE staff member has been suspended with pay or on administrative leave since 2017 and another since 2018. HSE figures suggested that in 2014-2024 a total of 42 staff were suspended with pay or placed on paid administrative leave. The figures were set out by the HSE in reply to a parliamentary question tabled by Sinn Féin health spokesman David Cullinane. READ MORE Mr Cullinane told The Irish Times he did not know why the HSE personnel had been suspended or on paid administrative leave for so long. He said he would be interested in seeing an explanation from the HSE. The HSE told Mr Cullinane in its reply that 'the cases identified are under active investigation or have some other action pending'. There are more than 130,000 staff working across the public health system in Ireland. The two cases dating to 2014 relate to personnel working in the acute hospital sector and the mental health service. A person suspended or on administrative leave since 2017 also worked in the mental health area, the table provided by the HSE indicates. A staff member suspended or placed on administrative leave since 2018 was based in the acute hospital part of the health service. Asked by The Irish Times for more details on the cases that have been under investigation in some instances since 2014 and why the processes involved have proved to be so lengthy, the HSE said it endeavoured to carry out all investigations as expediently as possible. It said this was in line with the terms of the relevant HR procedures and policies. 'Factors such as legal matters, safety, or other issues can arise which can impact the timelines. 'To maintain the privacy of the individuals involved, the HSE cannot comment on any individual case.'
Irish Independent
6 hours ago
- Irish Independent
Plans for primary-care hub on site of Baggot Street hospital on hold amid residents' fears it may include methadone clinic
Several appeals have been lodged with An Bord Pleanála against the recent decision of Dublin City Council to grant planning permission for a proposed new medical centre to be located at the rear of the main hospital building on Baggot Street Upper. The HSE is hoping to develop the new primary-care centre, including a pharmacy, in vacant buildings that form part of the former Baggot Street Hospital site at the junction of Haddington Road and Eastmoreland Lane. The red-brick building, known formally as the Royal City of Dublin Hospital, has been closed as a hospital since 1987. The new facility, to be known as The Haddington Road Primary-Care Centre, will incorporate an existing three-storey Victorian building and a newly constructed building up to six storeys in height. However, the HSE has separately appealed against a condition imposed by Dublin City Council as part of the grant of planning permission to omit one floor of the proposed development because of the local authority's serious concerns about the height of the structure. The HSE claims the requirement to omit one of the six storeys would have minimal impact on the overshadowing of neighbouring properties but would make the development of the primary-care centre 'unfeasible'. The council's ruling is also being appealed against by several local residents and business owners, including the Pembroke Road Association. Although the residents' group recognised the need for a new primary-care centre in the area, it criticised its proposed height, which it said would be 'disruptive' and 'entirely excessive'. Together with other individual appellants, the Pembroke Road Association also expressed concern that a methadone clinic is being considered as part of the new facility. The group claims the layout of the proposed centre with an entirely separate pharmacy 'would indicate a methadone dispensing service'. ADVERTISEMENT However, Dublin City Council said any issue of the medical centre being used for dispensing methadone was under the remit of the HSE's operational governance and healthcare regulations rather than planning control. Planning files submitted by the HSE make no reference to any type of drug-treatment clinic being proposed. The HSE said it had identified a need to provide a new primary-care centre in a modern purpose-built building to serve the healthcare needs of the local community in the Baggot Street and Sandymount areas. The new facility will provide a range of services including public-health nursing, occupational therapy, physiotherapy, social work, speech and language therapy and dietetics, as well as a pharmacy. Separately, council planners expressed concern about the lack of any future plans for development of the former hospital building, which it described as 'a sensitive protected structure' and asked the HSE to re-examine its potential reuse. However, the HSE said a report into the potential use of the building for use for healthcare purposes, which was carried out in October 2022, had concluded that it would 'present a number of serious challenges in terms of structure, fire safety, access, services, conservation, cost and time'. The HSE claimed the proposed development would not involve any works that would affect the special character of the protected structure or result in the removal of significant original fabric or features of interest. The HSE's chief executive, Bernard Gloster, informed the Department of Health last year that the former hospital is surplus to its needs as it is no longer deemed suitable for delivering public healthcare services. Last month, the HSE indicated the building is to be sold on the open market as no state agency wanted to use the premises. whose condition has deteriorated over the years. However, the HSE said the absence of a confirmed use for the buildings should not hinder the development of the proposed primary-care centre. Council planners said a masterplan for the entire site would have been better 'in terms of a meaningfully developed site rather than the current proposal'. 'The redevelopment of part of this site without consideration of this structure is worrying and is not considered planning best practice,' they added. The council said it has included 'robust conditions' to the grant of planning permission as the response of the HSE to a wide range of concerns raised over the plans was 'disappointing'. 'Minimal alterations were made which did not address these concerns,' it observed. The council acknowledged that they might affect the functionality of the new facility but said it had to ensure the amenity of adjoining structures and the future development potential of adjoining sites was protected. It also expressed disappointment with the delay by the HSE in disposing of the main hospital as it had a detrimental impact on the fabric of the building that was being protected. A ruling by An Bord Pleanála on the various appeals is due by early October.
