Plans for HSE primary care centre delayed over residents' concerns it wlll house methadone clinic
Plans for a new primary care centre in part of the former Baggot Street Hospital in Dublin have been placed on hold following an appeal by both the HSE and objection from local residents who fear the facility may include a methadone clinic.
Several appeals have been lodged with An Bord Pleanála against the recent decision of Dublin City Council to grant planning permission for the proposed new medical centre to be located at the rear of the main hospital building on Baggot Street Upper.
Advertisement
The HSE is hoping to develop the new primary care centre including a pharmacy in vacant buildings which form part of the former Baggot Street Hospital site at the junction of Haddington Road and Eastmoreland Lane.
The red-bricked 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.
The plans also provide for the demolition of some buildings dating from the 1950s which were used by the HSE to provide community health services including a drug treatment clinic up to 2019.
Advertisement
However, the HSE has separately appealed 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 development.
The HSE claim 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".
It is also appealing a requirement to submit a maintenance and works programme for the main hospital building.
In its appeal, the HSE said it believed the conditions were unjustified and would have a severe negative impact on the efficient operation of and delivery of services at the proposed primary care centre.
Advertisement
The HSE said it had already reduced the ceiling height of each floor which had reduced the building's overall height by 1.85 metres to 23.1 metres.
The council's ruling is also being appealed 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.
Advertisement
The group claims the layout of the proposed centre with an entirely separate pharmacy 'would indicate a methadone dispensing service".
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.
Advertisement
The new facility will provide a range of services including public health nursing, occupational therapy, physiotherapy, social work, speech and language therapy, 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.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
I've tried thousands of skincare products - but there's only ONE 'magic potion' I'd spend my money on for real results (and the experts agree): POLISHED by Elise Wilson
Welcome to Polished with Elise Wilson, where FEMAIL's qualified makeup artist and hair stylist answers your questions, shares advice and trials the up-and-coming beauty and skincare trends so you don't have to. If I had a dollar for every time a friend or family member whispered, 'Do I really need a serum?', I'd be writing this from a villa in Tuscany. In my opinion - and that of countless derms and facialists I've talked to over the years, I should add - those slippery little potions you might be skipping in favour of a thick cream, are actually the MVP of your skincare shelf. (A pic of my 'shelfie' below for context). And if you're not using one yet? Consider this your official nudge to learn just how a great serum can transform your skin into that glowing glass-like complexion that only seems to be reserved for the stars. One of the best parts of my job as a beauty editor - aside from the overflowing shelves of face masks and lip balms - is the sheer volume of skincare I get to try. Trust me, if there's a serum worth knowing about, it's probably passed over my face at some point. After nearly two decades in the industry, my skin has been through just about everything. (Ask me about the lip-plumping gadget that turned my mouth blue for four days!). In full transparency: I've had filler, and for the past eight-or-so years I've been no stranger to the world of neuromodulators (those magic injections that start with the letter 'B', if you're also in the club, fine if not though of course). But I'm always trying to stretch out the time between those appointments, and I honestly believe it's the clever, hardworking serums in my routine that are helping me do just that. Of course, the skincare I relied on in my late 20s doesn't quite cut it anymore. Now that I'm well into my 30s, my skin's needs have shifted. While I've always prioritised looking after my complexion, and have a few professional treatments under my belt, I still deal with congestion, unpredictable Sydney weather, and full-time exposure to recycled office air. And that combination? It's not exactly skin friendly. So, I rely heavily on smart, targeted serums to keep my glow going, even when life (and air con) tries to dull it down. I'm very aware too that some people are layering five of them morning and night like it's a chemistry experiment, while others aren't even sure what they are, let alone know where they slot into their routine. Between TikTok influencers spruiking 12-step routines and shelves groaning with alphabet creams - A for anti-ageing, B for barrier-boosting, C for collagen, D for... who knows - it's enough to make anyone break out from stress alone. But if you care about your skin (and chances are, if you're reading this, you do), serums are not optional. They're essential. I'm not saying you need to mortgage your house to buy them, or that you'll wake up with Hailey Bieber's glass skin by Friday. But used correctly, the right serum can absolutely change your skin. Whether it's brightening dullness, softening lines, fading pigment, and helping you age a little more like Jennifer Aniston and a little less like a shrivelled apricot. So, what are serums, really? When should you start using them? What's the deal with Retinol vs Retinal? And do you really need these skincare A, B, C's, or is the industry just gaslighting us all? To answer all of that and more, I tapped one of Australia's most trusted celebrity skincare experts, Ingrid Seaburn, for her no-nonsense intel, because we all need a bit of expert guidance to cut through this serum circus. Let's get into it. What is a serum, anyway? Let's start with the basics. According to Ingrid, 'A serum is usually defined as a concentrated version of active ingredients (or non-active) to deliver to the dermal layer of the skin a specific effect on the health of the skin.' As for application? 'They are applied after cleansing and before moisturising,' she added. Ingrid also likened serums to tiny skin soldiers, packed with potent actives that actually do something, unlike many moisturisers, which mostly sit on top and feel nice. Do I need one? (And if so, when?) Short answer? Yes. Long answer? Also yes, but it depends on which one. 'You can start using antioxidant serums from your late teens,' Ingrid explained. 'Once you hit your 30s and 40s, anti-ageing serums with Vitamin A and C should be non-negotiable to slow down oxidative and cellular ageing.' If you're still in your twenties and glowing like a glazed donut, you can keep it simple. However, by 30, your skin starts producing less collagen and cell turnover begins to slack off, which is where serums step in to speed things back up. I make it a very indulgent skincare ritual every morning with a great cup of coffee and some Maria Carey in the background on loop. It certainly puts a pep in my step, and my skin. So which one do I buy? (Enter the ABCs of skincare…) There are a lot of serums out there, and as you've probably gathered if you've made it this far, the ingredient list can read like a science textbook. But don't worry, I've broken down the big three you actually need to know: Vitamin A (aka Retinol or Retinal): This is the gold standard in serums according to Ingrid. 'Retinol is the most important anti-ageing ingredient. It regulates oil, increases cell turnover and makes your skin act like younger skin.' But here's the kicker: not all Vitamin A serums are created equal. You might've heard the ongoing 'Retinol vs Retinal' debate, and yes, there is a difference. 'Retinal is the second phase of conversion of retinoid acid in your skin, and in my opinion, it's the most effective and well-tolerated form of vitamin A. It works faster than standard Retinol and is gentler too.' And what about the trendy natural option, Bakuchiol? 'It's not half as effective, but can be nice to build skin health in the right formula,' she added. TLDR: Retinal is your best bet if you want results and comfort. Apply at night only and always follow with an SPF the next day a it can make skin more sensitised. I have used the Medik8 Crystal Retinal formulas ($99) for years and I like that they have a staging process starting at level 3 and building up. So newbies can start at the gentle, lower end of potency and then work up as their skin tolerates. Vitamin B (aka Niacinamide): The ultimate team player, Niacinamide is a brilliant all-rounder that boosts your skin's barrier, helps with redness, and plays well with other actives. Pictured: Paula's Choice Niacinamide 20% Treatment ($78) The ultimate team player, Niacinamide is a brilliant all-rounder that boosts your skin's barrier, helps with redness, and plays well with other actives. 'It also helps combat rosacea and other issues,' If your skin is sensitive, this one's a winner. A product like Paula's Choice Niacinamide 20% Treatment ($78) is a good potent formula that can happily be layered in with your other favourite serums. Vitamin C: Brightening, protective, collagen-boosting, this antioxidant does it all. 'Vitamin C plays a big role in collagen production and helps repair and prevent UV damage,' Ingrid noted. You'll want to use this in the morning under SPF for that radiant, glowy skin we all fake with highlighter. Brightening, protective, collagen-boosting, this antioxidant does it all with Ingrid noting 'Vitamin C plays a big role in collagen production and helps repair and prevent UV damage'. Pictured: iS Clinical's Super Serum Advanced+ ($161 right) and La Roche-Posay 10% Pure Vitamin C Serum ($75) left Any dermatologist (or beauty editor) would agree with me that La Roche-Posay 10% Pure Vitamin C Serum ($75) is a great pharmacy find. And it's often on sale for a fraction of the price, btw. Whereas iS Clinical's Super Serum ($161) is another great vitamin C option, and a brand loved by the likes of Rosie Huntington-Whiteley and actress Meghan Fahy for both this cult formula and their multi-use Pro-Heal Serum Advance serum too. Hyaluronic Acid Technically not active, but absolutely essential nonetheless. It's like a tall glass of water for your skin. 'It sits in your epidermis and helps retain water,' Pro tip: always apply it to damp skin and follow up with a moisturiser to lock it in. The Ordinary Hyaluronic Acid 2% + B5 ($15.90) is one of the most budget-friendly and reputable formula I've come across. Can you just use one serum at a time? You can, but you don't have to. My personal routine includes a hydrating hyaluronic serum in the morning, followed by Vitamin C, then at night I rotate between Retinal and Niacinamide (depending on how sensitive my skin's feeling). The trick is to ease into actives slowly, and to listen and see what your skin really needs. In winter, I need moisture and glow, so my Retinal is usually pared back a bit. 'Introduce them by trialling small amounts gradually,' Ingrid advised. 'The results will take time. Do not expect overnight miracles, be patient!' Remember, your skin journey is a marathon, not a sprint with the magic word being 'consistency' according to Ingrid. 'Be guided by a professional and tweak your routine based on your age and skin needs.' So, if you've been wondering whether it's time to up your skincare game, I hope this guide has helped just a little bit so you can go forth and serum like a pro. And as I like to say, your future is in your hands… and on your face.
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
Cuts to UK's global vaccination funding would risk avoidable child deaths, experts warn
Any cut in UK funding to a global vaccination group would damage soft power and could make British less resilient to infectious diseases, as well as causing avoidable deaths among children, leading vaccine and aid experts have warned. Scientists including Sir Andrew Pollard, who led the development of the Oxford-AstraZeneca Covid vaccine, said a major cut in money for the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation (Gavi) could also make the UK less able to respond to a future pandemic. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) has not yet set out its future funding for Gavi, a Geneva-based public-private organisation that has vaccinated more than a billion children in developing countries. The UK has previously been one of Gavi's main funders, providing more than £2bn over the last four years. But with the UK aid budget cut back from 0.5% of gross national income to 0.3% and the focus shifting towards bilateral aid the expectation is that there will be a major reduction at Wednesday's spending review. Pollard, who leads the Oxford Vaccine Group, said that as well as continuing to save lives in poorer countries, there was a self-interested case for continuing with similar levels of support. 'It's a safer place, obviously, for people who are in situations where they wouldn't have been able to access these vaccines without the government support, but it also makes it a safe place for us, because it's acting as part of the shield that we have against the spread of infectious diseases around the world,' he said. A number of the vaccines used by Gavi originated in the UK, Pollard said, such as a new vaccine for malaria co-developed by Oxford University, and this meant the expertise and infrastructure were in place when Covid descended. 'The Covid vaccine was developed on the back of years of funding, both from the UK funding sources of government, Wellcome Trust and so on, as well as international funders that put teams of people working on vaccines here in Oxford so we could then respond when a pandemic happened,' he said. 'If we weren't doing this type of work, having the infrastructure and capabilities in the UK, we wouldn't have been in a position to have such an impact so early in the pandemic against that virus.' Dr Sandy Douglas, senior vaccinologist at Oxford University's Jenner Institute, who led efforts to scale up production of the Covid vaccine, said Gavi was known as one of the most cost-efficient of all aid projects, with one estimate suggesting a child's life was saved for every £1,200 spent on it. 'There really aren't very many ways of spending money anywhere in the world that can save a child's life for so little money, and do it scalably so hundreds of thousands of lives, millions of lives, are saved over time,' he said. 'The withdrawal or reduction of British funding to Gavi is going to result in the avoidable deaths of many children. Labour played a leading role in establishing Gavi, and Gordon Brown designed the financing mechanism that helps it to operate. I think it's something Labour should be proud of, among its greatest achievements since the NHS, probably.' Moazzam Malik, chief executive of Save the Children UK, who was previously director general for Africa at the FCDO, said the UK had traditionally been 'a very active player' in multilateral aid efforts such as Gavi and the Global Fund, which focuses on HIV/Aids, tuberculosis and malaria. Pulling back from this would be noted internationally, he said: 'People kind of appreciate that leadership. And if the UK decides to take a much more limited position, what the world would see from that is a sense of the UK pulling back.' Gavi's statistics show that it has vaccinated more than 1.1 billion children in 78 countries in its 25 years of operation, preventing nearly 19 million deaths An FCDO spokesperson said Jenny Chapman, the international development minister and peer, had set out that 'global health is a priority for this government and is a key issue as we modernise our approach to international development. 'Whilst we would not comment on the size of future pledges before announcing them, we continue to work with our partners, including Gavi, on this crucial issue.'
Telegraph
4 hours ago
- Telegraph
Time to face the harsh realities of spending orthodoxy
Labour came to power fatuously parroting the word 'change' and yet has shown itself to be the same old tax and spending party it has always been. What it meant was a change of party in office not a change of direction. Not only have taxes gone up but so-called protected spending is set to rise despite record debt levels. Yet if ever a public policy has been tested to destruction surely it is the notion that the NHS will improve if only more money is thrown at it. Even Sir Keir Starmer and Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary, are on record as saying that higher health spending is not the answer to the endemic flaws in the health service and yet another £30 billion is to be announced for the next three years on top of the £22 billion handed over after last year's general election, much of which went on pay and showed nothing in the way of productivity improvement. No mainstream politician is prepared to acknowledge that the problem with the NHS is the fact it is a nationalised industry with all the inherent inefficiencies associated with such. Most other advanced economies in Europe and elsewhere have social insurance systems which work better. But the insistence in Britain of cleaving to the 1948 'founding principle' that treatment should be free at the point of delivery has become a quasi-religious doctrine that few dare challenge. Only Nigel Farage has questioned the wisdom of continuing with a system that patently fails to achieve what others manage to do but has been noticeably quiet on the subject recently because Labour will exploit it mercilessly to see off the Reform threat. Telling people that they will have to pay for something they have always had for free is even more difficult when political parties are prepared to see the health system get worse rather than reform it. The same is true of welfare. Taking benefits from people, even when they are payments introduced just a few years ago like the winter fuel allowance, is hard if the reasons are not explained and the issue is 'weaponised' by opponents. Yet unless the welfare budget is brought under control it will bankrupt the country. If change is to mean anything then we need politicians finally to understand the extent of the country's difficulties and make decisions accordingly. Will we see that from the Chancellor on Wednesday?
