Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I would like to ask some questions. I will follow Deputy Fleming's train of thought as it was very valuable towards the end in regard to the impairment expenditure and the current procurement contracts. At this point in time, we are effectively talking about €40 million that was spent on the previous process in regard to the national paediatric hospital on the Mater site and in the region of €30 million to €32 million in regard to the current tenders that have been acquired, so it is a considerable amount of public money. Deputy Fleming asked whether there is a liability whereby the board can be sued, on the one hand, and, on the other, whether there is any insurance mechanism in place.
I was very closely involved with the original project around the Mater hospital, which is in my own constituency. Effectively, this project came to the current location at St. James's Hospital not because of a decision of the Government, but because of what I believe to be reckless planning by the previous board. It was very clear from the An Bord Pleanála inspector's report that the planning application, which was for 16 storeys high, was, first, in breach of the statutory local area plan for the Phibsborough area, and, second, in breach of the Dublin City Council development plan for the period up to 2017. On those two statutory considerations, there was a reckless breach in the planning application that was put forward, with the result that it was pointed out to An Bord Pleanála by local residents and others that this planning application could not be granted because it was invalid in the manner in which it was presented.
An Bord Pleanála's decision states that the proposal failed to:

...comply with the specific objectives for this site as set out in the Phibsboro/Mountjoy Local Area Plan. ... The proposal would contravene Policy SC18 of the Dublin City Development Plan 11-17...

It found it was incongruous and grossly out of kilter with either the city development plan or with the local area plan.
How in God's name could so much design work and planning work be done, with almost €40 million being spent, and then this totally inadequate presentation be made? Of course the inspector rejected it. Within a few weeks of the rejection by An Bord Pleanála's inspector, the board presented another plan to make the hospital nine storeys high but, already at this point, the Minister of the day was fed up with what was going on and he made the decision that we should go to an alternative site entirely. This is despite the fact there had been an independent review that had decided that the optimum site was, in fact, the Mater site. That does not tie in with what Mr. Costello or Mr. Pollock said, namely, that the Mater site failed because the site was too small. The Mater site did not fail because the site was too small. There had been two independent reviews that had determined the Mater site was adequate but, for some reason, there was a presentation to An Bord Pleanála for 16 storeys, which could not even allow a helicopter to land, although that was necessary for a children's hospital. This is what was presented to An Bord Pleanála and then, within a few weeks, it had been cut down to nine storeys because other areas within the confines of the Mater hospital were being utilised in a new planning application that was all of a sudden put forward.
There are serious questions with regard to the use of public money in a situation of that nature, where a planning application is so out of kilter with the statutory guidelines already in place. I have serious questions. The previous board consisted of a number of developers, some of whom are now in NAMA, whereas the current, entirely new board seems to be much more representative. Where does responsibility lie if the current board's planning application receives anything like the response from the inspector of An Bord Pleanála that the previous application received? It cost the State almost €40 million, most of it impaired at this time. We now have another €32 million of taxpayers' money being spent and, as Deputy Fleming pointed out earlier, what guarantee do we have that this is going to be successful? Who takes oversight of a board's planning application?
I do not know if the witnesses have read the planning application that was put forward for the Mater hospital. Part of the reason there has been so much impairment is due to the design work that was done.

It was obviously not in the real world and it is, therefore, impaired. This is the real reason so much is impaired and cannot be brought forward to this project. Serious questions must be addressed and I seek opinions on the issues I raised.