The 12th Lock

xl500

esteril wrote: »

The same mentality seems to exist here as was the case with the Medical Centre on the River Road when there were allegations that a listed building had been pulled down. It subsequently emerged that it was not a listed building at all and as it was not habitable it could have been demolished at any time. The building in question actually fell down because of it's age and condition. There was absolutely no logic to preventing the owners rebuilding it, which is exactly what they did anyway but because of the type of hysteria we are witnessing on this site the developers lost a year of use of the building. But they were only foreigners so it didn't matter. I hope those involved in the protests at the time (over 18 months ago now) feel suitably chastened. Probably not, however, this mentality is in under the skin and is impossible to erase.

What are you on about That Building was demolished without permission and because of a foolish Decision not to seek permission they have suffered the consequences You say it could have been demolished at any time but that again is the problem It needs permission to Demolish it which you dont seem to agree with if the owner of that Building had followed the Rules they would not have had any hold up but they chose to ignore the rules as the 12th Lock Owner is now doing

athtrasna

I have no connection to the 12th Lock, live a 20 minute walk away (so not a neighbour with a grievance) and while I missed it as a bar (not for its food as that had gone seriously downhill) , the whole planning permission thing has turned me right off.

It's been closed for so long that I really don't see any reason to revisit it when it eventually reopens. It will be helped by the demise of Bradys but Blanchardstown has got a whole load of new venues in the past few months, no need to support someone with such blatant disregard for the law of the land.

esteril

Your view seems to be somewhat at odds with the planning regulations, Class 50 in particular. Perhaps you should check those out.

SnakePlissken

esteril wrote: »

Your view seems to be somewhat at odds with the planning regulations, Class 50 in particular. Perhaps you should check those out.

If you had taken the time to actually read the literature you just linked to and not just taken a cursory browse in an attempt to childishly one-up a random poster online, you would have learned that your link directly proves XL500's point.

The demolition of the building you have brought into discussion required permission, the developer's did not seek it, the developer's were taken to task for it.

Class 50 is not a free for all to demolish whatever one wishes, again, read your own link more thoroughly. I'm afraid you've further embarrassed yourself here as it's clear you have no knowledge of planning laws and just wish to partake in some form of schoolyard argument with no regard for the facts surrounding the planning process.

esteril

SnakePlissken wrote: »

If you had taken the time to actually read the literature you just linked to and not just taken a cursory browse in an attempt to childishly one-up a random poster online, you would have learned that your link directly proves XL500's point.

The demolition of the building you have brought into discussion required permission, the developer's did not seek it, the developer's were taken to task for it.

Class 50 is not a free for all to demolish whatever one wishes, again, read your own link more thoroughly. I'm afraid you've further embarrassed yourself here as it's clear you have no knowledge of planning laws and just wish to partake in some form of schoolyard argument with no regard for the facts surrounding the planning process.

I do not quite know what link you are referring to but Class 50 allows for the demolition of a non-habitable structure without planning permission. There were allegations that this old building was a listed structure. It transpired that it was not listed. Check it out yourself and you will see. But as I said they were only foreigners anyway so it did not matter.

SnakePlissken

esteril wrote: »

. But as I said they were only foreigners anyway so it did not matter.

What has this development on the River Road and your xenophobia got to do with the 12th Lock if indeed anything at all?

Zaph

esteril wrote: »

But as I said they were only foreigners anyway so it did not matter.

I don't know what their nationality has to do with anything, but any more of this sort of thing and I'll be taking action.

beauf

esteril wrote: »

The same mentality seems to exist here as was the case with the Medical Centre on the River Road ....

Regardless of the other issues, its a completely stupid site for a medical centre.

Bang in the middle of one of a busy junction with very restricted parking.

beauf

I'm on the fence with the 12th Lock. I have some friends who used it regularly and others who objected to it. Perhaps I'm wrong but I seem to remember a lot of hassle about the planning when it was originally built.

conor-mr2 wrote: »

I do hope it opens up again. Its a nice location but I dont think it fits well as a hotel there. Anyone ever actually stayed in it?...

I could be wrong, but I think one of the reasons it end up as hotel was to do with issue around the original planning permission. I think it was re-purposed a few times. Or the builder was made to change it or something like that.

Is history repeating itself?

Most neighbours are going to have an issue with pub on their doorstep. Those that are unlikely to be affected by it are not going have to the same objections. That's just common sense.

conor-mr2 wrote: »

Im sure Brady's will get some business from that now.

Wasn't there something about high rise apartments going in on Bradys.

xl500

esteril wrote: »

I do not quite know what link you are referring to but Class 50 allows for the demolition of a non-habitable structure without planning permission. There were allegations that this old building was a listed structure. It transpired that it was not listed. Check it out yourself and you will see. But as I said they were only foreigners anyway so it did not matter.

You need planning permission to demolish:
a) A habitable house.
b) A building which forms part of a terrace of buildings (these can be any type of buildings
i.e. shops, offices).
c) A building which abuts another building in separate ownership.
It is important to note that a “habitable house” is broadly defined. A derelict or run down
building previously used as a habitable house, is still a habitable house.
Source: Schedule 2 (Part 1) Class 50.
Planning & Development Regulations 2001.

Thanks for pointing that out to me I read it as you suggested

AGC

beauf wrote: »

Wasn't there something about high rise apartments going in on Bradys.

There was a thread on it and certainly the planning permission for that will surely not be granted!

esteril

The old house on the site was not in a habitable condition when it came down. In fact it could be described as a dangerous structure. It was structurally unsound and could not be signed off on by any assigned certifier, something which is required under the new building regulation regime in this country. Nobody here has described precisely how such a dangerous structure could be made safe and habitable without providing new external walls and foundations. It was alleged by a number of people including local politicians that this old building was a building which was listed for preservation. It was never a protected structure or listed anywhere for preservation. There are people on this site continuing to make statements which have no substance or foundation. The County Council require all buildings to comply with the new building regulations. There was no possible way that it could have been made to comply with these regulations without being completely rebuilt.

xl500

esteril wrote: »

The old house on the site was not in a habitable condition when it came down. In fact it could be described as a dangerous structure. It was structurally unsound and could not be signed off on by any assigned certifier, something which is required under the new building regulation regime in this country. Nobody here has described precisely how such a dangerous structure could be made safe and habitable without providing new external walls and foundations. It was alleged by a number of people including local politicians that this old building was a building which was listed for preservation. It was never a protected structure or listed anywhere for preservation. There are people on this site continuing to make statements which have no substance or foundation. The County Council require all buildings to comply with the new building regulations. There was no possible way that it could have been made to comply with these regulations without being completely rebuilt.

But you were the one that Stated it could be demolished without permission and advised reading class 50 and you were wrong again as I pointed out

You need planning permission to demolish:
a) A habitable house.
b) A building which forms part of a terrace of buildings (these can be any type of buildings
i.e. shops, offices).
c) A building which abuts another building in separate ownership.
It is important to note that a “habitable house” is broadly defined. A derelict or run down
building previously used as a habitable house, is still a habitable house.
Source: Schedule 2 (Part 1) Class 50.
Planning & Development Regulations 2001.

So you now try to change to asking people here how to make it safe what does that have to do with your raising class 50 to justify the demolition without permission

And This thread is about 12th Lock which is also in Breach and I look forward to the Planners Investigation who as you say are the ones to decide

beauf

They should have used the site of that house to improve the junction.

esteril

Because it was in a dangerous and uninhabitable condition it could be demolished under Class 50 and obviously rebuilt on same footprint, same style, windows same size and location. It had to be rebuilt with new foundations in order to comply with building regulations. It's not rocket science.

xl500

esteril wrote: »

Because it was in a dangerous and uninhabitable condition it could be demolished under Class 50 and obviously rebuilt on same footprint, same style, windows same size and location. It had to be rebuilt with new foundations in order to comply with building regulations. It's not rocket science.

Ok I give up you know better I bow to your knowledge now lets get back to the current Breaches of Planning Legislation at the 12th Lock Site does the same apply there when they Demolished existing Verandah were they required to rebuild it to same footprint etc etc

esteril

A Verandah is a roofed platform along the outside of a house, level with the ground floor (online definition)
I passed by the 12th Lock this morning and I did not see anything matching this in the vicinity of the premises.

xl500

esteril wrote: »

A Verandah is a roofed platform along the outside of a house, level with the ground floor (online definition)
I passed by the 12th Lock this morning and I did not see anything matching this in the vicinity of the premises.

Well the Planning Permission was Granted for A Verandah and thats what its called in the Grant of Permission for the orignal and It was Demolished Recently

But whatever it is called Does the same logic apply as you said about the Building on Main Street Does it have to be rebuilt to Orignal Footprint and if not why not

SnakePlissken

xl500 wrote: »

Well the Planning Permission was Granted for A Verandah and thats what its called in the Grant of Permission for the orignal and It was Demolished Recently

But whatever it is called Does the same logic apply as you said about the Building on Main Street Does it have to be rebuilt to Orignal Footprint and if not why not

You're thumping your head off a brick wall with this one... I wonder if said wall requires planning

Gaspode

Sorry, this thread descended into farce a long time ago and despite efforts, continues to be dragged down by the same 2 people. Closed for a week or two to give my brain a rest and allow you two to engage yours

Gaspode

Ok folks, since I am told (thanks py2006) that the premises opened last night, let's reopen this thread. Keep it civil please!

amdublin

Any one go yet? How is compared to the 12th lock of old - I used only ever go to it for breakfast of a Sunday morning.

What's the ice cream shack all about?

Losty Dublin

amdublin wrote: »

Any one go yet? How is compared to the 12th lock of old - I used only ever go to it for breakfast of a Sunday morning.

What's the ice cream shack all about?

I popped my head into it around lunchtime at the invitation of the manager. It's been a long time since I was in the old bar but he told me that it was gutted and to me it looks nice if not too pub like. The hotel end of things will be reopened soon while there's a fish restaurant on site and bar food. I didn't check the menu but there was a good few people there.

No idea about the shack, sorry but early opening for breakfasts are planned. I'll give it a go.

esteril

I dropped in yesterday, it is a brilliant addition to the hospitality industry in Dublin 15. Outdoor area is pretty much as it was under previous management. Hotel part has not opened and may not do so for a month or so. There is an area reserved for an additional seafood restaurant which they hope to open next month too. No ice cream shack or anything like that but I suppose that will come on stream later on. I was struck by the number of people who are employed now in the 12th Lock. Not surprising that the majority of local politicians are supportive of this enterprise.

mightyreds

Was in for dinner and drinks on Friday, first time ever there so I can't compare to old, the food was good,the inside was great very well decorated and furbished, toilets were immaculate and everything was very modern inside, it's probably a little late in the year for the outdoor area, it's very nice but got cold around 7ish

amdublin

esteril wrote: »

I dropped in yesterday, it is a brilliant addition to the hospitality industry in Dublin 15. Outdoor area is pretty much as it was under previous management. Hotel part has not opened and may not do so for a month or so. There is an area reserved for an additional seafood restaurant which they hope to open next month too. No ice cream shack or anything like that but I suppose that will come on stream later on. I was struck by the number of people who are employed now in the 12th Lock. Not surprising that the majority of local politicians are supportive of this enterprise.

Jaysis relax will ya, it's just a bar/hotel ffs, it's not the second coming of the messiah to save the "hospitality industry" of Dublin 15



You effusiveness is cringe frankly. And totally expected, and predictable, considering all your previous posts. On that basis I am not really considering your post/opinion.

esteril

I am not particularly concerned what you think, quite frankly.

beauf

amdublin wrote: »

Any one go yet? How is compared to the 12th lock of old - I used only ever go to it for breakfast of a Sunday morning.

What's the ice cream shack all about?

Same here. Or the odd pint. Haven't been in it for years though. Must check it out.

Do they still do the breakfast?

Losty Dublin

beauf wrote: »

Same here. Or the odd pint. Haven't been in it for years though. Must check it out.

Do they still do the breakfast?

Manager told me that early breakfasts are coming soon but for now it's daytime food only.

esteril

If "amdublin" is Category Moderator and he makes a comment as he does at post No. 417 then I for one do not want to make any further contributions to this this thread. There have been allegations made against the new Management of the 12th Lock Hotel on this forum which are completely groundless. It appears that those who are charged with moderating this forum are supporting the views of those who are asserting that unauthorised development is being undertaken at the 12th Lock Hotel. There is no basis for such an assertion but it would be particularly appropriate if those making those allegations were to provide evidence for same on this forum. If not perhaps the Moderators would be gracious enough to acknowledge that there is no basis for the allegations made here against the new owners of the 12th Lock Hotel and Restaurant.