The 12th Lock

xl500

esteril wrote: »

Judging by the sign on the premises the uses will be by and large the same as under previous operator. That is the most substantial issue. The addition of and ice cream parlour, a clear retail use would be a very minor thing, would make the place more family friendly. I believe the place will be well supported by the local community. There are people who will always complain about everything. Some of these never go out for a meal or a drink and they do not like the idea that others would be out enjoying themselves. That's the type of begrudgery I was referring to previously.

There is absolutely no Doubt The 12th Lock will reopen that was never the issue so why try to make it look like people are trying to prevent it opening

The issue here is A Development was started without Planning Permission at that stage no-one knew what was being developed only that work was ongoing It is reasonable for people to be concerned at that stage as they have no idea what is being done

And as regards local Politicians doing their Bit as you say Well I would rather depend on the Professional Planners to decide as they will Take into Account all Views and make their Decision taking into Account all the Relevant Data

Politicians intefering in The Planning Process has led to a lot of Problems all over the Country

January

It's not the addition of an ice cream parlour that is getting people's backs up, the addition of an ice cream parlour is usually a good thing. But not when they need to add an additional structure to the building and do it without planning permission too. Smacks of 'we don't give a **** about the residents around us, we'll go ahead and do this anyway'. Not a way to get off on a good foot with the people that live closest to your establishment.

esteril

January wrote: »

It's not the addition of an ice cream parlour that is getting people's backs up, the addition of an ice cream parlour is usually a good thing. But not when they need to add an additional structure to the building and do it without planning permission too. Smacks of 'we don't give a **** about the residents around us, we'll go ahead and do this anyway'. Not a way to get off on a good foot with the people that live closest to your establishment.

Much too big a deal is being made of this by a tiny minority. Most people will welcome the re-opening of this Hotel / Pub / Restaurant. It would create jobs, bring additional badly needed dining facilities. People will vote with their feet when it re-opens. The tiny minority of individuals who are protesting probably would never visit an establishment like this anyway. If there is something that needs retention I am sure the planners will insist that it is sought.But the bigger picture must be kept in focus here. I think that the support of the public representatives will be crucial and to date they appear to be supportive.

xl500

esteril wrote: »

Much too big a deal is being made of this by a tiny minority. Most people will welcome the re-opening of this Hotel / Pub / Restaurant. It would create jobs, bring additional badly needed dining facilities. People will vote with their feet when it re-opens. The tiny minority of individuals who are protesting probably would never visit an establishment like this anyway. If there is something that needs retention I am sure the planners will insist that it is sought.But the bigger picture must be kept in focus here. I think that the support of the public representatives will be crucial and to date they appear to be supportive.

"If there is something that needs retention I am sure the planners will insist that it is sought"
what does that mean we already know that the Current Development Requires Planning Consent and that warning letters were issued because a development was started without planning consent and no amount of trying to talk up how great its going to be will change that

Zaph

Any chance we could move on from the planning permission/retention debate please? At the moment all we have is the same thing going round in circles because it's still all just speculation. Once more is known there's no problem reopening the discussion. Thanks.

esteril

The tiny minority who are opposed to the re-opening of the 12th Lock are, more than likely the same individuals who did not want it there in the first place. They now feel that they are obliged to kick up a stink over its re-opening. They probably never went there and enjoyed what it had to offer during the years it was open. But the vast majority of people including locals will be thrilled that there is another restaurant / bar especially now that Brady's (formerly Scott's) will be replaced by a residential development.

AGC

ThisRegard wrote: »

Well one thing is for sure, the biggest expense so far for the new place might be their PR department.

I pass by the 12th lock every day and if I did not post on here I wouldn't have a clue what was/if any issues.

I don't think it is going to damage them in anyway, when I heard at the weekend it was the same group that has Browne's etc... it as good news because they are well run places and I would hope that the new venture is successful.

I am no expert on planning laws (no idea if they are in the wrong or not) but if locals have any issue with what is being done they should really get over themselves, there is minimal difference to what was there and I would rather have the facility back open than have a derelict building on my doorstep. If it is a case that PP is required I would hope it is not objected to.

ThisRegard

I was been facetious in my post, taking the piss that their PR department is working extremely hard at the moment on random forums.

AGC

ThisRegard wrote: »

I was been facetious in my post, taking the piss that their PR department is working extremely hard at the moment on random forums.

Didn't get that!

daymobrew

AGC wrote: »

I am no expert on planning laws (no idea if they are in the wrong or not) but if locals have any issue with what is being done they should really get over themselves, there is minimal difference to what was there and I would rather have the facility back open than have a derelict building on my doorstep. If it is a case that PP is required I would hope it is not objected to.

I think you are misinterpreting the posts about the lack of planning. No one that posted is looking for a derelict building. People are not objecting to what is being built but that the new owners have not obtained planning permission for the work. Going through the planning process allows the planners and the public review the proposed development and make comments.

I was reluctant to post this reply as Zaph asked yesterday that we move on from the planning permission discussion.

AlanG

esteril wrote: »

The tiny minority who are opposed to the re-opening of the 12th Lock are.

You keep mentioning a tiny minority but the fact is no one here is opposed to the 12th lock reopening. Everyone with the exception of you (a tiny minority whose account has only been reactivated for this conversation) is opposed to the ignoring of planning laws.

No one here has said the business should not open, people want to see the appropriate process followed. You however seem to think that the opinion of individuals in the community should not be considered. You are making up completely false statements to suit an agenda.

py2006

Who wouldn't want it re-opened?

I just hope that it has an improved layout on the inside, I always found it uncomfortable especially the high tables just in the door to the left. No where to rest your feet under them. They could easily have more bodies in there with a better layout.

I must take a walk by it today to see what the fuss is about.

esteril

AGC wrote: »

I pass by the 12th lock every day and if I did not post on here I wouldn't have a clue what was/if any issues.

I don't think it is going to damage them in anyway, when I heard at the weekend it was the same group that has Browne's etc... it as good news because they are well run places and I would hope that the new venture is successful.

I am no expert on planning laws (no idea if they are in the wrong or not) but if locals have any issue with what is being done they should really get over themselves, there is minimal difference to what was there and I would rather have the facility back open than have a derelict building on my doorstep. If it is a case that PP is required I would hope it is not objected to.

I totally agree. The experts on the planning laws in Ireland are qualified planners and they are the people who will ultimately decide whether or not there are any matters here which will need planning permission including uses if the new operator decides to introduce them on re-opening. What is clear at this stage is that the new business will be a combination of Hotel / bar / restaurant as was the case with the original business.

Gaspode

OK guys ye have been asked to leave off discussing the planning aspect of this, dont have it be said again. I think it's time to break the loop the discussion has fallen into

Murt10

What's an ice cream parlour and why are people so upset about it?

amdublin

Someone told me today it's due to open this weekend. Anyone heard anything?

esteril

amdublin wrote: »

Someone told me today it's due to open this weekend. Anyone heard anything?

I went by the 12th Lock this morning and there is no chance of it opening for another couple of weeks. The place is not in great condition and there are substantial works to be done. Murt asked about Ice Cream sales, there is no issue with that as far as I can see but that's for the Council to decide.
I would say it would be 2 to 3 weeks before it's ready for opening. I can't wait to see that car park full again for the first time in 6 Months.

ongarboy

Murt10 wrote: »

What's an ice cream parlour and why are people so upset about it?

I'm reading that it's not the actual business venture that people are upset with but the breach of planning and not following due process.

An ice cream parlour?? It's a place that serves icecream and often milkshakes/smoothies etc....guessing you've never been to a seaside resort!:) Maud's, Gino's, and Scrum Diddly's would be ones I can think of in Dublin.

ciaran76

I asked one of the builders and they hope to be finished in 2 weeks.

esteril

ongarboy wrote: »

I'm reading that it's not the actual business venture that people are upset with but the breach of planning and not following due process.

An ice cream parlour?? It's a place that serves icecream and often milkshakes/smoothies etc....guessing you've never been to a seaside resort!:) Maud's, Gino's, and Scrum Diddly's would be ones I can think of in Dublin.

Nothing like that at all. Something such as is available in Castello Bruno's would be likely. Will not affect the locals at all no more than the noise would as established by the planning appeals people in 2003 - 2005.

athtrasna

Are they reopening the hotel as well?

Gaspode

How do you know it's like the one in castello Bruno, are there design/layout plans available somewhere? Any links? I know there's a sign outside but does it have the drawings on it or something?

esteril

athtrasna wrote: »

Are they reopening the hotel as well?

10 Bedroom Hotel also. Looks like mid August opening at earliest.

xl500

Still No one know what its going to be there is a new Shack Like Structure that no one knows what it is

And if some one replies that its to be the Ice cream parlour well how do you know and thats the point there plain and simple

The only one at the moment that knows what that new Structure is intended for is whoever is going to run it

esteril

Gaspode wrote: »

How do you know it's like the one in castello Bruno, are there design/layout plans available somewhere? Any links? I know there's a sign outside but does it have the drawings on it or something?

If it is Greg Browne and it seems to be it will be nothing gaudy. He has a professional approach to this business. He has to have otherwise it would fail. If is ice cream such as Castello Bruno it would not be a use change. Just additional facility under the Restaurant / Bar retail. It makes sense as it is a family friendly facility and will bring a different clientele at quiet times of the day.

xl500

esteril wrote: »

If it is Greg Browne and it seems to be it will be nothing gaudy. He has a professional approach to this business. He has to have otherwise it would fail. If is ice cream such as Castello Bruno it would not be a use change. Just additional facility under the Restaurant / Bar retail. It makes sense as it is a family friendly facility and will bring a different clientele at quiet times of the day.

That was in reply to this post

Originally Posted by Gaspode

View Post

"How do you know it's like the one in castello Bruno, are there design/layout plans available somewhere? Any links? I know there's a sign outside but does it have the drawings on it or something?"

Any chance you would address the question he actually asked instead of using every post to talk up Greg Browne we can all see that you are a big fan of his and thats no problem but answsering every post Talking him up is not really anything to do with the question asked like the one above

So can we agree at this stage that Greg Browne is Great Wonderful Runs Great Business should be nominated for Man of the Year etc etc

But as to Gaspodes Post well thats really Not asking anything about Greg Browne so Why Bring Him into answer its becoming tedious

xl500

Gaspode wrote: »

How do you know it's like the one in castello Bruno, are there design/layout plans available somewhere? Any links? I know there's a sign outside but does it have the drawings on it or something?

In answer to the Above Post There are 4 Questions

1. "are there design/layout plans available somewhere" Answer No not to General Public

2. "Any links?" Answer No

3. "I know there's a sign outside but does it have the drawings on it or something?"
Answer No

4.How do you know its like the one inCastello Bruno

I can't answer that only one that can is whoever is doing it

Gaspode

esteril wrote: »

Nothing like that at all. Something such as is available in Castello Bruno's would be likely. Will not affect the locals at all no more than the noise would as established by the planning appeals people in 2003 - 2005.

Sorry if there's confusion - my questions were directed at esteril who seems to know what the ice cream parlour would be like, judging by the above post.

esteril wrote: »

If it is Greg Browne and it seems to be it will be nothing gaudy. He has a professional approach to this business. He has to have otherwise it would fail. If is ice cream such as Castello Bruno it would not be a use change. Just additional facility under the Restaurant / Bar retail. It makes sense as it is a family friendly facility and will bring a different clientele at quiet times of the day.

I am sure all of that is probably true, but doesn't answer any of the questions I asked. Maybe you'd have another go?

esteril

Gaspode wrote: »

Sorry if there's confusion - my questions were directed at esteril who seems to know what the ice cream parlour would be like, judging by the above post.



I am sure all of that is probably true, but doesn't answer any of the questions I asked. Maybe you'd have another go?

The constant inventions by X1500 are causing a lot of confusion. I think you have misread what I said this morning. I am not yet certain that it is Greg Browne who is the new operator or owner, but I thought it likely at this stage. I speculated and that's all it was speculation that the Ice Cream facility could be similar to that in Castello Bruno as that is run by Greg also. I have seen no drawing at all. This is the re-opening of an established business and I believe that the inclusion of ice cream sales would not be a use change. The "local" people would be better employed directing their ire at Waterways Ireland who are failing to maintain the canal in a reasonable state at the 12th Lock. There are no Lifebuoys along the canal bank on either side. The canal bank edges have not been tidied up to define the water line and there is a massive build up of algae on the water close to the Lock Gate. But these locals would rather harass a very progressive businessman who is putting his money where his mouth is, upgrading a business which failed because it was not viable. This man is not a fly by night operator, he has a proven track record with this type of business. So he is ideal cannon fodder for these people who tried valiantly to prevent this premises being put there in the first place. He needs to add ice cream sales and other similar things to ensure that it does not fail a second time.

Gaspode

@esteril, you seem to have a great grasp of the developers business needs and plans. You were certain that the parlour would be nothing like the ones suggested be another poster. You failed twice to answer the simple questions I asked earlier, choosing to deflect attention away towards the canal itself.