The 12th Lock

Godge · 29-08-2016 10:19AM

xl500 wrote: »

No mention of Ice cream shack on that sign so what is the intention of the shack oh of course no one knows as Planning was never applied for so no one knows what it is so its not Hysterical to be concerned at to what the Purpose of a NEW not long established Building on the bank of Canal is for

Also Retention Planning Is not the way to go about proper business and Development of this size is not Trivial and it is on a Water course I think an EIA is quite Likely

Retention Planning is normally used to regularise But in this case The Developer Decided To go ahead even after being Warned by Letter

This is From Government Planning Guidelines

Can unauthorised development ever be regularised/brought within
the planning system?

Depending on the scale, nature and circumstances, it may still be possible to bring
a particular unauthorised development within the planning code or to regularise it
retrospectively. Where a development has been carried out without first obtaining the
necessary planning permission, the developer may apply to their planning authority for
retention permission. The circumstances under which retention permission is available
are tightly circumscribed however. A planning authority cannot accept an application
for retention permission for any development which would have required
• environmental impact assessment (EIA);
• a determination as to whether EIA was required (i.e. screening for EIA); or
• an appropriate assessment under the Habitats Directive (since such an assessment
is also required prior to permission for a proposed development).
Only in cases where none of these were required can a planning authority accept
an application for retention permission. It is also important to note that lodging an
application for planning retention for a development that is the subject of enforcement
action does not diminish any offence committed.

On what basis do you think that relatively minor changes to the building require a new EIA (if there was ever an EIA in the first place)?

I really would be interested in your response to this.

xl500 · 29-08-2016 11:49AM

Godge wrote: »

On what basis do you think that relatively minor changes to the building require a new EIA (if there was ever an EIA in the first place)?

I really would be interested in your response to this.

I dont think the Construction of a New Building on the Canal Bank is relatively minor thats where we Differ

And I woud be really interested what purpose the new Building is for that would determine a lot

amdublin · 29-08-2016 11:59AM

I need a photo of this ice cream shack!

xl500 · 29-08-2016 01:46PM

AGC wrote: »

The proposed ice cream shack?

And you know this because the Developer Put up a sign on the Fence After it was complete come on give me a break no one knew what it was and still dont as we will only know when a Planning Application is made as it stands that sign means nothing because the Building has no Planning Permission and when a Planning Application is made the exact Purpose of said shack will have to be explained

esteril · 29-08-2016 02:55PM

Like I said earlier you would think we were talking about a chemical plant in a built up area. We have heard mentions of the need for an EIS and a multitude of other things which most definitely do not arise in this case. The whole thing is being hammed up out of all proportion. We have heard that there is no exemption for signs relating to a business premises: there most definitely is such an exemption. And yet these folks are saying they have no objection to the 12th Lock re-opening. The sooner it opens the better especially if this nice weather continues.

xl500 · 29-08-2016 02:56PM

esteril wrote: »

Like I said earlier you would think we were talking about a chemical plant in a built up area. We have heard mentions of the need for an EIS and a multitude of other things which most definitely do not arise in this case. The whole thing is being hammed up out of all proportion. We have heard that there is no exemption for signs relating to a business premises: there most definitely is such an exemption. And yet these folks are saying they have no objection to the 12th Lock re-opening. The sooner it opens the better especially if this nice weather continues.

That New Sign at the Road Enterance is not Exempt where did anyone say there was no exemption for Signs relating to a business premises I must have missed that also I saw no mention of EIS

As Posted earlier by another poster

I saw the sign yesterday and if only for the sake of a fact check I rang Fingal so irrespective of the merits or otherwise the facts are:

1. the sign does require planning
2. the sign does not have planning
3. they were already aware, already arranged to dispatch an inspector and I quote "yet another warning will be issued"

Godge · 29-08-2016 03:19PM

xl500 wrote: »

I dont think the Construction of a New Building on the Canal Bank is relatively minor thats where we Differ

And I woud be really interested what purpose the new Building is for that would determine a lot

You said it is quite likely it needs an EIA, on what basis do you say that?

From my understanding of planning law, that is not required. You claim to be well-informed on planning law, so maybe you could point us to the right section of the planning regulations.

From what I have seen, and I have only been past it twice, the changes are minor enough in nature, fairly standard planning retention application would see it ok.

AGC · 29-08-2016 03:26PM

xl500 wrote: »

And you know this because the Developer Put up a sign on the Fence After it was complete come on give me a break no one knew what it was and still dont as we will only know when a Planning Application is made as it stands that sign means nothing because the Building has no Planning Permission and when a Planning Application is made the exact Purpose of said shack will have to be explained

My understanding was an Ice Cream Shack because of that sign yes. There is nothing to say in months ahead it won't function as a bar, sweet shop or anything for that matter...

As previously said I have no idea why planning was not sought as I can't see how it would be refused and yes it should have been sought but please give us all a break and stop going over and over the same issues. You seem to have a need to tell everyone about your knowledge of planning laws.

Hopefully when it does re-open it will be successful and I look forward to visiting and I have no doubt the lack of planning won't impact on business.

esteril · 29-08-2016 03:30PM

When you ring a County Council you normally get through to a clerical person who will give a stock answer that everything needs planning permission. I know that from Dublin City Council. I want to make the point again, this who thing is being inflated to something it is not by a small group who are well used to this type of thing. If there is a need for a permission that will be decided up by the proper authorities. They should be afforded the time and space to do that without being bombarded with "advice" from people who have no expertise in this area.

SnakePlissken · 29-08-2016 03:43PM

Godge wrote: »

From what I have seen, and I have only been past it twice, the changes are minor enough in nature, fairly standard planning retention application would see it ok.

And therein lies the fundamental misunderstanding in this thread, anyone who voices their concern that the planning process has not been adhered to is considered a nimby who wishes to see the site moth-balled, this is most certainly not the case.

Fact is, the 12th Lock will reopen in time, and retention permission may be granted for most, if not all the changes when addressed and applied for, however this does not excuse the developer's complete disregard for due process and the consideration of the pub's neighbours.

All this could have been avoided had the developer sought the professional opinion of an Architect or Engineer. Said professional would have informed him, not only of the correct planning process, but also his legal obligation to furnish Fire Safety and Disability Access drawings and written reports pertaining to all changes on site, and that without same in place, the pub may not be reopened to the public.

Hopefully this cock up, subsequent delay in the reopening, and it's associated monetary cost is not reflected upon in the price of a pint

SnakePlissken · 29-08-2016 03:55PM

esteril wrote: »

I want to make the point again, this who thing is being inflated to something it is not by a small group who are well used to this type of thing.

Who is this small group of people you continuously reference?

From my reading of your posts it would certainly appear you've a more in depth, if not indeed personal, relationship with the new owner's than you wish to admit, as I'm completely oblivious to what group you are referencing and their supposed motivations I would love to hear your more informed opinion on this Castleknock conspiracy... I'm honestly baffled as to your interminable insistence on referencing this group at every instance.

esteril · 29-08-2016 03:55PM

Delay in re-opening is most definitely not related to planning issues. It is due to the total refurbishment of the interior of the structure which has caused the delay. Nobody would have a problem with issues being raised in relation to what may or may not need planning permission, it is the nastiness of the tone of the "armchair experts" which gets me mightily annoyed.

SnakePlissken · 29-08-2016 04:05PM

esteril wrote: »

Delay in re-opening is due to the total refurbishment of the interior of the structure whic.

Which of course requires new Disability Access and Fire Safety certification in place prior to reopening, certs which have not been applied for to date, therfore causing a massive delay which so easily could have been avoided had the developer better informed himself.

You are correct, there most certainly is a nastiness prevalent in this thread, I however believe it stems from those who resort to name calling and claims of conspiracy at every turn.

esteril · 29-08-2016 04:11PM

I do not agree with you last statement. It stems from the making of outlandish claims by a small organised group about the impact the refurbished premises will have on the neighbourhood when it re-opens. Claims which have no basis or foundation in fact.

xl500 · 29-08-2016 04:52PM

esteril wrote: »

I do not agree with you last statement. It stems from the making of outlandish claims by a small organised group about the impact the refurbished premises will have on the neighbourhood when it re-opens. Claims which have no basis or foundation in fact.

Where were any outlandish claims made about the impact on the neighbourhood when it re-opens I really cannot see that in any of the posts

SnakePlissken · 29-08-2016 04:54PM

esteril wrote: »

It stems from the making of outlandish claims by a small organised group.

Once again, who is this group which you and only you keep mentioning?

Illuminati?
Freemasons?
The famed Castleknock stonecutters?
Who?

former total · 29-08-2016 04:56PM

Has it been delayed? Like, I don't remember there ever being an opening date announced, apart from lads wandering past, asking a tradesman and posting it on boards...

Anyway, retention, if required, will surely be a formality.

py2006 · 29-08-2016 04:58PM

Seriously people, this is getting old. Every time I come in here expecting news of a re-opening I see the same comments over and over again. We get it.

Any chance the mods could step in and insist that we drop this and post when there is concrete news?

SnakePlissken · 29-08-2016 05:04PM

py2006 wrote: »

Seriously people, this is getting old. Every time I come in here expecting news of a re-opening I see the same comments over and over again. We get it.

Any chance the mods could step in and insist that we drop this and post when there is concrete news?

Or allow people to debate like adults?

xl500 · 29-08-2016 05:05PM

Godge wrote: »

You said it is quite likely it needs an EIA, on what basis do you say that?

From my understanding of planning law, that is not required. You claim to be well-informed on planning law, so maybe you could point us to the right section of the planning regulations.

From what I have seen, and I have only been past it twice, the changes are minor enough in nature, fairly standard planning retention application would see it ok.

This New Patio Area is now Hard paving and way larger in footprint

Hard paving like this beside a watercourse requires proper drainage etc where are the drains from this new patio going no one knows what about chemicals used to clean this paving in the future beside a watercourse again this will all have to be dealt with through Planning and Enviromental

esteril · 29-08-2016 05:12PM

Here we are again, outlandish claims of impact on the area. The Canal is full of algae and debris in the vicinity of the Lock Gates. Your group would be better employed cleaning up the canal than making such claims.

xl500 · 29-08-2016 05:14PM

esteril wrote: »

Here we are again, outlandish claims of impact on the area. The Canal is full of algae and debris in the vicinity of the Lock Gates. Your group would be better employed cleaning up the canal than making such claims.

Not outlandish Proper Drainage is required from this area to prevent a spill into Watercourse at the moment no one knows what measures have been put in place as no specs are available for inspection

Who are my Group

rockatansky · 29-08-2016 05:18PM

py2006 wrote: »

Seriously people, this is getting old. Every time I come in here expecting news of a re-opening I see the same comments over and over again. We get it.

Any chance the mods could step in and insist that we drop this and post when there is concrete news?

Any chance we could continue on with the discussion just like boards was intended for?

The comments are not the same as before. New photos have been added up as the building progresses. People should be allowed to discuss this freely.

rockatansky · 29-08-2016 05:23PM

ciaran76 wrote: »

Jogging down the canal yesterday I stopped to take a pic for the thread.The Sign!

Just looking at the photo of the sign. Has one of the poles been placed over the wall and onto the public footpath or am I seeing that wrong?

xl500 · 29-08-2016 05:30PM

rockatansky wrote: »

Just looking at the photo of the sign. Has one of the poles been placed over the wall and onto the public footpath or am I seeing that wrong?

Yes as I said Earlier I also Saw the Sign and it Straddles the Boundary wall but thats probably an outlandish claim

Arciphel · 29-08-2016 05:38PM

Lads, don't worry about the sign straddling the boundary, shur Greg doesn't do gaudy :-)

SnakePlissken · 29-08-2016 05:47PM

xl500 wrote: »

Who are my Group

We all know you spend your evenings down by the canal wearing a cloak and waving a burning torch and pitchfork, you've been found out...

Or this group may just exist in the overactive imagination of a single poster with a clear vested interest.

January · 29-08-2016 05:47PM

He doesn't do classy by the looks of the sign either. As said, a primary school child could do better on photoshop.

Zaph · 29-08-2016 07:04PM

OK folks, enough of the sniping at each other and the pissy remarks please. For something as straightforward as a new business opening this thread has become a real pain in the ass. I don't want to have to start handing out cards, but I will if I have so please play nicely. Thanks.

esteril · 29-08-2016 09:24PM

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.

The 12th Lock

Comments