The 12th Lock

beauf · 18-04-2017 11:41am

Have you ever used that path?

https://www.google.ie/maps/place/The+Twelfth+Lock+Boutique+Hotel+%26+Restaurant/@53.3782039,-6.3679864,2706m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x48670d4346cc3683:0x9b3bea3d0bdbd197!8m2!3d53.382113!4d-6.367124!6m1!1e1

You'll note it sits on the Royal Canal Greenway. You'll see the green belt of trees along the route.

blanch152 · 18-04-2017 11:53am

beauf wrote: »

Have you ever used that path?

https://www.google.ie/maps/place/The+Twelfth+Lock+Boutique+Hotel+%26+Restaurant/@53.3782039,-6.3679864,2706m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x48670d4346cc3683:0x9b3bea3d0bdbd197!8m2!3d53.382113!4d-6.367124!6m1!1e1

You'll note it sits on the Royal Canal Greenway. You'll see the green belt of trees along the route.

All the time, that doesn't make it "a rural setting".

beauf · 18-04-2017 12:10pm

xl500 wrote: »

You should have tried to go there the last 2 Sundays and yes of course parking as flyer has said is covered in the Development Plan and the Current Plan if anyone wants to see it gives the requirements for Parking and Emergency vehicle Access etc

They would have to be a study to see are they parking there to use the 12th Lock, the Canal Path a lot of walkers or using the train for a match or some other event. some of the cars may even be residents parking on the road.

There's a lack of parking in general for all of the above, everywhere. The planners seems to think people will teleport around the place.

jack presley · 18-04-2017 12:15pm

I could be wrong here (and probably am) but doesn't planning law and planning regulations supersede the number and quality of objections?

I know we all like to think we're playing a part and I'm sure objections are read and noticed but do they really impact a decision? Aren't they just so people feel like they're involved and 'part of the process'?

I'm not talking about this project specifically but if a project had no objections but was not in line with the planning regs, I'd imagine the planners would reject it. Whereas a project with hundreds of objections but was totally compliant with the development plan and planning rules etc. should probably be granted permission, or at least be seriously considered for approval.

beauf · 18-04-2017 12:18pm

blanch152 wrote: »

All the time, that doesn't make it "a rural setting".

A poor description perhaps.

http://atkinsireland.ie/projects/royal-canal-greenway-ashtown-to-castleknock/

a very sensitive ecological corridor within the Dublin area. The canal corridor itself is a designated proposed Natural Heritage Area and the environmental, ecological and industrial heritage sensitivities of the site provided significant challenges for the development of the scheme design. The biggest challenge on the project was dealing with the habitats of protected species and minimising the impacts on those habitats. As an example, extensive habitat surveys were carried out to determine the presence of protected species. Bespoke design features were developed in consultation with the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) and Fingal County Council Conservation Department to mitigate and minimise the impact the scheme would have on bats in particular. A bespoke lighting system was developed incorporating automatic dimming and remote monitoring technology so that natural environmental conditions could be maintained at dawn and dusk when bats are most active and feeding along the canal corridor.

This greenway will be a major asset for outdoor recreation and tourism in Ireland while also providing a real â€œtraffic-freeâ€ alternative for commuter cyclists travelling between Dublin City Centre and the Blanchardstown / Castleknock areas. The new greenway route will be ideal for recreation purposes, providing an outlet for cyclists and walkers in the area.

tbh the 12th Lock should help with the area as an amenity. But you can't ignore where it is. its not in the middle of normal housing estate.

blanch152 · 18-04-2017 12:43pm

jack presley wrote: »

I could be wrong here (and probably am) but doesn't planning law and planning regulations supersede the number and quality of objections?

I know we all like to think we're playing a part and I'm sure objections are read and noticed but do they really impact a decision? Aren't they just so people feel like they're involved and 'part of the process'?

I'm not talking about this project specifically but if a project had no objections but was not in line with the planning regs, I'd imagine the planners would reject it. Whereas a project with hundreds of objections but was totally compliant with the development plan and planning rules etc. should probably be granted permission, or at least be seriously considered for approval.

Correct.

blanch152 · 18-04-2017 12:45pm

beauf wrote: »

A poor description perhaps.

http://atkinsireland.ie/projects/royal-canal-greenway-ashtown-to-castleknock/

tbh the 12th Lock should help with the area as an amenity. But you can't ignore where it is. its not in the middle of normal housing estate.

Yes, a poor description, which just makes my point about planning objections overhyping themselves and throwing the kitchen sink at the issue, which renders them of little value of themselves. This applies to all developments and to all objections, not just this one, but the contradictions in different objections makes this one amusing.

xl500 · 18-04-2017 2:04pm

blanch152 wrote: »

How do you address the concerns of the different objectors, one of whom says the development is "totally out of keeping with the rural setting of the site" and another said it is in "the middle of an established residential area"? Contradictory overhyped nonsense doesn't do any objection any help.

As with the vast majority of planning objections, the main point seems to be to throw as much objections as possible to see if one sticks, which makes it impossible to know if there is any real substance to the objections. From where I am standing, and from what I have read of them, the objections appear to have little substance or materiality, and while not quite vexatious, are little more than nitpicking.

I really dont think that objectors just object for the sake of it from what i read the main objections are related to breaches of existing Planning conditions attached to the site which are clear on FCC Planning site and if you read those as well as reading the objections it might be clearer why people are objecting

If An Bord Pleanala makes a decision regarding use etc and somebody ignores that then I believe they are wrong

On the other Question re wildlife etc on this corridor again I believe its wrong that some people who want to install lighting etc have to do studies etc before proceeding and this developer just puts in lighting as he pleases with no regard for wildlife or his neighbours

beauf · 18-04-2017 2:21pm

blanch152 wrote: »

Yes, a poor description, which just makes my point about planning objections overhyping themselves and throwing the kitchen sink at the issue, which renders them of little value of themselves. This applies to all developments and to all objections, not just this one, but the contradictions in different objections makes this one amusing.

I think its a little pedantic to argue about the wording used. Its not your usual estate pub location. Regardless if they used greeny thingy.

xl500 · 18-04-2017 2:41pm

jack presley wrote: »

I could be wrong here (and probably am) but doesn't planning law and planning regulations supersede the number and quality of objections?

I know we all like to think we're playing a part and I'm sure objections are read and noticed but do they really impact a decision? Aren't they just so people feel like they're involved and 'part of the process'?

I'm not talking about this project specifically but if a project had no objections but was not in line with the planning regs, I'd imagine the planners would reject it. Whereas a project with hundreds of objections but was totally compliant with the development plan and planning rules etc. should probably be granted permission, or at least be seriously considered for approval.

Exactly and the planners will decide I from the start only gave MY and only MY opinion that the development as it currently stands is in breach of planning and previous decisions relating to the site

phoenix_flyer · 22-04-2017 11:14pm

The Fingal County Council decision is out and is very positive from the point of view of the 12th Lock owners. No problem with the granite stairs, no problem with the bike racks, no problem with the Lighting, no problem with the signage [ just a question of dimensions ] There are some errors in the decision, the Open Space zoning referred to does not apply as the site already has a permission for Bar / Restaurant / Hotel. The Planners seem to think that the Open Space Zoning still applies. This is crazy but typical of the Dublin 15 Planners. Perhaps they were influenced by the mis-information supplies by a number of objectors. An Bord Pleanala have a reputation for taking a dim view of objectors who tell porkies or half truths to try and gain an advantage. There were lots of porkies submitted to Fingal County Council. It will be interesting to see if the parties involved will amend their submissions when they are dealing with An Bord Pleanala.
The Dublin 15 Planners have a poor reputation when their decisions are referred to An Bord Pleanala. Most get overturned.
Perhaps it the influence of Cllr Roderick O'Gorman.
Time will tell. But I have a feeling that the vexatious objections will not find favour with the Planning Appeals Board.

Gaspode · 22-04-2017 11:27pm

Is it definitely going on to ABP?

Former Former · 22-04-2017 11:49pm

Here's the decision for those who haven't seen it.
http://documents.fingalcoco.ie/NorthgatePublicDocs/00551378.pdf

Seems fair enough to me. The new 'awning' structure was a significant expansion on the previous one so can see where the planners are coming from. I doubt the owners are that bothered about the signage and the ice-cream shack. The aspects that have been approved are generally an improvement.

As for An Bord Plenala - the owners could appeal the refusals, likewise the residents could appeal the aspects that were granted, but there might be enough in it for everyone to be satisfied.

xl500 · 23-04-2017 12:28am

New Verandah Refused,Ice Cream Shack Refused and planner also referred to further enforcement to be taken

Phoenix Flyer seems to have some inside knowledge of it going to Bord Pleanala as there is no appeal listed yet so I can only presume he knows something the rest of us dont but if it does go to appeal I am sure they will certainly uphold their previous decisions relating to the site and quoted in the decision

As He also states "There were lots of porkies submitted to Fingal County Council" the only reference the planner made to misinformation was the claim that the Verandah was only increasing by 18sqmts when it clearly was increasing way more also on the planning application there is a question "Does the proposed development involve the demolition of any structure" The Developers agent answered no again clearly false

Anyway here is the Nub of it
"Recommendation
Split Decision Grant Retention for the Storage Shed at Rear,Bike Shelter and Bike Rack at Rear,Bike Rack at Front,Granite Stairs and Associated Landscaping and Refuse Retention for Covered Area and Ice Cream/Coffee Retail Unit and Signage."

As I Stated from the very early days of this thread the new Developments ie Veranda and Ice cream Shack were unauthorised

Be very interesting will the new owner now comply with FCC Decision as most responsible business owners would but of course I know before flyer tells me he is entitled to appeal

phoenix_flyer · 24-04-2017 6:55pm

I do not know the new owners of the 12th Lock and I have no clue whether or not they will avail of their right to appeal the council decision. I imagine that somebody on one side or the other will do so and that it will end up in the Appeal Board.
It strikes me as a bit curious that the improvement work done to the hotel could be regarded as a contravention of the Open Space zoning. If a house gets permission on a site and any improvement work carried out within the site is related to the residential zoning of the site and not to the zoning of the area around the site.
The Council seemed to be of the view that they did not have the power to grant a permission for the ice cream building or the veranda enclosure because of the zoning factor. There may be some clause somewhere which puts residential and commercial development in a different category for improvement work but I have not been able to unearth it.

angryIreGamer · 25-04-2017 12:16pm

apparently you can/have to book a table in the bar now

xl500 · 26-04-2017 9:02pm

phoenix_flyer wrote: »

I do not know the new owners of the 12th Lock and I have no clue whether or not they will avail of their right to appeal the council decision. I imagine that somebody on one side or the other will do so and that it will end up in the Appeal Board.
It strikes me as a bit curious that the improvement work done to the hotel could be regarded as a contravention of the Open Space zoning. If a house gets permission on a site and any improvement work carried out within the site is related to the residential zoning of the site and not to the zoning of the area around the site.
The Council seemed to be of the view that they did not have the power to grant a permission for the ice cream building or the veranda enclosure because of the zoning factor. There may be some clause somewhere which puts residential and commercial development in a different category for improvement work but I have not been able to unearth it.

I have no doubt going on this owners attitude to the planning to date and complete disregard for it and neighbours concerns that they will not accept the planners decision and they will appeal

phoenix_flyer · 27-04-2017 12:13am

xl500 wrote: »

phoenix_flyer wrote: »

I do not know the new owners of the 12th Lock and I have no clue whether or not they will avail of their right to appeal the council decision. I imagine that somebody on one side or the other will do so and that it will end up in the Appeal Board.
It strikes me as a bit curious that the improvement work done to the hotel could be regarded as a contravention of the Open Space zoning. If a house gets permission on a site and any improvement work carried out within the site is related to the residential zoning of the site and not to the zoning of the area around the site.
The Council seemed to be of the view that they did not have the power to grant a permission for the ice cream building or the veranda enclosure because of the zoning factor. There may be some clause somewhere which puts residential and commercial development in a different category for improvement work but I have not been able to unearth it.

I have no doubt going on this owners attitude to the planning to date and complete disregard for it and neighbours concerns that they will not accept the planners decision and they will appeal

If the decision of the Council is flawed, as it appears to be, then they would be correct to exhaust the process and draw attention to what seems to be a "home town decision" Nobody should have a difficulty with that, but clearly some have.

xl500 · 27-04-2017 7:46am

phoenix_flyer wrote: »

If the decision of the Council is flawed, as it appears to be, then they would be correct to exhaust the process and draw attention to what seems to be a "home town decision" Nobody should have a difficulty with that, but clearly some have.

Fair enough but if they had followed the proper process from the start they may not be where they are now

And as I said from start this development is unauthorised and as I had no doubt FCC Planners would continue to decide as they have previously I also have even less doubt An Bord Pleanala will also The Developers attitude seems to be well I dont care what the planners think Im going ahead anyway as they ignored Warning Letters way back informing them

And I definitely have no difficulty with it being appealed indeed I look forward to An Bord Pleanala Decision if it goes there

Fr_Dougal · 27-04-2017 10:29pm

The new owners don't allow smoking in the old enclosed smoking area. As soon as the summer is in and people are drinking in the outside area, you'll have all the smokers out in the open and the noise level will impact the local residents.

phoenix_flyer · 27-04-2017 11:32pm

xl500 wrote: »

phoenix_flyer wrote: »

If the decision of the Council is flawed, as it appears to be, then they would be correct to exhaust the process and draw attention to what seems to be a "home town decision" Nobody should have a difficulty with that, but clearly some have.

Fair enough but if they had followed the proper process from the start they may not be where they are now

And as I said from start this development is unauthorised and as I had no doubt FCC Planners would continue to decide as they have previously I also have even less doubt An Bord Pleanala will also The Developers attitude seems to be well I dont care what the planners think Im going ahead anyway as they ignored Warning Letters way back informing them

And I definitely have no difficulty with it being appealed indeed I look forward to An Bord Pleanala Decision if it goes there

It's great that you accept that they have a right to appeal. Interesting that you have no view on the Council's decision in respect of the zoning objectives. I didn't expect you would have. Generally any improvement work is referenced to the zoning of the approved development site, in this case, the Hotel site. Not in this case however. I would love to know why.
Perhaps you have a view on this. It would be great if you let us know how you feel about the Council decision.

amtc · 28-04-2017 12:13am

Nice new menu yesterday

xl500 · 28-04-2017 11:16am

phoenix_flyer wrote: »

It's great that you accept that they have a right to appeal. Interesting that you have no view on the Council's decision in respect of the zoning objectives. I didn't expect you would have. Generally any improvement work is referenced to the zoning of the approved development site, in this case, the Hotel site. Not in this case however. I would love to know why.
Perhaps you have a view on this. It would be great if you let us know how you feel about the Council decision.

My View is the Decision is not flawed

daymobrew · 28-04-2017 11:16am

phoenix_flyer wrote: »

It strikes me as a bit curious that the improvement work done to the hotel could be regarded as a contravention of the Open Space zoning. If a house gets permission on a site and any improvement work carried out within the site is related to the residential zoning of the site and not to the zoning of the area around the site.

I looked up the zoned Open Space.
I could not find the list of local objectives to see what items 944d and 695 were.

From one of the Dev Plan docs:

Open Space
Any land, including water, whether enclosed or not, used primarily for active or passive recreation on which there are no buildings, or on which any buildings are intrinsically linked to the active or passive outdoor recreational use, and the remainder of which is laid out as a garden or for the purposes of recreation or lies vacant, waste or unoccupied.

phoenix_flyer · 28-04-2017 11:50pm

daymobrew wrote: »

phoenix_flyer wrote: »

It strikes me as a bit curious that the improvement work done to the hotel could be regarded as a contravention of the Open Space zoning. If a house gets permission on a site and any improvement work carried out within the site is related to the residential zoning of the site and not to the zoning of the area around the site.

I looked up the [url=https://us.v-cdn.net/6034073/uploads/attachments/28533/415905.jpg[/url].
I could not find the list of local objectives to see what items 944d and 695 were.

From one of the Dev Plan docs:

Open Space
Any land, including water, whether enclosed or not, used primarily for active or passive recreation on which there are no buildings, or on which any buildings are intrinsically linked to the active or passive outdoor recreational use, and the remainder of which is laid out as a garden or for the purposes of recreation or lies vacant, waste or unoccupied.

The Open Space zoning in the new Development Plan (2017 to 2023) on Fingal Site relates to lands outside the 12th Lock curtilage as far as I can see. The 12th Lock site in its entirety has a commercial use by virtue of planning permissions granted since the late 1990's The decision therefore is seriously flawed and an appeal to the appeal board is justified.

Rosser · 28-04-2017 11:59pm

Correct planning decisions aside had a very disappointing breakfast there last week, expensive full Irish that was at the small end of 'full', served luke warm and with a latte that seemed like a packet / hot water mix.

Will certainly be returning to Douglas & Khaldi for my post canal walk feed.

phoenix_flyer · 29-04-2017 12:26pm

Rosser wrote: »

Correct planning decisions aside had a very disappointing breakfast there last week, expensive full Irish that was at the small end of 'full', served luke warm and with a latte that seemed like a packet / hot water mix.

Will certainly be returning to Douglas & Khaldi for my post canal walk feed.

That is probably why booking is required in the Bar area these days. The place seems to be gaining in popularity as the months go by. Nobody need have any worries if the Fingal decision is referred to the Appeals Board. They are the final judges of what is and is not the correct interpretation of the planning act when applications are being considered. But it would be unbelievable if somebody applied for an extension to their dwelling house and got refused because the land zoning outside the site of the house was open space, high amenity etc. If the 12th Lock never had a permission one could understand that the nature of the land zoning of the lands around the site would be a factor in the decision but clearly this not the case here. And there are no use changes that would be incompatible with the current site use.

Arciphel · 29-04-2017 9:18pm

Rosser wrote: »

Correct planning decisions aside had a very disappointing breakfast there last week, expensive full Irish that was at the small end of 'full', served luke warm and with a latte that seemed like a packet / hot water mix.

Will certainly be returning to Douglas & Khaldi for my post canal walk feed.

phoenix_flyer wrote: »

That is probably why booking is required in the Bar area these days. The place seems to be gaining in popularity as the months go by.

Fr_Dougal · 30-04-2017 12:59am

Was there tonight, empty...no atmosphere...

Former Former · 30-04-2017 9:06am

I was there for lunch yesterday, very busy but service is still unpredictable.

BTW you don't have to book a table.

phoenix_flyer · 30-04-2017 10:52am

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

Was there tonight, empty...no atmosphere...

Bank Holiday weekend. Many people gone away. Nobody seems to have any thoughts on the zoning issue or whether a site when it gets planning permission for a particular use, retains the zoning of the lands in the immediate vicinity for any future improvements, extensions etc.

daymobrew · 01-05-2017 10:50am

phoenix_flyer wrote: »

Nobody seems to have any thoughts on the zoning issue or whether a site when it gets planning permission for a particular use, retains the zoning of the lands in the immediate vicinity for any future improvements, extensions etc.

Think about planning permission in a residential area - you might get permission for an attic conversion. If you wanted to get permission for a creche, then the decision would be based on the zoning for the area (it would probably be fine).

If you later wanted to change the house into a chemical plant it probably wouldn't be allowed because it would be incompatible with residential zoning.

So, I guess that the 12th Lock changes are deemed incompatible with Open Space zoning. (I haven't read the full decision)

phoenix_flyer · 02-05-2017 6:30am

And daymobrew you have hit the nail on the head this time. A chemical plant is an industrial use and would not conform to the use already obtained on the site, Public house, restaurant, hotel. It would be non conforming to use the Council's own words. The current use is approved for almost 2 decades by the Appeal Board themselves. The first grant was as far back as 1998 I think. There were no use changes proposed in the application, the details of which are on Fingal website which would be of a different class of use to that given by the Board all those years ago. So the non conforming use is a bit of a red herring. It would be well worth your while reading through the full decision, because it seems to be deeply flawed and probably was influenced by some very spurious submissions by objectors, some of whom were there in 1998 when the Board gave the first grant. Hopefully somebody will take it back to the Board to clarify the confusion.

ThisRegard · 02-05-2017 10:13am

phoenix_flyer wrote: »

Bank Holiday weekend. Many people gone away. Nobody seems to have any thoughts on the zoning issue or whether a site when it gets planning permission for a particular use, retains the zoning of the lands in the immediate vicinity for any future improvements, extensions etc.

So, do you feel ready now to declare your interest?

phoenix_flyer · 02-05-2017 12:28pm

My sole interest is in seeing that there is fair play for all parties. If I had any other interest I would be happy to declare it and I would be quite entitled to do so. You seem to be implying that I would not. I hate the idea of mob rule especially as it applies in the area of planning. I have a great difficulty with local interest groups with a particular agenda coordinating their objections which I would say are totally over the top in this case. I think I am entitled to air that view here even if it is not the populist view.

ThisRegard · 02-05-2017 12:35pm

Nothing to do with a populist view and mob rule, but you joined to post on this topic, and haven't posted anywhere else on boards.ie other than here to make up excuses and what some would say is propaganda for the 12th Lock.

The post of yours that I quoted is ridiculous with the reasons as to why there weren't many people there the time of the poster, how is that in any way relative to planning?

xl500 · 02-05-2017 1:10pm

phoenix_flyer wrote: »

My sole interest is in seeing that there is fair play for all parties. If I had any other interest I would be happy to declare it and I would be quite entitled to do so. You seem to be implying that I would not. I hate the idea of mob rule especially as it applies in the area of planning. I have a great difficulty with local interest groups with a particular agenda coordinating their objections which I would say are totally over the top in this case. I think I am entitled to air that view here even if it is not the populist view.

Exactly Fair Play for all parties what level of fair play did the developer show when he ignored all planning warning letters and ignored Neighbours concerns

phoenix_flyer · 02-05-2017 3:51pm

ThisRegard wrote: »

Nothing to do with a populist view and mob rule, but you joined to post on this topic, and haven't posted anywhere else on boards.ie other than here to make up excuses and what some would say is propaganda for the 12th Lock.

The post of yours that I quoted is ridiculous with the reasons as to why there weren't many people there the time of the poster, how is that in any way relative to planning?

I have posted on many topics over the years but that is really none of your business. In the post you refer to I was responding to a previous poster who was having a pop at the 12th Lock for its lack of atmosphere etc. But I guess thats what certain posters are good at on this thread, trying to demean business people and their premises at every possible opportunity. I am totally immune at this stage to being hounded for having a view that does not accord with that of the herd. I am well aware that it is the same group of individuals, by and large who attempted to prevent the 12th Lock being constructed in the first place and continued to prevent it being upgraded subsequently. But the vast majority of locals support the place and have done so from the start. If the decision of the Council is appealed as one would expect it to be then you will have ample opportunity to have your say.

January · 02-05-2017 4:02pm

Friends of mine ate there at the weekend, said the food was subpar and not as nice as when it was under the old ownership.

ThisRegard · 02-05-2017 4:10pm

January wrote: »

Friends of mine ate there at the weekend, said the food was subpar and not as nice as when it was under the old ownership.

Can't wait to hear the excuse for this.

Former Former · 02-05-2017 4:33pm

ThisRegard wrote: »

So, do you feel ready now to declare your interest?

He's repeatedly said he has no interest. What more do you expect?

The flip side is that all the people who are so strongly against the 12th Lock should also declare their interests. I don't think any of them have done so either.

Now, of course I'll be accused of some vested interest too...

ThisRegard · 02-05-2017 4:55pm

Why would anyone accuse you of having a vested interest, it's not like you just created an account to only post defensively on behalf of one particular business in matters of planning, atmosphere and what people like to do on bank holiday weekends. That would be odd wouldn't it? You'd think such a person would at least be attracted to the dedicated planning thread for Fingal.

If someone thinks a place has a lack of atmosphere and is accused of saying this for no other reason than that they're part of some larger conspiracy against the premises you really have to question the motivation of that person making that accusation, despite their claims.

xl500 · 02-05-2017 5:03pm

Former Former wrote: »

He's repeatedly said he has no interest. What more do you expect?

The flip side is that all the people who are so strongly against the 12th Lock should also declare their interests. I don't think any of them have done so either.

Now, of course I'll be accused of some vested interest too...

Well I have posted from the early stages and I also stated I was not strongly against 12th Lock but I am strongly against somebody completely ignoring Planning Regulations This developer was written to and warned that the works could require Planning he chose to ignore this and continued with works I also stated repeatedly that my issue is not with 12th Lock reopening in fact I welcome it but everyone has to “play by the rules “ and as I said before the planners will be the ones to decide and they have decided and I accept that decision and I also believe if it is appealed to An Bord Pleanala they will uphold the decision

phoenix_flyer · 02-05-2017 6:54pm

All parties can put their cards on the table if one or other party decides to appeal. The appeal board will not be subjected to the same pressure as the Council undoubtedly were.

amtc · 03-05-2017 4:46am

Am I the only one thinking this is getting a bit boring with imagined or non imagined objectors? As far as I can understand decisions have been made.

Since reopening I've been there five times. Getting better... but a way to go.

No need to book in bar but been in restaurant twice. Once was lovely. Once not.

Surprised no pasta or rice dishes on new menu

daymobrew · 03-05-2017 10:54am

phoenix_flyer wrote: »

There were no use changes proposed in the application, the details of which are on Fingal website which would be of a different class of use to that given by the Board all those years ago. So the non conforming use is a bit of a red herring. It would be well worth your while reading through the full decision, ...

Schedule 2 Reasons explain the reasons for not granting permission - the covered area displaces the smoking area without a replacement area and the ice cream shack contravenes condition 3 of the 2004 planning application.

I don't have an opinion on the decision. I don't live in the area (I pass by on the school run). It is very rare that I am a customer.

Former Former · 03-05-2017 11:00am

daymobrew wrote: »

Schedule 2 Reasons explain the reasons for not granting permission - the covered area displaces the smoking area without a replacement area and the ice cream shack contravenes condition 3 of the 2004 planning application.

I don't have an opinion on the decision. I don't live in the area (I pass by on the school run). It is very rare that I am a customer.

I don't really understand this part of the refusal. Certainly the new covered area is a significant expansion so I can understand why it raised objections - but there is still an outdoor area in front of the ice cream shack, surely this is where the smokers go?

phoenix_flyer · 03-05-2017 2:35pm

Former Former wrote: »

daymobrew wrote: »

Schedule 2 Reasons explain the reasons for not granting permission - the covered area displaces the smoking area without a replacement area and the ice cream shack contravenes condition 3 of the 2004 planning application.

I don't have an opinion on the decision. I don't live in the area (I pass by on the school run). It is very rare that I am a customer.

I don't really understand this part of the refusal. Certainly the new covered area is a significant expansion so I can understand why it raised objections - but there is still an outdoor area in front of the ice cream shack, surely this is where the smokers go?

Precisely. I remember back to 2004/2005 when many of the people who are now bemoaning the loss of smoking space at the 12th Lock wanted an area in the car park set aside as a smoking area. In many licensed premises these days there are no specific areas allocated for smokers. Their numbers are dwindling in any case. There seems to be a view at Government level that the numbers will fall further, especially if there are no designated smoking areas. I have my doubts about that theory I have to say but its a fact of life that there are considerably fewer people smoking now than there was 20 years ago.
I would much prefer to see space allocated for an Ice Cream kiosk than a designated smoking area.

Rosser · 03-05-2017 8:43pm

phoenix_flyer wrote: »

I have posted on many topics over the years.

Not as 'Phoenix _flyer' you haven't, so where could we view these posts just to get a better take on your position?

Rosser · 03-05-2017 8:50pm

phoenix_flyer wrote: »

That is probably why booking is required in the Bar area these days. The place seems to be gaining in popularity as the months go by. Nobody need have any worries if the Fingal decision is referred to the Appeals Board. They are the final judges of what is and is not the correct interpretation of the planning act when applications are being considered. But it would be unbelievable if somebody applied for an extension to their dwelling house and got refused because the land zoning outside the site of the house was open space, high amenity etc. If the 12th Lock never had a permission one could understand that the nature of the land zoning of the lands around the site would be a factor in the decision but clearly this not the case here. And there are no use changes that would be incompatible with the current site use.

So by booking a place for breakfast for a Friday morning at 10:15am in an almost empty venue the food would not be poorly prepared and over priced? Is there a discount for booking in advance?

Not sure what your planning soliloquy has to do with a substandard fry but thanks.

The 12th Lock

Comments