Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

The 12th Lock

1…1819202224

Comments

  • #632
    phoenix_flyer
    Registered Users Posts: 28 ✭phoenix_flyer


    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.


  • #633
    daymobrew
    Registered Users Posts: 6,484 ✭✭✭daymobrew


    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)


  • #634
    phoenix_flyer
    Registered Users Posts: 28 ✭phoenix_flyer


    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.


  • #635
    ThisRegard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,834 ✭✭✭✭ThisRegard


    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?


  • #636
    phoenix_flyer
    Registered Users Posts: 28 ✭phoenix_flyer


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • #637
    ThisRegard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,834 ✭✭✭✭ThisRegard


    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?


  • #638
    xl500
    Registered Users Posts: 863 ✭✭✭xl500


    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


  • #639
    phoenix_flyer
    Registered Users Posts: 28 ✭phoenix_flyer


    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.


  • #640
    January
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,865 ✭✭✭✭January


    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.


  • #641
    ThisRegard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,834 ✭✭✭✭ThisRegard


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • #642
    Former Former
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,728 ✭✭✭Former Former


    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...


  • #643
    ThisRegard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,834 ✭✭✭✭ThisRegard


    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.


  • #644
    xl500
    Registered Users Posts: 863 ✭✭✭xl500


    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


  • #645
    phoenix_flyer
    Registered Users Posts: 28 ✭phoenix_flyer


    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.


  • #646
    amtc
    Registered Users Posts: 2,490 ✭✭✭amtc


    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


  • #647
    daymobrew
    Registered Users Posts: 6,484 ✭✭✭daymobrew


    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.


  • #648
    Former Former
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,728 ✭✭✭Former Former


    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?


  • #649
    phoenix_flyer
    Registered Users Posts: 28 ✭phoenix_flyer


    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.


  • #650
    Rosser
    Registered Users Posts: 591 ✭✭✭Rosser


    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?


  • #651
    Rosser
    Registered Users Posts: 591 ✭✭✭Rosser


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • #652
    oblivious
    Registered Users Posts: 4,381 ✭✭✭oblivious


    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.

    My wife and i were there Friday. We have been there few weeks previous, which was lovely. But the quality had taken a dip on this trip


  • #653
    phoenix_flyer
    Registered Users Posts: 28 ✭phoenix_flyer


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

    In short the answer is no. The topics in question had no connection with the 12th Lock or anything else on this thread. I know that you are not happy that anybody would dare to challenge your views on the issues in question here but the position is that every contributor has an absolute right to air their views as and when they wish.


  • #654
    Arciphel
    Registered Users Posts: 2,834 ✭✭✭Arciphel


    phoenix_flyer wrote: »
    In short the answer is no. The topics in question had no connection with the 12th Lock or anything else on this thread. I know that you are not happy that anybody would dare to challenge your views on the issues in question here but the position is that every contributor has an absolute right to air their views as and when they wish.

    So are you saying you use a separate boards username to post just on this topic?


  • #655
    Rosser
    Registered Users Posts: 591 ✭✭✭Rosser


    phoenix_flyer wrote: »
    In short the answer is no. The topics in question had no connection with the 12th Lock or anything else on this thread. I know that you are not happy that anybody would dare to challenge your views on the issues in question here but the position is that every contributor has an absolute right to air their views as and when they wish.

    Seriously what are you on about? You're more than welcome to challenge my views as I yours, you've put out in the public domain that you post about lots of things and I'm asking you what exactly?

    It's clear that being the case that you post under different names and in the vacuum you've created I'll reach my own conclusions which include that you've already been excluded from posting on other forums and potentially this one.

    Now back to my point that in my opinion I had a meal which was overpriced and poorly prepared - how does that exactly annoy you given you have no connection to the premises?


  • #656
    phoenix_flyer
    Registered Users Posts: 28 ✭phoenix_flyer


    Arciphel wrote: »
    phoenix_flyer wrote: »
    In short the answer is no. The topics in question had no connection with the 12th Lock or anything else o
    Arciphel wrote: »
    phoenix_flyer wrote: »
    In short the answer is no. The topics in question had no connection with the 12th Lock or anything else on this thread. I know that you are not happy that anybody would dare to challenge your views on the issues in question here but the position is that every contributor has an absolute right to air their views as and when they wish.

    So are you saying you use a separate boards username to post just on this topic?
    n this thread. I know that you are not happy that anybody would dare to challenge your views on the issues in question here but the position is that every contributor has an absolute right to air their views as and when they wish.

    So are you saying you use a separate boards username to post just on this topic?
    Did I say that? Or are you assuming I said that?  
    I feel that every thread is different and every contribution requires a different approach & title. If that is a problem for you then you have to get over that. Some posters on Boards.ie are happy to use the same name for all their posts. Not me. 
    I have been on these sites for years and I have a different Name on all of them. 
    That may be a problem for some people for some people on Boards.ie
    But its not for me.


  • #657
    Rosser
    Registered Users Posts: 591 ✭✭✭Rosser


    phoenix_flyer wrote: »
    Did I say that? Or are you assuming I said that?  
    Some posters on Boards.ie are happy to use the same name for all their posts. Not me. 
    I have been on these sites for years and I have a different Name on all of them. 

    You ask a question and then you go on to answer it yourself so it's not an assumption it's a matter of fact.


  • #658
    Gaspode
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Music Moderators, Regional East Moderators, Regional Midlands Moderators, Regional Midwest Moderators, Regional Abroad Moderators, Regional North Mods, Regional West Moderators, Regional South East Moderators, Regional North East Moderators, Regional North West Moderators, Regional South Moderators Posts: 8,007 CMod ✭✭✭✭Gaspode


    phoenix_flyer wrote: »
    Some posters on Boards.ie are happy to use the same name for all their posts. Not me. 

    Multiple accounts on boards are not generally permitted, and using them to evade a ban is definitely not permitted. I look forward to your explanation of this comment (by pm please)


  • #659
    xl500
    Registered Users Posts: 863 ✭✭✭xl500


    Well All I can say is god help anyone living near 12th Lock tonight Full Blown Party ongoing Noise levels Unreal


  • #660
    AGC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,648 ✭✭✭AGC


    xl500 wrote: »
    Well All I can say is god help anyone living near 12th Lock tonight Full Blown Party ongoing Noise levels Unreal

    On the way home from the train I saw the signs up on terrace that it was reserved for a private party but certainly was no noise issues.

    On another note I went in last week for breakfast and it was terrible. Food doesn't have a patch on Brady's.


  • Advertisement
  • #661
    xl500
    Registered Users Posts: 863 ✭✭✭xl500


    AGC wrote: »
    On the way home from the train I saw the signs up on terrace that it was reserved for a private party but certainly was no noise issues.

    On another note I went in last week for breakfast and it was terrible. Food doesn't have a patch on Brady's.

    What time was that when you passed from the train because at 22.30 Last night Lots of noise emanating from premises


Advertisement