checky88 wrote: » Anyone heard anymore on if or when the pool might open be an awful shame if it didnt open this summer
Owners of the 132-year-old Clontarf baths, recently refurbished at a cost of €2.4 million, could be breaking the conditions of their planning permission by failing to open the outdoor seawater pool at the site.
Gloomtastic! wrote: » I read it on Clontarf.ie actually. The objectors are obviously getting pretty desperate at this stage. I see those geese grazing everytime I walk on the avenue. I also see them graze on any grass areas all along the Dublin coastline.
onimpulse wrote: » Before you start commenting on the objections "using geese" you really should inform yourself of the actual issues, rather than picking up on headline from a building industry funded publication.
- it does not adequately address biodiversity issues including the impact the development would have on the Brent geese.
Gloomtastic! wrote: » But it’s the fact that Clontarf residents get angry when they want to build a wall against the sea that will eventually engulf them. They also get angry when they build that wall too high so the car drivers can’t see the sea on their way into work. They complain when someone wants to build homes in their back yard when there’s a housing shortage using geese as their latest excuse for not to build. They get angry when they try to put homeless people near them, god forbid! The only justifiable complaint Clontarf have had in recent years is the trees along Fairview Park/reducing two lanes to one instead. Everything else is just people with too much time on their hands and nothing better to do. Get a friggin life Clontarf!!
Gloomtastic! wrote: » But it’s the fact that Clontarf residents get angry when they want to build a wall against the sea that will eventually engulf them. They also get angry when they build that wall too high so the car drivers can’t see the sea on their way into work.
They complain when someone wants to build homes in their back yard when there’s a housing shortage using geese as their latest excuse for not to build.
They get angry when they try to put homeless people near them, god forbid!
odyssey06 wrote: » Its a total bait and switch...they only got PP for the restaurant as they said they needed it to fund the pool... then they pull this no insurance scam with the pool. Clontarf people are just paying attention, seems like nobody else in this country, maybe not even the taoiseach, gives a damn about planning conditions. We shoulda built a bigger wall not against the sea but everyone else! Clontarfexit
Gloomtastic! wrote: » I’m surprised Clontarf residents have not objected to f@cking Christmas at this stage because none of them believe in Santa’s superpowers! They are a miserable lot!! :rolleyes:
3) The opening hours of the restaurant/café bar shall be from 08:00 to 23:30 Monday to Sunday. Reason: In the interests of orderly development.
odyssey06 wrote: » The baths are not operational as far as I am concerned... bring your own insurance... what next... bring your own water?
kbannon wrote: » erm, you kind of did...
expectationlost wrote: » kbannon wrote: » But they are opening a pool, bar and restaurant?!?!?! The local authority may not have questioned the subject of membership or charging but should that have been a factor in the planning permission? yes it should.
kbannon wrote: » But they are opening a pool, bar and restaurant?!?!?! The local authority may not have questioned the subject of membership or charging but should that have been a factor in the planning permission?
expectationlost wrote: » kbannon wrote: » expectationlost wrote: » was the planning dependent on paid-public swimming if not why not? Why should it have been? because they got their restaurant and bar because of the baths so they should run its as paid-public swimming pool, thats what the deal should be.
kbannon wrote: » expectationlost wrote: » was the planning dependent on paid-public swimming if not why not? Why should it have been?
expectationlost wrote: » was the planning dependent on paid-public swimming if not why not?
kbannon wrote: » That's not a requirement! It was a response provided by Noonan Moran Architecture on behalf of the applicants. It has absolutely no legal standing. Anyhow, I'll ask it again, where is there a requirement to provide it as a "paid-public swimming pool" to the public as you expect?
It is noted that the baths are privately owned that a revenue stream is essential to their ongoing operation, maintenance and repair of the facility.
There is no community need for the proposed facility with existing swimming facilities in the area.
There is no pressing need for swimming facilities in the area
kbannon wrote: » They're not breaching that as long as people are swimming there. Where is the requirement to provide it as a "paid-public swimming pool" to the public as you expect?
The restaurant/bar element of the proposal is essential to sustain a public seawater pool facility.
expectationlost wrote: » isn't that what planning permission is, the council directs what kind of retails outlets are allowed in certain places all the time in deed one of the conditions says 2. (a) The refurbishment works to the swimming pool area shall be completed prior to the opening of the restaurant/café bar. (b) The restaurant/café shall be operated in conjunction with the swimming pool. (c) In the event of a prolonged closure of the swimming pool (in excess of twelve months), the restaurant/café bar shall cease operation, until the swimming pool has been re-opened, unless otherwise agreed with the planning authority. Reason: To ensure that the restaurant/café bar remains subsidiary to the main use of the site for swimming, in accordance with the recreation and open space zoning of the site. 2975/11 http://www.dublincity.ie/swiftlg/apas/run/WPHAPPDETAIL.DisplayUrl?theApnID=2975/11&theTabNo=2&backURL=%3Ca%20href=wphappcriteria.display?paSearchKey=3656270%3ESearch%20Criteria%3C/a%3E%20%3E%20%3Ca%20href=%27wphappsearchres.displayResultsURL?ResultID=4317863%26StartIndex=1%26SortOrder=APNID:DESC%26DispResultsAs=WPHAPPSEARCHRES%26BackURL=%3Ca%20href=wphappcriteria.display?paSearchKey=3656270%3ESearch%20Criteria%3C/a%3E%27%3ESearch%20Results%3C/a%3E
2. (a) The refurbishment works to the swimming pool area shall be completed prior to the opening of the restaurant/café bar. (b) The restaurant/café shall be operated in conjunction with the swimming pool. (c) In the event of a prolonged closure of the swimming pool (in excess of twelve months), the restaurant/café bar shall cease operation, until the swimming pool has been re-opened, unless otherwise agreed with the planning authority. Reason: To ensure that the restaurant/café bar remains subsidiary to the main use of the site for swimming, in accordance with the recreation and open space zoning of the site.
kbannon wrote: » Why? The council ahve not given money for the project as I understand it. therefore, they don't have the ability to dictate on the charging structures. .
expectationlost wrote: » yes it should.
kbannon wrote: » But how would the planning laws dictate that paid public swimming be allowed simply because there's a bar and restaurant? On that basis the GAA club across the road should let the public turn up anytime they want as long as they can slip a few bob! I don't understand your logic
odyssey06 wrote: Are there any other private businesses offering open air seawater baths? Are discounted playing pitches not a massive subsidy which means no private business could make a profit providing same service?
