The 12th Lock

MyKitchenSink · 01-08-2016 12:13pm

Looking good so far.

py2006 · 01-08-2016 1:01pm

The got rid of the door with the big door with the unique handle

amdublin · 01-08-2016 1:26pm

py2006 wrote: »

The got rid of the door with the big door with the unique handle

Yeah I liked that handle! (the ship's wheel?)

py2006 · 01-08-2016 10:11pm

amdublin wrote: »

Yeah I liked that handle! (the ship's wheel?)

Yea its a generic glass door now.

RTT · 01-08-2016 11:07pm

Passed by today and had a look inside. It seems like they've removed the large wooden canal lock structure inside to make the space more open. Seems to be a fair bit more work to do before it reopens.

amdublin · 02-08-2016 7:49am

RTT wrote: »

Passed by today and had a look inside. It seems like they've removed the large wooden canal lock structure inside to make the space more open. Seems to be a fair bit more work to do before it reopens.

I don't know this this structure....where was it situated?

RTT · 02-08-2016 8:38am

amdublin wrote: »

I don't know this this structure....where was it situated?

It was opposite the bar between the doors leading out to the patio area.

AlanG · 02-08-2016 10:17am

esteril wrote: »

I was just pointing out the double standards of locals in my references to the canal which I feel is reasonable. Speaking of structures, some of those barges along side the Hotel building are in a terrible state. That's a further thing the locals could take up with Waterways Ireland. They need a bit of upgrading or removal from the canal.

Greg - you should remember that if it wasn't for the locals the canal would still be closed down. Lots of local families spent decades working in the royal canal amenity group to restore the canal. The did this work so that barges could use the canal - not simply so people could drink beer beside it. The canal is a place for barges.
You should have some respect for the locals who actually did all the work and put large parts of their lives into the work that has made your business feasible.

Zaph · 02-08-2016 12:55pm

AlanG wrote: »

Greg - you should remember that if it wasn't for the locals the canal would still be closed down. Lots of local families spent decades working in the royal canal amenity group to restore the canal. The did this work so that barges could use the canal - not simply so people could drink beer beside it. The canal is a place for barges.
You should have some respect for the locals who actually did all the work and put large parts of their lives into the work that has made your business feasible.

There's nothing to suggest that the poster you're addressing is Greg Browne, so knock it off with that rubbish.

former total · 02-08-2016 8:04pm

"The canal is a place for barges"

Brilliant.

esteril · 02-08-2016 10:38pm

AlanG wrote: »

Greg - you should remember that if it wasn't for the locals the canal would still be closed down. Lots of local families spent decades working in the royal canal amenity group to restore the canal. The did this work so that barges could use the canal - not simply so people could drink beer beside it. The canal is a place for barges.
You should have some respect for the locals who actually did all the work and put large parts of their lives into the work that has made your business feasible.

The person you are addressing is not Greg Browne as Zaph has said in a previous post. The canal is under the control of Waterways Ireland (a State Body) these days. They have responsibility for maintaining the Royal Canal. Their vans are at the 12th Lock every other day of the week, yet they are unable to get rid of the algae and debris beside the lock gate. They are not doing a great job as far as I can see.

Canal side dining is big all over Europe and indeed all over the world these days.
The 12th Lock is an established Hotel and Bar / Restaurant for the last 12 or 13 years. It has served the people of Castleknock and Blanchardstown well during those years. It's re-opening is an exciting prospect for all those who like to go out and enjoy a meal and a few drinks. If you stay in watching television every night that's your choice but please do not attempt to deprive them of an opportunity to sample the atmosphere of a new rejuvenated 12th Lock hotel, bar and restaurant.

ThisRegard · 02-08-2016 11:38pm

I've never seen someone who claims to have nothing to do with somewhere so enthusiastic about a place. Don't think the kids get as giddy coming up to Christmas. It's like reading PR blurb over and over.

You'd swear Blanchardstown and Castleknock are ghost towns without the place.

Rosser · 03-08-2016 1:07am

esteril wrote: »

I. I had a good look at the area where the outdoor space is and to be honest it is smaller than the original enclosed area

To be honest it's actually not smaller and the ice cream 'shack' looks exactly like a shack. As mentioned earlier they might not do gaudy but they sure do corrugated iron garden shed chicque!

Evidence for the 'gaudy' prosecution is the last 1970's Rovers Return rework of De Brúins.

esteril · 03-08-2016 6:22am

Rosser wrote: »

To be honest it's actually not smaller and the ice cream 'shack' looks exactly like a shack. As mentioned earlier they might not do gaudy but they sure do corrugated iron garden shed chicque!

Evidence for the 'gaudy' prosecution is the last 1970's Rovers Return rework of De Brúins.

You are watching too many of those Soaps. You need to get out a bit more.

py2006 · 03-08-2016 9:06am

Let's hope the clientele return

AlanG · 03-08-2016 10:56am

esteril wrote: »

Canal side dining is big all over Europe and indeed all over the world these days.
The 12th Lock is an established Hotel and Bar / Restaurant for the last 12 or 13 years. It has served the people of Castleknock and Blanchardstown well during those years. It's re-opening is an exciting prospect for all those who like to go out and enjoy a meal and a few drinks. If you stay in watching television every night that's your choice but please do not attempt to deprive them of an opportunity to sample the atmosphere of a new rejuvenated 12th Lock hotel, bar and restaurant.

The point I was making is that among the large number of people you throw insults and lies at are the very people who put decades of work into restoring the canal. You complain that the canal has barges in it and want the whole area sanitised. You should have some respect for the locals who put years and years of work into keeping the canal.

If they hadn't done the work it would most likely have been paved over and used as a truck way in the 80's. The saving of the canal is not down to the people you are making representations for.

AlanG · 03-08-2016 10:59am

I had a look at the work progressing over the last few days. The "Ice Cream" shack would make a good outdoor bar if the owners wanted.

January · 03-08-2016 11:02am

Once they realize an ice cream shack in that location won't make a favourable profit they'll probably turn it into just that.

former total · 03-08-2016 11:41am

This thread has lost the plot completely.

The 12th Lock reopening is a great thing for all concerned.

If they're adding an ice cream shack, then it sounds like they're trying to get families in, which the previous owners were dead against. The previous 12th Lock was the only place I ever asked for a high chair only to be told "no".

The state has pumped huge money into doing up the canal as a walking route, having somewhere to stop for a coffee along the route has to be a good thing.

Let's just be glad that D15 has another, different option for going out. We were long enough with f**k all places to go.

esteril · 03-08-2016 12:18pm

Many of the people who are whinging and moaning about the re-opening of this business were involved in the original campaign to prevent the construction of the building in the first place. The kind of people who would deny you the right to have a barbecue in your garden because the smoke would destroy the environment or the noise might affect their amenities. Their social outlet is normally the residents association where they can whinge and whine to their hearts content about what other people are doing. I agree wholeheartedly with former totals previous post. The more outlets the better in this area. More diverse offerings is what is needed from all operators in the hospitality area.

ThisRegard · 03-08-2016 12:26pm

esteril wrote: »

Many of the people who are whinging and moaning about the re-opening of this business were involved in the original campaign to prevent the construction of the building in the first place.

Who's moaning about the reopening? And those you think are moaning, how do you know they were involved in the building in the first place?

esteril · 03-08-2016 12:52pm

I would have thought that it is obvious from some recent posts that the same issues that were being thrown up then are being raked up again now. No drinking near the canal. Yet in other areas across the country, riverside and canalside cafes, restaurants and bars provide brilliant entertainment spots. Similarly all across Europe. Leopards do not change their spots and it would be highly unlikely that the original campaigners would have gone away or changed their minds. They see this as a second bite of the cherry. They are seemingly quite happy to see a build up of rubbish and algae at the lock gates but just wish to concentrate on what will be a very beneficial facility for locals and visitors alike.

ThisRegard · 03-08-2016 1:01pm

I still can't make the connection from what you perceive and what's actually being posted.

NyOmnishambles · 03-08-2016 1:39pm

esteril wrote: »

I would have thought that it is obvious from some recent posts that the same issues that were being thrown up then are being raked up again now. No drinking near the canal. Yet in other areas across the country, riverside and canalside cafes, restaurants and bars provide brilliant entertainment spots. Similarly all across Europe. Leopards do not change their spots and it would be highly unlikely that the original campaigners would have gone away or changed their minds. They see this as a second bite of the cherry. They are seemingly quite happy to see a build up of rubbish and algae at the lock gates but just wish to concentrate on what will be a very beneficial facility for locals and visitors alike.

I don't recall that being a significant issue in this thread at all

You seem to have a bee in your bonnet about something that doesn't seem to exist, as has been pointed out to you several times the main issue people had with it is the manner in which the works have been carried out, most people are happy to see the place open

L1011 · 03-08-2016 2:08pm

January wrote: »

Once they realize an ice cream shack in that location won't make a favourable profit they'll probably turn it into just that.

Or they think they'd have opposition to an outdoor bar so are building the 'ice cream shack' now with change of use planned :pac:

Arciphel · 03-08-2016 2:29pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NBttXb4jSY

Wonder if they will be doing steaks on the stone? :pac:

py2006 · 03-08-2016 2:32pm

An ice-cream shack, seriously??!?! :rolleyes:

They do realise they are renovating this place.....in Ireland??

septictank · 03-08-2016 3:38pm

Arciphel wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NBttXb4jSY

Wonder if they will be doing steaks on the stone? :pac:

Great spot.

Rosser · 03-08-2016 6:06pm

esteril wrote: »

More diverse offerings is what is needed from all operators in the hospitality area.

Four venues within 3km all owned by the same outfit is not diversity.

Good luck to them if it all works out well, nobody wants the place left closed up I think we can all agree on that.

However as I said before the shack looks like a garden shed.

Rosser · 03-08-2016 6:09pm

esteril wrote: »

You are watching too many of those Soaps. You need to get out a bit more.

I'd level that at the designers of De Brúins.

rockatansky · 03-08-2016 7:13pm

former total wrote: »

This thread has lost the plot completely.

The 12th Lock reopening is a great thing for all concerned.
.

I don't see anyone arguing against it re-opening.

What they are concerned about is that the building is going ahead without proper planning permission. The demolition of the house down in Blanchardstown village and the building of a new structure without permission being in place is known to most on here. There is a concern, and rightly so, that things going back to the bad old days of people just building what they want, deal with the consequences after its up, and then in the end the council just giving in and then getting away with it.

You then have have a poster who then comes on and starts throwing very obvious buzz statements such as ‘very beneficial facility for locals and visitors alike’ ‘the place is buzzing with activity’ ‘I can't wait to see that car park full again’, I believe the place will be well supported by the local community’.

When concerns were raised you were accused of ‘whinging and moaning about the re-opening of this business’, ‘There are people who will always complain about everything.’ ‘these locals would rather harass a very progressive businessman’. It’s the usual political accusation of you’re going against progress!

It reads like it’s lifted straight from a Fianna Fail Ard Fheis speech during the Bertie boom years, if you dare question us you’re clearly just being negative and are against the country.

py2006 · 03-08-2016 7:54pm

Ffs guys. It's a blinking pub re opening.

former total · 03-08-2016 8:24pm

rockatansky wrote: »

I don't see anyone arguing against it re-opening.

What they are concerned about is that the building is going ahead without proper planning permission. The demolition of the house down in Blanchardstown village and the building of a new structure without permission being in place is known to most on here. There is a concern, and rightly so, that things going back to the bad old days of people just building what they want, deal with the consequences after its up, and then in the end the council just giving in and then getting away with it.

You then have have a poster who then comes on and starts throwing very obvious buzz statements such as ‘very beneficial facility for locals and visitors alike’ ‘the place is buzzing with activity’ ‘I can't wait to see that car park full again’, I believe the place will be well supported by the local community’.

When concerns were raised you were accused of ‘whinging and moaning about the re-opening of this business’, ‘There are people who will always complain about everything.’ ‘these locals would rather harass a very progressive businessman’. It’s the usual political accusation of you’re going against progress!

It reads like it’s lifted straight from a Fianna Fail Ard Fheis speech during the Bertie boom years, if you dare question us you’re clearly just being negative and are against the country.

In fairness, bringing up the Main Street development isn't really relevant because there are no planning issues here.

SnakePlissken · 03-08-2016 8:55pm

former total wrote: »

In fairness, bringing up the Main Street development isn't really relevant because there are no planning issues here.

Not applying for works which undoubtedly require planning nor submitting an updated DAC application including said works is most certainly a planning issue.

I was a regular in the twelfth lock, the location is stellar and I genuinely look forward to it reopening, as it indeed will as despite what one poster repeatedly claims, I don't believe anyone here wants to see the site moth balled, it's just unfortunate that the new owner has shown his contempt for planning laws and the observations of the locals.

rockatansky · 03-08-2016 8:55pm

former total wrote: »

In fairness, bringing up the Main Street development isn't really relevant because there are no planning issues here.

I was using that as an example as to why local people's attention may be more focused on the issue of planning so it has a relevance to my post.

For me personally it's always good to see people asking too many questions rather than too few. I just didn't like the way people on here were cast as being negative and whingers just for showing some concern for what is going on in their local community.

former total · 03-08-2016 9:30pm

SnakePlissken wrote: »

Not applying for works which undoubtedly require planning nor submitting an updated DAC application including said works is most certainly a planning issue.

I was a regular in the twelfth lock, the location is stellar and I genuinely look forward to it reopening, as it indeed will as despite what one poster repeatedly claims, I don't believe anyone here wants to see the site moth balled, it's just unfortunate that the new owner has shown his contempt for planning laws and the observations of the locals.

"Undoubtedly require planning" according to whom though? If work is nearing completion, the county council obviously don't think so.

Rosser · 03-08-2016 11:01pm

former total wrote: »

"Undoubtedly require planning" according to whom though? If work is nearing completion, the county council obviously don't think so.

Bottom line is that there are changes and additions, planning was not requested because there's nothing on the Fingal's planning site. Just because it's 'nearing completion' doesn't make it legit.

Now obviously either the council don't know because they weren't asked or they were asked and said it was ok to make those alterations without consent being required.

Perhaps the latter and probably the former either way I suspect we'll know soon enough.

Godge · 03-08-2016 11:34pm

rockatansky wrote: »

I don't see anyone arguing against it re-opening.

What they are concerned about is that the building is going ahead without proper planning permission. The demolition of the house down in Blanchardstown village and the building of a new structure without permission being in place is known to most on here. There is a concern, and rightly so, that things going back to the bad old days of people just building what they want, deal with the consequences after its up, and then in the end the council just giving in and then getting away with it.

You then have have a poster who then comes on and starts throwing very obvious buzz statements such as ‘very beneficial facility for locals and visitors alike’ ‘the place is buzzing with activity’ ‘I can't wait to see that car park full again’, I believe the place will be well supported by the local community’.

When concerns were raised you were accused of ‘whinging and moaning about the re-opening of this business’, ‘There are people who will always complain about everything.’ ‘these locals would rather harass a very progressive businessman’. It’s the usual political accusation of you’re going against progress!

It reads like it’s lifted straight from a Fianna Fail Ard Fheis speech during the Bertie boom years, if you dare question us you’re clearly just being negative and are against the country.

From what I can see a shack in the form of a garden shed is what is in dispute. Hardly the biggest planning issue in the last week in Dublin 15.

former total · 03-08-2016 11:38pm

Rosser wrote: »

Bottom line is that there are changes and additions, planning was not requested because there's nothing on the Fingal's planning site. Just because it's 'nearing completion' doesn't make it legit.

Now obviously either the council don't know because they weren't asked or they were asked and said it was ok to make those alterations without consent being required.

Perhaps the latter and probably the former either way I suspect we'll know soon enough.

The most likely explanation is that the changes are such that permission wasn't required.

Of course the council are aware. If work wasn't stopped then the only explanation is that permission is not needed.

Rosser · 04-08-2016 12:21am

former total wrote: »

Of course the council are aware. If work wasn't stopped then the only explanation is that permission is not needed.

Why is it 'of course the council are aware'? Equally the other explanation - they're not aware so no action was taken.

I've no axe to grind here, pleased to see it open but my Lord there are some cheerleaders about.

'Greg mightn't do gaudy' but let's see if he does planning.

former total · 04-08-2016 6:43am

Rosser wrote: »

Why is it 'of course the council are aware'? Equally the other explanation - they're not aware so no action was taken.

I've no axe to grind here, pleased to see it open but my Lord there are some cheerleaders about.

'Greg mightn't do gaudy' but let's see if he does planning.

Ah come on. This isn't a garage being tacked onto the side of someone's house; it's a pub and hotel in a very prominent location. There's zero chance the council don't know about it. Going by this thread, I'd imagine they've had queries from residents too so they must be aware.

So if you accept that they know about it but work hasn't stopped, then the only logical conclusion is that they're happy no permission was needed.

That's not "cheerleading", it's just basic logic.

Gaspode · 04-08-2016 7:51am

OK folks, I'm going to refer you back to the post quoted below. Since none of us have factual information regarding whether or not planning was required/sought, debating the issue in circles is just tiresome and pointless. If anyone does get genuine facts on the planning surrounding this re-development then post it up & lets discuss it.

Zaph wrote: »

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.

xl500 · 04-08-2016 8:05am

former total wrote: »

"Undoubtedly require planning" according to whom though? If work is nearing completion, the county council obviously don't think so.

Well I have desisted from posting re Planning as the mods requested but it seems to be back on agenda so

Just because the work is nearing Completion does not in any way mean that Planning is not required

A planning Inspector Visited this site and following that inspection It was confirmed that the works required Planning Permission

2 Warning Letters were issued but as you see were ignored and works continued Remember at this stage no-one except owner and Builder Knew What was being built

If Someone Ignores the Planning Process it does not mean the County Council think it is ok it just takes Time to deal with it

People Here have stated that the Retention Planning Process is A legal Way to Deal with this

That was never the intention of the Retention Process In this Case The Developer Ignored The Process in Full Knowledge that the Works Required Planning Permission which shows complete contempt for the normal Planning Process

If Anyone Wants to check the Above A Simple Call or Email To Fingal CO CO Planning Enforcement will Confirm

Gaspode · 04-08-2016 8:09am

Seriously xl500? The post directly above yours - can you not see it?

xl500 · 04-08-2016 8:14am

Gaspode wrote: »

Seriously xl500? The post directly above yours - can you not see it?

Well no I Didnt As I was writing my Post at the time and just posted when I finished

But if you look I Desisted From Planning Issues After The First Mods Request

But It seemed to be back Being Discussed again so and You Also Stated If anyone Has Factual Info Re Planning then Post

Everything I said Is Factual And Fingal Co Co will Confirm

xl500 · 04-08-2016 8:25am

Gaspode wrote: »

OK folks, I'm going to refer you back to the post quoted below. Since none of us have factual information regarding whether or not planning was required/sought, debating the issue in circles is just tiresome and pointless. If anyone does get genuine facts on the planning surrounding this re-development then post it up & lets discuss it.

I emailed Fingal Co Co here is reply

A warning letter was issued to the Manager of the 12th Lock on the 14th June. No response has been received to the letter and we are currently carrying out a reference on the property to establish the ownership of the property.

Regards,
Planning Enforcement
Inspectorate Division

A simple Email To Planning Enforcement will Confirm if this is Factual

Gaspode · 04-08-2016 8:44am

xl500 wrote: »

Well no I Didnt As I was writing my Post at the time and just posted when I finished

ok so, given the timing we'll let it go.

ThisRegard · 04-08-2016 9:25am

So a letter was sent almost 2 months ago to which they never replied. Don't know who's worse, the clown running the pub, or Fingal for being so tardy in finding out who owns the property.

xl500 · 04-08-2016 11:08am

ThisRegard wrote: »

So a letter was sent almost 2 months ago to which they never replied. Don't know who's worse, the clown running the pub, or Fingal for being so tardy in finding out who owns the property.

Well to be fair it can be difficult to establish Ownership and
there was a second warning Letter sent but again it was ignored

Point is Clear that Planning Permission is Required and was not complied with

Craigevans1985 · 04-08-2016 11:12am

They did the best stir fry. Wish I had the recipe from their old chef!

The 12th Lock

Comments