CYMC Hall Philipsburgh Ave D3 turning to pub?

Bungy Girl

Didn't hear about the meeting but will attend the next one. Agree that it's important to make as many local residents as possible aware of the situation. I find it hard to believe that it could be so simple to develop a full bar/superpub in the middle of an existing residential area

Andre Salmon

There was a local solicitor who is helping the Fairview Committee speaking at the meeting. Conor O'Briain (cobriain@hotmail.com)
I had emailed him previously to add my name to the objection. He sent me an email to let me know about the meeting.
Anyone interested should email him to add their support and I presume will updated about future meetings.
The next meeting is scheduled for next Wednesday 8th at 8.15 pm

Freddy Smelly

people would be mad to open a new pub these days... noone has the money to drink in them anymore

Green Fairview

pcasso wrote: »

There was a meeting about this last night in the Fairview parish hall.
It was poorly attended but I suspect that was down to poor publicity and few knew about it.
I wasn't able to go myself but my wife went.
There was little new information given out at the meeting other than to confirm what we already know.
It appears that the owners of the former CYMC hall have substantial funds behind them as they have engaged Constance Cassidy, who is apparently the top licencing barrister in the country, to represent them.
There was some speculation as to who the new owners are and a name that cropped up was one of the few that seems to be making profits and expanding within the pub industry in Dublin.
If you think about it for a while you will probably get it right.

It is going to be one hell of an uphill battle to prevent this superpub/niteclub from going ahead. There was a feeling at the meeting that once the pub is up and running it will be next to impossible to close. They cited the example of Bar Code in Westwood which apparently operated for eight years without a proper licence.
There is another meeting at the same venue next Wednesday at 8.15pm. A big attendance would I feel send out a strong message to the developers and the planners.

Hi Pcasso,

Just to clarify - the meeting on Wednesday night was a preliminary get-together of those who had responded by email/'phone to the first leaflet drop of the previous week, alerting residents to the issue. It was primarily to organise further publicity/information dissemation, prior to the main event, which as you say, is organised for next Wednesday, 8th May.
I attended the meeting and was amazed at the turn-out which was estimated to have been about 80 people!

I hope everyone who is concerned about this issue will turn up to the meeting on the 8th May!! As you say, Pcasso, the larger the turn-out the better, to leave planners/developers alike in no doubt as to the scale of opposition to this.

Green Fairview

Andre Salmon wrote: »

I bumped into a guy I know over the weekend who has previously owned pubs and restaurants. I was telling him about the situation and he said in his experience the fact that there is already a bar licence (for the club). The application will be allowed even with objections. Hopefully not.

Hi Andre,

I'm a local Architect working with the Residents Association on this:

The planning situation (as oposed to the licencing issue) is as follows:

The owners of the (former CYMC) building are claiming that a change from a club bar to a public bar is 'exempted development'.
In my professional opinion, this is absolutely not the case!
A change from a club bar to a full public bar is a 'material change of use' and will require a full planning permission application.
I am in constant touch with DCC Planners on this and the Planning Enforcement Section have already issued Warning Notices to the owners (19th April).
As regards the land to the rear and the access to the side which is in DCC ownership (and leased to a third party), I have also made DCC Planning Enforcement Section aware of this.

There are planning 'mechanisms' available to us to 'force' unwilling developers into the planning process.
These will be discussed in full at the meeting on the 8th May.
Its all to fight for!!!!

Andre Salmon

Green Fairview wrote: »

Hi Andre,

I'm a local Architect working with the Residents Association on this:

The planning situation (as oposed to the licencing issue) is as follows:

The owners of the (former CYMC) building are claiming that a change from a club bar to a public bar is 'exempted development'.
In my professional opinion, this is absolutely not the case!
A change from a club bar to a full public bar is a 'material change of use' and will require a full planning permission application.
I am in constant touch with DCC Planners on this and the Planning Enforcement Section have already issued Warning Notices to the owners (19th April).
As regards the land to the rear and the access to the side which is in DCC ownership (and leased to a third party), I have also made DCC Planning Enforcement Section aware of this.

There are planning 'mechanisms' available to us to 'force' unwilling developers into the planning process.
These will be discussed in full at the meeting on the 8th May.
Its all to fight for!!!!

That's very interesting & encouraging, thanks for the info.
And also your help is very much appreciated.

Green Fairview

Andre Salmon wrote: »

That's very interesting & encouraging, thanks for the info.
And also your help is very much appreciated.

No thanks necessary, Andre - I live here with my family and love it and don't want to see it ruined by this dreadful proposal!!

pcasso

Green Fairview wrote: »

Hi Andre,

I'm a local Architect working with the Residents Association on this:

The planning situation (as oposed to the licencing issue) is as follows:

The owners of the (former CYMC) building are claiming that a change from a club bar to a public bar is 'exempted development'.
In my professional opinion, this is absolutely not the case!
A change from a club bar to a full public bar is a 'material change of use' and will require a full planning permission application.
I am in constant touch with DCC Planners on this and the Planning Enforcement Section have already issued Warning Notices to the owners (19th April).
As regards the land to the rear and the access to the side which is in DCC ownership (and leased to a third party), I have also made DCC Planning Enforcement Section aware of this.

There are planning 'mechanisms' available to us to 'force' unwilling developers into the planning process.
These will be discussed in full at the meeting on the 8th May.
Its all to fight for!!!!

Thanks for the information and the efforts you are making on all our behalf's

SilverLiningOK

Got flyer in the door yesterday but didn't go to meeting last night. Did anyone on here go ? For me the noise factor might be an issue as I am living on one of the surrounding streets behind the CYMC. Haven't given this much thought until now. Initially I thought it was just a Liveline-type crank issue with local vote-seeking politicians just jumping on the bandwagon. It's also concerning to learn from earlier posts that such a high profile licensing-lawyer may be on board for the applicants. The increase of late night traffic and parking on residential streets (at least Croke Park is mostly daytime) are also worth considering.The flyer yesterday has an objection sign printed on the back (very clever) which people can display on their windows. Some have appeared already.

Andre Salmon

I was at the meeting, was a larger turnout then last week.
There wasn't really any new information since last week.
A Barrister has been retained by the Residence Assoc.

They outlined the proposed planning objections as mentioned by Green Fairview above.
The local councillor Damian O'Farrell (who I think did the flyers) said he met one of the new owners.
However I don't think he gleaned much information. There is a public meeting with the owners in the cymc next Monday at 8pm.
One thing he did find out is that the Stokes fella from the Players Lounge is not involved at all.

I have friends who live in Marino and they hadn't heard much about what was going on so I think the word needs to spread a lot more.
The Hall will be open on Saturday for people who want to sign the objection list.
The Residence Assoc. are looking for donations to help fund the objection.

pcasso

I was at the meeting last night as well.
As Andre said the owners wasn't very forthcoming with his plans for the pub in the future and made no promises in his meeting with Damian O Farrell.
It was pointed out that the licence application extends to the whole of the ground floor and second floor, not just the existing bar so surely there can be no doubt as to what the intentions for the development of the pub are.

Green Fairview

SilverLiningOK wrote: »

Got flyer in the door yesterday but didn't go to meeting last night. Did anyone on here go ? For me the noise factor might be an issue as I am living on one of the surrounding streets behind the CYMC. Haven't given this much thought until now. Initially I thought it was just a Liveline-type crank issue with local vote-seeking politicians just jumping on the bandwagon. It's also concerning to learn from earlier posts that such a high profile licensing-lawyer may be on board for the applicants. The increase of late night traffic and parking on residential streets (at least Croke Park is mostly daytime) are also worth considering.The flyer yesterday has an objection sign printed on the back (very clever) which people can display on their windows. Some have appeared already.

Hi SilverliningOK,
Please, please, please be assured this is not a 'crank issue'.
This licencing application should be of real concern to anyone living within earshot of (or even on a walking route from) the former CY.
It is a DEADLY SERIOUS effort by the private owners/developers of this building to 'sweat their asset' and generate the most revenue possible.
THIS WILL NOT BE A SMALL LOCAL PUB FOR 'OLD FOLK' TO SPEND A FEW EUROS IN ON PENSION DAY!
If you are in any doubt, please come to the meeting in the CY on Monday evening next (13th May, 8pm),
Green Fairview

Rascasse

pcasso wrote: »

It was pointed out that the licence application extends to the whole of the ground floor and second floor, not just the existing bar so surely there can be no doubt as to what the intentions for the development of the pub are.

What do you mean by "there can be no doubt as to what the intentions for the development of the pub are."? Have you been in there before? Are you not aware that there was always a bar downstairs in the hall used for the birthdays/christenings etc? Clearly they will want to use this bar for the same purpose.

Green Fairview wrote: »

Hi SilverliningOK,
Please, please, please be assured this is not a 'crank issue'.
This licencing application should be of real concern to anyone living within earshot of (or even on a walking route from) the former CY.
It is a DEADLY SERIOUS effort by the private owners/developers of this building to 'sweat their asset' and generate the most revenue possible.
THIS WILL NOT BE A SMALL LOCAL PUB FOR 'OLD FOLK' TO SPEND A FEW EUROS IN ON PENSION DAY!
If you are in any doubt, please come to the meeting in the CY on Monday evening next (13th May, 8pm),
Green Fairview

There has been a lot of scaremongering and wild speculation in the finest tradition of NIMBYism. "Barcode" style nightclub, bussed in customers, none if it is any way credible. Then there is talk about how the new owner has got substantial funds as he has the top licensing barrister to deal with the application. Well firstly, clients usually don't have a say as to who their barrister is as they are chosen by the solicitor based on suitability, availability etc. Secondly, there are only 7 barristers in Dublin that deal with licensing at all, of those only 4 deal solely with licensing (Cassidy being one).

From speaking to a local publican, his understanding was that it is simply the case that the bar is going to converted into a public bar with the entrance moved to the front as asking customers to go round the back is far from ideal. His understanding was that the people involved now are the same people that were involved in the members bar but he was going to be looking into it more himself.

It would be very much in the interest of the landlord not to piss off the local population as they are the people he wants drinking there. Personally I see no problem with the plan. The Goose up the road is in a similarly residential area and doesn't seem to create too many issues. The local community had the opportunity to be members and use the facilities, they didn't so an alternative needs to be found. I'd much rather live near to a well run pub than next to an abandoned building and all the trouble that could attract.

Green Fairview

'....There has been a lot of scaremongering and wild speculation in the finest tradition of NIMBYism....'

Fact 1: A local Councillor met one of the owners/developers: they would NOT RULE OUT a large scale pub on the premises. Thats as much as he would say.
In light of this FACT, the speculation you see on these pages and hear on the street is by no means 'wild', and the ligitimate, justifiable concerns voiced by residents is not scaremongering.
Its easy to make light of issues that don't affect you - I glean from your post you don't live too close to the former CY. If you do???????

Fact 2.
In planning terms, the change from a club license to a 7-day public house license is called a 'material change of use' as Planning Law recognoises that there are major differences between the two in terms of noise, traffic, potential anti-social behaviour etc. THAT'S A FACT, RASCASSE. To say the developers are 'simply' changing from a club to a pub is nonsense.

Fact 3:
'....It would be very much in the interest of the landlord not to piss off the local population as they are the people he wants drinking there...'.
How do you know that, Rascasse? Speculation on your part?
Here's the evidence to the contrary:
The proposed change from a club license to a pub license, as I outline above, WILL REQUIRE PLANNING PERMISSION. This is the normal route via which residents affected by a proposed development may make observations/submissions and ensure their concerns are heard. The developers, however, are attempting to claim they are exempt from seeking planning permission and residents have been forced to involve DCC Enforcement Section in the issuing of a Warning Letter in repect of work already started on the site.
Not the way to win hearts and influence people - which suggests (thanks for the insight Rascasse!) the new management of this pub would not be relying on local residents as customers.
Neither did they make any effort to engage in any way with local residents after it was mooted by the judge at the licencing hearing - even the meeting thats organised for next Monday evening was instigated and organised by the Residents Association.
Anyone still in doubt as to whether local people will be the new customers these developers hope to win over?

Fact 4:
'The Goose up the road is in a similarly residential area and doesn't seem to create too many issues...'
The Goose Tavern is tiny in size compared to the floor area that will be licenced in this Building.

'...The local community had the opportunity to be members and use the facilities, they didn't so an alternative needs to be found...'

So I wasn't a member of the CYMC (I'm not RC, by the way) and now I must accept a superpub on my doorstep?

My understanding is that the CYMC had to fold as the current owners/developers put the rent up to something like €6k/month.

There are many uses the building can be put to - it is currently used as a creche and a dance school for kids. Its also my understanding that these uses can't be continued on a licensed premises (and as I've said, the ENTIRE GROUND & FIRST FLOOR WILL BE LICENSED if the current application before the courts is granted). These business' generate substantial funds for the building owners but they still want more revenue.

Just a local pub? You still think so, Rascasse?
The rest of us, we' draw our own conclusions, and won't make any apology for it; you continue to live in happy-clappyland where all developers are our friends and just want the best for the community (they've moved out of)!!!

SilverLiningOK

Green Fairview wrote: »

Hi SilverliningOK,
Please, please, please be assured this is not a 'crank issue'.
This licencing application should be of real concern to anyone living within earshot of (or even on a walking route from) the former CY.
It is a DEADLY SERIOUS effort by the private owners/developers of this building to 'sweat their asset' and generate the most revenue possible.
THIS WILL NOT BE A SMALL LOCAL PUB FOR 'OLD FOLK' TO SPEND A FEW EUROS IN ON PENSION DAY!
If you are in any doubt, please come to the meeting in the CY on Monday evening next (13th May, 8pm),
Green Fairview

I am in agreement with you. Such a change of use has quite a serious impact for those of us living close by. Over the last few days, I took a walk around the back of the building for the first time ever, having lived in the area for nearly 20 years on/off. From the carpark between the building and the pitch/putt green, I can see how close it really is. The satellite view on the residence association site only confirms this clearly.

There surely has to be another use for such a venue, beside a pub. Not a very original idea and definitely not socially acceptable for the surrounding area. We really don't need it.

bbbbb

In case people haven't seen this already, there is a public information meeting with the owners of the former CYMC club

http://www.fairview-marino.com/public-information-meeting-on-proposed-changes-to-the-cy

When: Monday 13 May 2013 at 8pm
Where: The “CY Hall”, 80 Philipsburgh Avenue.

Gloomtastic!

Where is The Goose? I've lived in Marino for 7 years now and never heard of it!

pcasso

Gloomtastic! wrote: »

Where is The Goose? I've lived in Marino for 7 years now and never heard of it!

"The Goose Tavern" is on Sion Hill Rd on the junction with Calderwood Rd

Rascasse

Calm down, Green Fairview. People are allowed to have differing opinions. This is a discussion board after all.

Green Fairview wrote: »

'....There has been a lot of scaremongering and wild speculation in the finest tradition of NIMBYism....'

Fact 1: A local Councillor met one of the owners/developers: they would NOT RULE OUT a large scale pub on the premises. Thats as much as he would say.
In light of this FACT, the speculation you see on these pages and hear on the street is by no means 'wild', and the ligitimate, justifiable concerns voiced by residents is not scaremongering.

Who is this local councillor and where has published the details of his meeting? Who are the "owners/developers"? Are they actually developers? What do you define as large scale? Talk of it being like the nightclub like Barcode or a late bar, or customers being bussed is very much wild speculation with nothing to back it up.

Green Fairview wrote: »

Its easy to make light of issues that don't affect you - I glean from your post you don't live too close to the former CY. If you do???????

We live 10 min walk from the CY and have family a 2/3 min walk from the CY that would be very much affected if this was to be a new Barcode.

Green Fairview wrote: »

Fact 2.
In planning terms, the change from a club license to a 7-day public house license is called a 'material change of use' as Planning Law recognoises that there are major differences between the two in terms of noise, traffic, potential anti-social behaviour etc. THAT'S A FACT, RASCASSE. To say the developers are 'simply' changing from a club to a pub is nonsense.

My point was that after talking to a local publican the information they had heard was that they were simply moving the entrance of the former club bar to the front of the building. I have no view on whether or not the change in license is a "material change of use" and is a "FACT", that is for lawyers to sort out in court.

I should add that the Fairview Residents Association are sticking to the facts as they understand them, which is probably wise.

Green Fairview wrote: »

Fact 3:
'....It would be very much in the interest of the landlord not to piss off the local population as they are the people he wants drinking there...'.
How do you know that, Rascasse? Speculation on your part?
Here's the evidence to the contrary:
The proposed change from a club license to a pub license, as I outline above, WILL REQUIRE PLANNING PERMISSION. This is the normal route via which residents affected by a proposed development may make observations/submissions and ensure their concerns are heard. The developers, however, are attempting to claim they are exempt from seeking planning permission and residents have been forced to involve DCC Enforcement Section in the issuing of a Warning Letter in repect of work already started on the site.
Not the way to win hearts and influence people - which suggests (thanks for the insight Rascasse!) the new management of this pub would not be relying on local residents as customers.
Neither did they make any effort to engage in any way with local residents after it was mooted by the judge at the licencing hearing - even the meeting thats organised for next Monday evening was instigated and organised by the Residents Association.
Anyone still in doubt as to whether local people will be the new customers these developers hope to win over?

If the local people are not who the owner wants to be customers, who will be? Are you suggesting that this will be a nightclub like Barcode? That there will be bussed in customers? Is that the view of your FRA colleagues that you say you are working with?

Green Fairview wrote: »

Fact 4:
'The Goose up the road is in a similarly residential area and doesn't seem to create too many issues...'
The Goose Tavern is tiny in size compared to the floor area that will be licenced in this Building.

A large part of the floor area will be the hall. Do you have any information that it will be converted into a proper bar area with pub style fixtures and fittings? Or will the area be kept as a hall for birthday parties and the like (as it is used now)?

Green Fairview wrote: »

'...The local community had the opportunity to be members and use the facilities, they didn't so an alternative needs to be found...'

So I wasn't a member of the CYMC (I'm not RC, by the way) and now I must accept a superpub on my doorstep?

If by "RC" you mean Roman Catholic I think you may be mistaken. The CY was not part of any church. It was a community (thats what the first 'C' stood for) sports and leisure club.

Once again with "superpub". Is that the official view of the FRA? If so, on what information is it based, and why aren't they publicising it on their posters?

Green Fairview wrote: »

My understanding is that the CYMC had to fold as the current owners/developers put the rent up to something like €6k/month.

There are many uses the building can be put to - it is currently used as a creche and a dance school for kids. Its also my understanding that these uses can't be continued on a licensed premises (and as I've said, the ENTIRE GROUND & FIRST FLOOR WILL BE LICENSED if the current application before the courts is granted). These business' generate substantial funds for the building owners but they still want more revenue.

Just a local pub? You still think so, Rascasse?
The rest of us, we' draw our own conclusions, and won't make any apology for it; you continue to live in happy-clappyland where all developers are our friends and just want the best for the community (they've moved out of)!!!

We'll wait and see what is presented tomorrow. There has been little facts to back up the speculation on this thread and that is simply my point.

Unless the mythical Barcode II becomes a reality, I'd be far more concerned for plans for the pitch & putt course and hope the FRA does everything it can to ensure that remains a public amenity (in its current form or another).

pcasso

Rascasse wrote: »

What do you mean by "there can be no doubt as to what the intentions for the development of the pub are."? Have you been in there before? Are you not aware that there was always a bar downstairs in the hall used for the birthdays/christenings etc? Clearly they will want to use this bar for the same purpose.

Under the existing club licence the size of the bar within the hall was restricted to a small percentage of the building which matched the bar in the hall that predated the existing CY building.
This was, as you say, adequate to cater for birthdays/christening etc.
The fact that the new application wants to include the whole of the ground floor and second floor under licence to me at least suggests that the owners are planning to cater for more that the odd birthday and christening

bbbbb

I think there will some interesting debate and divided opinions tomorrow.
I'm getting the feeling that some individual groups feel that things will return to normal (i.e. before the CY disbanded) by allowing the pub to go ahead.

Bungy Girl

Great turnout last night. Must have been 200+ in attendance, all with plenty to say. At least now the owners can be in no doubt as to the level of opposition in the community to a pub and it will hopefully force a rethink.
Fair play to the politicians who were out in force and in agreement for once :rolleyes:.
Also some great ideas from the floor about potential uses for the building.

pcasso

I have heard that tomorrow's court application has been adjourned.
I can't verify it that is true or not.

pcasso

A flyer from Damien O Farrell has confirmed that the pub licence application for the former CY building has been adjourned and he believes this to be indefinite.

I guess it is up to both sides to find a compromise solution that maintains the viability of the CY club, pitch and putt grounds and hall, while being mutually respectful of each other's rights and needs.

expectationlost

did any of this ever happen is this the same as the sale of the cymc the council have a update on here https://www.dublincity.ie/councilmeetings/documents/s24173/Report%20on%20Philipsburg%20Avenue%20July.pdf say the pitch and putt area can't be sold without their say so