The 12th Lock

Rosser

Sweet baby Jesus....talk about loosing the plot.

For my part in 1998 I was 20 and planning permission for anything was the last thing on my mind.

I don't know who anyone else posting here is, they could be Bruce Wayne for all I know, they could even be Greg Browne (who I wouldn't know if I passed him in the street).

If you care to look, the posters here regularly make valuable contributions on all matters D15 and have been doing so for years. They haven't been waiting like some kind of sleeper cell to wage war on a bloody boozer in Blanch.

As for treating people with respect? Like calling people 'moaners, whiners & bullies'?

I suppose drinks in The 12th Lock for all Boardsies is out of the question?

Gaspode

esteril wrote: »

Gaspode

I am not into the idea of "reporting" any poster on this site.

Nobody is expected to report posters, the idea is to report posts. A different thing altogether. It's an integral part of how this site works so well and is there for good reason whether you are into the idea or not.

esteril wrote: »

Everybody has their point of view and they are entitled to it. If you feel I am not entitled to my point of view you are quite entitled to prevent me from posting here and give a free run to the others.

I'm not preventing you from anything except name-calling and making claims of bullying etc. that just I just havent seen happening in this thread. That's why I suggest you report any posts you feel are inappropriate.

esteril wrote: »

I have taken quite a bit of "flak" from the anti 12th Lock people here and you have decided to ignore it and taken their side in the argument.

You see, this is the nub of it - I havent seen anyone object to the re-opening of the 12th lock, far from it. I think every other poster has at some point said its a good thing. Some have a bee in their bonnet about how the planning was handled, that doesnt necessarily mean they object to the re-opening. This has been pointed out several times but you appear to be choosing to ignore it.

esteril wrote: »

I am not Greg Browne and actually I do not know Greg Browne, I have never been introduced to him. I have being accused here of being Greg Browne or being an apologist for him. I am not either. But I do believe that people who invest in businesses are entitled to the support of the Community where they make their investment. In Castleknock however its a case of the person who steps up to the plate and makes an investment being pilloried and subjected to abuse by a small number (perhaps less than a dozen) I do not agree with these people and I do not subscribe to this negative attitude. I have witnessed this mentality at first hand, at close quarters in this area some years ago as a near neighbour of the folks who are now launching a campaign against the re-opening of the 12th Lock Hotel and Pub / Restaurant. I know that these are the same individuals who were to the forefront of opposition to the original 12th Lock Hotel. Do not ask me how I know. I just know. You can quite easily prevent me from posting here in the future if you so wish. I would ask you not to do so but I have no control over your decision. The people who are posting on this site are by and large a small group (some are from the same family) and they have learned the technique of supporting one another to make it seem like they represent the majority point of view.

So the posters on boards just happen to be the same same objectors. Quite a claim. I can see how suggestions that you have an association with Mr Browne could annoy you, but making similar claims about posters on here is only going to annoy them in exactly the same way.

esteril wrote: »

I am not sure how close you are to what is going on around here but it is not a happy picture. As regards the planning situation it may or may not have been you who advised us to steer clear of making judgements about what did or did not require permission. Personally I do not know, I expect the professional planners will know. But I do know this, the issues being brought up by the objectors to the development ( and I will call them that) are making a big deal over small things like a concrete stairs from the car park to the pathway leading to the Hotel and some small structures which may or may not be used for the sale of ice cream, an exempted use in my eyes in a bar / restaurant. You may feel differently about all this and believe it needs planning permission in advance of the re-opening. That's great if you do. But I have a different attitude to it. The Retention Planning Permission is in the Planning Act precisely for these trivial matters to be regularised after the premises is re-opened. I know you may live locally and perhaps you know the people who are against this development as they were in 1998 but I would ask you to please be impartial and treat all contributors to this thread with the same degree of respect.

I dont recall any mention of concrete stairs on this thread but I may have missed it. I dont know the local objectors now, nor did I back in 1998 - pretty much everyone I knew was in favour of the development. I really think you are reading more into some posts than is actually being written.
For what it's worth I know the Browne family (not well mind you) and wish them all the best with this venture, so I am not an objector.


PS. I will of course continue to try to be as impartial as possible. If you feel I've not been, then feel free to contact an admin for a review.

former total

I suppose what confuses me is the absolute certainly of posters that planning rules have been broken. I don't know where that comes from. Looking at those photos, the external changes seem minuscule.

Am I missing something? I haven't been down there but has something else been added?

xl500

former total wrote: »

I suppose what confuses me is the absolute certainly of posters that planning rules have been broken. I don't know where that comes from. Looking at those photos, the external changes seem minuscule.

Am I missing something? I haven't been down there but has something else been added?

Well I posted A reply From Enforcement Section Planning Fingal Co Co showing that A warning Letter was sent to the 12th Lock this was sent AFTER a Planning Inspector Visited The site and Decided it was warranted so if the Developer Believes it up to the Planners to Decide it seems to me it is as you say absolutely certain Planning Rules were breached

Anyone can check this by Contacting Fingal Co Co

Retention Planning is not designed to correct minor issues as stated and certainly not where Someone Has prior Knowledge they are in Breach and choose to Continue on Regardless

Anyone can check this by Contacting Fingal Co Co

As to People Trying to Prevent The Re-opening of the 12th Lock Due to Planning Issues I See no mention of this anywhere and is a non-issue as these will not prevent the re -opening

Let me make my View clear as I have written a lot on this thread

I have No objection to 12th Lock re-opening

I have a Great Objection to people disregarding Planning Law

The Facts are The 12th Lock was Sold Construction work Started which involved at this stage Early June no one knew what was being built as there was no Planning Application which is the normal way Locals and anyone with an interest in the Canal etc would find out

Of Course Locals were concerned show me anyone Living near a Premises that Starts Demolition and Construction that would not say to others anyone Know whats going on at such and such a place

The whole purpose of Planning Procedure is to allow everyone in the Community to see what is Planned

What Should have been done here was A Planning Application Should have been made showing all Works Planned and be Available for Inspection that is just a fact and can be easily checked

I make no apology For being Concerned about Breaches Of Planning

Fr_Dougal

esteril wrote: »

Gaspode

I am not into the idea of "reporting" any poster on this site. Everybody has their point of view and they are entitled to it. If you feel I am not entitled to my point of view you are quite entitled to prevent me from posting here and give a free run to the others. I have taken quite a bit of "flak" from the anti 12th Lock people here and you have decided to ignore it and taken their side in the argument. I am not Greg Browne and actually I do not know Greg Browne, I have never been introduced to him. I have being accused here of being Greg Browne or being an apologist for him. I am not either. But I do believe that people who invest in businesses are entitled to the support of the Community where they make their investment. In Castleknock however its a case of the person who steps up to the plate and makes an investment being pilloried and subjected to abuse by a small number (perhaps less than a dozen) I do not agree with these people and I do not subscribe to this negative attitude. I have witnessed this mentality at first hand, at close quarters in this area some years ago as a near neighbour of the folks who are now launching a campaign against the re-opening of the 12th Lock Hotel and Pub / Restaurant. I know that these are the same individuals who were to the forefront of opposition to the original 12th Lock Hotel. Do not ask me how I know. I just know. You can quite easily prevent me from posting here in the future if you so wish. I would ask you not to do so but I have no control over your decision. The people who are posting on this site are by and large a small group (some are from the same family) and they have learned the technique of supporting one another to make it seem like they represent the majority point of view. I am not sure how close you are to what is going on around here but it is not a happy picture. As regards the planning situation it may or may not have been you who advised us to steer clear of making judgements about what did or did not require permission. Personally I do not know, I expect the professional planners will know. But I do know this, the issues being brought up by the objectors to the development ( and I will call them that) are making a big deal over small things like a concrete stairs from the car park to the pathway leading to the Hotel and some small structures which may or may not be used for the sale of ice cream, an exempted use in my eyes in a bar / restaurant. You may feel differently about all this and believe it needs planning permission in advance of the re-opening. That's great if you do. But I have a different attitude to it. The Retention Planning Permission is in the Planning Act precisely for these trivial matters to be regularised after the premises is re-opened. I know you may live locally and perhaps you know the people who are against this development as they were in 1998 but I would ask you to please be impartial and treat all contributors to this thread with the same degree of respect.

Your posts, at this stage, are starting to turn me off the 12th Lock.

If you have any link to the place, you'd do a lot better and would get a much warmer reception if you were to hold your hands up and say 'hey guys, I'm the new manager/head barman/chef/new investor etc., and we'd like to engage with you; the local people'.

Currently, your posts smell a bit fishy and they're having a negative impact on my perception of the 12th Lock, and the way Greg Browne conducts business.

former total

xl500 wrote: »

Well I posted A reply From Enforcement Section Planning Fingal Co Co showing that A warning Letter was sent to the 12th Lock this was sent AFTER a Planning Inspector Visited The site and Decided it was warranted so if the Developer Believes it up to the Planners to Decide it seems to me it is as you say absolutely certain Planning Rules were breached

Anyone can check this by Contacting Fingal Co Co

Retention Planning is not designed to correct minor issues as stated and certainly not where Someone Has prior Knowledge they are in Breach and choose to Continue on Regardless

Anyone can check this by Contacting Fingal Co Co

As to People Trying to Prevent The Re-opening of the 12th Lock Due to Planning Issues I See no mention of this anywhere and is a non-issue as these will not prevent the re -opening

Let me make my View clear as I have written a lot on this thread

I have No objection to 12th Lock re-opening

I have a Great Objection to people disregarding Planning Law

The Facts are The 12th Lock was Sold Construction work Started which involved at this stage Early June no one knew what was being built as there was no Planning Application which is the normal way Locals and anyone with an interest in the Canal etc would find out

Of Course Locals were concerned show me anyone Living near a Premises that Starts Demolition and Construction that would not say to others anyone Know whats going on at such and such a place

The whole purpose of Planning Procedure is to allow everyone in the Community to see what is Planned

What Should have been done here was A Planning Application Should have been made showing all Works Planned and be Available for Inspection that is just a fact and can be easily checked

I make no apology For being Concerned about Breaches Of Planning

Listen, I've no desire to deprive you of your rights to be informed about the planning process.

But you say:
"What Should have been done here was A Planning Application Should have been made showing all Works Planned and be Available for Inspection that is just a fact and can be easily checked"

All I'm is asking what is the actual work that has been carried out that should have required planning permission? What, specifically, makes you so sure that the law has been disregarded?

I go past on the train every day and haven't seen huge activity so if someone can clarify?

(The existence of a warning letter on its own means nothing, btw)

xl500

former total wrote: »

Listen, I've no desire to deprive you of your rights to be informed about the planning process.

But you say:
"What Should have been done here was A Planning Application Should have been made showing all Works Planned and be Available for Inspection that is just a fact and can be easily checked"

All I'm is asking what is the actual work that has been carried out that should have required planning permission? What, specifically, makes you so sure that the law has been disregarded?

I go past on the train every day and haven't seen huge activity so if someone can clarify?


Its all here A lot of reading but its clear the Development needs Permission

http://www.fingal.ie/planning-and-buildings/apply-or-search-for-a-planning-application/do-you-need-planning-permission/

http://www.fingal.ie/media/Planning%20for%20the%20Business%20Person%20Leaflet.pdf

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/ResultsTitle.html?q=+Planning+and+Development+Regulations+2001%252C+S.I.+600

Bargain_Hound

former total wrote: »

I suppose what confuses me is the absolute certainly of posters that planning rules have been broken. I don't know where that comes from. Looking at those photos, the external changes seem minuscule.

Am I missing something? I haven't been down there but has something else been added?

The changes might seem minuscule as I'm not aware of any photos on this thread that show the work being carried out but there is at least two new external constructions and an amendment to the car park entrance.

former total

xl500 wrote: »

Its all here

http://www.fingal.ie/planning-and-buildings/apply-or-search-for-a-planning-application/do-you-need-planning-permission/

http://www.fingal.ie/media/Planning%20for%20the%20Business%20Person%20Leaflet.pdf

Yes, I'm aware of all that. You didn't answer the question.

What I'm asking YOU is what has been built or demolished that would require planning?

Thanks

xl500

former total wrote: »

Yes, I'm aware of all that. You didn't answer the question.

What I'm asking YOU is what has been built or demolished that would require planning?

Thanks

Well The First Link Is to A Document that States

"Generally, you need to apply for planning permission for any development of land or property. What do we mean by development? This includes building, demolition, or alterations on land or buildings"

The other Links were just to Clarify That it is not an Exempted Development

former total

Bargain_Hound wrote: »

The changes might seem minuscule as I'm not aware of any photos on this thread that show the work being carried out but there is at least two new external constructions and an amendment to the car park entrance.

Nice one, thanks.

Someone posted photos of the new patio area earlier, that's where my "miniscule" comment came from.

What sort of "external constructions", if you don't mind me asking?

former total

xl500 wrote: »

Well The First Link Is to A Document that States

"Generally, you need to apply for planning permission for any development of land or property. What do we mean by development? This includes building, demolition, or alterations on land or buildings"

The other Links were just to Clarify That it is not an Exempted Development

You're dodging the question.

xl500

former total wrote: »

You're dodging the question.

Absolutely Not I am just Pointing out Exactly That the Development needs permission under the relevant acts

There are numerous Breaches I am not going to list them here but If you want to Go and inspect the premises and refer to the Links I posted and I think it will be clear

former total

xl500 wrote: »

Absolutely Not I am just Pointing out Exactly That the Development needs permission under the relevant acts

There are numerous Breaches I am not going to list them here but If you want to Go and inspect the premises and refer to the Links I posted and I think it will be clear

I dunno, accusing someone of breaching the Planning Act is a pretty serious accusation, I just thought you might want to back it up with some specifics.

Bargain_Hound

former total wrote: »

Nice one, thanks.

Someone posted photos of the new patio area earlier, that's where my "miniscule" comment came from.

What sort of "external constructions", if you don't mind me asking?

Single story "wooden" shack in the garden patio area.
Single story "wooden" long shed/building at the side between the premises and carpark.

Edit: I should probably state I have no clue regarding planning. The above could be all above board. I'm just stating my observations.

xl500

former total wrote: »

I dunno, accusing someone of breaching the Planning Act is a pretty serious accusation, I just thought you might want to back it up with some specifics.

As I said I am quite certain Planning Permission is required for The Development Works being carried out

I Tried to Link to Relevant Docs and acts which clearly specify and as I say inspect if you live close and consult relevant Docs and then tell me If I am wrong

Rosser

former total wrote: »

You're dodging the question.

From what I can see from passing by:

1. A corrugated metal shack for selling whatever, located in the now extended patio area.

2. A large shed like structure at the North end of the building.

3. New pedestrian entrance / exit from the car park.

4. New paving in the patio area.

5. Internal use changes - to be clarified

Suspect you might have picked most of this from the earlier posts.

Had the process been followed you'd be able to look at the changes and express an opinion which really is the point in the first place.

That the Council have an issue is beyond question they've confirmed it.

former total

Rosser wrote: »

From what I can see from passing by:

1. A corrugated metal shack for selling whatever, located in the now extended patio area.

2. A large shed like structure at the North end of the building.

3. New pedestrian entrance / exit from the car park.

4. New paving in the patio area.

5. Internal use changes - to be clarified

Suspect you might have picked most of this from the earlier posts.

Had planning been followed you'd be able to look at the changes and express an opinion which really is the point in the first place.

Thanks, xl500 seems to think that I'm having a go at him, but I'm genuinely trying to get an idea of what we're talking about here.

Based on my layman's knowledge, 3 - 5 don't require planning, so it's 1 & 2 that are the issue, suppose it depends on the size of the structures?

Edit: I see your edit now; the Council confirmed that a "warning letter" was sent - was there something else? Because they're obliged to send a warning letter if they get a complaint, that in itself doesn't mean there is a breach.

xl500

former total wrote: »

Thanks, xl500 seems to think that I'm having a go at him, but I'm genuinely trying to get an idea of what we're talking about here.

Based on my layman's knowledge, 3 - 5 don't require planning, so it's 1 & 2 that are the issue, suppose it depends on the size of the structures?

Absolutely Not I dont think in any way you are having a go but I linked to

"Generally, you need to apply for planning permission for any development of land or property. What do we mean by development? This includes building, demolition, or alterations on land or buildings"

This means and as I linked to show it is not an exempted development that even the Demolition of existing Covered Area etc etc needed Permission

So there are numerous Breaches and no Planning was Sought and Locals have no idea what is being done only wait and see what unfolds

Sorry I also Didnt see your Edit Re Warning Letter in this case A Planning Inspection was carried out

And no 3-5 are not exempted

Size of Structure have nothing to do with this you may be confused by Size of Extensions allowed under Planning These are covered by certain conditions but people seem to believe that you can build up to a certain size without planning permission Yes but subject to conditions

I am afraid this is not the way its supposed to be

ThisRegard

former total wrote: »

Based on my layman's knowledge, 3 - 5 don't require planning,

I'd disagree, you're basically building a new entrance/exit from a public road. This would need to be approved for a number of reasons, safety, visibility etc.

4. You're changing the structure of what was previously there. You can't build a new permanent structure out your back garden just because there was a wooden garden shed there for years.

5. You're could be basically changing the use of the building from what it was previously used for.

former total

xl500 wrote: »

Absolutely Not I dont think in any way you are having a go but I linked to

"Generally, you need to apply for planning permission for any development of land or property. What do we mean by development? This includes building, demolition, or alterations on land or buildings"

This means and as I linked to show it is not an exempted development that even the Demolition of existing Covered Area etc etc needed Permission

So there are numerous Breaches and no Planning was Sought and Locals have no idea what is being done only wait and see what unfolds

Sorry I also Didnt see your Edit Re Warning Letter in this case A Planning Inspection was carried out

And no 3-5 are not exempted

I am afraid this is not the way its supposed to be

But if a planning inspection was carried out and it was found to be in breach, wouldn't an enforcement order follow?

I dunno, it seems to me that with so much money paid for the hotel (€2.4 million) plus whatever they're spending on the actual renovations, they'd have spent a few grand on an engineer or architect to advise if planning was needed.

former total

ThisRegard wrote: »

I'd disagree, you're basically building a new entrance/exit from a public road. This would need to be approved for a number of reasons, safety, visibility etc.

4. You're changing the structure of what was previously there. You can't build a new permanent structure out your back garden just because there was a wooden garden shed there for years.

5. You're could be basically changing the use of the building from what it was previously used for.

Hang on. The access from the road to the car park has changed?? I thought it was from the car park to the hotel? Because the former would obviously need permission, the latter maybe not.

4. If the previous structure had permission, and the new one isn't substantially different, then would you still require permission? (Genuinely don't know)

5. It was previously a hotel, bar and restaurant. The new business is a hotel, bar and restaurant. I don't see any change of use there?

xl500

former total wrote: »

But if a planning inspection was carried out and it was found to be in breach, wouldn't an enforcement order follow?

I dunno, it seems to me that with so much money paid for the hotel (€2.4 million) plus whatever they're spending on the actual renovations, they'd have spent a few grand on an engineer or architect to advise if planning was needed.

Thats as maybe but also Its common for People to Go ahead and Seek Retention

As to an enforcement order again in the acts Certain Time Limits apply so if a warning is issued Time is allowed for the Developer to respond and in the meantime if the Developer chooses he will continue This type of Behaviour is very common

xl500

former total wrote: »

Hang on. The access from the road to the car park has changed?? I thought it was from the car park to the hotel? Because the former would obviously need permission, the latter maybe not.

4. If the previous structure had permission, and the new one isn't substantially different, then would you still require permission? (Genuinely don't know)

5. It was previously a hotel, bar and restaurant. The new business is a hotel, bar and restaurant. I don't see any change of use there?

Access from Public Towpath to car park just to clarify

Point 4 Yes if you take Down an Existing and replace it with even exactly the same you need permission That does not mean you cant do it as you can see here it just means you are in breach and will either have to seek retention or remove

former total

Thanks for all the replies anyway.

I have to say, all I see are a lot of grey areas, a lot of things that might need permission but might not; the sort of things a competent engineer or architect would advise on.

I don't see a 'smoking gun' that shows me that there has been any clear breach or wilful disregard of the law.

I guess we'll see how it pans out.

xl500

former total wrote: »

Thanks for all the replies anyway.

I have to say, all I see are a lot of grey areas, a lot of things that might need permission but might not; the sort of things a competent engineer or architect would advise on.

I don't see a 'smoking gun' that shows me that there has been any clear breach or wilful disregard of the law.

I guess we'll see how it pans out.

Not wanting to argue but there are no Grey areas it is a clear breach

SnakePlissken

former total wrote: »

I dunno, accusing someone of breaching the Planning Act is a pretty serious accusation, I just thought you might want to back it up with some specifics.

It's not an accusation, it's a fact, the works carried out are not listed anywhere on the Statutory Instruments as being exempted development, a simple browse of the links provided above would clearly show this.

That the works could indeed be considered far from major alterations doesn't come into it, the planning regulations are quite clear with regards to what you can and can't build without planning.

It must be said that all this faffing about will not turn me away from the reopened pub, I am genuinely enthused about having a pint of Guinness by the canal once more.

former total

SnakePlissken wrote: »

It's not an accusation, it's a fact, the works carried out are not listed anywhere on the Statutory Instruments as being exempted development, a simple browse of the links provided above would clearly show this.

That the works could indeed be considered far from major alterations doesn't come into it, the planning regulations are quite clear with regards to what you can and can't build without planning.

It must be said that all this faffing about will not turn me away from the reopened pub, I am genuinely enthused about having a pint of Guinness by the canal once more.

It is an accusation. It may become fact if/when the Council issues an enforcement order, or if the owner applies for retention permission. Until then, this is all speculation.

AlanG

former total wrote: »

I dunno, it seems to me that with so much money paid for the hotel (€2.4 million) plus whatever they're spending on the actual renovations, they'd have spent a few grand on an engineer or architect to advise if planning was needed.

Seeking domestic planning requires a 5 week period for the application and then another 4 week wait before construction begins to allow appeals. I would be pretty sure commercial planning is at least as long. This would have put the project well beyond a summer opening which would cost money and may not suit their opening plans. Changing the outdoor area from a deck to paving would impact the drainage beside a waterway so there may also be a time period for an environmental report.

It is possible that planning was overlooked, however, as citywest shows sometimes it is just more profitable to build, open and ignore the law as it is very difficult for the council to close an unplanned business if it means letting staff go.

AlanG

former total wrote: »

Thanks for all the replies anyway.
I have to say, all I see are a lot of grey areas, a lot of things that might need permission but might not; the sort of things a competent engineer or architect would advise on.
I don't see a 'smoking gun' that shows me that there has been any clear breach or wilful disregard of the law.
I guess we'll see how it pans out.

If you don't see any breach then, with respect you don't know enough about the planing laws. I recently went through the process for a change to my front driveway and a slight change to my front porch. Fingal were very helpful - I sent them a sketch and photos and within 2 days they let me know whether I needed a certificate of exemption or full planning. If the owners of this business wanted they could have got a letter of exemption within about a week.
There is no doubt if you read the planning guidelines linked above that building a permanent structure beside a commercial premises and changing the location of the steps require planning. The issue of change of use depends on the previous planning permission.

I am also pretty sure that the planing documents I filled out had special requirements if you were developing within a short distance of a waterway.

I personally have no objection to the development but I think large parts of this country were destroyed in the 90's by businesses ignoring planning laws so I strongly object to that.