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

The 12th Lock

Options
1…89111314…24

Comments

  • Options
    #302
    xl500
    Registered Users Posts: 872 ✭✭✭xl500


    AlanG wrote: »
    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.

    And so Do I


  • Options
    #303
    former total
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,536 ✭✭✭former total


    AlanG wrote: »
    If you don't see any breach then, with respect you don't know enough about the planing laws.

    Is that sort of comment really necessary? Does it help the discussion?


  • Options
    #304
    Rosser
    Registered Users Posts: 591 ✭✭✭Rosser


    former total wrote: »
    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?

    .

    If you're passing by on the train you won't in fairness spot the changes as the rail line is below street level as it passes the 12th Lock.

    The new structures are sizeable but the council will call it, in my very limited experience they look big enough to have at least merited advising the council and removed any confusion.

    If it's all in order then good luck to them.


  • Options
    #305
    esteril
    Registered Users Posts: 75 ✭✭esteril


    The entire planning area is quite a difficult and complex area of law. There are many exemptions for works where a premises which is not an abandoned premises is being re-opened. Many posters here who state with certainty that planning permission is required for this or that do not really have a clue what they are talking about.


  • Options
    #306
    January
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,862 ✭✭✭✭January


    But neither do you esteril, can you say with certainty that the structures don't need planning permission?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #307
    AlanG
    Registered Users Posts: 1,424 ✭✭✭AlanG


    former total wrote: »
    Is that sort of comment really necessary? Does it help the discussion?

    Possibly not, It's badly worded.

    What I am getting at is that I recently drew up and submitted plans for approval to Fingal so I have a lot of first hand experience of the requirements. In preparation for this I had a lot of dealings with the planning department and building control and gained a lot of knowledge of what I could do under exemption.

    From that experience I would be confident that there is no grey areas on this overall issue. While some parts may be exempted anyone with knowledge of the requirements would know that it is not all exempted.


  • Options
    #308
    esteril
    Registered Users Posts: 75 ✭✭esteril


    I never claimed that any specific element did not need a permission but I do know that even in County Councils there are disagreements among senior planning staff. Many years ago I remember a big row in Dublin Corporation involving senior people who were probably in management positions. It went through the courts and got media publicity at the time. The grey areas are there and sometimes the courts have to intervene to clear them up.

    http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/2005/H406.html


  • Options
    #309
    xl500
    Registered Users Posts: 872 ✭✭✭xl500


    esteril wrote: »
    The entire planning area is quite a difficult and complex area of law. There are many exemptions for works where a premises which is not an abandoned premises is being re-opened. Many posters here who state with certainty that planning permission is required for this or that do not really have a clue what they are talking about.

    I Do know


  • Options
    #310
    SnakePlissken
    Registered Users Posts: 1,489 ✭✭✭SnakePlissken


    esteril wrote: »
    Many posters here who state with certainty that planning permission is required for this or that do not really have a clue what they are talking about.

    I strongly disagree, that there are those who do not share your staunch support for one who clearly has no respect for planning procedures does not mean "they do not have a clue". It is in fact somewhat Infantile to suggest so, despite the links and references clearly posted that prove to even the most blind that the works are not exempt from planning.


  • Options
    #311
    esteril
    Registered Users Posts: 75 ✭✭esteril


    I just said that there are grey areas in all of this and you do not appear to accept that there are. These will be thrashed out between consultants and the council to decide what does and does not need retention. But they are relatively minor matters in the context of the re-opening as far as I can see. I think most reasonable people would agree.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #312
    SnakePlissken
    Registered Users Posts: 1,489 ✭✭✭SnakePlissken


    xl500 wrote: »
    I Do know

    You're obviously just one of these whingers who would protest at a neighbour having a barbecue... Will you let the poor man build what he wants, sure didn't he already spend his money on it, and as we all know, money trumps law and regulations ;)


  • Options
    #313
    SnakePlissken
    Registered Users Posts: 1,489 ✭✭✭SnakePlissken


    esteril wrote: »
    But they are relatively minor matters in the context of the re-opening as far as I can see. I think most reasonable people would agree.

    I absolutely agree, as I believe most others here would also. I've never seen or heard anyone claim the site should become derelict, everyone has voiced their support for the reopening but also their disappointment that simple planning procedures were not properly followed.

    The only claims of whingers, whinners, and protesters of the pub reopening have all come from yourself. I do not know what relationship you have or do not have to this business but I'm afraid you're seeing something on this forum that simply does not exist.


  • Options
    #314
    former total
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,536 ✭✭✭former total


    AlanG wrote: »
    Possibly not, It's badly worded.

    What I am getting at is that I recently drew up and submitted plans for approval to Fingal so I have a lot of first hand experience of the requirements. In preparation for this I had a lot of dealings with the planning department and building control and gained a lot of knowledge of what I could do under exemption.

    From that experience I would be confident that there is no grey areas on this overall issue. While some parts may be exempted anyone with knowledge of the requirements would know that it is not all exempted.

    And I got an extension on my house last year. I got an engineer out, he inspected the site, looked at the drawings and said "you don't need permission for that", so I didn't go next nor near the council.

    I just think it's odd that posters here are so resolute in refusing to consider the possibility that these guys did likewise and are making some pretty strong accusations off the back off it.


  • Options
    #315
    SnakePlissken
    Registered Users Posts: 1,489 ✭✭✭SnakePlissken


    former total wrote: »

    I just think it's odd that posters here are so resolute in refusing to consider the possibility that these guys did likewise and are making some pretty strong accusations off the back off it.

    Not trying to be harsh, but perhaps said posters have more in depth knowledge of the planning process than your second hand observations?

    That a warning letter has already been issued from the enforcement section surely clarifies the issue.

    Again, I'm not trying to be argumentative but we've been going around in circles for some time now, it's really quite tedious to argue that the works are exempt when the Council disagrees, nor are the works included anywhere in the list of exemptions in the Statutory Instruments


  • Options
    #316
    py2006
    Registered Users Posts: 9,847 ✭✭✭py2006


    Do we have an opening date yet?


  • Options
    #317
    xl500
    Registered Users Posts: 872 ✭✭✭xl500


    former total wrote: »
    And I got an extension on my house last year. I got an engineer out, he inspected the site, looked at the drawings and said "you don't need permission for that", so I didn't go next nor near the council.

    I just think it's odd that posters here are so resolute in refusing to consider the possibility that these guys did likewise and are making some pretty strong accusations off the back off it.

    Exactly He Told you Your Extension was Exempt But the Works on 12th Lock are not Exempt

    I am not resolute in refusing to consider the possibility I have considered it and I am Convinced It is not Exempt


  • Options
    #318
    SnakePlissken
    Registered Users Posts: 1,489 ✭✭✭SnakePlissken


    py2006 wrote: »
    Do we have an opening date yet?

    Summer 2020 ;)

    In all seriousness I do hope it's sooner rather than later, it is a lovely location


  • Options
    #319
    xl500
    Registered Users Posts: 872 ✭✭✭xl500


    esteril wrote: »
    I just said that there are grey areas in all of this and you do not appear to accept that there are. These will be thrashed out between consultants and the council to decide what does and does not need retention. But they are relatively minor matters in the context of the re-opening as far as I can see. I think most reasonable people would agree.

    Exactly SO if it needs retention It needs Permission and Should have been applied for Before Works Commenced That is how it is supposed to work If someone proceeds with works knowing it requires Permission then they are showing complete disregard for Neighbours and Planners


  • Options
    #320
    former total
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,536 ✭✭✭former total


    SnakePlissken wrote: »
    Not trying to be harsh, but perhaps said posters have more in depth knowledge of the planning process than your second hand observations?

    That a warning letter has already been issued from the enforcement section surely clarifies the issue.

    Again, I'm not trying to be argumentative but we've been going around in circles for some time now, it's really quite tedious to argue that the works are exempt when the Council disagrees, nor are the works included anywhere in the list of exemptions in the Statutory Instruments

    Well, said people don't seem to understand that a warning letter is just that; it's a preliminary notice that the Council are aware of a potential issue. It is not proof of a breach, it's not proof that the council is going to initiate enforcement.

    So there is no evidence, yet, that the Council considers it a violation.

    Again, I don't claim to have a vast knowledge of planning - but I doubt many other posters do either. I don't know if the work is exempt or not, it just surprises me that lay people can make such strong allegations on the basis of limited knowledge. And it is a very strong allegation to accuse a business owner of deliberately breaking the law.


  • Options
    #321
    SnakePlissken
    Registered Users Posts: 1,489 ✭✭✭SnakePlissken


    former total wrote: »
    Again, I don't claim to have a vast knowledge of planning - but I doubt many other posters do either. I don't know if the work is exempt or not, it just surprises me that lay people can make such strong allegations on the basis of limited knowledge.

    I've no idea where you're getting the basis for this assumption but you are incorrect with regards to at least one poster on here. Insulting posters who disagree with your own opinion with snipes such as limited knowledge, and lay people, isn't particularly conducive to a mature discussion.

    I've said all I wish to say on the matter, I've no doubt planning will be retrospectively granted WHEN retention and an updated DAC are applied for and finalised, and once the pub reopens I'll be there on opening night pint of Guinness in hand, until then I'll preclude myself from further roundabout conversations.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #322
    xl500
    Registered Users Posts: 872 ✭✭✭xl500


    former total wrote: »
    Well, said people don't seem to understand that a warning letter is just that; it's a preliminary notice that the Council are aware of a potential issue. It is not proof of a breach, it's not proof that the council is going to initiate enforcement.

    So there is no evidence, yet, that the Council considers it a violation.

    Again, I don't claim to have a vast knowledge of planning - but I doubt many other posters do either. I don't know if the work is exempt or not, it just surprises me that lay people can make such strong allegations on the basis of limited knowledge. And it is a very strong allegation to accuse a business owner of deliberately breaking the law.

    When a Warning Letter issues


    "Warning Letter pursuant to Section 152 of the Planning and Development Acts 2000-2015

    152.—(1) Where—

    (a) a representation in writing is made to a planning authority by any person that unauthorised development may have been, is being or may be carried out, and it appears to the planning authority that the representation is not vexatious, frivolous or without substance or foundation, or

    (b) it otherwise appears to the authority that unauthorised development may have been, is being or may be carried out,

    the authority shall issue a warning letter to the owner, the occupier or any other person carrying out the development and may give a copy, at that time or thereafter, to any other person who in its opinion may be concerned with the matters to which the letter relates.

    (2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), where the development in question is of a trivial or minor nature the planning authority may decide not to issue a warning letter."

    So as you can see a warning letter does not issue unless the Council feel it is Warranted It does not automatically issue when someone makes a complaint as was indicated

    In this instance It was issued after a Planning Inspector visited the site

    Just for Clarity another Warning Letter was issued by Fingal Co Co on the 28th July this brings the total to 3 so far this can be verified by Contacting Planning Enforcement


  • Options
    #323
    former total
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,536 ✭✭✭former total


    SnakePlissken wrote: »
    I've no idea where you're getting the basis for this assumption but you are incorrect with regards to at least one poster on here. Insulting posters who disagree with your own opinion with snipes such as limited knowledge, and lay people, isn't particularly conducive to a mature discussion.

    I've said all I wish to say on the matter, I've no doubt planning will be retrospectively granted WHEN retention and an updated DAC are applied for and finalised, and once the pub reopens I'll be there on opening night pint of Guinness in hand, until then I'll preclude myself from further roundabout conversations.

    I'm sorry but if calling someone a "lay person" counts as an insult in your book then suddenly, this whole thread makes a lot more sense.

    If I wanted to have a snipe at you and the other curtain-twitchers, I'd probably say something like:

    "wow, I'm not sure which is worse, the blatant NIMBYism or the shrill fauxtrage that ensues when it's challenged"

    or maybe I'd say

    "just as well they're opening an ice-cream stall, they'll need something sweet to offset the bitterness of a few people on this thread"

    or maybe something like:

    "trying to prevent this re-opening on one hand while on the other saying you can't wait to enjoy a pint there makes you a hypocrite as well as everything else."

    Luckily, I have a bit more class than that, so I didn't.

    Good luck. Maybe I'll see you down there some time, I'll be the guy actually enjoying himself.


  • Options
    #324
    esteril
    Registered Users Posts: 75 ✭✭esteril


    But Fingal would not have known who had bought the place until the end of July. So the earlier warning letters must have gone to the previous owners. Warning letters are just that, warning letters and as I understand it they just list things that appear in letters of complaint. They go out as a matter of routine and the substantive issues which actually require a retention permission are only decided upon at the later stage. Perhaps a couple of months later. The issues raised in complaint letters must be analysed and decided upon by senior staff and sometime there would be meetings with the new owners to thrash out any use changes, new works etc. That's how it used to work in the old days. I cannot imagine it would be any different now.


  • Options
    #325
    xl500
    Registered Users Posts: 872 ✭✭✭xl500


    esteril wrote: »
    But Fingal would not have known who had bought the place until the end of July. So the earlier warning letters must have gone to the previous owners. Warning letters are just that, warning letters and as I understand it they just list things that appear in letters of complaint. They go out as a matter of routine and the substantive issues which actually require a retention permission are only decided upon at the later stage. Perhaps a couple of months later. The issues raised in complaint letters must be analysed and decided upon by senior staff and sometime there would be meetings with the new owners to thrash out any use changes, new works etc. That's how it used to work in the old days. I cannot imagine it would be any different now.

    Was that the Good old Days Like pre 62 When Planning was not required

    Its Possible Letters went to others of course but Warning Letters do not issue unless there is an issue and going by the above is it safe to assume the new owner has recieved the latest letter and if so I look forward to their response

    Its also a little hard to understand Works ongoing from early June and not being the owner until end of July


  • Options
    #326
    xl500
    Registered Users Posts: 872 ✭✭✭xl500


    former total wrote: »
    I'm sorry but if calling someone a "lay person" counts as an insult in your book then suddenly, this whole thread makes a lot more sense.

    If I wanted to have a snipe at you and the other curtain-twitchers, I'd probably say something like:

    "wow, I'm not sure which is worse, the blatant NIMBYism or the shrill fauxtrage that ensues when it's challenged"

    or maybe I'd say

    "just as well they're opening an ice-cream stall, they'll need something sweet to offset the bitterness of a few people on this thread"

    or maybe something like:

    "trying to prevent this re-opening on one hand while on the other saying you can't wait to enjoy a pint there makes you a hypocrite as well as everything else."

    Luckily, I have a bit more class than that, so I didn't.

    Good luck. Maybe I'll see you down there some time, I'll be the guy actually enjoying himself.

    Again Just to point out as I have said from the start any Planning issues with this site will not prevent the re-opening


  • Options
    #327
    SnakePlissken
    Registered Users Posts: 1,489 ✭✭✭SnakePlissken


    former total wrote: »
    I'm sorry but if calling someone a "lay person" counts as an insult in your book then suddenly, this whole thread makes a lot more sense.

    If I wanted to have a snipe at you and the other curtain-twitchers, I'd probably say something like:

    "wow, I'm not sure which is worse, the blatant NIMBYism or the shrill fauxtrage that ensues when it's challenged"

    or maybe I'd say

    "just as well they're opening an ice-cream stall, they'll need something sweet to offset the bitterness of a few people on this thread"

    or maybe something like:

    "trying to prevent this re-opening on one hand while on the other saying you can't wait to enjoy a pint there makes you a hypocrite as well as everything else."

    Luckily, I have a bit more class than that, so I didn't.

    Good luck. Maybe I'll see you down there some time, I'll be the guy actually enjoying himself.

    So you're resorting to name calling now, proving my point about your lack of maturity so thank you. Curtain twitcher? I mean really.

    You're the second poster now who claims people are "trying to prevent this reopening". Point to one single post by one single poster that states same because I honestly don't see it, please, prove me wrong, just one post to substantiate your claim, shouldn't be too hard for you now should it?

    Just to reiterate as you seem to have conveniently glossed over it, I have always expressed my enthusiasm for the pub reopening as it is on my doorstep, I just lament the new owner's decision to implement these new works without first applying for permission, if you believe this makes me a hypocrite I do have to question if you fully understand the meaning of the word.


  • Options
    #328
    Zaph
    Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 47,305 ✭✭✭✭Zaph


    OK folks, knock it off with the sniping at one another please or I'm going to lock this thread as it's turning into a complete mess at this stage. As I said previously, I've no problem with people discussing the whole planning issue as long as someone has some actual facts to add rather than the endless speculation regarding the owner or the various interpretations of the planning process. We've always had a nice community spirit in this forum and I'd like to keep it that way.

    Thanks


  • Options
    #329
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    xl500 wrote: »
    When a Warning Letter issues


    "Warning Letter pursuant to Section 152 of the Planning and Development Acts 2000-2015

    152.—(1) Where—

    (a) a representation in writing is made to a planning authority by any person that unauthorised development may have been, is being or may be carried out, and it appears to the planning authority that the representation is not vexatious, frivolous or without substance or foundation, or

    (b) it otherwise appears to the authority that unauthorised development may have been, is being or may be carried out,

    the authority shall issue a warning letter to the owner, the occupier or any other person carrying out the development and may give a copy, at that time or thereafter, to any other person who in its opinion may be concerned with the matters to which the letter relates.

    (2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), where the development in question is of a trivial or minor nature the planning authority may decide not to issue a warning letter."

    So as you can see a warning letter does not issue unless the Council feel it is Warranted It does not automatically issue when someone makes a complaint as was indicated

    In this instance It was issued after a Planning Inspector visited the site

    Just for Clarity another Warning Letter was issued by Fingal Co Co on the 28th July this brings the total to 3 so far this can be verified by Contacting Planning Enforcement

    As there is a mod warning I am not going to post much on this. However, reading the above post, one thing stands out, and that is the legal provisions.

    What that law quoted actually provides is that if it is a possibility on foot of a complaint (that is not vexatious, frivolous or without foundation) that an unauthorised development is occurring, then the Council must issue a warning letter. That possibility of a violation may be as low as 5% but the Council must still issue the warning letter if there is a complaint. Therefore there is no evidence yet that there is unauthorised development as the Council hasn't ruled on it, only issued a warning letter.


  • Options
    #330
    xl500
    Registered Users Posts: 872 ✭✭✭xl500


    Godge wrote: »
    As there is a mod warning I am not going to post much on this. However, reading the above post, one thing stands out, and that is the legal provisions.

    What that law quoted actually provides is that if it is a possibility on foot of a complaint (that is not vexatious, frivolous or without foundation) that an unauthorised development is occurring, then the Council must issue a warning letter. That possibility of a violation may be as low as 5% but the Council must still issue the warning letter if there is a complaint. Therefore there is no evidence yet that there is unauthorised development as the Council hasn't ruled on it, only issued a warning letter.

    I love how you HighLight Selective Parts and not others Eg

    (a) a representation in writing is made to a planning authority by any person that unauthorised development may have been, is being or may be carried out, and it appears to the planning authority that the representation is not vexatious, frivolous or without substance or foundation, or

    I notice you left out is being but im sure that was an oversight

    (b) it otherwise appears to the authority that unauthorised development
    may have been, is being or may be carried out

    Again no mention of is being

    And Of course no mention of this

    (2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), where the development in question is of a trivial or minor nature the planning authority may decide not to issue a warning letter.

    They May decide not to issue but they did issue so I presume they decided it was not of a Trivial or minor nature

    You say " That possibility of a violation may be as low as 5% but the Council must still issue the warning letter if there is a complaint."

    Clearly That is not the Case as in 2


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #331
    esteril
    Registered Users Posts: 75 ✭✭esteril


    In some Councils now the policy is to send out a warning letter automatically when a complaint comes in, in writing giving the name of the person who signs the letter of complaint. All matters referred to in the complaint are included in the warning letter. It is only after a Month or maybe 6 weeks that the decision is made whether or not there is any merit in the individual issues which are raised and included in the warning letter. There would obviously have to be a debate between the planners and the managers to decide how to proceed. The complaint system is confidential as far as I know but obviously if any case goes to court all documents including the complaint letter etc can be obtained by the person who might be summoned as a result of the complaint ( The Gary Doyle order) which applies to all District Court prosecutions.


Advertisement