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

191012141524

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,840 ✭✭✭Arciphel


    Planning isn't a criminal matter - so not sure why you are referring to the Gary Doyle order.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    xl500 wrote: »
    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

    The point I am making is that the Council can and will issue warning letters just in case there might be a planning issue, not just letters based on any factual evidence.


  • Registered Users Posts: 75 ✭✭esteril


    Planning Law offences are a criminal matter in Ireland (Post 332 is misleading) A Gary Doyle Order may be obtained as stated previously.

    http://www.mcgarrsolicitors.ie/2009/02/06/planning-enforcement/


  • Registered Users Posts: 75 ✭✭esteril


    If you drop into the Four Courts any day of the week when the City Council Planning cases are being dealt with you will see defending Solicitors apply for all documents on the Council's file in the particular case. A defendant is entitled to everything in order to defend himself. The Supreme Court decided that in Mr Doyle's case and it has been in use ever since.


  • Registered Users Posts: 75 ✭✭esteril


    County Councils and City Councils should state on their websites that anybody making a written complaint in respect of planning issues may be called upon to give evidence in Court or their identity may be made known to the person or company against whom they have complained under a Gary Doyle Order. They do not do this to my knowledge. Perhaps one or two do.

    http://www.irishtimes.com/news/planning-enforcement-notice-must-define-precisely-action-required-and-time-allowed-for-compliance-1.439416


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 879 ✭✭✭xl500


    esteril wrote: »
    County Councils and City Councils should state on their websites that anybody making a written complaint in respect of planning issues may be called upon to give evidence in Court or their identity may be made known to the person or company against whom they have complained under a Gary Doyle Order. They do not do this to my knowledge. Perhaps one or two do.

    http://www.irishtimes.com/news/planning-enforcement-notice-must-define-precisely-action-required-and-time-allowed-for-compliance-1.439416
    When you make a complaint To Fingal you are asked If you would appear in Court I for one would have no problem appearing


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 879 ✭✭✭xl500


    Godge wrote: »
    The point I am making is that the Council can and will issue warning letters just in case there might be a planning issue, not just letters based on any factual evidence.

    But you said "but the Council must still issue the warning letter if there is a complaint"

    And I am saying They Dont have to


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 591 ✭✭✭Rosser


    esteril wrote: »
    County Councils and City Councils should state on their websites that anybody making a written complaint in respect of planning issues may be called upon to give evidence in Court or their identity may be made known

    What a great idea, would clear up a lot of people's interests in these matters.

    I presume you'd be in favour of both objectors and supporters making their identities known?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    xl500 wrote: »
    But you said "but the Council must still issue the warning letter if there is a complaint"

    And I am saying They Dont have to

    That is not what I said, read it again. You are being extremely disingenuous

    What I said is that if there is a complaint, the Council shall issue a letter if there is even an remote possibility that the complaint is well-founded. In essence, the initial system is in favour of the serial objectors.
    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    xl500 wrote: »
    When you make a complaint To Fingal you are asked If you would appear in Court I for one would have no problem appearing


    And have you made that clear in your dealings with them?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 879 ✭✭✭xl500


    Godge wrote: »
    That is not what I said, read it again. You are being extremely disingenuous

    What I said is that if there is a complaint, the Council shall issue a letter if there is even an remote possibility that the complaint is well-founded. In essence, the initial system is in favour of the serial objectors.

    Well i didnt intend to be extremely disingenuous but I Was just making the point that under the act they may decide not to issue a letter

    Originally Posted by Godge viewpost.gif
    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.

    And I dont think they must as the above is Subsection 1 but Subsection 2 states that if it considered of a minor or trivial nature they may decide not to issue a warning letter


    I was trying to point that out as earlier in the thread It was stated The works were of a trivial nature not by you but another poster


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 879 ✭✭✭xl500


    Godge wrote: »
    And have you made that clear in your dealings with them?


    Well I was just replying to a post regarding People being made aware of possible Legal Actions and the possible need to appear in Court

    It was stated that Councils should make people aware And I pointed out That FCC do indeed make people aware of the possibility

    I dont think my dealings or not with FCC has any relevance to the point


  • Registered Users Posts: 315 ✭✭RTT


    Passed by today and there were workmen putting up a sign outside. Asked, who I think was the owner, how long until it opens. He said three weeks.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,384 ✭✭✭DublinDilbert


    RTT wrote: »
    Passed by today and there were workmen putting up a sign outside. Asked, who I think was the owner, how long until it opens. He said three weeks.

    Yea saw the sign this morning the restaurant part is going to be for Sea Food. I like how they have installed bike racks along the side of the patio.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 879 ✭✭✭xl500


    RTT wrote: »
    Passed by today and there were workmen putting up a sign outside. Asked, who I think was the owner, how long until it opens. He said three weeks.

    That Sign is just another Breach of Planning in a long list of Breaches on this site

    But whatever about people saying the owner may not have recieved the Earlier Warning letters they definitely got the one issued on the 28th July this letter warns the Developer but he chose to ignore this and put up the sign without planning

    This Developer has shown complete contempt for the planning legislation and his neighbours and I certainly hope the planners will not accept this undermining of their role


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 591 ✭✭✭Rosser


    Hadn't planned on rejoining the bear pit this thread had become but since you went there....

    I saw the sign yesterday and if only for the sake of a fact check I rang Fingal so irrespective of the merits or otherwise the facts are:

    1. the sign does require planning
    2. the sign does not have planning
    3. they were already aware, already arranged to dispatch an inspector and I quote "yet another warning will be issued"

    The canal side is very inhospitable at night with the venue closed, such unnecessary bad will could so easily have been avoided, hopefully it's resolved.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 879 ✭✭✭xl500


    Rosser wrote: »
    Hadn't planned on rejoining the bear pit this thread had become but since you went there....

    I saw the sign yesterday and if only for the sake of a fact check I rang Fingal so irrespective of the merits or otherwise the facts are:

    1. the sign does require planning
    2. the sign does not have planning
    3. they were already aware, already arranged to dispatch an inspector and I quote "yet another warning will be issued"

    The canal side is very inhospitable at night with the venue closed, such unnecessary bad will could so easily have been avoided, hopefully it's resolved.

    Well I dont think its a bear pit It was stated earlier by a mod that if factual info became available it would be of interest to this thread
    And it is Factual that the Owner has ignored Planning Requirements yet again only this time with even more contempt as they were issued a warning letter previously and still proceeded So the only conclusion I can make is they Just dont care

    I had a look at the Sign and in my opinion it looks awful not at all in keeping with the Canal Bank it also may be going to be illuminated which will be great for the Neighbours It also Straddles the Boundary Wall

    I also notice there is no mention of the "Ice Cream Shack" on the Sign which would make me wonder what is the actual intention for the "shack"

    It amazes me that Somebody can so casually ignore Planning and Neighbours How many Letters is it now that have been issued to this Guy We have learned nothing from the Celtic Tiger fails


  • Registered Users Posts: 75 ✭✭esteril


    There has been a totally over the top reaction to the re-opening of this long established business premises. You would think we were talking about something along the lines of the Union Carbide plant in Bhopal, India to judge from the hysterical reaction of a number of posters here. As soon as anything happens within a mile radius of these people they are ringing the Council or County Councillors to complain. Their social lives revolve around interfering in other peoples business under the guise of concern about planning issues. They never go out to somewhere like the 12th Lock anyway, they are far too busy with residents associations and the like. It is a bit like a soap opera for these folks and they feel that by being players in it they are enhancing their importance. Retention planning permission was specifically put in place in the Planning Act to address precisely the minor issues which are involved in refurbishment and re-opening of business premises such as the 12th Lock. So lets have no more hysterics on the matter.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Music Moderators, Regional East Moderators, Regional Midlands Moderators, Regional Midwest Moderators, Regional Abroad Moderators, Regional North Mods, Regional West Moderators, Regional South East Moderators, Regional North East Moderators, Regional North West Moderators, Regional South Moderators Posts: 8,033 CMod ✭✭✭✭Gaspode


    @esteril, leave out the attacks on other posters and leave the moderation to the modertors thanks.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,695 ✭✭✭ciaran76


    Jogging down the canal yesterday I stopped to take a pic for the thread.The Sign!


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,536 ✭✭✭former total


    ciaran76 wrote: »
    Jogging down the canal yesterday I stopped to take a pic for the thread.The Sign!

    Lovely. Can't wait for it to reopen, D15 needs a dining option that isn't pizza and pasta.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 879 ✭✭✭xl500


    ciaran76 wrote: »
    Jogging down the canal yesterday I stopped to take a pic for the thread.The Sign!

    No mention of Ice cream shack on that sign so what is the intention of the shack oh of course no one knows as Planning was never applied for so no one knows what it is so its not Hysterical to be concerned at to what the Purpose of a NEW not long established Building on the bank of Canal is for

    Also Retention Planning Is not the way to go about proper business and Development of this size is not Trivial and it is on a Water course I think an EIA is quite Likely

    Retention Planning is normally used to regularise But in this case The Developer Decided To go ahead even after being Warned by Letter

    This is From Government Planning Guidelines

    Can unauthorised development ever be regularised/brought within
    the planning system?

    Depending on the scale, nature and circumstances, it may still be possible to bring
    a particular unauthorised development within the planning code or to regularise it
    retrospectively. Where a development has been carried out without first obtaining the
    necessary planning permission, the developer may apply to their planning authority for
    retention permission. The circumstances under which retention permission is available
    are tightly circumscribed however. A planning authority cannot accept an application
    for retention permission for any development which would have required
    • environmental impact assessment (EIA);
    • a determination as to whether EIA was required (i.e. screening for EIA); or
    • an appropriate assessment under the Habitats Directive (since such an assessment
    is also required prior to permission for a proposed development).
    Only in cases where none of these were required can a planning authority accept
    an application for retention permission. It is also important to note that lodging an
    application for planning retention for a development that is the subject of enforcement
    action does not diminish any offence committed.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,489 ✭✭✭SnakePlissken


    ciaran76 wrote: »
    Jogging down the canal yesterday I stopped to take a pic for the thread.The Sign!

    Looks like something an eight year old knocked up on their first attempt at Photoshop, dreadful.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 879 ✭✭✭xl500


    Looks like something an eight year old knocked up on their first attempt at Photoshop, dreadful.

    And it straddles the Boundary Wall


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,536 ✭✭✭former total


    Meh, if the worst thing that has gone up without planning is that sign, then I wouldn't freak out about it. Since there is zero passing traffic up and down that road, I would imagine the developer won't lose any sleep if he's made take it down.

    The only other thing I can see that might require planning is that sort of brown shed thing on the car park side; is it a bike rack?
    Again, not crucial to the business but a nice amenity for customers (if it is, indeed, a bike rack).


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 879 ✭✭✭xl500


    esteril wrote: »
    There has been a totally over the top reaction to the re-opening of this long established business premises. You would think we were talking about something along the lines of the Union Carbide plant in Bhopal, India to judge from the hysterical reaction of a number of posters here. As soon as anything happens within a mile radius of these people they are ringing the Council or County Councillors to complain. Their social lives revolve around interfering in other peoples business under the guise of concern about planning issues. They never go out to somewhere like the 12th Lock anyway, they are far too busy with residents associations and the like. It is a bit like a soap opera for these folks and they feel that by being players in it they are enhancing their importance. Retention planning permission was specifically put in place in the Planning Act to address precisely the minor issues which are involved in refurbishment and re-opening of business premises such as the 12th Lock. So lets have no more hysterics on the matter.

    This is a typical Method used to try to minimise the actions of non compliant developers

    Planning Laws are there for the Good of everyone and as such are to be complied with

    I have been a major contributer to this thread and as I said earlier The 12th Lock Will reopen

    But That does not mean That Somebody can come in Demolish Existing Verandah Erect new Bigger Verandah Install New Building on Canal Bank Install New Steps onto Public Towpath Install New Signage Facing Public Road Build New Shed Like structure on East Side of Building All without even Applying For Planning and some even after Warning Letters were issued

    I Have no issue with 12Th Lock But I do have an issue with Disregard for Neighbours and Planning


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,648 ✭✭✭AGC


    xl500 wrote: »
    I Have no issue with 12Th Lock But I do have an issue with Disregard for Neighbours and Planning

    I live quite close and I feel you are in the minority, a lot of people just want the 12th Lock re-opened and are looking forward to that, many are unaware of the lack of planning and like many on here it does not seem to bother them.

    Not saying it is right, if planning is needed it should be sought and with what was done I am sure planning would not have been an issue, however, I have heard very few from the area take any any issue with what is going on. The changes and additions have been minimal at most.

    You seem to be taking great exception to the lack of planning on what are very small changes. The building will operate in the same capacity as it had done for many years prior to it closing and the changes made will have no affect on that.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 879 ✭✭✭xl500


    AGC wrote: »
    I live quite close and I feel you are in the minority, a lot of people just want the 12th Lock re-opened and are looking forward to that, many are unaware of the lack of planning and like many on here it does not seem to bother them.

    Not saying it is right, if planning is needed it should be sought and with what was done I am sure planning would not have been an issue, however, I have heard very few from the area take any any issue with what is going on. The changes and additions have been minimal at most.

    You seem to be taking great exception to the lack of planning on what are very small changes. The building will operate in the same capacity as it had done for many years prior to it closing and the changes made will have no affect on that.

    And what is the purpose of the New Building ??


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,648 ✭✭✭AGC


    xl500 wrote: »
    And what is the purpose of the New Building ??

    The proposed ice cream shack?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,489 ✭✭✭SnakePlissken



    The only other thing I can see that might require planning is that sort of brown shed thing on the car park side;

    As has been noted many times previous, you personally lack the necessary knowledge or experience to make such a claim. The Statutory Instruments 600/2001 mention no exemption from planning for;

    The erected signage.
    The new stairs to the PUBLIC towpath.
    The Patio Bar outbuilding.
    The car park outbuilding.
    The new awning structure.
    The increased patio footprint.. These are just the issues that immediately come to mind, I'm not going to touch upon the need for an updated DAC and FSC which the premises cannot be reopened to the public without.


    So yeah, meh, nothing to see here, move along now folks lest you wish to be called a begrudger.


Advertisement