The 12th Lock

xl500

AGC wrote: »

Grand - You won't humour me!

I live close to the 12th lock and the changes that were made have made zero difference to local residents and IMO would not have caused an issue with any local resident (with the exception of the stupid sign on the bridge) if proper permission was applied for.

For what should have been a simple process he has made a c**k up.

NO I am Sorry I am Not trying to be obtuse And Please dont take this the wrong way but your opinion and you are quite entitled to make it as is everyone else in These Planning Matters but it is your opinion only and not the opinion of Others and Planners and Experts etc etc and these are the people who normally make Submissions when a Planning Application is lodged and based on these a decision is made

I have no doubt that a Retention Planning Application will be lodged and Then People will have an opportunity to View and make comment or not and then a Decision will be made

AGC

xl500 wrote: »

NO I am Sorry I am Not trying to be obtuse And Please dont take this the wrong way but your opinion and you are quite entitled to make it as is everyone else in These Planning Matters but it is your opinion only and not the opinion of Others and Planners and Experts etc etc and these are the people who normally make Submissions when a Planning Application is lodged and based on these a decision is made

I have no doubt that a Retention Planning Application will be lodged and Then People will have an opportunity to View and make comment or not and then a Decision will be made

You seem to have taken this whole thing fairly personally!!

It is my opinion and of many of my neighbours.

People were happy to see the place back open and most are more concerned with the canal being cleaned up.

The owner should of course have applied for and sought the necessary planning permissions.

xl500

AGC wrote: »

You seem to have taken this whole thing fairly personally!!

It is my opinion and of many of my neighbours.

People were happy to see the place back open and most are more concerned with the canal being cleaned up.

The owner should of course have applied for and sought the necessary planning permissions.

No Not at all From the Start I pointed out I had an issue with disregard for Proper Planning I still Do Why Does A Prominent Business Man Disregard Planning and be subject to enforcement Proceedings

He will Now apply for retention and you and all others can make submissions and a decision will be made that is the way its supposed to work and its there for Good Reasons

I know you said you cant view meeting but All that spoke expressed the view they were glad it was open but were very dissapointed with the Disregard for Planning Procedures

AGC

xl500 wrote: »

No Not at all From the Start I pointed out I had an issue with disregard for Proper Planning I still Do Why Does A Prominent Business Man Disregard Planning and be subject to enforcement Proceedings

He will Now apply for retention and you and all others can make submissions and a decision will be made that is the way its supposed to work and its there for Good Reasons

I know you said you cant view meeting but All that spoke expressed the view they were glad it was open but were very dissapointed with the Disregard for Planning Procedures

I will have a look at the meeting this evening/tomorrow.

I know you have been vocal about it and proven correct.

xl500

AGC wrote: »

I will have a look at the meeting this evening/tomorrow.

I know you have been vocal about it and proven correct.

Thanks It Really Gets me that people can do this If he now gets permission Best of Luck to him But at least people will have an opportunity to partake in the process and not just his opinion matters

Skittlebrau

Was in over the weekend for lunch. Used to be a local but not anymore.

It was.... grand.

Internal changes seem largely cosmetic. Service was attentive (if a little slow).. food was average, probably a bit expensive for the quality.

Would I go back? Probably.

Would I rush back? No.

daymobrew

In the FCC Area Meeting on Thursday 5 January there is a section (item 35, 2nd last bit, 1h32m in) where the Enforcement Action against 12th Lock Hotel is discussed.

In summary: 6 structures must be removed (though it is admitted that if a new planning application or a retention application is submitted then the enforcement will be paused).

daymobrew

Retention planning application was filed last week (Wednesday 22 Feb 2017)
http://planning.fingalcoco.ie/swiftlg/apas/run/WPHAPPDETAIL.DisplayUrl?theApnID=FW17A/0020

Retention of the following items:
(a) new wooden effect, steel clad recycling and bin storage shed to the eastern end of the building at lower ground floor (car park) level,
(b) 2 sided advertising sign of the main vehicular entrance driveway to the car parking area to the eastern end of the site,
(c) single sided advertising sign in the car park area to the east side of the building at ground floor (car park) level,
(d) the bicycle rack and Perspex shelter in the car parking area adjacent to the eastern end of the building,
(e) the bike rack along the northern elevation of the hotel at upper ground floor (canal) level,
(f) the new wooden effect, steel clad structure, used to dispense ice cream and coffee to the west of the veranda of the building at upper ground floor (canal) level and
(g)replacement of old awning and clear Perspex side walling with new awning and Perspex side walling to include a larger footprint of this covered outdoor space (18.5 sq.m.)
(h) new granite steps and handrail from the western end of the carpark up to the canal bank path and (i) all associated landscaping and site improvement works in line with the above

SnakePlissken

From the numerous objections submitted to Fingal regarding this application, it certainly puts paid to the claims by some that all local residents wholeheartedly welcome this business owner's wanton revisions to the public towpath and garish signage

This cock up could have so easily been avoided had they followed the quite straightforward planning process... they obviously believed they were exempt for reasons I can't possibly fathom.

blanch152

SnakePlissken wrote: »

From the numerous objections submitted to Fingal regarding this application, it certainly puts paid to the claims by some that all local residents wholeheartedly welcome this business owner's wanton revisions to the public towpath and garish signage

This cock up could have so easily been avoided had they followed the quite straightforward planning process... they obviously believed they were exempt for reasons I can't possibly fathom.

Some of the objections are quite strange:

"totally out of keeping with the rural setting of the site" Say what??? Is this Donegal or Dublin?

Some one else objects because it is in "the middle of an established residential area"

The two of them can't both be right.

Now myself, I thought it was in the middle of a railway and a canal, but maybe I am mistaken.

beauf

It kinda is though. It's like a strip of green in the middle of houses. It's like a walk in the country on your back door . The bit to Ashstown is especially nice.

I haven't been down in the 12th lock since it reopened. Must try out.

phoenix_flyer

blanch152 wrote: »

SnakePlissken wrote: »

From the numerous objections submitted to Fingal regarding this application, it certainly puts paid to the claims by some that all local residents wholeheartedly welcome this business owner's wanton revisions to the public towpath and garish signage

This cock up could have so easily been avoided had they followed the quite straightforward planning process... they obviously believed they were exempt for reasons I can't possibly fathom.

Some of the objections are quite strange:

"totally out of keeping with the rural setting of the site" Say what??? Is this Donegal or Dublin?

Some one else objects because it is in "the middle of an established residential area"

The two of them can't both be right.

Now myself, I thought it was in the middle of a railway and a canal, but maybe I am mistaken.

They are strange objections alright. Most are from Woodpark on the other side of the Canal. These folks are not affected in the least by the re-opening of this Hotel. This estate was not even considered by An Bord Pleanala when they carried out the noise monitoring 12 or 13 years ago. Then there are objections from Talbot Court, people who are even further away than the Woodpark objectors. Judging by the maps submitted with the objection there was a co-ordinated campaign against the new owners of the 12th Lock. This type of thing is not new in Castleknock or in the Dublin area generally. However this is a long established Hotel / Bar and these objections will be seen for what they are, highly vexatious submissions by individuals and groups with somewhat dubious motivations.

beauf

I had a quick look at some of the objections and they all seem to be about exceeding the existing planning permissions. This seems to have happened over and over year after year with this development. I don't even live near it and I'm aware of the saga, the Odyssey of planning with this site.

Cllr Roderic O’Gorman objection is typical, and is about the impact canal as amenity, the various Heritage Plans for the canal and greenway and other such things. I'm not going to read them all as its the same thing every time with this site.

I must check it out again now its reopened.

Gaspode

Well the actions of certain posters on here last year has ensured that I'll give them any business, put me right off the place!

ThisRegard

phoenix_flyer wrote: »

However this is a long established Hotel / Bar and these objections will be seen for what they are, highly vexatious submissions by individuals and groups with somewhat dubious motivations.

Mmm, this type of post sounds familiar, but can't be seeing that this is your first ever post.

Former Former

It's not a huge number of objections overall, and tbh, the only significant change is the expansion of the covered area so I could see them having to dismantle the new perspex structure. The sign at the entrance might need to be adjusted so that it doesn't straddle the wall, I suppose it depends on whether the wall marks the boundary line for the property or not.

Other than that, the changes are very much for the better I think.

rockatansky

phoenix_flyer wrote: »

They are strange objections alright. Most are from Woodpark on the other side of the Canal. These folks are not affected in the least by the re-opening of this Hotel. This estate was not even considered by An Bord Pleanala when they carried out the noise monitoring 12 or 13 years ago. Then there are objections from Talbot Court, people who are even further away than the Woodpark objectors. Judging by the maps submitted with the objection there was a co-ordinated campaign against the new owners of the 12th Lock. This type of thing is not new in Castleknock or in the Dublin area generally. However this is a long established Hotel / Bar and these objections will be seen for what they are, highly vexatious submissions by individuals and groups with somewhat dubious motivations.

Ah, 'tis yourself again!

Gaspode

OK, enough speculation on poster identity please - if you have an issue please use the report button

xl500

phoenix_flyer wrote: »

They are strange objections alright. Most are from Woodpark on the other side of the Canal. These folks are not affected in the least by the re-opening of this Hotel. This estate was not even considered by An Bord Pleanala when they carried out the noise monitoring 12 or 13 years ago. Then there are objections from Talbot Court, people who are even further away than the Woodpark objectors. Judging by the maps submitted with the objection there was a co-ordinated campaign against the new owners of the 12th Lock. This type of thing is not new in Castleknock or in the Dublin area generally. However this is a long established Hotel / Bar and these objections will be seen for what they are, highly vexatious submissions by individuals and groups with somewhat dubious motivations.

As Someone who has posted re this development from the start I would ask anyone to go to FCC planning site and read all the previous planning rulings which were decided by FCC planners and An Bord Pleanala these are the people who decide what is best for our planning and Environment and it is all very clear there what was allowed and what was not and this new development is clearly in breach of existing planning conditions and its not for me to decide if or why i leave that to the planners who will make their decision based on the good of everyone and not just someone who has only a commercial interest and I look forward to their decision

xl500

Former Former wrote: »

It's not a huge number of objections overall, and tbh, the only significant change is the expansion of the covered area so I could see them having to dismantle the new perspex structure. The sign at the entrance might need to be adjusted so that it doesn't straddle the wall, I suppose it depends on whether the wall marks the boundary line for the property or not.

Other than that, the changes are very much for the better I think.

It actually is a lot of objections if the fingal planning register is checked its way more objections than was ever lodged to any other development on this site

Also even though its not even included in the retention permission I would consider increasing the capacity from 10 bedrooms to 12 a significant change again this was also done without planning permission

blanch152

xl500 wrote: »

As Someone who has posted re this development from the start I would ask anyone to go to FCC planning site and read all the previous planning rulings which were decided by FCC planners and An Bord Pleanala these are the people who decide what is best for our planning and Environment and it is all very clear there what was allowed and what was not and this new development is clearly in breach of existing planning conditions and its not for me to decide if or why i leave that to the planners who will make their decision based on the good of everyone and not just someone who has only a commercial interest and I look forward to their decision

Having read the documents, I don't think it is that much of a deal. Expect the permission to go through.

Former Former

xl500 wrote: »

It actually is a lot of objections if the fingal planning register is checked its way more objections than was ever lodged to any other development on this site

Also even though its not even included in the retention permission I would consider increasing the capacity from 10 bedrooms to 12 a significant change again this was also done without planning permission

That may be, but 12 objections is not really a large number. Didn't the demolition of Brady's get 80-something?

phoenix_flyer

beauf wrote: »

I had a quick look at some of the objections and they all seem to be about exceeding the existing planning permissions. This seems to have happened over and over year after year with this development. I don't even live near it and I'm aware of the saga, the Odyssey of planning with this site.

Cllr Roderic O’Gorman objection is typical, and is about the impact canal as amenity, the various Heritage Plans for the canal and greenway and other such things. I'm not going to read them all as its the same thing every time with this site.

I must check it out again now its reopened.

Cllr O'Gorman is well known for his opposition to any development in the Castleknock / Blanchardstown area. An an elected public representative he has a duty to represent all his constituents in a balanced way but he has demonstrated here that he is happy to align himself with vested interests (and highly vexatious vested interests at that) rather than look at the issue involved in a reasonably fair and balanced way. Local politicians have a very clearly defined role and they can recommend for and against planning applications to the planners. The notion that they can become objectors to a particular development is not acceptable. It is totally outside their remit once they are elected to the County Council. Hopefully Cllr O'Gorman and other local politicians will have a fresh look at the Statutory Instrument issued in 2014 which defined their role once elected to a County Council.

ThisRegard

What's your vested interest and/or agenda? And are you a former poster?

beauf

The only vexatious vested interests here is this development constant ignoring of the planning permission.

xl500

phoenix_flyer wrote: »

Cllr O'Gorman is well known for his opposition to any development in the Castleknock / Blanchardstown area. An an elected public representative he has a duty to represent all his constituents in a balanced way but he has demonstrated here that he is happy to align himself with vested interests (and highly vexatious vested interests at that) rather than look at the issue involved in a reasonably fair and balanced way. Local politicians have a very clearly defined role and they can recommend for and against planning applications to the planners. The notion that they can become objectors to a particular development is not acceptable. It is totally outside their remit once they are elected to the County Council. Hopefully Cllr O'Gorman and other local politicians will have a fresh look at the Statutory Instrument issued in 2014 which defined their role once elected to a County Council.

Well if the owner of the 12th Lock had followed the Statutory requirements under the Planning Act 2000 there may well have been fewer objections and if the owner had attempted to address some of the concerns of the objectors instead of willfully ignoring all previous planning conditions and also continuing to ignore FCC Warning letters there may have been less objections but as I said from the start this developers attitude to the Planning Process was a disgrace and for you to paint Cllr O Gorman as a serial objector is disgraceful
People are quite entitled to object and as I said from the start if they are vexatious then I trust the planners will see that but looking at previous decisions on this site I dont see anything vexatious as the objections are all in line with previous decisions of FCC and An Bord Pleanala and it is the developer who is being vexatious in continuing to ignore these but hopefully the Planners or An Bord Pleanala if it comes to it will be consistent and deal with this type of disgraceful behaviour.
Maybe if I list all the conditions of An Bord Pleanala which is a statutory body attached to this site it may be clearer why there are objections and as I said it is not me or vexatious objectors who decided these conditions it was An Bord Pleanala who have NO Vested or Commercial interest in the site but only have responsibility to ensure unauthorised development is curtailed and proper planning for the good of all is implemented

phoenix_flyer

xl500 wrote: »

phoenix_flyer wrote: »

Cllr O'Gorman is well known for .......

Well if the owner of the 12th Lock had followed the Statutory requirements ......

It is fairly obvious, given the orchestrated and highly vexatious campaign of opposition to the re-opening of The 12th Lock that any Developer / Investor contemplating expenditure of hard earned cash in the Castleknock / Blanchardstown area should think twice about it. One individual purportedly representing a group on the other side of The Old Navan Road has submitted a 26 page document opposing the planning application for relatively minor amendments to this long established premises. Somebody on the other side of the Canal has submitted 10 or 12 pages of stuff, most of which is utter rubbish. There are allegations that a well designed stairs is a safety hazard. Nothing could be further from the truth. When you think that the Canal along its entire length is totally unprotected by any form of fence or barrier, such an allegation is put into context. It is also suggested that the parking of cars on the Old Navan Road is as a result of the re-opening of the 12th Lock.
Nothing could be further from the truth. This parking is as a result of the absence of a Car Park at Castleknock Rail Station. People park on The Old Navan Road in the morning, go to Castleknock Rail Station and return to collect their cars in the evening (sometimes the late evening)
But of course people complaining about developments these days do not have to demonstrate that their complaints have any basis in fact. They simply have to throw lots of allegations and assertions into the air and hope that the planners will fall for their stories, many of which have no basis at all.
All that is required is a politician or two to put their name to these objections to give them a bit of credibility. As pointed out earlier it is not a politicians place to do so. 
It is totally inappropriate for groups in different locations, most of which are not directly affected in any respect by The 12th Lock Hotel / Bar / Restaurant to collaborate in making dubious and vexatious submissions which do not stand up to objective scrutiny.

beauf

phoenix_flyer wrote: »

Cllr O'Gorman is well known for his opposition to .....

Perhaps you could explain what vested interest

a personal reason for involvement in an undertaking or situation, especially an expectation of financial or other gain.

...you are talking about.

xl500

phoenix_flyer wrote: »

It is fairly obvious, given the .......

Just to try to give a little clarity to my problem with the ignoring of Planning Conditions and the assertion above "But of course people complaining about developments these days do not have to demonstrate that their complaints have any basis in fact"

Planning Reference No F04A/0172 which can be viewed openly on FCC Web site

Condition no 4 of this Planning Decision States

"4.No Additional signage shall be permitted on this site"

Now whether people agree with this condition or not is not relevant its a condition and I think its clear its being breached and thats a fact

beauf

There is no need to quote massive blocks of text