The 12th Lock

beauf

beauf wrote: »

There is no need to ....

Is quite Sufficient

Gaspode

phoenix_flyer wrote: »

It is fairly obvious, ...

As asked of our old friend Esteril, what is your connection to this business & development?

Now as far as I know, every citizen is entitled to object to any planning permission in their area, regardless of how close they are geographically to it. We all live in the same county so we all have a shared responsibility to ensure it is developed properly and legally and in a way that suits the entire community, not just the microcosm around the 12th lock. Your arguments about how far people are from the premises are therefore without foundation. I live a good bit away but if I wanted to object I could, that's how the system works - all the citizens get a say. They may not be listened to, but they get a say.

phoenix_flyer

Gaspode wrote: »

As asked of our old fried Esteril, what is your connection to this business & development?  

Now as far as I know, every citizen is entitled to object to any planning permission in their area, regardless of how close they are geographically to it. We all live in the same county so we all have a shared responsibility to ensure it is developed properly and legally and in a way that suits the entire community, not just the microcosm around the 12th lock. Your arguments about how far people are from your premises are therefore without foundation. I live a good bit away but if I wanted to object I could, that's how the system works - all the citizens get a say. They may not be listened to, but they get a say.

I have absolutely no connection to this Hotel / Bar / Restaurant premises. But I am interested in seeing fair play for everybody including people who put their hard earned cash into upgrading and refurbishing properties such as this one to give a better quality of service to their patrons who are, by and large, local people. I made reference in my previous post to spurious objections to the minor variations carried out to facilitate the re-opening of the premises, specifically the stairs from the car park and the parking of cars on the Old Navan Road. Nobody could muster a response to the points I raised in relation to these issues. Of course I am aware that people have a right to make submissions where a development is proposed or in a retention situation, but the submissions should be well thought out and be accurate and truthful. This is not the case unfortunately in the vast majority of objections lodged in response to this planning application. And the notion that groups and individuals in different residential areas would get together in an organised fashion to lodge what are primarily vexatious and spurious objections is simply not acceptable.

xl500

Any view on this

"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"

As regards mustering a response to your points re parking Previous Planning Applications on this site were refused due to parking and overflow onto residential streets again this can be freely viewed on Fingal Web site and I am sure Traffic Management will be taken into account when planners make their decision

Former Former

Gaspode wrote: »

As asked of our old fried Esteril, what is your connection to this business & development?

Now as far as I know, every citizen is entitled to object to any planning permission in their area, regardless of how close they are geographically to it. We all live in the same county so we all have a shared responsibility to ensure it is developed properly and legally and in a way that suits the entire community, not just the microcosm around the 12th lock. Your arguments about how far people are from your premises are therefore without foundation. I live a good bit away but if I wanted to object I could, that's how the system works - all the citizens get a say. They may not be listened to, but they get a say.

Do you not see the hypocrisy in accusing the guy of being connected with the 12th Lock because you don't agree with him in one paragraph, and then making an impassioned plea for people to have their say on planning issues in the next?

Look. Everyone needs to relax a bit. Like all good internet rows, the truth is somewhere in the middle.

Should the 12th Lock have done all this without planning? No. Of course not.

Are some of the objections a bit OTT? Absolutely.

But everyone has had their say now, we'll see what comes of it.

beauf

Former Former wrote: »

...Are some of the objections a bit OTT? Absolutely.....

Which ones are OTT.

phoenix_flyer

I agree with Former Former that the issues have been well ventilated and all that remains is for the Council to make its decision on the relatively minor variations which have taken place at the 12th Lock to facilitate its re-opening. One of the objectors has stated that part of the site is in public ownership. This is patently not the case, the site was put on the market as a privately owned site and purchased as such. Another misleading issue dragged up to muddy the waters.
To respond to points raised by x1500, the problem with quoting old planning permissions dating back to the early 2000's in relation to parking requirement and such like is that parking demand now for public houses has dropped considerably due to drink driving law revisions (lowering of the Blood Alcohol level permitted) More and more, people are arriving by Taxi and Public Transport. Castleknock Rail Station is just a few hundred metres away and there are several Bus Routes on Castleknock Road and Blanchardstown Village. I think that the notion of submitting objections based of 2001 Planning refusals is a bit unreasonable given that there have been several grants of permission in the interim for the premises. 
I terms of signage if one were to look at signage on Licensed Premises on Main Street in Castleknock and in Main Street in Blanchardstown (close to the turn for the Church) there is considerably more of it and it is infinitely more gaudy than the signage at the 12th Lock. Nobody from Woodpark or Talbot Court has bothered to launch a campaign to have this signage removed. The signs at the 12th Lock (which are not illuminated) are the subject of the retention application and the Council will make up its mind on their appropriateness in the near future.

Which objections are OTT?  All those containing spurious and misleading material, such as part of the site being in public ownership, the stairs being a risk to safety, 12th Lock patrons parking on the Old Navan Road etc etc

beauf

phoenix_flyer wrote: »

the parking of cars on the Old Navan Road. Nobody could muster a response to the points I raised in relation to these issues...

I would expect people parking to use the train are doing at peak time in the morning which will not match the time people will park go to a pub or for dinner. Likewise traffic in the area. They won't be at the same time. It would be easy to work out which is it.

I see to remember Traffic and parking and increased footfall was an issue even in the original planing permission. Seems like the locals concerns have proven to be right, if its still coming up as an issue. Anytime I'm been their its been middle of the day and parking wasn't an issue.

beauf

AGC wrote: »

...the stupid sign on the bridge) if proper permission was applied for....

Whats the stupid sign on the bridge?

beauf

Were the 6 items raised for enforcement by the council actually resolved or re-moved.

xl500

As regards Planning Conditions attached to a planning Decision and further endorsed by An Bord Pleanala time does not come into it the condition was attached and remains and if it is in breach can be enforced

We differ as to what flyer calls relatively minor variations I do not consider the Unauthorised Developments carried out to be relatively minor variations

xl500

beauf wrote: »

I would expect people parking to use the train are doing at peak time in the morning which will not match the time people will park go to a pub or for dinner. Likewise traffic in the area. They won't be at the same time. It would be easy to work out which is it.

I see to remember Traffic and parking and increased footfall was an issue even in the original planing permission. Seems like the locals concerns have proven to be right, if its still coming up as an issue. Anytime I'm been their its been middle of the day and parking wasn't an issue.

You should have tried to go there the last 2 Sundays and yes of course parking as flyer has said is covered in the Development Plan and the Current Plan if anyone wants to see it gives the requirements for Parking and Emergency vehicle Access etc

xl500

As Flyer Stated

"I think that the notion of submitting objections based of 2001 Planning refusals is a bit unreasonable given that there have been several grants of permission in the interim for the premises"

I just checked FCC Planning and as far as I can see these are the planning Decisions since 2001

F01A/0256 Mar 2001 Refuse

F03A/0213 Feb 2003 Refuse

F04A/0172 feb 2004 Grant with Conditions Which are quite clear

So I dont see several grants of permission in the interim for the premises

phoenix_flyer

It seems totally wrong to me that a minority of activists (most of whom never raised an objection) when the 12th Lock was granted its original planning permission (particularly the Woodpark Estate) now have a problem when the premises re-opens under new management. I could not find a single submission in the original files from this cul-de sac in those days. They are well screened off from the Canal with Trees and are totally unaffected by the re-opening of the 12th Lock.
The patrons of this premises are mostly locals from Castleknock and Blanchardstown and here we have a tiny minority of activists who are determined by fair means or foul to deprive people of this brilliant facility. The day long weekday parking on the Old Navan Road by commuters has a considerably greater impact than any night time or weekend short term parking which might arise from time to time. You will find that other licensed premises in the Castleknock / Blanchardstown area also have patrons who park on public roads at peak times. Parking on a public road is totally exempted development and the Gardai can issue fines where vehicles are parked illegally or blocking emergency vehicle access.

phoenix_flyer

It seems totally wrong to me that a minority of activists (most of whom never raised an objection) when the 12th Lock was granted its original planning permission (particularly the Woodpark Estate) now have a problem when the premises re-opens under new management. I could not find a single submission in the original files from this cul-de sac in those days. They are well screened off from the Canal with Trees and are totally unaffected by the re-opening of the 12th Lock.
The patrons of this premises are mostly locals from Castleknock and Blanchardstown and here we have a tiny minority of activists who are determined by fair means or foul to deprive people of this brilliant facility. The day long weekday parking on the Old Navan Road by commuters has a considerably greater impact than any night time or weekend short term parking which might arise from time to time. You will find that other licensed premises in the Castleknock / Blanchardstown area also have patrons who park on public roads at peak times. Parking on a public road is totally exempted development and the Gardai can issue fines where vehicles are parked illegally or blocking emergency vehicle access.

January

'brilliant facility' pull the other one, it's a restaurant. It's nothing special.

phoenix_flyer

xl500 wrote: »

As Flyer Stated

"I think that the notion of submitting objections based of 2001 Planning refusals is a bit unreasonable given that there have been several grants of permission in the interim for the premises"

I just checked FCC Planning and as far as I can see these are the planning Decisions since 2001

F01A/0256 Mar 2001 Refuse

F03A/0213 Feb 2003 Refuse

F04A/0172 feb 2004 Grant with Conditions Which are quite clear

So I dont see several grants of permission in the interim for the premises

Your database is somewhat out of date then. You seem to have forgotten about F05A/0760, FW09A/0045 and FW09A/0045 E1.

phoenix_flyer

January wrote: »

'brilliant facility' pull the other one, it's a restaurant. It's nothing special.

Thats probably why it's so popular with the locals, young and old then.

January

TBH it's probably the blatant disregard for the planning laws that has made people so determined to oppose it when they applied for retention. If they had applied for the permission beforehand I reckon they'd have had ZERO objections. Might make them think in future...

Former Former

beauf wrote: »

Which ones are OTT.

Ehh, no, I don't think I'll stick my head into that particular wasps' nest.

phoenix_flyer

January wrote: »

TBH it's probably the blatant disregard for the planning laws that has made people so determined to oppose it when they applied for retention. If they had applied for the permission beforehand I reckon they'd have had ZERO objections. Might make them think in future...

I think you analysis is slightly flawed. Regardless of whether it was a retention application or an application for permission there would have been a similar amount of agitation. This is a well orchestrated campaign of opposition to the re-opening of this premises by the new owners. There are individuals who were not even living in the area when this premises got its initial permission (1998 Application) but who arrived in the locality about 17 years ago who have been driving this. I have no idea what the backround to all this is but I would love to know. I expect they are contributors to this forum, but I do not expect them to reveal here precisely what their problem is, but it is intriguing.

xl500

Well as someone who has posted very frequently re this issue I at first thought your Conspiracy Theory was aimed at me as I live in the locality but I was living in my Home before 12Th Lock

I dont believe any one individual could influence people and public reps to object

There were objections before and some of these were accepted as genuine

I feel the complete disregard for planning and neighbours concerns had a major influence on people objecting any one purchasing such a site must have been aware of the Planning Conditions attached to it but they decided to ignore previous local concerns and proceed without Planning Permission

And yes I am sure some of the objectors are watching and posting on this forum as I am also 100% convinced the new owner is

NO one here ever objected to the 12th Lock reopening but some did object to disregard for planning

I know this will probably get another tirade but if my Neighbour was going to extend their house it would be common courtesy to inform neighbours and see if they had any concerns or allow them the chance to view plans etc through the normal planning process thats what its for

And Taking out the OTT Objections there are some very genuine concerns listed in the objections and it is a typical response instead of dealing with those try to discredit the objector it happens all the time but professional planners will decide and I am certain they will make the best decision for all

ThisRegard

phoenix_flyer wrote: »

I have absolutely no connection to this Hotel / Bar / Restaurant premises.

phoenix_flyer wrote: »

Thats probably why it's so popular with the locals, young and old then.

It's not, but we already had this discussion.

Gaspode

Former Former wrote: »

Do you not see the hypocrisy in accusing the guy of being connected with the 12th Lock because you don't agree with him in one paragraph, and then making an impassioned plea for people to have their say on planning issues in the next?

I asked, I didnt accuse there's a big difference! But I do see where I made a comment that suggested they were associated - as you can see I've now amended that sentence.

Since they have said they are not connected to the business, we must believe them so lets not have any more discussion on that score.
I assume you will make the same declaration of no connection Former Former?

ThisRegard wrote: »

No more speculation please, see above

beauf

Watching the council meeting they all welcomed it re-opening and the main concern was the repeated lack of adherence to the planning.

NegativeCreep

Honestly couldn't care about the planning permission. It's not all that different from what it was like before. I was there today for a few drinks and the place is lovely and the staff are really friendly. I will be back. The only criticism I have is that staff should tell the parents of children to keep them in their seats or get out. Far too many children running around today.

NegativeCreep

NegativeCreep wrote: »

Honestly couldn't care about the planning permission. It's not all that different from what it was like before. I was there today for a few drinks and the place is lovely and the staff are really friendly. I will be back. The only criticism I have is that staff should tell the parents of children to keep them in their seats or get out. Far too many children running around today.

I haven't been there since my kids came along. Always felt like kids weren't welcome, no high chairs available for example.

Former Former

Basil3 wrote: »

I haven't been there since my kids came along. Always felt like kids weren't welcome, no high chairs available for example.

That has changed since it reopened, much more child friendly now. Has a kids menu too.

xl500

phoenix_flyer wrote: »

It seems totally wrong to me that a minority of activists (most of whom never raised an objection) when the 12th Lock was granted its original planning permission (particularly the Woodpark Estate) now have a problem when the premises re-opens under new management. I could not find a single submission in the original files from this cul-de sac in those days.

That does not surprise me at all given that all the structures that retention is being sought for were never included in the original planning permission if they were who knows there might have been some objections

blanch152

xl500 wrote: »

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

How do you address the concerns of the different objectors, one of whom says the development is "totally out of keeping with the rural setting of the site" and another said it is in "the middle of an established residential area"? Contradictory overhyped nonsense doesn't do any objection any help.

As with the vast majority of planning objections, the main point seems to be to throw as much objections as possible to see if one sticks, which makes it impossible to know if there is any real substance to the objections. From where I am standing, and from what I have read of them, the objections appear to have little substance or materiality, and while not quite vexatious, are little more than nitpicking.