The 12th Lock

beauf

Have you ever used that path?

https://www.google.ie/maps/place/The+Twelfth+Lock+Boutique+Hotel+%26+Restaurant/@53.3782039,-6.3679864,2706m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x48670d4346cc3683:0x9b3bea3d0bdbd197!8m2!3d53.382113!4d-6.367124!6m1!1e1

You'll note it sits on the Royal Canal Greenway. You'll see the green belt of trees along the route.

blanch152

beauf wrote: »

Have you ever used that path?

https://www.google.ie/maps/place/The+Twelfth+Lock+Boutique+Hotel+%26+Restaurant/@53.3782039,-6.3679864,2706m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x48670d4346cc3683:0x9b3bea3d0bdbd197!8m2!3d53.382113!4d-6.367124!6m1!1e1

You'll note it sits on the Royal Canal Greenway. You'll see the green belt of trees along the route.

All the time, that doesn't make it "a rural setting".

beauf

xl500 wrote: »

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

They would have to be a study to see are they parking there to use the 12th Lock, the Canal Path a lot of walkers or using the train for a match or some other event. some of the cars may even be residents parking on the road.

There's a lack of parking in general for all of the above, everywhere. The planners seems to think people will teleport around the place.

jack presley

I could be wrong here (and probably am) but doesn't planning law and planning regulations supersede the number and quality of objections?

I know we all like to think we're playing a part and I'm sure objections are read and noticed but do they really impact a decision? Aren't they just so people feel like they're involved and 'part of the process'?

I'm not talking about this project specifically but if a project had no objections but was not in line with the planning regs, I'd imagine the planners would reject it. Whereas a project with hundreds of objections but was totally compliant with the development plan and planning rules etc. should probably be granted permission, or at least be seriously considered for approval.

beauf

blanch152 wrote: »

All the time, that doesn't make it "a rural setting".

A poor description perhaps.

http://atkinsireland.ie/projects/royal-canal-greenway-ashtown-to-castleknock/

a very sensitive ecological corridor within the Dublin area. The canal corridor itself is a designated proposed Natural Heritage Area and the environmental, ecological and industrial heritage sensitivities of the site provided significant challenges for the development of the scheme design. The biggest challenge on the project was dealing with the habitats of protected species and minimising the impacts on those habitats. As an example, extensive habitat surveys were carried out to determine the presence of protected species. Bespoke design features were developed in consultation with the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) and Fingal County Council Conservation Department to mitigate and minimise the impact the scheme would have on bats in particular. A bespoke lighting system was developed incorporating automatic dimming and remote monitoring technology so that natural environmental conditions could be maintained at dawn and dusk when bats are most active and feeding along the canal corridor.

This greenway will be a major asset for outdoor recreation and tourism in Ireland while also providing a real “traffic-free†alternative for commuter cyclists travelling between Dublin City Centre and the Blanchardstown / Castleknock areas. The new greenway route will be ideal for recreation purposes, providing an outlet for cyclists and walkers in the area.

tbh the 12th Lock should help with the area as an amenity. But you can't ignore where it is. its not in the middle of normal housing estate.

blanch152

jack presley wrote: »

I could be wrong here (and probably am) but doesn't planning law and planning regulations supersede the number and quality of objections?

I know we all like to think we're playing a part and I'm sure objections are read and noticed but do they really impact a decision? Aren't they just so people feel like they're involved and 'part of the process'?

I'm not talking about this project specifically but if a project had no objections but was not in line with the planning regs, I'd imagine the planners would reject it. Whereas a project with hundreds of objections but was totally compliant with the development plan and planning rules etc. should probably be granted permission, or at least be seriously considered for approval.

Correct.

blanch152

beauf wrote: »

A poor description perhaps.

http://atkinsireland.ie/projects/royal-canal-greenway-ashtown-to-castleknock/



tbh the 12th Lock should help with the area as an amenity. But you can't ignore where it is. its not in the middle of normal housing estate.

Yes, a poor description, which just makes my point about planning objections overhyping themselves and throwing the kitchen sink at the issue, which renders them of little value of themselves. This applies to all developments and to all objections, not just this one, but the contradictions in different objections makes this one amusing.

xl500

blanch152 wrote: »

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.

I really dont think that objectors just object for the sake of it from what i read the main objections are related to breaches of existing Planning conditions attached to the site which are clear on FCC Planning site and if you read those as well as reading the objections it might be clearer why people are objecting

If An Bord Pleanala makes a decision regarding use etc and somebody ignores that then I believe they are wrong

On the other Question re wildlife etc on this corridor again I believe its wrong that some people who want to install lighting etc have to do studies etc before proceeding and this developer just puts in lighting as he pleases with no regard for wildlife or his neighbours

beauf

blanch152 wrote: »

Yes, a poor description, which just makes my point about planning objections overhyping themselves and throwing the kitchen sink at the issue, which renders them of little value of themselves. This applies to all developments and to all objections, not just this one, but the contradictions in different objections makes this one amusing.

I think its a little pedantic to argue about the wording used. Its not your usual estate pub location. Regardless if they used greeny thingy.

xl500

jack presley wrote: »

I could be wrong here (and probably am) but doesn't planning law and planning regulations supersede the number and quality of objections?

I know we all like to think we're playing a part and I'm sure objections are read and noticed but do they really impact a decision? Aren't they just so people feel like they're involved and 'part of the process'?

I'm not talking about this project specifically but if a project had no objections but was not in line with the planning regs, I'd imagine the planners would reject it. Whereas a project with hundreds of objections but was totally compliant with the development plan and planning rules etc. should probably be granted permission, or at least be seriously considered for approval.

Exactly and the planners will decide I from the start only gave MY and only MY opinion that the development as it currently stands is in breach of planning and previous decisions relating to the site

phoenix_flyer

The Fingal County Council decision is out and is very positive from the point of view of the 12th Lock owners. No problem with the granite stairs, no problem with the bike racks, no problem with the Lighting, no problem with the signage [ just a question of dimensions ]   There are some errors in the decision, the Open Space zoning referred to does not apply as the site already has a permission for Bar / Restaurant / Hotel. The Planners seem to think that the Open Space Zoning still applies. This  is crazy but typical of the Dublin 15 Planners. Perhaps they were influenced by the mis-information supplies by a number of objectors. An Bord Pleanala have a reputation for taking a dim view of objectors who tell porkies or half truths to try and gain an advantage. There were lots of porkies submitted to Fingal County Council. It will be interesting to see if the parties involved will amend their submissions when they are dealing with An Bord Pleanala.  
The Dublin 15 Planners have a poor reputation when their decisions are referred to An Bord Pleanala. Most get overturned.
Perhaps it the influence of Cllr Roderick O'Gorman. 
Time will tell. But I have a feeling that the vexatious objections will not find favour with the Planning Appeals Board.

Gaspode

Is it definitely going on to ABP?

Former Former

Here's the decision for those who haven't seen it.
http://documents.fingalcoco.ie/NorthgatePublicDocs/00551378.pdf

Seems fair enough to me. The new 'awning' structure was a significant expansion on the previous one so can see where the planners are coming from. I doubt the owners are that bothered about the signage and the ice-cream shack. The aspects that have been approved are generally an improvement.

As for An Bord Plenala - the owners could appeal the refusals, likewise the residents could appeal the aspects that were granted, but there might be enough in it for everyone to be satisfied.

xl500

New Verandah Refused,Ice Cream Shack Refused and planner also referred to further enforcement to be taken

Phoenix Flyer seems to have some inside knowledge of it going to Bord Pleanala as there is no appeal listed yet so I can only presume he knows something the rest of us dont but if it does go to appeal I am sure they will certainly uphold their previous decisions relating to the site and quoted in the decision

As He also states "There were lots of porkies submitted to Fingal County Council" the only reference the planner made to misinformation was the claim that the Verandah was only increasing by 18sqmts when it clearly was increasing way more also on the planning application there is a question "Does the proposed development involve the demolition of any structure" The Developers agent answered no again clearly false

Anyway here is the Nub of it
"Recommendation
Split Decision Grant Retention for the Storage Shed at Rear,Bike Shelter and Bike Rack at Rear,Bike Rack at Front,Granite Stairs and Associated Landscaping and Refuse Retention for Covered Area and Ice Cream/Coffee Retail Unit and Signage."

As I Stated from the very early days of this thread the new Developments ie Veranda and Ice cream Shack were unauthorised

Be very interesting will the new owner now comply with FCC Decision as most responsible business owners would but of course I know before flyer tells me he is entitled to appeal

phoenix_flyer

I do not know the new owners of the 12th Lock and I have no clue whether or not they will avail of their right to appeal the council decision. I imagine that somebody on one side or the other will do so and that it will end up in the Appeal Board. 
It strikes me as a bit curious that the improvement work done to the hotel could be regarded as a contravention of the Open Space zoning. If a house gets permission on a site and any improvement work carried out within the site is related to the residential zoning of the site and not to the zoning of the area around the site.
The Council seemed to be of the view that they did not have the power to grant a permission for the ice cream building or the veranda enclosure because of the zoning factor. There may be some clause somewhere which puts residential and commercial development in a different category for improvement work but I have not been able to unearth it.

angryIreGamer

apparently you can/have to book a table in the bar now

xl500

phoenix_flyer wrote: »

I do not know the new owners of the 12th Lock and I have no clue whether or not they will avail of their right to appeal the council decision. I imagine that somebody on one side or the other will do so and that it will end up in the Appeal Board. 
It strikes me as a bit curious that the improvement work done to the hotel could be regarded as a contravention of the Open Space zoning. If a house gets permission on a site and any improvement work carried out within the site is related to the residential zoning of the site and not to the zoning of the area around the site.
The Council seemed to be of the view that they did not have the power to grant a permission for the ice cream building or the veranda enclosure because of the zoning factor. There may be some clause somewhere which puts residential and commercial development in a different category for improvement work but I have not been able to unearth it.

I have no doubt going on this owners attitude to the planning to date and complete disregard for it and neighbours concerns that they will not accept the planners decision and they will appeal

phoenix_flyer

xl500 wrote: »

phoenix_flyer wrote: »

I do not know the new owners of the 12th Lock and I have no clue whether or not they will avail of their right to appeal the council decision. I imagine that somebody on one side or the other will do so and that it will end up in the Appeal Board. 
It strikes me as a bit curious that the improvement work done to the hotel could be regarded as a contravention of the Open Space zoning. If a house gets permission on a site and any improvement work carried out within the site is related to the residential zoning of the site and not to the zoning of the area around the site.
The Council seemed to be of the view that they did not have the power to grant a permission for the ice cream building or the veranda enclosure because of the zoning factor. There may be some clause somewhere which puts residential and commercial development in a different category for improvement work but I have not been able to unearth it.

I have no doubt going on this owners attitude to the planning to date and complete disregard for it and neighbours concerns that they will not accept the planners decision and they will appeal

If the decision of the Council is flawed, as it appears to be, then they would be correct to exhaust the process and draw attention to what seems to be a "home town decision"  Nobody should have a difficulty with that, but clearly some have.

xl500

phoenix_flyer wrote: »

If the decision of the Council is flawed, as it appears to be, then they would be correct to exhaust the process and draw attention to what seems to be a "home town decision"  Nobody should have a difficulty with that, but clearly some have.

Fair enough but if they had followed the proper process from the start they may not be where they are now

And as I said from start this development is unauthorised and as I had no doubt FCC Planners would continue to decide as they have previously I also have even less doubt An Bord Pleanala will also The Developers attitude seems to be well I dont care what the planners think Im going ahead anyway as they ignored Warning Letters way back informing them

And I definitely have no difficulty with it being appealed indeed I look forward to An Bord Pleanala Decision if it goes there

Fr_Dougal

The new owners don't allow smoking in the old enclosed smoking area. As soon as the summer is in and people are drinking in the outside area, you'll have all the smokers out in the open and the noise level will impact the local residents.

phoenix_flyer

xl500 wrote: »

phoenix_flyer wrote: »

If the decision of the Council is flawed, as it appears to be, then they would be correct to exhaust the process and draw attention to what seems to be a "home town decision"  Nobody should have a difficulty with that, but clearly some have.

Fair enough but if they had followed the proper process from the start they may not be where they are now

And as I said from start this development is unauthorised and as I had no doubt FCC Planners would continue to decide as they have previously I also have even less doubt An Bord Pleanala will also The Developers attitude seems to be well I dont care what the planners think Im going ahead anyway as they ignored Warning Letters way back informing them

And I definitely have no difficulty with it being appealed indeed I look forward to An Bord Pleanala Decision if it goes there

It's great that you accept that they have a right to appeal. Interesting that you have no view on the Council's decision in respect of the zoning objectives. I didn't expect you would have. Generally any improvement work is referenced to the zoning of the approved development site, in this case,  the Hotel site. Not in this case however. I would love to know why.
Perhaps you have a view on this. It would be great if you let us know how you feel about the Council decision.

amtc

Nice new menu yesterday

xl500

phoenix_flyer wrote: »

It's great that you accept that they have a right to appeal. Interesting that you have no view on the Council's decision in respect of the zoning objectives. I didn't expect you would have. Generally any improvement work is referenced to the zoning of the approved development site, in this case,  the Hotel site. Not in this case however. I would love to know why.
Perhaps you have a view on this. It would be great if you let us know how you feel about the Council decision.

My View is the Decision is not flawed

daymobrew

phoenix_flyer wrote: »

It strikes me as a bit curious that the improvement work done to the hotel could be regarded as a contravention of the Open Space zoning. If a house gets permission on a site and any improvement work carried out within the site is related to the residential zoning of the site and not to the zoning of the area around the site.

I looked up the zoned Open Space.
I could not find the list of local objectives to see what items 944d and 695 were.

From one of the Dev Plan docs:

Open Space
Any land, including water, whether enclosed or not, used primarily for active or passive recreation on which there are no buildings, or on which any buildings are intrinsically linked to the active or passive outdoor recreational use, and the remainder of which is laid out as a garden or for the purposes of recreation or lies vacant, waste or unoccupied.

phoenix_flyer

daymobrew wrote: »

phoenix_flyer wrote: »

It strikes me as a bit curious that the improvement work done to the hotel could be regarded as a contravention of the Open Space zoning. If a house gets permission on a site and any improvement work carried out within the site is related to the residential zoning of the site and not to the zoning of the area around the site.

I looked up the [url=https://us.v-cdn.net/6034073/uploads/attachments/28533/415905.jpg[/url].
I could not find the list of local objectives to see what items 944d and 695 were.

From one of the Dev Plan docs:

Open Space
Any land, including water, whether enclosed or not, used primarily for active or passive recreation on which there are no buildings, or on which any buildings are intrinsically linked to the active or passive outdoor recreational use, and the remainder of which is laid out as a garden or for the purposes of recreation or lies vacant, waste or unoccupied.

The Open Space zoning in the new Development Plan (2017 to 2023) on Fingal Site relates to lands outside the 12th Lock curtilage as far as I can see. The 12th Lock site in its entirety has a commercial use by virtue of planning permissions granted since the late 1990's  The decision therefore is seriously flawed and an appeal to the appeal board is justified.

Rosser

Correct planning decisions aside had a very disappointing breakfast there last week, expensive full Irish that was at the small end of 'full', served luke warm and with a latte that seemed like a packet / hot water mix.

Will certainly be returning to Douglas & Khaldi for my post canal walk feed.

phoenix_flyer

Rosser wrote: »

Correct planning decisions aside had a very disappointing breakfast there last week, expensive full Irish that was at the small end of 'full', served luke warm and with a latte that seemed like a packet / hot water mix.

Will certainly be returning to Douglas & Khaldi for my post canal walk feed.

That is probably why booking is required in the Bar area these days. The place seems to be gaining in popularity as the months go by. Nobody need have any worries if the Fingal decision is referred to the Appeals Board. They are the final judges of what is and is not the correct interpretation of the planning act when applications are being considered. But it would be unbelievable if somebody applied for an extension to their dwelling house and got refused because the land zoning outside the site of the house was open space, high amenity etc. If the 12th Lock never had a permission one could understand that the nature of the land zoning of the lands around the site would be a factor in the decision but clearly this not the case here. And there are no use changes that would be incompatible with the current site use.

Arciphel

Rosser wrote: »

Correct planning decisions aside had a very disappointing breakfast there last week, expensive full Irish that was at the small end of 'full', served luke warm and with a latte that seemed like a packet / hot water mix.

Will certainly be returning to Douglas & Khaldi for my post canal walk feed.

phoenix_flyer wrote: »

That is probably why booking is required in the Bar area these days. The place seems to be gaining in popularity as the months go by.

Fr_Dougal

Was there tonight, empty...no atmosphere...

Former Former

I was there for lunch yesterday, very busy but service is still unpredictable.

BTW you don't have to book a table.