The 12th Lock

esteril

AlanG wrote: »

Greg - you should remember that if it wasn't for the locals the canal would still be closed down. Lots of local families spent decades working in the royal canal amenity group to restore the canal. The did this work so that barges could use the canal - not simply so people could drink beer beside it. The canal is a place for barges.
You should have some respect for the locals who actually did all the work and put large parts of their lives into the work that has made your business feasible.

The person you are addressing is not Greg Browne as Zaph has said in a previous post. The canal is under the control of Waterways Ireland (a State Body) these days. They have responsibility for maintaining the Royal Canal. Their vans are at the 12th Lock every other day of the week, yet they are unable to get rid of the algae and debris beside the lock gate. They are not doing a great job as far as I can see.

Canal side dining is big all over Europe and indeed all over the world these days.
The 12th Lock is an established Hotel and Bar / Restaurant for the last 12 or 13 years. It has served the people of Castleknock and Blanchardstown well during those years. It's re-opening is an exciting prospect for all those who like to go out and enjoy a meal and a few drinks. If you stay in watching television every night that's your choice but please do not attempt to deprive them of an opportunity to sample the atmosphere of a new rejuvenated 12th Lock hotel, bar and restaurant.

ThisRegard

I've never seen someone who claims to have nothing to do with somewhere so enthusiastic about a place. Don't think the kids get as giddy coming up to Christmas. It's like reading PR blurb over and over.

You'd swear Blanchardstown and Castleknock are ghost towns without the place.

Rosser

esteril wrote: »

I. I had a good look at the area where the outdoor space is and to be honest it is smaller than the original enclosed area

To be honest it's actually not smaller and the ice cream 'shack' looks exactly like a shack. As mentioned earlier they might not do gaudy but they sure do corrugated iron garden shed chicque!

Evidence for the 'gaudy' prosecution is the last 1970's Rovers Return rework of De Brúins.

esteril

Rosser wrote: »

To be honest it's actually not smaller and the ice cream 'shack' looks exactly like a shack. As mentioned earlier they might not do gaudy but they sure do corrugated iron garden shed chicque!

Evidence for the 'gaudy' prosecution is the last 1970's Rovers Return rework of De Brúins.

You are watching too many of those Soaps. You need to get out a bit more.

py2006

Let's hope the clientele return

AlanG

esteril wrote: »

Canal side dining is big all over Europe and indeed all over the world these days.
The 12th Lock is an established Hotel and Bar / Restaurant for the last 12 or 13 years. It has served the people of Castleknock and Blanchardstown well during those years. It's re-opening is an exciting prospect for all those who like to go out and enjoy a meal and a few drinks. If you stay in watching television every night that's your choice but please do not attempt to deprive them of an opportunity to sample the atmosphere of a new rejuvenated 12th Lock hotel, bar and restaurant.

The point I was making is that among the large number of people you throw insults and lies at are the very people who put decades of work into restoring the canal. You complain that the canal has barges in it and want the whole area sanitised. You should have some respect for the locals who put years and years of work into keeping the canal.

If they hadn't done the work it would most likely have been paved over and used as a truck way in the 80's. The saving of the canal is not down to the people you are making representations for.

AlanG

I had a look at the work progressing over the last few days. The "Ice Cream" shack would make a good outdoor bar if the owners wanted.

January

Once they realize an ice cream shack in that location won't make a favourable profit they'll probably turn it into just that.

former total

This thread has lost the plot completely.

The 12th Lock reopening is a great thing for all concerned.

If they're adding an ice cream shack, then it sounds like they're trying to get families in, which the previous owners were dead against. The previous 12th Lock was the only place I ever asked for a high chair only to be told "no".

The state has pumped huge money into doing up the canal as a walking route, having somewhere to stop for a coffee along the route has to be a good thing.

Let's just be glad that D15 has another, different option for going out. We were long enough with f**k all places to go.

esteril

Many of the people who are whinging and moaning about the re-opening of this business were involved in the original campaign to prevent the construction of the building in the first place. The kind of people who would deny you the right to have a barbecue in your garden because the smoke would destroy the environment or the noise might affect their amenities. Their social outlet is normally the residents association where they can whinge and whine to their hearts content about what other people are doing. I agree wholeheartedly with former totals previous post. The more outlets the better in this area. More diverse offerings is what is needed from all operators in the hospitality area.

ThisRegard

esteril wrote: »

Many of the people who are whinging and moaning about the re-opening of this business were involved in the original campaign to prevent the construction of the building in the first place.

Who's moaning about the reopening? And those you think are moaning, how do you know they were involved in the building in the first place?

esteril

I would have thought that it is obvious from some recent posts that the same issues that were being thrown up then are being raked up again now. No drinking near the canal. Yet in other areas across the country, riverside and canalside cafes, restaurants and bars provide brilliant entertainment spots. Similarly all across Europe. Leopards do not change their spots and it would be highly unlikely that the original campaigners would have gone away or changed their minds. They see this as a second bite of the cherry. They are seemingly quite happy to see a build up of rubbish and algae at the lock gates but just wish to concentrate on what will be a very beneficial facility for locals and visitors alike.

ThisRegard

I still can't make the connection from what you perceive and what's actually being posted.

NyOmnishambles

esteril wrote: »

I would have thought that it is obvious from some recent posts that the same issues that were being thrown up then are being raked up again now. No drinking near the canal. Yet in other areas across the country, riverside and canalside cafes, restaurants and bars provide brilliant entertainment spots. Similarly all across Europe. Leopards do not change their spots and it would be highly unlikely that the original campaigners would have gone away or changed their minds. They see this as a second bite of the cherry. They are seemingly quite happy to see a build up of rubbish and algae at the lock gates but just wish to concentrate on what will be a very beneficial facility for locals and visitors alike.

I don't recall that being a significant issue in this thread at all

You seem to have a bee in your bonnet about something that doesn't seem to exist, as has been pointed out to you several times the main issue people had with it is the manner in which the works have been carried out, most people are happy to see the place open

L1011

January wrote: »

Once they realize an ice cream shack in that location won't make a favourable profit they'll probably turn it into just that.

Or they think they'd have opposition to an outdoor bar so are building the 'ice cream shack' now with change of use planned :pac:

Arciphel

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NBttXb4jSY

Wonder if they will be doing steaks on the stone? :pac:

py2006

An ice-cream shack, seriously??!?! :rolleyes:

They do realise they are renovating this place.....in Ireland??

septictank

Arciphel wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NBttXb4jSY

Wonder if they will be doing steaks on the stone? :pac:

Great spot.

Rosser

esteril wrote: »

More diverse offerings is what is needed from all operators in the hospitality area.

Four venues within 3km all owned by the same outfit is not diversity.

Good luck to them if it all works out well, nobody wants the place left closed up I think we can all agree on that.

However as I said before the shack looks like a garden shed.

Rosser

esteril wrote: »

You are watching too many of those Soaps. You need to get out a bit more.

I'd level that at the designers of De Brúins.

rockatansky

former total wrote: »

This thread has lost the plot completely.

The 12th Lock reopening is a great thing for all concerned.
.

I don't see anyone arguing against it re-opening.

What they are concerned about is that the building is going ahead without proper planning permission. The demolition of the house down in Blanchardstown village and the building of a new structure without permission being in place is known to most on here. There is a concern, and rightly so, that things going back to the bad old days of people just building what they want, deal with the consequences after its up, and then in the end the council just giving in and then getting away with it.

You then have have a poster who then comes on and starts throwing very obvious buzz statements such as ‘very beneficial facility for locals and visitors alike’ ‘the place is buzzing with activity’ ‘I can't wait to see that car park full again’, I believe the place will be well supported by the local community’.

When concerns were raised you were accused of ‘whinging and moaning about the re-opening of this business’, ‘There are people who will always complain about everything.’ ‘these locals would rather harass a very progressive businessman’. It’s the usual political accusation of you’re going against progress!

It reads like it’s lifted straight from a Fianna Fail Ard Fheis speech during the Bertie boom years, if you dare question us you’re clearly just being negative and are against the country.

py2006

Ffs guys. It's a blinking pub re opening.

former total

rockatansky wrote: »

I don't see anyone arguing against it re-opening.

What they are concerned about is that the building is going ahead without proper planning permission. The demolition of the house down in Blanchardstown village and the building of a new structure without permission being in place is known to most on here. There is a concern, and rightly so, that things going back to the bad old days of people just building what they want, deal with the consequences after its up, and then in the end the council just giving in and then getting away with it.

You then have have a poster who then comes on and starts throwing very obvious buzz statements such as ‘very beneficial facility for locals and visitors alike’ ‘the place is buzzing with activity’ ‘I can't wait to see that car park full again’, I believe the place will be well supported by the local community’.

When concerns were raised you were accused of ‘whinging and moaning about the re-opening of this business’, ‘There are people who will always complain about everything.’ ‘these locals would rather harass a very progressive businessman’. It’s the usual political accusation of you’re going against progress!

It reads like it’s lifted straight from a Fianna Fail Ard Fheis speech during the Bertie boom years, if you dare question us you’re clearly just being negative and are against the country.

In fairness, bringing up the Main Street development isn't really relevant because there are no planning issues here.

SnakePlissken

former total wrote: »

In fairness, bringing up the Main Street development isn't really relevant because there are no planning issues here.

Not applying for works which undoubtedly require planning nor submitting an updated DAC application including said works is most certainly a planning issue.

I was a regular in the twelfth lock, the location is stellar and I genuinely look forward to it reopening, as it indeed will as despite what one poster repeatedly claims, I don't believe anyone here wants to see the site moth balled, it's just unfortunate that the new owner has shown his contempt for planning laws and the observations of the locals.

rockatansky

former total wrote: »

In fairness, bringing up the Main Street development isn't really relevant because there are no planning issues here.

I was using that as an example as to why local people's attention may be more focused on the issue of planning so it has a relevance to my post.

For me personally it's always good to see people asking too many questions rather than too few. I just didn't like the way people on here were cast as being negative and whingers just for showing some concern for what is going on in their local community.

former total

SnakePlissken wrote: »

Not applying for works which undoubtedly require planning nor submitting an updated DAC application including said works is most certainly a planning issue.

I was a regular in the twelfth lock, the location is stellar and I genuinely look forward to it reopening, as it indeed will as despite what one poster repeatedly claims, I don't believe anyone here wants to see the site moth balled, it's just unfortunate that the new owner has shown his contempt for planning laws and the observations of the locals.

"Undoubtedly require planning" according to whom though? If work is nearing completion, the county council obviously don't think so.

Rosser

former total wrote: »

"Undoubtedly require planning" according to whom though? If work is nearing completion, the county council obviously don't think so.

Bottom line is that there are changes and additions, planning was not requested because there's nothing on the Fingal's planning site. Just because it's 'nearing completion' doesn't make it legit.

Now obviously either the council don't know because they weren't asked or they were asked and said it was ok to make those alterations without consent being required.

Perhaps the latter and probably the former either way I suspect we'll know soon enough.

Godge

rockatansky wrote: »

I don't see anyone arguing against it re-opening.

What they are concerned about is that the building is going ahead without proper planning permission. The demolition of the house down in Blanchardstown village and the building of a new structure without permission being in place is known to most on here. There is a concern, and rightly so, that things going back to the bad old days of people just building what they want, deal with the consequences after its up, and then in the end the council just giving in and then getting away with it.

You then have have a poster who then comes on and starts throwing very obvious buzz statements such as ‘very beneficial facility for locals and visitors alike’ ‘the place is buzzing with activity’ ‘I can't wait to see that car park full again’, I believe the place will be well supported by the local community’.

When concerns were raised you were accused of ‘whinging and moaning about the re-opening of this business’, ‘There are people who will always complain about everything.’ ‘these locals would rather harass a very progressive businessman’. It’s the usual political accusation of you’re going against progress!

It reads like it’s lifted straight from a Fianna Fail Ard Fheis speech during the Bertie boom years, if you dare question us you’re clearly just being negative and are against the country.

From what I can see a shack in the form of a garden shed is what is in dispute. Hardly the biggest planning issue in the last week in Dublin 15.

former total

Rosser wrote: »

Bottom line is that there are changes and additions, planning was not requested because there's nothing on the Fingal's planning site. Just because it's 'nearing completion' doesn't make it legit.

Now obviously either the council don't know because they weren't asked or they were asked and said it was ok to make those alterations without consent being required.

Perhaps the latter and probably the former either way I suspect we'll know soon enough.

The most likely explanation is that the changes are such that permission wasn't required.

Of course the council are aware. If work wasn't stopped then the only explanation is that permission is not needed.

Rosser

former total wrote: »

Of course the council are aware. If work wasn't stopped then the only explanation is that permission is not needed.

Why is it 'of course the council are aware'? Equally the other explanation - they're not aware so no action was taken.

I've no axe to grind here, pleased to see it open but my Lord there are some cheerleaders about.

'Greg mightn't do gaudy' but let's see if he does planning.