The 12th Lock

former total

Rosser wrote: »

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.

Ah come on. This isn't a garage being tacked onto the side of someone's house; it's a pub and hotel in a very prominent location. There's zero chance the council don't know about it. Going by this thread, I'd imagine they've had queries from residents too so they must be aware.

So if you accept that they know about it but work hasn't stopped, then the only logical conclusion is that they're happy no permission was needed.

That's not "cheerleading", it's just basic logic.

Gaspode

OK folks, I'm going to refer you back to the post quoted below. Since none of us have factual information regarding whether or not planning was required/sought, debating the issue in circles is just tiresome and pointless. If anyone does get genuine facts on the planning surrounding this re-development then post it up & lets discuss it.

Zaph wrote: »

Any chance we could move on from the planning permission/retention debate please? At the moment all we have is the same thing going round in circles because it's still all just speculation. Once more is known there's no problem reopening the discussion. Thanks.

xl500

former total wrote: »

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

Well I have desisted from posting re Planning as the mods requested but it seems to be back on agenda so

Just because the work is nearing Completion does not in any way mean that Planning is not required

A planning Inspector Visited this site and following that inspection It was confirmed that the works required Planning Permission

2 Warning Letters were issued but as you see were ignored and works continued Remember at this stage no-one except owner and Builder Knew What was being built

If Someone Ignores the Planning Process it does not mean the County Council think it is ok it just takes Time to deal with it

People Here have stated that the Retention Planning Process is A legal Way to Deal with this

That was never the intention of the Retention Process In this Case The Developer Ignored The Process in Full Knowledge that the Works Required Planning Permission which shows complete contempt for the normal Planning Process

If Anyone Wants to check the Above A Simple Call or Email To Fingal CO CO Planning Enforcement will Confirm

Gaspode

Seriously xl500? The post directly above yours - can you not see it?

xl500

Gaspode wrote: »

Seriously xl500? The post directly above yours - can you not see it?

Well no I Didnt As I was writing my Post at the time and just posted when I finished

But if you look I Desisted From Planning Issues After The First Mods Request

But It seemed to be back Being Discussed again so and You Also Stated If anyone Has Factual Info Re Planning then Post

Everything I said Is Factual And Fingal Co Co will Confirm

xl500

Gaspode wrote: »

OK folks, I'm going to refer you back to the post quoted below. Since none of us have factual information regarding whether or not planning was required/sought, debating the issue in circles is just tiresome and pointless. If anyone does get genuine facts on the planning surrounding this re-development then post it up & lets discuss it.

I emailed Fingal Co Co here is reply


A warning letter was issued to the Manager of the 12th Lock on the 14th June. No response has been received to the letter and we are currently carrying out a reference on the property to establish the ownership of the property.

Regards,
Planning Enforcement
Inspectorate Division



A simple Email To Planning Enforcement will Confirm if this is Factual

Gaspode

xl500 wrote: »

Well no I Didnt As I was writing my Post at the time and just posted when I finished

ok so, given the timing we'll let it go.

ThisRegard

So a letter was sent almost 2 months ago to which they never replied. Don't know who's worse, the clown running the pub, or Fingal for being so tardy in finding out who owns the property.

xl500

ThisRegard wrote: »

So a letter was sent almost 2 months ago to which they never replied. Don't know who's worse, the clown running the pub, or Fingal for being so tardy in finding out who owns the property.

Well to be fair it can be difficult to establish Ownership and
there was a second warning Letter sent but again it was ignored

Point is Clear that Planning Permission is Required and was not complied with

Craigevans1985

They did the best stir fry. Wish I had the recipe from their old chef!

Rosser

former total wrote: »

So if you accept that they know about it but work hasn't stopped, then the only logical conclusion is that they're happy no permission was needed.

That's not "cheerleading", it's just basic logic.

Yep basic logic.

esteril

I walked by the 12th Lock this morning and its beginning to take shape. I cannot wait for it to re-open, not that I like seafood that much, but I expect they will cater for all tastes. The enclosed area seems to be pretty much as was established under the original permission (see photo links) The whiners are out in force again on this site. These are the guys as I said in previous posts who would object to their next door neighbour having a barbecue in their back garden. There is no substantial difference between the original and whats in place now but the moaners and the whiners have to try and concoct some issue or other which would justify an objection when and if a retention application is made.


https://s3-media4.fl.yelpcdn.com/bphoto/FhEyu8vcdAYsV6FZHpNyQA/ls.jpg

http://aff.bstatic.com/images/hotel/840x460/368/36808557.jpg

ThisRegard

Jesus, it's like dealing with one of those online bots with no self awareness at all.

SnakePlissken

esteril wrote: »

if a retention application is made.

If? If?

Have you also taken some before and after shots of the stairway to and from the car park and the council planting which was removed to achieve same? That would be some trick if you have considering same did not exist until these recent unauthorised works but let's just gloss over that.

esteril

If some poster dares take issue with the moaners and the whingers, they will be subjected to a tirade of abuse. This is how the bullies operate all over the Country when they decide they want to take a particular stance against some development or other or some individual who has decided to make an investment which will create jobs, enhance competition etc. Let those of us who see the re-opening of the 12th Lock as a positive rather than a negative not be intimidated on this site. If there is any particular issue that requires permission the Council will identify that and it can then be addressed but that need not delay the re-opening. Mr Browne is investing a lot in this particular project and he is entitled to a reasonable return on it.

January

esteril wrote: »

If some poster dares take issue with the moaners and the whingers, they will be subjected to a tirade of abuse. This is how the bullies operate all over the Country when they decide they want to take a particular stance against some development or other or some individual who has decided to make an investment which will create jobs, enhance competition etc. Let those of us who see the re-opening of the 12th Lock as a positive rather than a negative not be intimidated on this site. If there is any particular issue that requires permission the Council will identify that and it can then be addressed but that need not delay the re-opening. Mr Browne is investing a lot in this particular project and he is entitled to a reasonable return on it.

Nobody is 'entitled' to anything. He'll earn a reasonable return from it if he operates it properly. He is not 'entitled' to it just because he invested money into something.

SnakePlissken

esteril wrote: »

If some poster dares take issue with the moaners and the whingers, they will be subjected to a tirade of abuse. This is how the bullies operate all over the Country when they decide they want to take a particular stance against some development or other or some individual who has decided to make an investment which will create jobs, enhance competition etc. Let those of us who see the re-opening of the 12th Lock as a positive rather than a negative not be intimidated on this site. If there is any particular issue that requires permission the Council will identify that and it can then be addressed but that need not delay the re-opening. Mr Browne is investing a lot in this particular project and he is entitled to a reasonable return on it.

You speak of agendas and intimidation, frankly I believe you're reading a different forum than the rest of us as all I see are some genuine concerns that the new owner holds the planning regulations in contempt...

What other regulations pertaining to the running of a bar/restaurant does this owner hold in equal disdain? Health and safety guidelines? Food storage and preparation practices? But of course I'm just a whinger, sure everyone should be able to build whatever they want, wherever they want, whenever they want.

ongarite

I think this thread is sunken, better lock it up till the place re-opens.

SnakePlissken

esteril wrote: »

If there is any particular issue that requires permission the Council will identify that and it can then be addressed but that need not delay the re-opening.

Without an up to date disability access certificate Mr Browne isn't opening ****.

former total

I like seafood. And ice-cream.

Bargain_Hound

esteril wrote: »

I walked by the 12th Lock this morning and its beginning to take shape. I cannot wait for it to re-open, not that I like seafood that much, but I expect they will cater for all tastes. The enclosed area seems to be pretty much as was established under the original permission (see photo links) The whiners are out in force again on this site. These are the guys as I said in previous posts who would object to their next door neighbour having a barbecue in their back garden. There is no substantial difference between the original and whats in place now but the moaners and the whiners have to try and concoct some issue or other which would justify an objection when and if a retention application is made.


https://s3-media4.fl.yelpcdn.com/bphoto/FhEyu8vcdAYsV6FZHpNyQA/ls.jpg

http://aff.bstatic.com/images/hotel/840x460/368/36808557.jpg

The above is literally like reading a copy & paste from all your other previous posts.

esteril

They is an open source photos which demonstrate clearly that the area of enclosure now is roughly the same as was the case previously. I know this does not really suit the whiners. Neither does any post which is not in agreement with their agenda.

xl500

esteril wrote: »

I walked by the 12th Lock this morning and its beginning to take shape. I cannot wait for it to re-open, not that I like seafood that much, but I expect they will cater for all tastes. The enclosed area seems to be pretty much as was established under the original permission (see photo links) The whiners are out in force again on this site. These are the guys as I said in previous posts who would object to their next door neighbour having a barbecue in their back garden. There is no substantial difference between the original and whats in place now but the moaners and the whiners have to try and concoct some issue or other which would justify an objection when and if a retention application is made.


https://s3-media4.fl.yelpcdn.com/bphoto/FhEyu8vcdAYsV6FZHpNyQA/ls.jpg

http://aff.bstatic.com/images/hotel/840x460/368/36808557.jpg

Thats up to the Planners

AlanG

esteril wrote: »

They is an open source photos which demonstrate clearly that the area of enclosure now is roughly the same as was the case previously. I know this does not really suit the whiners. Neither does any post which is not in agreement with their agenda.

Account resurrected after nearly 5 years to make almost 40 posts on one topic and nothing else. Almost all of which are full of lies about the development and the other posts and posters on here.
It is like someone took an online lesson on how to manipulate search engine results relating to this redevelopment.

Don't you have any interest in anything else in Dublin 15?

xl500

esteril wrote: »

They is an open source photos which demonstrate clearly that the area of enclosure now is roughly the same as was the case previously. I know this does not really suit the whiners. Neither does any post which is not in agreement with their agenda.

I dont see an Ice Cream Shack or whatever Mr Browne Decides to call it in those photos

We have no Idea what it is as there is no planning Permission for it

Rosser

esteril wrote: »

If some poster dares take issue with the moaners and the whingers, they will be subjected to a tirade of abuse. This is how the bullies operate all over the Country

Mr Browne is investing a lot in this particular project and he is entitled to a reasonable return on it.

I take an issue with legitimate concerns posted as being the work of 'moaners', 'whiners' and 'bullies'.

Secondly if 'Mr Browne' invests a lot without appropriate planning then he deserves to held to be compliant.

If he doesn't get a reasonable return then it's his problem and perhaps he should be more prudent. I'm sure any business man would agree that planning regulations are to be respected, if only Mr Browne was represented here which of course he's not

.

SnakePlissken

Rosser wrote: »

if only Mr Browne was represented here which of course he's not

.

But of course he's not. *Wink, wink, nudge, nudge.*

Gaspode

@esteril, if you have a problem with any specific post report it. To be honest I see no evidence of whingers or begrudgers on this thread, pretty much everyone is happy to see this place re-open. The main issue on this thread is your constant sniping and dismissal of anyone who believes all developers should play by the rules.
I don't know whether you are deliberately trolling to invoke a response, whether you are shilling for the new owners or just bluntly refusing to anybody else's point of view.

Take this as a clear warning to desist with the name calling.

esteril

Gaspode

I am not into the idea of "reporting" any poster on this site. Everybody has their point of view and they are entitled to it. If you feel I am not entitled to my point of view you are quite entitled to prevent me from posting here and give a free run to the others. I have taken quite a bit of "flak" from the anti 12th Lock people here and you have decided to ignore it and taken their side in the argument. I am not Greg Browne and actually I do not know Greg Browne, I have never been introduced to him. I have being accused here of being Greg Browne or being an apologist for him. I am not either. But I do believe that people who invest in businesses are entitled to the support of the Community where they make their investment. In Castleknock however its a case of the person who steps up to the plate and makes an investment being pilloried and subjected to abuse by a small number (perhaps less than a dozen) I do not agree with these people and I do not subscribe to this negative attitude. I have witnessed this mentality at first hand, at close quarters in this area some years ago as a near neighbour of the folks who are now launching a campaign against the re-opening of the 12th Lock Hotel and Pub / Restaurant. I know that these are the same individuals who were to the forefront of opposition to the original 12th Lock Hotel. Do not ask me how I know. I just know. You can quite easily prevent me from posting here in the future if you so wish. I would ask you not to do so but I have no control over your decision. The people who are posting on this site are by and large a small group (some are from the same family) and they have learned the technique of supporting one another to make it seem like they represent the majority point of view. I am not sure how close you are to what is going on around here but it is not a happy picture. As regards the planning situation it may or may not have been you who advised us to steer clear of making judgements about what did or did not require permission. Personally I do not know, I expect the professional planners will know. But I do know this, the issues being brought up by the objectors to the development ( and I will call them that) are making a big deal over small things like a concrete stairs from the car park to the pathway leading to the Hotel and some small structures which may or may not be used for the sale of ice cream, an exempted use in my eyes in a bar / restaurant. You may feel differently about all this and believe it needs planning permission in advance of the re-opening. That's great if you do. But I have a different attitude to it. The Retention Planning Permission is in the Planning Act precisely for these trivial matters to be regularised after the premises is re-opened. I know you may live locally and perhaps you know the people who are against this development as they were in 1998 but I would ask you to please be impartial and treat all contributors to this thread with the same degree of respect.

ThisRegard

The people who are posting on this site are by and large a small group (some are from the same family) and they have learned the technique of supporting one another to make it seem like they represent the majority point of view. I am not sure how close you are to what is going on around here but it is not a happy picture.

Like, seriously? You've been asked several times to show someone here who is against it reopening and you've yet to respond. Do you know why? Because it's not here.