Clontarf Baths demolishion/redevelopement

wakka12

OSI wrote: »

I love how it's gone from a periodically heated public pool, to completely unheated and only accessible to those in swimming clubs. The pool almost seems somewhat redundant, colour me cynical.

The baths are just PR publicity campaign .. clearly the developers main interest is the restaurant. It's better than it being derelict I guess

uck51js9zml2yt

Read today that the sea baths is opening to the public next week.

Tusky

OSI wrote: »

I love how it's gone from a periodically heated public pool, to completely unheated and only accessible to those in swimming clubs. The pool almost seems somewhat redundant, colour me cynical.

Was thinking exactly the same. Should DCC not step in? This was pitched as a heated outdoor pool for public use. And now it won't be open to the pubic or be heated. Very disappointing.

Only in Ireland can you get a pint at a swimming pool but not a swim.

uck51js9zml2yt

Tusky wrote: »

Was thinking exactly the same. Should DCC not step in? This was pitched as a heated outdoor pool for public use. And now it won't be open to the pubic or be heated. Very disappointing.

Only in Ireland can you get a pint at a swimming pool but not a swim.

You obviously didn't read my post BV above!
https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.rte.ie/amp/942424/

Tusky

Adriana Putrid Silver wrote: »

You obviously didn't read my post BV above!
https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.rte.ie/amp/942424/

I think this is being misreported. As far as I understand it, the restaurant and bar will be open to all, but the swimming pool will only be open to swimming clubs who book it for private use and provide their own lifeguards and insurance.

From the website: "Our intention is to open the pool for as many people as possible, but it is expensive to run. Therefore, please help us gauge your interest so we can work towards providing this amazing facility to all!

"Initially the pool will open to clubs of all varieties who can provide their own insurance and life guards."

Tusky

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2018/0222/942806-clontarf-baths/

By Samantha Libreri
The renovated seawater baths in Clontarf in Dublin are due to reopen next week after lying derelict for more than two decades.

However, the new owners say the pool will initially only be available to swimming and sports clubs.

They said they will need Dublin City Council to help them with the €400,000 cost of running the baths before they can open it to the general public.

However, the council says it is not in a position to subsidise the running of the baths.

Built in the 1800s, the facility was closed to the public in the mid 1990s.

The current owners, the Cullen family, who own Seafield Hotel in Wexford and the Turks Head pub in Temple Bar, purchased the site 25 years ago.

They secured planning permission to develop the baths in 2012. Over the past 18 months, they have spent almost €2.5m refurbishing the site, which now includes a bar and restaurant.

While the dining area will open its doors next week, the owners say the pool will not open until late April and when it does it will be restricted to adult swimming and sports clubs.

David Cullen of The Baths at Clontarf said bringing a pool of this magnitude to the wider community is "not really feasible" for a private enterprise and that issues, such as insurance and health and safety, make it difficult.

He said the pool will cost €400,000 a year to operate and that they have asked Dublin City Council to help them with that cost so that they can grant access to the wider public, which he said was their "ultimate goal".

But in a statement to RTÉ, Dublin City Council said the Clontarf Baths is a private enterprise and that it is not in a position to subsidise the cost of running the pool.

Mr Cullen said there is a chance the facility will not be opened to the general public if they do not receive financial support for the project, adding that it would be a shame if that happened.

Locals say they are delighted this derelict site has been brought back to life and an eyesore removed from the seafront.

But Deirdre Nichol of the Clontarf Residents’ Association said it is important that the facility is available to the wider public, as the requirements to be a club member and have insurance was not feasible for everyone.

expectationlost

was the planning dependent on paid-public swimming if not why not?

Seth Brundle

expectationlost wrote: »

was the planning dependent on paid-public swimming if not why not?

Why should it have been?

AndrewJRenko

Tusky wrote: »

Was thinking exactly the same. Should DCC not step in? This was pitched as a heated outdoor pool for public use. And now it won't be open to the pubic or be heated. Very disappointing.

Only in Ireland can you get a pint at a swimming pool but not a swim.

Why should DCC step in to subsidise a private facility? THis is a private business. Their insurance is their own problem to solve.

odyssey06

Dunno if it has been posted before, interesting article on the history of the various Dublin baths.

https://villagemagazine.ie/index.php/2017/06/the-ruins-of-summer/

expectationlost

kbannon wrote: »

Why should it have been?

because they got their restaurant and bar because of the baths so they should run its as paid-public swimming pool, thats what the deal should be.

Tusky

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Why should DCC step in to subsidise a private facility? THis is a private business. Their insurance is their own problem to solve.

I meant step in to take the licence off them. This crowd are leasing the site from DCC for €25k per year. They were allowed build the restaurant and bar because of the pool. But now people won't be able to use the pool. It's madness.

tabby aspreme

Gloomtastic! wrote: »

Indeed. Give that place to any experienced restaurateur and they'd probably make a killing. But they've never run a restaurant before. That's why they're opening gradually.

The people behind it have plenty of experience

Seth Brundle

expectationlost wrote: »

because they got their restaurant and bar because of the baths so they should run its as paid-public swimming pool, thats what the deal should be.

But how would the planning laws dictate that paid public swimming be allowed simply because there's a bar and restaurant?
On that basis the GAA club across the road should let the public turn up anytime they want as long as they can slip a few bob!
I don't understand your logic

dubrov

Seems crazy they would invest so much without making sure that there was sufficient funding to run it.

The cynic in me suggests that the pool was never a priority and the main goal was to get planning for a bar and restaurant right beside the sea.

Either way, the council should not be subsidising a private enterprise

L1011

kbannon wrote: »

But how would the planning laws dictate that paid public swimming be allowed simply because there's a bar and restaurant?
On that basis the GAA club across the road should let the public turn up anytime they want as long as they can slip a few bob!
I don't understand your logic

The GAA club don't have a bar licence. Members club.

odyssey06

Does Dublin City Council hold the site lease? The lease should have outlined the conditions of operation, namely seawater baths open to the paying public.

I don't think it could be enforced through the mechanism of planning permission, although I doubt that councillors would have voted for the planning permission for the bar and restaurant renovations had they known the baths would not be open to the paying public.

Perhaps Dublin City Council could 'sponsor' a swimming club based at the Baths ... this would not be subsiding the business directly. Dublin City Council provides such indirect support to other athletic activities e.g. playing pitches. But that's not ideal...

dubrov

odyssey06 wrote: »

Perhaps Dublin City Council could 'sponsor' a swimming club based at the Baths ... this would not be subsiding the business directly. Dublin City Council provides such indirect support to other athletic activities e.g. playing pitches. But that's not ideal...

What is the difference to a direct subsidy? They would still be subsidising a private business against which other private businesses have to compete without subsidies.

odyssey06

dubrov wrote: »

What is the difference to a direct subsidy? They would still be subsidising a private business against which other private businesses have to compete without subsidies.

Are there any other private businesses offering open air seawater baths?
Are discounted playing pitches not a massive subsidy which means no private business could make a profit providing same service?
DCC provides allotments on public lands... thereby competing or inhibiting another business from doing so.

Presumably it is the nature of the activity itself that matters as to whether DCC should have a role in it.

dubrov

odyssey06 wrote:

Are there any other private businesses offering open air seawater baths? Are discounted playing pitches not a massive subsidy which means no private business could make a profit providing same service?

There are plenty of pools though whose business would be in competition.

What playing pitches are subsidised for private businesses?

The council should have agreed all this before planning was granted anyway.

expectationlost

kbannon wrote: »

But how would the planning laws dictate that paid public swimming be allowed simply because there's a bar and restaurant?
On that basis the GAA club across the road should let the public turn up anytime they want as long as they can slip a few bob!
I don't understand your logic

its simple a business person says Im opening a pool + a bar and restaurant. and if they don't do that they havn't complied with planning.

surely now its built that can get more money into it

Seth Brundle

But they are opening a pool, bar and restaurant?!?!?!
The local authority may not have questioned the subject of membership or charging but should that have been a factor in the planning permission?

expectationlost

kbannon wrote: »

But they are opening a pool, bar and restaurant?!?!?!
The local authority may not have questioned the subject of membership or charging but should that have been a factor in the planning permission?

yes it should.

Seth Brundle

expectationlost wrote: »

yes it should.

Why?
The council ahve not given money for the project as I understand it.
therefore, they don't have the ability to dictate on the charging structures.

Are you simoply saying that they should be able to dictate? If so, I presume that this would require a change I the law which is therefore down to the TDs.

expectationlost

kbannon wrote: »

Why?
The council ahve not given money for the project as I understand it.
therefore, they don't have the ability to dictate on the charging structures.

.

isn't that what planning permission is, the council directs what kind of retails outlets are allowed in certain places all the time

in deed one of the conditions says

2. (a) The refurbishment works to the swimming pool area shall be completed prior to the opening of the restaurant/café bar. (b) The restaurant/café shall be operated in conjunction with the swimming pool. (c) In the event of a prolonged closure of the swimming pool (in excess of twelve months), the restaurant/café bar shall cease operation, until the swimming pool has been re-opened, unless otherwise agreed with the planning authority. Reason: To ensure that the restaurant/café bar remains subsidiary to the main use of the site for swimming, in accordance with the recreation and open space zoning of the site.

2975/11 http://www.dublincity.ie/swiftlg/apas/run/WPHAPPDETAIL.DisplayUrl?theApnID=2975/11&theTabNo=2&backURL=%3Ca%20href=wphappcriteria.display?paSearchKey=3656270%3ESearch%20Criteria%3C/a%3E%20%3E%20%3Ca%20href=%27wphappsearchres.displayResultsURL?ResultID=4317863%26StartIndex=1%26SortOrder=APNID:DESC%26DispResultsAs=WPHAPPSEARCHRES%26BackURL=%3Ca%20href=wphappcriteria.display?paSearchKey=3656270%3ESearch%20Criteria%3C/a%3E%27%3ESearch%20Results%3C/a%3E

odyssey06

Thanks @expectationlost

"To ensure that the restaurant/café bar remains subsidiary to the main use of the site for swimming, in accordance with the recreation and open space zoning of the site."


I don't see they can meet the conditions of "main use of the site for swimming" if it is only to a small number of clubs and not the general public... so, could that mean they would eventually be in breach of zoning? Release the lawyers...

Seth Brundle

expectationlost wrote: »

isn't that what planning permission is, the council directs what kind of retails outlets are allowed in certain places all the time

in deed one of the conditions says

2. (a) The refurbishment works to the swimming pool area shall be completed prior to the opening of the restaurant/café bar. (b) The restaurant/café shall be operated in conjunction with the swimming pool. (c) In the event of a prolonged closure of the swimming pool (in excess of twelve months), the restaurant/café bar shall cease operation, until the swimming pool has been re-opened, unless otherwise agreed with the planning authority. Reason: To ensure that the restaurant/café bar remains subsidiary to the main use of the site for swimming, in accordance with the recreation and open space zoning of the site.

2975/11 http://www.dublincity.ie/swiftlg/apas/run/WPHAPPDETAIL.DisplayUrl?theApnID=2975/11&theTabNo=2&backURL=%3Ca%20href=wphappcriteria.display?paSearchKey=3656270%3ESearch%20Criteria%3C/a%3E%20%3E%20%3Ca%20href=%27wphappsearchres.displayResultsURL?ResultID=4317863%26StartIndex=1%26SortOrder=APNID:DESC%26DispResultsAs=WPHAPPSEARCHRES%26BackURL=%3Ca%20href=wphappcriteria.display?paSearchKey=3656270%3ESearch%20Criteria%3C/a%3E%27%3ESearch%20Results%3C/a%3E

They're not breaching that as long as people are swimming there.
Where is the requirement to provide it as a "paid-public swimming pool" to the public as you expect?

expectationlost

kbannon wrote: »

They're not breaching that as long as people are swimming there.
Where is the requirement to provide it as a "paid-public swimming pool" to the public as you expect?

The restaurant/bar element of the proposal is essential to sustain a public
seawater pool facility.

http://www.dublincity.ie/AnitePublicDocs/00472404.pdf

Seth Brundle

That's not a requirement! It was a response provided by Noonan Moran Architecture on behalf of the applicants. It has absolutely no legal standing.

Plus, you're quoting selectively. The sentence right before your quote is:

It is noted that the baths are privately owned that a revenue stream is essential to their ongoing operation, maintenance and repair of the facility.

Also as you are quoting selectively then I'll add these quotes from the various grounds for appeal...

There is no community need for the proposed facility with existing swimming facilities in the area.

and

There is no pressing need for swimming facilities in the area

Can I take it that you agree with these appelants then?

Anyhow, I'll ask it again, where is there a requirement to provide it as a "paid-public swimming pool" to the public as you expect?

expectationlost

kbannon wrote: »

That's not a requirement! It was a response provided by Noonan Moran Architecture on behalf of the applicants. It has absolutely no legal standing.
Anyhow, I'll ask it again, where is there a requirement to provide it as a "paid-public swimming pool" to the public as you expect?

I didn't say there was definitly one https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106226871&postcount=99