Pubs reopening June 29th

[Yermon]

Council/Guards (licensing reasons in court) seem to be clamping down on 'temporary' outdoor areas.
Reardens and Dywers also losing their areas.

To be perfectly honest I don't see why the likes of Barbarossa, Reardens, Dywers are losing these areas - public roadways and footpaths were unaffected.
Granted there is pubs in the city that do have outdoor areas that affect the public footpath.
As above with Barbarossa - a pedestrianised street largely (minus deliveries in morning) so car spaces/loading bay not needed (they only used half the space)
Rearden and Dywers shared that side street which was closed to traffic years ago as the street used to be a bottle neck due to illegal parking on footpaths and across fire exits of both venues. There's still a public throughfare between both venues.

This article is from 2024 so shows there must have been some sort of extension Dywers spoke in favour of their competition.
https://www.echolive.ie/corknews/arid-41338964.html

Dywers article is here and they were up for appeal in March but doesn't seem to be much more info available.

Cork pub Dwyers appeals to retain outdoor seating area

Cork City Council refused permission for Dwyers of Cork’s €100,000 outdoor area, citing its negative visual impact

www.irishexaminer.com

Don’t think that street between Reardens and Dwyers was closed prior to their outside seating tbh. Ditto the one by Costigans.

Passed by Barbarossa yesterday and the outdoor seating is back in place

 

[Yermon]

The council can't be providing or permitting pedestrian crossing facilities for individual businesses.

Individual businesses can’t just erect their own pedestrian crossings. It’s a busy road with a lot of tax-payers (not just pub patrons) trying to cross - the council should provide a safe crossing imho. Shouldn’t cost much for a zebra crossing

 

[ThatFella]

I had an issue up at Sin e ,I had a shark cage (not joking ) out the side to keep my lads safe during rhe bad old days .
Tried planning and all but no joy ,ultimately I was less than 70cm out from the ground I own but no way was it being entertained .

Outdoor seating needs to be removable within a few minutes to facilitate transit of emergency services ,that’s a fair thing ,hence no fixed structures,
I however struggle to see what’s wrong with the lads at n Washington st but there is a consistency in approach by ccc and indeed dcc as the temporary Covid permissions run out ,
The fear is a kind of mission creep regarding fixed structures,I can see. That but what harm are those lads doing ,

70 cm out from the ground you own. Wow. I’m actually speechless especially the purpose of keeping your staff safe.
It’s as if logic isn’t considered at all.

I get the outdoor seating quick removal for emergency reasons but as you say I too struggle to see the issue with Washington Street from a commons sense point of view.
Unless the council plan on reopening that side street as a rat run.

And obviously not to start a war or damage businesses but across this thread and other threads the outdoor area on Princes Street for numerous business’s is constantly being talked about for accessibility issues. Busy Saturdays etc and people can’t walk past, those in wheelchairs or walking frames can’t use the street. There’s no way an of that furniture or umbrellas can be removed so no access for emergency services transits.

It’s genuinely the case of the council picking and choosing what suits them and what looks good for PR and what they can benefit from it in my opinion.
They benefit from multiple businesses on Princes street so that’s ok.
But Washington street no benefit, the Anglers where they would have to implement traffic calming measures is no benefit so refuse their glasshouse. We’re wasting millions on stupid bike lanes and pedestrian enhanced schemes that the public/businesses rarely if ever use however when the public chose to frequent a business and they benefit from temporary structures that’s an issue.

 

[Cormac]

Individual businesses can’t just erect their own pedestrian crossings. It’s a busy road with a lot of tax-payers (not just pub patrons) trying to cross - the council should provide a safe crossing imho. Shouldn’t cost much for a zebra crossing

Totally agree, it's a black and white issue.

 

[ThatFella]

Don’t think that street between Reardens and Dwyers was closed prior to their outside seating tbh. Ditto the one by Costigans.

Passed by Barbarossa yesterday and the outdoor seating is back in place

I believe it was (well I remember during summer of Euro 2016) Reardens used the whole street as Dywers did not exist so they had astro down. Granted as I said summer only but post summer I believe the road remained closed after than summer. I could be completely wrong at the same time.
Then once Dywers opened the council each then shared space between both businesses with a thoroughfare through middle for pedestrians. (Again I could be wrong)

Both had this areas pre covid however once Covid came along they invested in temporary structures.
Again key word being temporary and I understand that but as I said previous removing these temporary structures/not granting retention permission will have a knock on effect on business.
People will argue that they’re pubs and they get loads of support etc and that they knew when they originally applied it was temporary but having been in both on busy nights (summer match days, post Marquee/Musgrave Park/PUC Concerts, Jazz, Christmas etc) these are much needed spaces.

 

[JimmyBarrySmurph]

Individual businesses can’t just erect their own pedestrian crossings. It’s a busy road with a lot of tax-payers (not just pub patrons) trying to cross - the council should provide a safe crossing imho. Shouldn’t cost much for a zebra crossing

I might be wrong, but from reading the paper it seems like the Anglers were obliged under the grant of planning for the main building that they carry out a number of safety works to the public realm, including footpaths, road re-surfacing and a pedestrian crossing.
The pubs is trading years now and that work wasn’t done.
Clearly based on the papers info, it would seem that the safety of their punters or public safety wasn’t a priority, nor planning compliance. It’s bizarre to me in the above circumstances that the owner would make an application for further works at the site.

FYI, It’s the norm that a developer would carry out some works to the public area to
support their own development.
Pre Irish Water a developer of a pub, restaurant, hotel or residential might have to go a long distance down the road to get sewer and water and extend the public system up to their entrance.

 

[Clubber_Langer]

I might be wrong, but from reading the paper it seems like the Anglers were obliged under the grant of planning for the main building that they carry out a number of safety works to the public realm, including footpaths, road re-surfacing and a pedestrian crossing.
The pubs is trading years now and that work wasn’t done.
Clearly based on the papers info, it would seem that the safety of their punters or public safety wasn’t a priority, nor planning compliance. It’s bizarre to me in the above circumstances that the owner would make an application for further works at the site.

FYI, It’s the norm that a developer would carry out some works to the public area to
support their own development.
Pre Irish Water a developer of a pub, restaurant, hotel or residential might have to go a long distance down the road to get sewer and water and extend the public system up to their entrance.

That car park across the road has always been there as long as the pub. how is it the pubs responsibility if the roads gradually gotten busier. making them tear down an expensive outdoors area seems excessive

 

[JimmyBarrySmurph]

That car park across the road has always been there as long as the pub. how is it the pubs responsibility if the roads gradually gotten busier. making them tear down an expensive outdoors area seems excessive

Again, I’m not familiar with the sites planning or licensing history but on the face of it you are making an argument against planning and the place having a license at all, if by its very nature it’s creating a safety hazard.
The arrangement of having a car park across the other side of a busy public road is unusual to me, so I’m not surprised that the planning authority sought some very basic safety measures, which according to the paper were totally ignored by the bar for years.
It’s not the taxpayers job to put in basic access and egress facilities to ensure the basic safety of the patrons to a pub.

 

[Yermon]

Again, I’m not familiar with the sites planning or licensing history but on the face of it you are making an argument against planning and the place having a license at all, if by its very nature it’s creating a safety hazard.
The arrangement of having a car park across the other side of a busy public road is unusual to me, so I’m not surprised that the planning authority sought some very basic safety measures, which according to the paper were totally ignored by the bar for years.
It’s not the taxpayers job to put in basic access and egress facilities to ensure the basic safety of the patrons to a pub.

Country pub on sleepy back-road has car park across the road.
Time moves on and the Country pub increases its footfall by offering food, and because people are driven further and further out of town necessitating more and more commuters, said sleepy back-road becomes busier.

Solution - close the pub???????????? Seriously like?

 

[mepper]

Hire a lollypop person