Castletown estate, Celbridge, Land Transfer & Fencing

Castletown

Dan you wrote "that In response to the invitation for submissions on the CDP the county council received a total of 6550 submissions. Of that 6550 a total of 6195 were in relation to Castletown/Donaghcumper. This hardly constitutes nobody, it would seem that local people do read the notices and respond accordingly. "

Theses submissions were mainly signatures that were collected by groups of concerned residents,who ran campaigns. They were not individual submissions from people responding to small notices in newspapers.

I still believe that most people don't read these notices and respond accordingly. But once an issue is brought to their attention by other residents and a mechanism is presented to them to make their views known then people react.

Local authorities have a field day where there are no active community groups or residents associations to act as watchdogs, as most people don't have the time to keep an eye on the small notices issued by the council

Castletown

I am surprised that there is nothing on the CRA website about the EGM on this issue. If CRA found the time to take part in negotiations why can they not find time to update the website on a matter that is of great concern to several residents? I understand that these people are volunteers, but could residents not be informed via the website which is paid for by the residents subscriptions. If the website is not being updated it is a waste of residents money.

Disgruntled Dan

Castletown wrote: »

If the website is not being updated it is a waste of residents money.

Most Residents Associations have a link to their Association Constitutions.
Here is a short list of examples.
http://www.killestervillage.com/page4.html
http://www.sandyfordhall.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=37&Itemid=49
http://marleygrange.tripod.com/id13.html

The list is endless.

I believe CRA should publish their constitution.
There should be more information on their site ie how many members they have.
There should be far more informative links and updates on all relevant matters of concern to the residents.
Are all members furnished with an annual financial report or is this information only given to the few who make it to the AGMs.
Residents money like taxpayers money should not be wasted.

The Raven.

Castletown wrote: »

Consider the following:
KCC had always intended transferring this land to the OPW. This was explained by a county official at a CRA Meeting.

My understanding from KCC Local Area Meetings is that Castletown Housing Estate was taken in charge in December 2006. It would also appear that KCC at this time had been, for a number of years, under pressure from CRA (including those with a vested interest), to deal with the backlots issue. The large wooded green open space, which is not a backlot, was very cunningly thrown into the mix, although public consultation with the residents on this area was denied.

The ‘county official at a CRA Meeting’ was the same person who had been in private discussions with the CRA ‘OPW liaison officer’ on these matters. He was asked by a resident at this meeting if there would be public consultation on this issue, and his response was ‘Well you could take the sledge hammer approach’, but that it would be preferable to continue with the existing method of negotiation. This statement from a KCC official speaks volumes in terms of the lack of respect for Castletown residents.

KCC could have ploughed ahead with this and perhaps given one access point to the residents. As KCC are the owners of the open green space they are only legally required to inform the residents through notification in a local paper and invite submissions. Nobody would have even seen the notice in the local papers. This is how the system operates, which I agree is very wrong.

As Dan pointed out above, KCC are financed by public money. Therefore the green open space would be best described as public property in the care of KCC, although they do persist in using the legal term ‘ownership’.

KCC seem to be intent on ploughing ahead anyway, and ignoring any agreements or assurances given to CRA. This became obvious after their Local Area Meeting, during which voting took place to launch the Part 8 process, excluding the public, the press, and CRA.

However because we had a residents association who took the time to deal with these people who were intent on transferring the land, 5 access points into the open green space have been negotiated. Without CRA this would not have been achieved. KCC would have had a free go at erecting the fence and transferring the land.

Did CRA make any effort to reject the fencing off, and transfer by lease, of the designated green open space of the housing estate? There is documentation that shows the CRA position heavily weighted in favour of the fencing, notwithstanding the fact that they were aware that a sizable percentage of residents were opposed to it.

Of course CRA members who liaised with the OPW, should have circulated regular notices highlighting the importance of what was going on, and should have sought a wider mandate and represented all the various views of the residents who pay their subscriptions, before agreeing in principle to anything. But had they not have been there at all I think that KCC would have only included one access point for residents.

Residents are not legally obliged to pay subscriptions or be affiliated to residents associations. No agreement in principle should have been made on behalf of either affiliated or non-affiliated residents.

The system is very wrong . Individuals should be informed and each resident should have a say on the transfer of open green spaces within Housing Estates. This should not be negotiated with one or two members of the residents association. Local authorities should be required to consult each property owner, who bought a home within the estate.

Kildare County Council should indeed be required to consult with every property owner in Castletown Housing Estate on this issue, but especially the residents of the 72 houses (10% of houses in the estate), that are situated next to the woods, as they are the people who would be most adversely affected.

The current system is wrong. Perhaps CRA should have insisted that KCC contact all residents. It is easy to be wise looking back.

KCC and CRA should have followed correct procedures and contacted all residents before agreeing to any plans in principle for the fencing and leasing of the green open space. It should have been obvious from the start that it was unwise then as it is now to have these negotiations behind closed doors.

The Raven.

Disgruntled Dan wrote: »

KCC would not have had a free go because there are plenty of indivuals and other groups who have a stake in this issue. Some of our councillors are actively working on behalf of these concerned residents.

Fortunately this is true. Times are changing.

The CRA EGM is in 11 days and we still don't know what it is we are expected to vote on. The CRA have been in discussions/negotiations for years , yet we will only be given a short summary and report on the night . Then we will be allowed approximately one hour to discuss all this and make up our minds and vote.We still don't know what we are expected to vote on. This is grossly unfair on the part of the CRA.

The situation is appalling! I see no reason why this information is being withheld. It should be put on their website and on a leaflet circulated to all the houses, well before the EGM, explaining clearly the issue on which residents are being asked to vote.

constitution

Hi,
I am sure that something will be circulated. According to the CRA constitution, under the section dealing with voting it is written that:

"Any member unable to attend a general meeting and wishes to vote may appoint a fully paid up member to act as proxy by giving him or her a signed authorization"

Therefore residents will have to be presented with a motion prior to the meeting, with a provision to vote by proxy. If not, any vote would be invalid. The issue of fencing off our open green space and leasing of same to the OPW is of course very serious. The constitution would have to be adhered to on this issue, as it was with the backlots where a provision to vote by proxy was provided.

The CRA have a proper constitution, put together by the founding members of the Association. In 1977 it was circulated to the houses attached to a newsletter. I am sure that CRA would be happy to provide a copy to any paid up resident.
I never remember the current committee amending it. It had been amended by previous committees at their AGMs.

The Raven.

constitution wrote: »

Hi,
I am sure that something will be circulated. According to the CRA constitution, under the section dealing with voting it is written that:

"Any member unable to attend a general meeting and wishes to vote may appoint a fully paid up member to act as proxy by giving him or her a signed authorization"

Therefore residents will have to be presented with a motion prior to the meeting, with a provision to vote by proxy. If not, any vote would be invalid. The issue of fencing off our open green space and leasing of same to the OPW is of course very serious. The constitution would have to be adhered to on this issue, as it was with the backlots where a provision to vote by proxy was provided.

The CRA have a proper constitution, put together by the founding members of the Association. In 1977 it was circulated to the houses attached to a newsletter. I am sure that CRA would be happy to provide a copy to any paid up resident.
I never remember the current committee amending it. It had been amended by previous committees at their AGMs.

In that case, as no proxy votes were issued, it would appear that any ‘voting’ that took place in relation to the fencing and land transfer at CRA meetings (either AGMs, EGMs or any ‘General Meeting’), is INVALID.

This includes any voting to give a mandate to the CRA to ‘negotiate’ the fencing and land transfer of the designated green open space to an outside body, which is a very serious issue affecting all residents. Therefore, according to the constitution, it would appear that the CRA never had any mandate from the residents to even negotiate on this matter.

On the fence

The Raven. wrote: »

Therefore, according to the constitution , it would appear that the CRA never had any mandate from the residents to even negotiate on this matter.

Where does that leave us now. Are all the negotiations invalid. Can the CRA be trusted to carry this very serious issue forward. Are the CRA even relevant at this point in time. Surely it is imperative on those residents who do not agree with the way this is being driven to make their own submissions in response to the part 8 process.
I just hope its not too late to save whats left of our green open spaces.

The Raven.

On the fence wrote: »

Where does that leave us now. Are all the negotiations invalid. Can the CRA be trusted to carry this very serious issue forward. Are the CRA even relevant at this point in time. Surely it is imperative on those residents who do not agree with the way this is being driven to make their own submissions in response to the part 8 process.
I just hope its not too late to save whats left of our green open spaces.

The Raven. wrote: »

Therefore, according to the constitution, it would appear that the CRA never had any mandate from the residents to even negotiate on this matter.

OTF, I have edited the above statement, as I am not sufficiently aware of the legal implications, but that is the impression I get from the wording of the constitution. Please amend your quote accordingly.

It has always been imperative for residents, who wish to save the designated green open space from fencing and land transfer, to make their own submissions to Kildare County Council when the plans go on public display. These submissions cannot be made before that happens, as a reference number will be given, which must be on each submission for it to be valid.

No, it is not too late to save the green open space, so long as there are enough submissions to KCC against the Part 8 proposal from the residents of Castletown.

constitution

I remember at one of the AGMs on a separate issue, it was pointed out that the constitution had not been followed. The Chairperson explained that he was a volunteer and had no legal background.

If the chairperson has difficulty to ensure a simple matter like following the correct voting procedures, common to most associations or clubs then I think that person should not be involved in serious negotiations on the transfer of our open green space. Maybe at the EGM we can offer our help.

Disgruntled Dan

constitution wrote: »

I remember at one of the AGMs on a separate issue, it was pointed out that the constitution had not been followed. The Chairperson explained that he was a volunteer and had no legal background.

If the chairperson has difficulty to ensure a simple matter like following the correct voting procedures, common to most associations or clubs then I think that person should not be involved in serious negotiations on the transfer of our open green space. Maybe at the EGM we can offer our help.

I didn't think the chairperson was involved in the negotiations.
Given that the chairperson has no legal background, KCC are very aware of the legal position on this issue and the OPW before signing any lease agreeent will have it checked by the Chief State Solictors Office surely the CRA have taken legal advice on their negotiations.
No sane individual or organisation would become involved in negotiatons of this nature without legal advice. The least that the residents would expect is that negotiations on their behalf were legally sound.

Dont look back in anger.

Catherine Murphy and Emmett Stagg among others are saying that the procedure now is to send in submissions.
It would seem that by initiating the part 8 process that KCC and the OPW have given up on negotiating.
I think we deserve an explanation as to why KCC have walked away from the negotiations and chosen the alternative route.
Surely the CRA have to follow procedure and put in a submission.
There is nothing to negotiate or rather no mechanism for negotiating at this stage.
You can argue the validity or lack of validity of the CRA's claim to have a mandate it is irrelevant.
Understandably people in Castletown are inflamed and enraged at the very idea of the county council disposing of land which they perceive as belonging to the estate in which they have chosen to live.
Land issues are inherently complex, contentious and vexatious and as the previous poster pointed out legal advice should have been sought from the outset.
Neither KCC nor the OPW will be found wonting when it comes to the legal niceties of this part 8 process or the leasing agreement.

constitution

I agree completely. When the time comes to make submissions, residents should be informed of all the facts via a leaflet drop. Then they can make up their minds and write their own personal views based on accurate information.

The Raven.

Dont look back in anger. wrote: »

Catherine Murphy and Emmett Stagg among others are saying that the procedure now is to send in submissions.
It would seem that by initiating the part 8 process that KCC and the OPW have given up on negotiating.
I think we deserve an explanation as to why KCC have walked away from the negotiations and chosen the alternative route.
Surely the CRA have to follow procedure and put in a submission.
There is nothing to negotiate or rather no mechanism for negotiating at this stage.
You can argue the validity or lack of validity of the CRA's claim to have a mandate it is irrelevant.Understandably people in Castletown are inflamed and enraged at the very idea of the county council disposing of land which they perceive as belonging to the estate in which they have chosen to live.
Land issues are inherently complex, contentious and vexatious and as the previous poster pointed out legal advice should have been sought from the outset.
Neither KCC nor the OPW will be found wonting when it comes to the legal niceties of this part 8 process or the leasing agreement.

It is not 'irrelevant' that a residents association appears to have misrepresented the wishes of the residents on a very serious issue. This needs to be made known to all other parties involved in order to try and rectify the situation.

The main purpose of having a constitution is to protect the interest of residents, and to prevent this sort of thing happening. If the constitution is being ignored, then the residents association is not fit for purpose.

The fact of the matter is that KCC are planning to fence off and hand over the designated green open space of Castletown Housing Estate to an outside body. What is there to negotiate? This should not be happening in any shape or form. It is an absolute disgrace.

Dont look back in anger.

The Raven. wrote: »

It is not 'irrelevant' that a residents association appears to have misrepresented the wishes of the residents on a very serious issue. This needs to be made known to all other parties involved in order to try and rectify the situation.

The main purpose of having a constitution is to protect the interest of residents, and to prevent this sort of thing happening. If the constitution is being ignored, then the residents association is not fit for purpose.

The fact of the matter is that KCC are planning to fence off and hand over the designated green open space of Castletown Housing Estate to an outside body. What is there to negotiate? This should not be happening in any shape or form. It is an absolute disgrace.

The claim to have a mandate to negotiate is irrelevant in view of the fact that negotiations have ceased. There is nothing to negotiate , Part 8 does not allow for negotiation. The only vote that counts now is the vote of the councillors.
The constitution does not seem to have worked very well in protecting the residents from the CRA. We are now left with the task of convincing our councillors to vote down this planning application.

constitution

The CRA will hold an EGM on Tuesday the 23rd. A notice through the doors from our Councillors stated that the councillors will be present. Views expressed on that night will influence their vote on the proposed fencing. Therefore it is vital that all who are concerned turn up to the Kildrought on Tuesday the 23rd. A notice about this meeting was circulated a few weeks ago, and unless another notice issues shortly most people will not remember the time date etc. Could the time of this meeting be posted here as this thread is getting a lot of hits or could it be posted on the CRA website??

Of course the written submissions later will be very very important. The councillors will vote with what the residents request.

Disgruntled Dan

constitution wrote: »

The CRA will hold an EGM on Tuesday the 23rd. A notice through the doors from our Councillors stated that the councillors will be present. Views expressed on that night will influence their vote on the proposed fencing. Therefore it is vital that all who are concerned turn up to the Kildrought on Tuesday the 23rd. A notice about this meeting was circulated a few weeks ago, and unless another notice issues shortly most people will not remember the time date etc. Could the time of this meeting be posted here as this thread is getting a lot of hits or could it be posted on the CRA website??

Of course the written submissions later will be very very important. The councillors will vote with what the residents request.

If the CRA had serious intent that was genuinely based on the views of all the residents of Castletown (not a handful who manage to make it to the EGM's ) they would be mounting a campaign similar to the very proactive and successful campaign that the CAA ran in relation to Donagcumper.
The lack of attendance at these meetings speaks volumes about the CRA but is misinterpreted by the CRA as a lack of interest by residents .
If they inspired their members and showed some leadership perhaps they would gain a measure of support from residents akin to the support given to the CAA .

The Raven.

constitution wrote: »

The CRA will hold an EGM on Tuesday the 23rd. A notice through the doors from our Councillors stated that the councillors will be present. Views expressed on that night will influence their vote on the proposed fencing. Therefore it is vital that all who are concerned turn up to the Kildrought on Tuesday the 23rd. A notice about this meeting was circulated a few weeks ago, and unless another notice issues shortly most people will not remember the time date etc. Could the time of this meeting be posted here as this thread is getting a lot of hits or could it be posted on the CRA website??

Of course the written submissions later will be very very important. The councillors will vote with what the residents request.

The meeting is scheduled for 8 pm on Tuesday 23rd November, upstairs in the Kildrought.

The Raven.

Disgruntled Dan wrote: »

If the CRA had serious intent that was genuinely based on the views of all the residents of Castletown (not a handful who manage to make it to the EGM's ) they would be mounting a campaign similar to the very proactive and successful campaign that the CAA ran in relation to Donagcumper.

Yes indeed. The two organizations are poles apart.

The lack of attendance at these meetings speaks volumes about the CRA but is misinterpreted by the CRA as a lack of interest by residents .

It is misinterpreted by the CRA, and unfortunately some people outside the CRA also hold the same mistaken view.

If they inspired their members and showed some leadership perhaps they would gain a measure of support from residents akin to the support given to the CAA .

The lack of attendance at the AGMs is often as a result of sheer frustration at their intransigent lack of openness and transparency in relation to serious issues affecting residents. The CRA website, which should be used to communicate with residents, hasn't been updated for about 6 months.

constitution

The fencing off of the open green space is an awful waste of our money by the OPW. It will do nothing to address anti social behaviour, as the mound area will not be fenced off and Croadun will remain open. There is also 24 hour access in Castletown via the main gates.

The fence is routed along residents back gardens. This is completely unnecessary, throwing money down the drain. Imagine one morning you wake up to find an 8 foot high security fence at the bottom of your short back garden, where for over 20 years you could you walk out through your back gate. Your view from your living room is now like a prison. That is the reality some Castletown residents are facing.

It seems to be that the OPW had ring fenced money to spend on a fence , and now without any proper planning they are intent on wasting the money just because it has been allocated to them. This is our money and it is now being proposed to spend it on turning homes into prison.

I have confidence that our Councillors who have the deciding vote on this matter will see that common sense prevails.

The Raven.

constitution wrote: »

The fencing off of the open green space is an awful waste of our money by the OPW. It will do nothing to address anti social behaviour, as the mound area will not be fenced off and Croadun will remain open. There is also 24 hour access in Castletown via the main gates.

The fence is routed along residents back gardens. This is completely unnecessary, throwing money down the drain. Imagine one morning you wake up to find an 8 foot high security fence at the bottom of your short back garden, where for over 20 years you could you walk out through your back gate. Your view from your living room is now like a prison. That is the reality some Castletown residents are facing.

It seems to be that the OPW had ring fenced money to spend on a fence , and now without any proper planning they are intent on wasting the money just because it has been allocated to them. This is our money and it is now being proposed to spend it on turning homes into prison.

I have confidence that our Councillors who have the deciding vote on this matter will see that common sense prevails.

The proposed fence would also be routed directly in front of houses, transforming this area from a beautiful, natural landscape into an unsightly, fenced off, blighted vicinity of the estate.

The fence would not only create a serious negative impact on the quality of life of residents who live in this neighbourhood, and the many residents who pass through on their daily walks, but it would also devalue the properties of well over 10% of the estate.

This is a gross insult to all Castletown residents.

The Raven.

To anyone who wasn't at the Castletown Residents Association EGM tonight, the CRA members voted overwhelmingly AGAINST the fence. The meeting was exceptionally well attended.

However, it is not over yet. There is still the matter of the submissions to Kildare County Council, and this is the most important part of the process. It is vital that all those residents, who do not want the fence, do not forget to make submissions.

Residents at the EGM were informed by the councillors present that these submissions will not be confined solely to the quality or line of the fence, but could include all aspects i.e. we do not want this fence in any shape or form.

We will continue to keep you informed, and let you know when the plans are on public display, as they will provide a reference number which must be included on every submission.

Disgruntled Dan

The Raven. wrote: »

To anyone who wasn't at the Castletown Residents Association EGM tonight, the CRA members voted overwhelmingly AGAINST the fence. The meeting was exceptionally well attended.

However, it is not over yet. There is still the matter of the submissions to Kildare County Council, and this is the most important part of the process. It is vital that all those residents, who do not want the fence, do not forget to make submissions.

Residents at the EGM were informed by the councillors present that these submissions will not be confined solely to the quality or line of the fence, but could include all aspects i.e. we do not want this fence in any shape or form.

We will continue to keep you informed, and let you know when the plans are on public display, as they will provide a reference number which must be included on every submission.

The Raven. wrote: »

The CRA website, which should be used to communicate with residents, hasn't been updated for about 6 months.

Thankfully it was not just the CRA members who voted.
Thankfully the councillors were already aware that many people , members and non members of the CRA , were not in favour of this fence.
Hopefully we will receive an update sooner than six months.
Catherine Murphy had details of the Council meeting on her website within two days of it taking place.
This is 2010 surely you can manage to update the residents as promptly as Catherine Murphy.

The Raven.

Disgruntled Dan wrote: »

Thankfully it was not just the CRA members who voted.
Thankfully the councillors were already aware that many people , members and non members of the CRA , were not in favour of this fence.
Hopefully we will receive an update sooner than six months.
Catherine Murphy had details of the Council meeting on her website within two days of it taking place.
This is 2010 surely you can manage to update the residents as promptly as Catherine Murphy.

Actually, it was only CRA members who voted. It was decided on this occasion to adhere to the rules of the constitution, as some members requested it. It worked out better this way, because it showed that even among paid up members, the vote against the fence was almost unanimous.

Yes indeed the councillors are now aware that the vast majority of Castletown residents do not want the fence. This is evident both from the CRA votes, and the majority of residents who signed petitions rejecting the fence.

The website has been discussed and it is expected that updates will be forthcoming in the not too distant future.

Given the success of last night's meeting, and the huge attendance of concerned residents, it is now timely to move on and put differences behind us, and work together as united residents to safeguard the future of our estate.

Disgruntled Dan

The Raven. wrote: »

Actually, it was only CRA members who voted. It was decided on this occasion to adhere to the rules of the constitution, as some members requested it.

The Raven. wrote: »

Originally Posted by constitution
Hi,
I am sure that something will be circulated. According to the CRA constitution, under the section dealing with voting it is written that:

"Any member unable to attend a general meeting and wishes to vote may appoint a fully paid up member to act as proxy by giving him or her a signed authorization.

In that case, as no proxy votes were issued, it would appear that any ‘voting’ that took place in relation to the fencing and land transfer at CRA meetings (either AGMs, EGMs or any ‘General Meeting’), is INVALID.

Invalid on previous occassions but ok now to ignore the rules??????????????
Something is either right or wrong ,acceptable or unacceptable , wrong behahviour cannot be rejected when it suits and then subsequently embraced when it suits.

On the fence

All is ok then . Move along please nothing to see here then.
Its business as usual.

The Raven.

On the fence wrote: »

All is ok then . Move along please nothing to see here then.
Its business as usual.

No it's not business as usual. Things have changed considerably, as you well know ;)!!

The Raven.

Disgruntled Dan wrote: »

Invalid on previous occassions but ok now to ignore the rules??????????????
Something is either right or wrong ,acceptable or unacceptable , wrong behahviour cannot be rejected when it suits and then subsequently embraced when it suits.

Dan, your quotes are all mixed up. It's hard for anyone to know who said what.

I never said that it was 'ok now to ignore the rules'. The rules weren't ignored last night and, if I understand correctly, the situation regarding the previous 'mandate' was consequently resolved.

Were you at the meeting last night? If you were, what is your understanding of it, and how do you suggest we move forward?

Disgruntled Dan

Yes, like me, my quotes are mixed up. Alcohol tends to make my thinking fuzzy. Apologies if I have caused you some confusion.

From what I remember a man near the front made a point about the constitution. I thought the articles of the constitution were rules or similar to rules. I stand open to correction on that.

I am not so sure that I do understand last night’s meeting. It is not that important to me now.

The way forward as you pointed out is what counts here. Catherine Murphys suggestion, submissions, would seem to be it for now.
Making a submission is the easy part. The more difficult challenge is ensuring that the absent councillors take my views on board when the time comes for them to vote. It is also important to keep the councillors who are listening on the right side of the fence.

constitution

It was very clear at the meeting that the Castletown residents don't want the fence. They responded to the recent information circulated and came out in their hundreds to vote. It is a pity that they had not been informed 3 years ago as no doubt their response would have been the same.



Councillor Paul Kelly stated that he and all the councillors had received an e- mail from the CRA Liaison officer expressing no concerns regarding the principle of the proposed fence. The councillors took this e-mail as representing the wishes of the Castletown residents. However it was clear from the meeting that this indeed was not the view held by the residents as they in their hundreds let the councillors know they didn't want a fence. Most residents had only recently become aware of the situation.

The OPW , KCC and the councillors must be scratching their heads in wonder at the actions of the CRA liaison officer who wasted every bodies time for the last 3 years, claiming to be the voice of the residents.


Thankfully others have come on board to deal with this issue. Hopefully these people will now keep the residents well informed and represent their views. I look forward to regular news letters and the web site being updated.