Castletown estate, Celbridge, Land Transfer & Fencing

There is an article about the proposed fence and transfer of land on the front page of this week's Liffey Champion entitled 'Behind Closed Doors'. It is worth reading, but they didn't make it clear that the land in question is part of Castletown housing estate, the designated green open space of the residents. It is not part of Castletown House demesne.

convert wrote: »

Unfortunately nobody owns the view from their house, and buying property because of the view is something a lot of people base their purchase on, forgetting that they don't own the land they're looking out on, regardless of whether it's held by a county council, OPW or private individual. And to use this as one of the reasons for objecting to the fence going up isn't the best idea.

No, of course they don't 'own' the view unless they own the land within the view. They don't own the pavement in front of their driveway either, but people are not allowed to block it. I have heard it said that one cannot object to planning permission on the grounds that it destroys the view, but I have never seen it written anywhere. The reality is that one can in fact object on these grounds. I have done it twice myself and won the case. I also know of other such cases. The quality of life of the existing residents, and the character and setting of the area are given consideration. There are also such things as protected views in the case of important protected structures.

However, we are talking about a different situation here. The land in question is the designated green open space of a housing estate. People bought their houses in front of it, on the understanding that this was the case, and there would be no development on it. The reason for the local councils taking over the green open spaces is to protect them from further development.

That said, any arrangements that are being discussed probably should be discussed publicly, but unfortunately that doesn't happen very often in this country.

There are one or two honest people who refuse to support this kind of underhand behaviour.

Disgruntled Dan wrote: »

This disgraceful treatment of the residents of Castletown by KCC is unbelieveable. But even worse than this is the fact that the CRA seem to be working hand in hand with the county council in taking away the green open spaces which we believed were part of Castletown estate.

I absolutely agree. They are our green open spaces and the large wooded area, the subject of this thread, is the only significant designated green open space left since the CRA facilitated the privatization of the backlots. It would appear that they have given the impression to KCC that the residents are happy to hand over their only remaining green open space to the OPW. This is indeed disgraceful.

The county council which is funded by taxpayers and the residents association funded by residents subscriptions would appear to have scant regard for the wishes or rights of the people who fund them. It seem neither organisation will be happy until there is no green open space left in Castletown estate.

That is correct. KCC are indeed funded by the taxpayers, and the CRA are funded by the residents, yet both appear to forget this ‘minor detail’ when they make decisions, adversely affecting the residents and taxpayers, behind closed doors.

How can The CRA be in discussion with the OPW with regard to transferring land to the OPW whilst KCC are in receipt of in excess of 2000 submissions relating to rights of way over this land. The CRA claim to have a mandate based on a show of hands from approximately 50 people.

My understanding is that the 2,000 submissions to KCC relate to the rights of way from Castletown Gates along the river Liffey through the Batty Langley Lodge gates. Do these rights of way also relate to the woods?

It is not surprising that less than 50 residents turned up to the AGM, given the disillusionment with the CRA on the part of residents. There are also the residents, property owners in the estate, who are not affiliated to the CRA, whose rights have been ignored.

Since the last EGM we have heard nothing about the disposal of the backlots. Am I to presume we will hear nothing about this until after they have been privatised?

There has been no information from the CRA on the back-lots issue since the EGM. However, it would appear that this situation has not been finalized, as there are some residents who do not want to extend their gardens into the green open space. There is an interesting thread on the back-lots issue, but there are no posts since the 3rd of June 2010. See KCC/Castletown backlots.

Surely the transfer of green open spaces against the wishes of residents and the erosion of individuals rights needs to be addressed. Could this matter be referred to John Gormleys department?

It is hard to tell what John Gormley’s attitude might be on this issue. The OPW have been doing such good PR on their ‘restoration and preservation of the House [Castletown] and its historic demesne’, by which Gormley could easily be misled. They neglected to mention their intended land grab from Castletown Housing Estate, but I doubt if that would bother Mr. G. (See this week’s Liffey Champion page 8.)

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.

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.

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.