Clamping

residentr

New Member
Hello,

I am opposed to the manner in which all of the owners/residents have not been involved in any form of inclusive discussion with regard to the proposed introduction of clamping as set out in the Notice recevied last week.

All owners must have the opportunity to air their views on a decision as significant as the introduction of such a scheme.

CR
 

residentr

New Member
Regardless of whether or not the notice was to introduce a trial period it is not correct for a small group of people to unilaterally make a decision which will impact all the owners without consultation or agreement.

This is something everyone is entitled to consider and vote on. To my mind filling the pockets of private clamping companies is not the best way to address the obvious planning issues in the development
 

pippi

New Member
Regardless of whether or not the notice was to introduce a trial period it is not correct for a small group of people to unilaterally make a decision which will impact all the owners without consultation or agreement.
It's not correct for small groups of people to unilaterally decide its alright for them to consistently park on double yellow lines or at the bottom of duplex steps either.

One of the authors of the anti-clamping notice has a car from that household parked at the bottom of the duplex steps on a daily basis, so they have a vested interest in preventing clamping.

Your description of the committee approved at last year's AGM is also interesting. They aren't a "small group of people", they are a committee who Wyse have been working with.

It doesn't seem to me like anyone is saying that there should never be a vote, isn't a vote on this planned for the next AGM?

This is something everyone is entitled to consider and vote on. To my mind filling the pockets of private clamping companies is not the best way to address the obvious planning issues in the development
Talking about poor planning decisions is a bit like crying over spilt milk. Everyone in Olcovar has a right to parking as outlined in their deeds, nothing more, nothing less. I don't think any deed shows a parking space on a roadway or at the bottom of duplex steps. So, clamping isn't going to affect anyone who is parking in their own space.

What Olcovar needs is not just clamping, but clamping and meters on the visitors parking spaces. With clamping for an unfed meter. Then the roadways will be kept clear and if people want to park a second car, they can pay for it. The proceeds from the meters would more than pay for the clamping company's annual fee.
 

dublin18_dermot

New Member
I don't know what notice you were reading, but the notice we received on Wed 12th November was a clear attempt to impose clamping without consulting residents and did NOT mention any vote.

The vote that the contact in Wyse has informed me is provisionally planned to take place on Dec 15th, is as a direct result of the uproar that the clamping notice caused amongst residents opposed to the measure. The notice issued to residents was attempting to bring in clamping in the week beginning on Dec 3rd... and lasting for 12 days! Have I missed something!? Has Bertie Ahern denounced 7 day weeks and set up a new 12 day week to get more productivity from the national workforce?? More importantly... when is Christmas???

Ridiculous I know, but this was only one of the numerous errors dotted throughout the notice which was issued by those "representing" all of the residents. Worrying if they are the ones making decisions on our behalf!

Finally, I would like to object to the accusation against the authors of the anti-clamping notice. They are perfectly entitled, as anyone is, to express their views on the matter in any way they wish. I would call for you to either withdraw your statement that they park at the bottom of the stairs "on a daily basis" or else produce evidence to back up this statement, in which case we would be dealing with a far more worrying situation of someone spying and recording details of a resident's daily movements.
 

DF77

Moderator (Olcovar)
Hello,

I would like to start by stating I AM NOT on the residents committee...

I would state though that the Olcovar Newsletter (Issued before the clamping notice) did clearly state the intention to bring in clamping - It also provided an EM address for people to respond on any issues they had. I believe a grand total of 4 people complained at the point...

The clamping notice went out and the uproar you refer to was a sum total of 10 complaints that led to a vote being called for.

In the future, the residents committee WILL make decisions for all people in the development - That is the way management companies are run - A combination of residents and appointed agent (Currently Wyse) make the decisions. At present, there is a grey area as the development is not yet completed and Tudor have not handed over. If they had handed over, there would be no comeback on decisions made - This is covered in your lease agreement.

I would suggest that people who have grave concerns over the residents committee apply to join so they can voice their opinion. I would also say that the residents committee have a fairly thankless job and have to complete a lot of time consuming mundane tasks which benefit the whole development (Delivering leaflets, pricing jobs around the development, installing cameras, signs etc...)

The reality on parking is that DLRCOCO reduced parking at the planning stage. Every person bought their unit with the clear knowledge of the parking that came with it. There are some units with 3 cars and 1 space - The maths just does not add up... There are some issues particularly with rented units as these tend to have people sharing which leads to them having insufficient spaces...

Dermot - I would suggest that Pipi (And i dont know them at all) was not 'spying' but is likely a neighbour of the people who issued the anti clamping notice. Since the people had included their names, it would be quite feasible someone would know them and their car situation - If Pipi is dealing in facts then your call for her to remove her comment is unwarranted.

I would ask if anyone has previously had any experience of overturning planning decisions? Does anyone see the value in petitioning DLRCOCO for additional parking (Or requesting that they send someone to independently assess the situation in Olcovar). There are places where additional parking could be squeezed in if we were allowed.

Can anyone offer any advice or insight into planning?
DF
 

residentr

New Member
Pippi,

Can I reassert to you my right as an owner to be consulted on significant decisions which will impact the value of my property going forward.

You may very well wish for the introduction of clamping and indeed metered parking, I however do not see that charging my visitors for the pleasure of calling to my home as an attractive option. I do wonder at the wisdom of attempting to solve what is clearly a planning issue by self imposed fines. Regarding the the newsletter in October I did receive one. When I read it I naively thought when it said about the introduction of clamping that when the notice it referred to was passed around that the notice would pertain to a vote and discussion this it transpired was clearly not the case.

I also don't think that if I were viewing a property to buy or let in Olcovar which had clamping and metered parking would make for an attractive buying/letting proposition. I think as residents we all need to look at the bigger picture and the effects of such decisions going forward

DF77

The residents committee are appointed to represent all owners/residents - the clamping notice they issued is not representative of my views - I have never spoken to a member of the committee, I do not know who they are. I had not moved into my home at the time of the last AGM so I was unaware of it. I will be happy to put myself forward for the committee at the next available opportunity.

I agree entirely with you that we need to investigate the planning issue. It might be an idea for us to contact our local councillors who are best placed to ask a question of the county planner. It might be an idea for the residents committee to ask them to attend the next meeting

As one of the authors of the notice objecting to the manner in which the resdients committee informed the owners of their decision to introduce clamping I can assure you that there are more than 10 residents who are unhappy with the manner in which that notice was issued to them.
 

sliabh

New Member
Just to talk about one of the issues people are mentioning - getting permission for additional parking.

I have friends who are planners (2 of them in DLR), and I have talked to the planner in DLR who was responsible for the Olcovar file. Both say that it is the policy as part of the county development plan to restrict the amount of parking provided in new developments.

The Olcovar planner is Johan du Preez. He told me that any additional parking spaces will require planning permission. But because of the policy it is unlikely that they will be approved. And if the number of spaces was reduced as part of the original application then it will almost certainly be refused.

I looked at the planning file myself (you can go into the DLR planning offices in the council building in Dun Laoghaire and ask for it). Some of the earlier drawings (from around 2003) had 20 spaces between the blocks. But these were later removed. It isn't clear whether this was for planning reasons or if it was a Tudor decision.

Either way I know the committee did a walk around and they were only able to identify 6 additional spaces around the development. So unless we do something radical like put parking behind the duplexes (and I don't see that being agreed to) any new spaces (if we could get permission for them) aren't going to solve our problems.

BTW: The 3 or 4 spaces parallel to the road in front of the creche are not "proper" parking spaces either. That is actually the drop off/pick up point for the creche. So if/when the creche is occupied people will have to stop parking there.
 

dublin18_dermot

New Member
olcovar,

I apologise if you misunderstood my message and decided for yourelf that I had my own secret contact in Wyse. The contact I referred to was infact our contact Patsy Riordan and rather than making up stories about "illegal" EGMs, I was merely passing on the information that Patsy herself explained to me. She said that a letter to the residents was drafted to announce a meeting on the 15th however she could not issue it until solicitors had confirmed to her that the wording for the "yes" and "no" resolutions on clamping was legally sound. This is why i said the meeting date of the 15th was PROVISIONAL and I'm sure that an official date will be issued with the letter Wyse are preparing. Ring her youself and do me the courtesy of reading my post properly before going off on a rant.

Furthermore, on the spying issue - I agree totally that this is ridiculous. It was merely my way of highlighting the equally ridiculous nature of Pippi's complaint. God forbid that someone who is forced to park at the bottom of the steps due to the inadequate parking available here should dare oppose the introduction of clamping! How dare they! Off to the Gulag with these dissidents!

To break this down so that you can't possibly again misunderstand what I am saying - A person's personal situation does not mean that they are not entitled to object to a measure they disagree with.


Finally, something for everyone - and all disagreements aside - there were two words that I noticed in one of the earlier posts that we all need to consider over everything else "BIGGER PICTURE"
 

DF77

Moderator (Olcovar)
Some points I would like to pick up on -

Residentr - Have you a breakdown of the complaints across owners vs tennants (As tennants do not get an AGM / EGM vote as far as I am aware). Additionally, is your list by name or address (As 3 people in one unit cannot complain seperately).

Also - You have stated that you were not aware of the who the residents committee are - Did you not receive the 2 newsletters (They are quarterly, so one in Nov & 1 3 months previouslt). This clearly states the residents Assoc EM address - Why did you not contact them if you wished to become involved. Additionally, the details are on this website, which clearly you were aware of as you are using it...

Sliabh - Totally accept your points on planning. I had heard that the council had reduced numbers alright so it was unlikely we could get additional planning. I was just wondering if it might be an option to try and change their minds by asking them to do an onsite inspection and then present them with a petition... I have no real experience with councils so dont know if this would be a pointless exercise or not... What would you think?

DF
 

DF77

Moderator (Olcovar)
Hi,

If this is the grass covered roadway system that I think it is, then I think this is an idea seriously worth looking at. Although to be completely open and fair - I live in an apartment so it would not be fair for me to endorse / push the idea of parking behind duplexes / own doors as it would not impact me.

HOWEVER - If this is the stuff that they used for parking in 'The Bridge' development in Shankill, I would seriously encourage all duplex / own door owners to look at this before they state whether or not they are in favour (As I feel a lot of people's gut reaction would be NO to a road behind them but this works in a different way). In my opinion, this is actually very effective and not at all 'hard' looking like tarmac. The grass stays short but when you look out, it is still very green looking (ie. you are not looking at a road).

Olcovar - Can you confirm this is the stuff they use in The Bridge (If you are not familiar with The Bridge, would you have a pic of this stuff and I could confirm by looking...

Residentr - Could i ask that if you plan to present figures at the meeting that you take my points into consideration (ie a breakdown of how many units have complained (Not individuals), the number of cars those units have, and confirmation that they are owners. As the base figures without these breakdowns are fairly meaningless as they cannot be measured against our only complete total which will be 'units occupied'.

Could I also state that I checked with someone who works in property and their view is that clamping does not impact the value of your property. Clamping was introduced in Charleville in Rathfarnham which is a considerably more expensive development than Olcovar and this did not in any impact value (If you feel this is inaccurate - please provide estate agents comms to back up). Charleville is also a Wyse managed property so they may be able to offer a view on how it worked. From my experience there, it cleaned up the look of the development and worked very well - all impacts appeared positive.

As for planning for additional parking - I suggest we raise this at the meeting and the idea of a petition if we are applying that we try and strengthen our argument and perhaps invite planners out to review the situation first hand - It may help...
We should also take a record of cards vs spaces to demonstrate the lack of available parking (Which may force people to park in common areas in Shankill village)

Just some points for consideration,
DF
 

DF77

Moderator (Olcovar)
Olcovar,

I hope it was clear in my post that i would be in favour of this - I just thought I should declare I am not overlooking these areas as no doubt it is something that would be asked!!!

I think this should definitely be discussed at the meeting as a potential option (I imagine we would have to give some though as to how to access this area with a car - Probably a one way system and the entrance and exit would have to be looked at).

DF
 

norrisr

Moderator (Olcovar)
If we can all deal with parking in front of our units, what is the big deal about having parking at the back of your unit.
.
There is a big difference between car lights shining in your sitting room all night, and car lights shining in your bedroom all night.

I'm in a Duplex so while this wouldn't have a direct affect on me, I am totally opposed to this idea - try imagine what it would be like having car lights shining into your bedroom at all hours of the night...
 

dublin18_dermot

New Member
I think the car lights may not be that big an issue if looked at carefully. A simple 6ft wooden fence system could separate the rear of the ground floor units from the car parking area. It would also give them more privacy and as a compromise towards these residents, perhaps the remaining space inside the fence could be given to them as a private garden/open space. I live in a duplex rather than one of these ground floor units and I would not object to them being given extra space as a good will gesture or whatever you want to call it.

Furthermore, if a one-way system as DF77 suggested, were employed and the layout designed properly, the cars could enter, park diagonally and exit without ever pointing their headlights towards any of the rear windows. I've attached a rough (very rough)drawing of what I think may work.
 
Top