By Ian Croft, Dublin Real

I keep coming back to a simple question: what does it take for ordinary people to be heard when decisions affect their homes and communities?

Over the past few years, I have had first-hand experience with planning, public decision-making and apartment management. Each has shown me how difficult it can be to understand a process, find the right evidence and know what options are open. They have also made me more interested in how communities can move from frustration towards fair, practical solutions.

Planning: timing and participation matter

A recent housing proposal in my area brought residents together to examine plans and raise concerns. I have been helping people understand the stages involved: reading the application, identifying planning issues, making an observation and, where someone has the right to do so, appealing a decision. Each stage has rules and strict time limits. It is a process where early participation and a clear record matter.

I have seen how neighbours can bring different skills to the same effort: local knowledge, technical experience, careful research and the ability to explain why a particular issue matters. Good participation is not simply saying that a proposal is welcome or unwelcome. It means engaging with the plans, evidence and planning considerations.

What a court case taught me

I have also had direct experience of taking a matter involving a public authority to the High Court. That experience taught me how important it is to keep a clear record, stay focused on the issues and understand the steps in a formal process. Court action can be an important safeguard, but it is demanding and should not be the only realistic way for people to resolve disputes or be heard.

The challenge inside an OMC

I am also involved in an ongoing owners’ management company dispute about shared costs and governance. I am keeping the people, property and identifying details private while the matter remains unresolved. Working through it has made me think about how difficult it can be for owners to understand the documents that govern them, get clear answers and find a fair way to resolve disagreements.

In a community, a disagreement can quickly become personal. A good process should help people understand the issue, see the records, hear each other and identify a proportionate next step before positions harden.

An idea for better OMC oversight

Dublin Real is exploring the case for an independent regulator or oversight body for owners’ management companies. Any model should be impartial and practical. It could provide plain-language governance guidance, improve transparency around budgets and shared charges, offer an accessible route to raise concerns, and support early mediation. Where serious non-compliance is evidenced, it should have proportionate powers to investigate and act.

A regulator should not take sides in every disagreement or replace the courts. Its purpose should be to make the rules clearer, improve accountability and help people resolve disputes earlier and at lower cost. I want to develop this proposal through research and by listening to homeowners, directors and professionals who have experience of OMCs.

Turning experience into something useful

I am documenting these experiences because they have raised questions that affect more than one household or one development. I want Dublin Real to be a place where people can examine how systems work, share evidence responsibly and discuss improvements that could help others.

Over time, I hope to build the knowledge and experience to work as a consultant or mediator. I am not presenting myself as a qualified mediator, planning consultant or solicitor. I am learning from what I have encountered and want to keep developing the skills to help people understand a problem, organise the facts and find a constructive way forward.

If you have experience with planning participation or an OMC dispute, you can contact Dublin Real through the Contact page. Please avoid sending confidential documents or naming other people in a public message.

This is a personal account and a developing policy idea, not legal or planning advice. The OMC experience is anonymised because the matter is ongoing.