Chief executive’s planning powers sparked tense exchanges at Wicklow council meeting

By Hugh O'Farrell Walsh, The Wicklow People

Councillors in Greystones have confronted senior officials within Wicklow County Council over what they described as a breakdown in transparency during the recent “call for sites” process.

What began as a procedural suspension of standing orders during the local authority’s June meeting escalated into a broader dispute about trust, communication, and the balance of power between elected representatives and the chief executive in shaping the county’s future development.

The controversy was ignited when Cllr Lourda Scott told the chamber that she and her district colleagues had spent “a long, long time deliberating” on each site submitted through the call for sites.

She said they had met repeatedly, reviewed every location in detail, and agreed a list of sites they believed should progress to Stage II.

“At no point were we informed that additional sites could be elected by the chief executive for Stage II assessment,” she said. “This was brought to my attention through landowners in the area… I felt foolish being contacted by the landowner. I didn’t know what was going on.”

Cllr Scott said she sought clarification on May 19, but only received confirmation “towards the end of May” that the chief executive could indeed put forward sites not recommended by councillors.

She argued that the omission undermined public confidence in planning.

“If the elected members such as ourselves are not fully informed of how decisions are made or what criteria are being applied, it is very difficult for us to explain the process to the communities that we are representing.”

Her frustration was shared by several of her council colleagues.

Cllr Danny Alvey said he returned from two weeks away to find an email indicating the chief executive could add sites, which “caused me quite a bit of anxiety”.

With more than 70 sites submitted in his district, he said councillors had worked intensely to assess them.

“I am very concerned that in parallel to that, other sites are being proposed that might not have been rigorously analysed by the community.”

Cllr Mark Barry said Greystones representatives had engaged in “a long Local Area Plan process” involving extensive consultation with developers, sports clubs, landowners and residents.

“We developed a very deep understanding of what our community needs,” he said. “It was with great disappointment that we found out… that sites we had decided not to bring to phase two were being brought to phase two, and secondly to hear that from third parties before the courtesy was given to us.”

Left to right: Cllr Stephen Stokes, Cllr Louise Fenelon-Gaskin, Cllr Lourda Scott, Cllr Mark Barry.

Cllr Stephen Stokes delivered one of the strongest criticisms, saying he was “shocked and dismayed” by how the process had unfolded.

He described Greystones as an area already under severe pressure, with “secondary schools full,” no recycling centre, and no primary healthcare centre.

He said councillors had entered the call for sites “in good faith” and believed they had put forward a reasonable list. “I just can’t believe how this has unfolded… that we would be basically ignored for our recommendations,” he said.

He then asked directly whether the executive had come under any pressure from any government department or any developers in relation to any of the sites that were put forward not by the councillors.

Cllr Gail Dunne immediately objected.

“To say that some sort of deal has been done is actually disingenuous. I think that’s a terrible statement to be made in front of the executive up there. People here don’t do deals. In fact, I know that for a fact.”

Cllr Stokes pushed back, saying: “I never said there was a deal. I said if they’ve come under any pressure lobbying. Please don’t put words in my mouth.”

Cllr Dunne said Cllr Stokes was “only in the door doesn’t know the process”.

The cathaoirleach intervened to restore order, urging members to allow others to speak.

As the debate continued, the underlying tension became clearer: councillors felt blind-sided because they believed they were the ones deciding which sites would progress.

However under Irish planning law, the chief executive holds significant executive authority.

While councillors alone can zone or rezone land, the chief executive controls the machinery of planning, including the preparation of draft reports, the assessment of sites, the management of planners, and the running of non‑statutory processes like the call for sites.

The chief executive can add sites for assessment, shape the recommendations that councillors eventually vote on, and decide the timing and content of information provided to elected members.

It is a system designed to separate political decision‑making from technical planning work, but it often means the chief executive can strongly influence outcomes long before councillors ever cast a vote.

Cllr Louise Fenelon Gaskin questioned why so much land already zoned for housing remained undeveloped.

“There are so many [sites] and there’s nothing happening with them,” she said. “Why are they not being forced to start their building immediately?… If you’re not going to turn the sod, we’re going to take your zoning away from you.”

Cllr Tom Fortune warned that the process risked “the destruction of our communities”, arguing that high densities combined with large tracts of zoned land could overwhelm local infrastructure.

“What we’re doing is crazy,” he said. “We’re not building homes. We’re building developments where there’s a bunch of apartments you wouldn’t swing a cat in.”

Not all councillors shared the Greystones perspective.

Cllr Paul O’Brien urged calm, saying the process was “unique” and that councillors needed to remain in control to avoid decisions being imposed from national level.

Cllr Peter Stapleton said it was appropriate for the chief executive to bring forward sites excluded locally, because planners must consider the countywide and national context.

Cllr Patsy Glennon, chair of the planning ecommitte, said his understanding was that the possibility of additional sites being included “was made clear to us from the outset” in west Wicklow. He acknowledged, however, that communication needed to be consistent across districts.

Responding at the end of the debate, chief executive Emer O’Gorman strongly emphasised that the call for sites was “a non-statutory process”.

She said that once the chief executive’s report is published, it becomes a draft variation to the County Development Plan and enters the statutory phase, during which councillors then have full decision-making authority.

“As with all variations to the Development Plan,” she said, “the planning authority may decide to make a variation with stated planning reasons.”

Following the meeting, district councillors in Greystones issued a joint statement highlighting their position.

“We support sustainable development and effective forward planning. However, it is important that elected members have a clear and consistent understanding of the processes they are being asked to participate in.

“The discussion at the council meeting demonstrated that communication from the executive was poor, with public representatives from different areas of the county appear to have been given different information.

“This is not about questioning the powers of the chief executive or even the suitability of any particular site. It is about ensuring that communication with elected members is clear, and consistent.

“Public confidence in planning processes depends on transparency, and elected representatives must be able to clearly explain those processes to the communities they represent.”

Councillors will now await the chief executive’s report in September, a document likely to be scrutinised more intensely than any in recent memory.