Lack of clarity on housing sites review sparks frustration among Wicklow councillors
The Wicklow PeopleTensions have escalated within Wicklow County Council after district councillors in Greystones said they were left feeling blindsided by the chief executive’s decision to advance additional lands to the next stage of the Call for Sites process, despite those sites not being selected by elected members.
The Call for Sites is a standard part of the Irish planning process, used when a local authority is preparing a new Development Plan or considering a variation to an existing one. It involves an open invitation to landowners, developers, and the public to submit land parcels for potential future zoning.
Submissions are then reviewed by councillors at municipal district level, who identify which sites they believe should move forward to Stage 2, where planners carry out a detailed technical assessment. Ultimately, any proposed zoning changes must be approved by the full council.
Greystones councillors believed they were responsible for selecting the sites to progress to Stage 2, only to later discover that the chief executive could independently add further sites for assessment.
A recent email exchange shows the controversy began after councillors met with planning officials in late April to review the submissions made through the council’s online portal. Greystones district members subsequently met among themselves and agreed a list of sites to advance.
On May 5, Cllr Lourda Scott emailed executive planner Jonathan Waugh confirming that members were “in agreement to ask that sites… proceed towards the stage 2 assessment”.
On May 8, Cllr Scott contacted Mr Waugh after a landowner, whose site had not been selected by councillors, received an email from the council stating that site walkovers were beginning. The landowner interpreted this as confirmation that his land was progressing to Stage 2.
“This land was not selected to be put forward to the next stage by the elected members,” Cllr Scott wrote, asking whether additional sites were being assessed without councillor approval.
Mr Waugh responded that the planning department had emailed all applicants, regardless of whether their sites were advancing, to notify them that site visits “may” occur. He added that the council was “not advising applicants whether they are screened out or whether their sites are being brought forward to Stage 2” at this stage.
The situation escalated when, after repeated queries, director of services Helena Dennehy confirmed on May 21, that the chief executive may add further sites to the Stage 2 list—even if councillors had not recommended them.
“There may be additional sites analysed and included in Phase 2 where MD members did not indicate to progress to stage 2, yet the chief executive, using planning criteria, consider would be suitable,” she wrote.
This revelation came nearly two weeks after Cllr Scott first raised the issue. In a message to colleagues later that evening, she described the process as “incredibly non transparent and a poor process,” adding that councillors had not been informed at the workshop that the chief exective could introduce additional sites.
The Call for Sites process itself is multi‑layered. After councillors identify preferred sites, planners undertake Stage 2 assessments, including site walkovers, infrastructure analysis, environmental checks, and policy compliance reviews.
The chief executive can add sites at this point based on planning criteria. A draft variation to the County Development Plan is then prepared followed by public consultation. The final decision rests with elected members, who must vote to approve or reject the variation.
Despite this structure, councillors say the communication around the role of the chief executive was unclear.
At their latest district meeting on May 26, Cllr Scott said there had been “no indication at the workshop that the chief executive would put forward additional sites,” calling it “awkward to hear from constituents and landowners” who believed their sites were progressing.
Cllr Louise Fenelon Gaskin was sharply critical, describing the exercise as “a complete waste of time,” arguing that “plenty of sites [are] already zoned” and that few will be delivered in the next three to five years. Cllr Stephen Stokes also expressed dissatisfaction, saying he was “not happy with the process.”
Councillors Stephen Stokes and Louise Fenlon Gaskin
Ms Dennehy, responding at the meeting, said that no additional sites had yet been identified beyond the 91 put forward by councillors across the county, and that no landowner had been told whether their site was progressing or not.
She added that it had been mentioned at the workshop that additional sites could be identified, though councillors dispute that this was made clear. She confirmed that a full list of sites moving to Phase 2 would be issued to members in June, and that any proposed variation would ultimately require approval from the full council.
The email chain also shows that the chief executive Emer O’Gorman was invited to attend the cabinet committee on housing on May 14, an event that prompted further questions from councillors about when the decision was made to allow Ms O’ Gorman to add sites to the Stage 2 list. Cllr Scott said this question “wasn’t answered” by Ms Dennehy.
As the process moves toward the publication of the draft variation later this year, the episode has highlighted deeper tensions over how planning decisions are communicated and who ultimately shapes the list of lands considered for future housing.
Puma pusa Ess Small No.1 Logo Relaxed
I Asked ChatGPT What Rich People Do Differently. It Gave Me One Word.
The New EX90 Is Finally Affordable (Take A Look)
Harjumaa Citizens: Expose Circular Lobbying
I Asked AI What Rich People Do Differently. The Answer Was One Word.
See The EVs With The Longest Ranges For 2027 (Take A Look)
New SUVs Within Your Budget (Take A Look)