New Arklow area plan approved after councillors reject chief executive’s recommendations
The Wicklow PeopleWicklow County Council has adopted the Arklow Local Planning Framework, following a long and often heated discussion, in which councillors repeatedly rejected the chief executive’s recommendations and asserted their own vision for the town’s future.
The decision, taken at the July meeting of the full council, capped months of consultation, submissions and revisions to variation no. 6 of the County Development Plan, and marked a decisive moment in shaping Arklow’s development for the coming decade.
The meeting began with procedural friction as councillors sought clarity on how the 29 proposed material amendments would be taken.
Cllr Joe Behan raised a point of order, insisting that “it is a long-established practice now that amendments are taken, first elected members’ amendments right throughout the document and then the chief executive’s recommendations”.
Officials responded that no new members’ amendments had been submitted, and the published list already combined both sets. Members were also reminded of their obligations under ethics legislation, with the council’s ethics registrar noting that anyone with a beneficial interest in a matter must withdraw until the item is concluded.
Once the procedural issues were settled, councillors began working through the amendments one by one. Early items passed without controversy, including adjustments to opportunity sites on Main Street and the inclusion of a minimum 600 square metre community and cultural space within the OP2 town centre development.
Cllr Peir Leonard said the space was “essential to the successful regeneration of Arklow”, adding that the town “has no permanent theatre, dedicated arts venue or flexible community hub”.
Main Street, Arklow. Photo: Leigh Anderson
She described the OP2 site as “a once in a generation opportunity to create a focal point” linking the future flood relief scheme, the parade ground and the proposed Arklow–Shillelagh greenway.
The first major confrontation came with proposed material amendment no. 5, which sought to rezone land at Ballynattin for employment use. The chief executive recommended not proceeding, citing objections from Transport Infrastructure Ireland (TII) and the National Transport Authority (NTA).
Arklow councillors strongly disagreed. Cllr Warren O’Toole said the site “represents a logical extension of Arklow’s established employment land rather than the creation of a new standalone employment location”, noting that existing zoning had “remained undeveloped for a considerable period of time”. He argued that rezoning would “support local jobs creation and strengthen the economy”.
Cllr Sylvester Bourke criticised TII’s position as “quite spurious”, pointing out that “we have an existing very successful business across the road from it” with hundreds already employed.
He said councillors were trying to “reduce commute times for people”, and that additional employment land would be “a great benefit for Arklow”. He added that “there is a tenant ready to go in on part of the site”, and that the area would “generate a lot of employment over the next five years”.
Cllr Leonard argued that Arklow had “no readily available employment lands capable of meeting development”, warning that without new industrial sites the town risked becoming “simply a commuter town”.
She said the Ballynattin lands were “strategically located between Dublin and Rosslare Europort” and aligned with regional economic strategy. She added that “every quality job that’s created locally is potentially one less person commuting daily to Dublin or beyond”, describing the rezoning as both an economic and environmental opportunity.
Cllr Behan said it was “quite incredible” that the chief executive had initially supported the amendment, but changed position after TII and the NTA “ride into town”, adding that “the chief executive should have stood her ground and should have supported the arguments that were made by the councillors”.
He said the Arklow elected members had made “a very, very strong argument” and that he would support them. Members ultimately voted to proceed with the Ballynattin amendment, overturning the chief executive’s recommendation. The linked amendment no. 23 was also approved.
Another significant debate centred on amendment 10b, which proposed a long-term green corridor connecting housing, schools, employment lands, woodlands and the future Arklow–Shillelagh greenway. The chief executive advised against it, citing delivery challenges across multiple landowners.
Cllr O’Toole said the corridor was “far more than a walk”, describing it as “a premium green infrastructure route” that would strengthen biodiversity, support climate resilience and encourage active travel.
He argued that “development plans are intended to set out a long term vision”, and that the corridor could be delivered in phases. He said removing it now would “remove the opportunity to deliver it”, while retaining it would “keep the opportunity open for the future”. Councillors voted to retain the proposal.
The most contentious exchanges came with amendment 21a, which sought to increase active open space at Kilbride by 20pc. The chief executive warned that the change would require hedgerow removal, had no submission basis and posed biodiversity risks.
Cllr O’Toole said Kilbride would be “Arklow’s largest residential area” and that future proofing was essential.
He said the amendment “delivers on many of the objectives promoted by Wicklow County Council and National Planning Policy,” including biodiversity, active travel and healthy communities.
Cllr Leonard said developers’ concerns about cost “cannot outweigh the need for proper community infrastructure”. She said the amendment was “forward planning and a long-term vision for undeveloped land”, adding that “it is not about taking land off anybody”.
“It is about planning for the future,” she said.
Cllr Bourke opposed the amendment, arguing it set a precedent and could increase local house prices.
He said developers had offered 40 acres of marshland elsewhere, though other councillors dismissed this as irrelevant. After a roll‑call vote, the amendment passed by 19 votes to eight, with one abstention. Related amendments 21b, 21c and 21d also passed.
A further dispute arose over amendments 22a and 22b, relating to lands at Ballyraine. The chief executive again recommended not proceeding, citing wetlands, watercourses, ponds and mature trees.
Cllr Leonard said the lands were “serviced, walkable and sustainable”, and that biodiversity could be protected through buffers and management.
Cllr O’Toole said the woodland was “natural regeneration” rather than a designated habitat. Members voted to approve both amendments.
Other amendments, including tourism objectives, flood risk updates, heritage protections and zoning adjustments at Kynock Lodge and Avoca River Park, were approved with minimal debate. Cllr Bourke declared a conflict of interest and withdrew for amendment 26.
After all 29 amendments were decided, councillors voted on the full Arklow Local Planning Framework. The variation was adopted with 26 members in favour and six not present. No opposition was recorded.
Cllr Bourke was among those who did not take part in the final vote. He had earlier withdrawn from the meeting under ethics rules because one of the amendments related directly to his own property interests.
Cllr Leonard said the plan “marks a real turning point in Arklow’s story”, providing “a roadmap to regenerate our town whilst celebrating and protecting cultural, historical and natural assets””
She said it balanced biodiversity, housing, infrastructure and employment, and that she looked forward to “building an even stronger, more vibrant Arklow for future generations.”
Cllr Behan praised the Arklow elected members for their “excellent” advocacy, saying they had made “a very strong argument” throughout the meeting.
The adoption of variation no. 6 signals a clear shift in the council chamber, with elected members asserting local priorities over national agency objections on several key issues.
As Cllr Leonard put it during the debate: “If we are serious about planning, we cannot continue to plan for housing without planning for jobs.”