Wicklow county councillors voted yesterday to partially row back on a decision to ease restrictions on one-off housing, after the councillor behind the proposal said that they had gone too far. The decision had been made less than 24 hours previously.
Councillors worked late into yesterday evening to complete the county development plan. In a series of meetings since July there have been walk-outs, allegations and rows, with some councillors wondering publicly why they had entered politics in the first place.
The councillors formally adopted the plan after 8 p.m. last night having made a series of changes to a list of controversial rezonings at two previous meetings, but voting to retain a serious relaxation of one-off housing rules.
However, the plan may yet be returned to them. The county manager has said the one-off housing rules they introduced were effectively illegal, while planners said their effects would be "catastrophic".
Councillors said they were left with no choice - that planners had adopted a narrow approach on planning permissions for one-off houses for rural dwellers.
During Monday's 13-hour council meeting to finalise the county development plan, councillors voted to make qualifying rural dwellers' right to obtain planning permission for one-off housing "supreme" over all other planning and environmental issues, with the exception of traffic and public health.
However, yesterday Cllr Pat Casey, who made the original proposal, brought a new amendment, saying he had looked again at the proposal after it was voted through.
"I'm just afraid we brought it slightly too far," he told colleagues. Mr Casey's new proposals, which were accepted, introduced a number of conditions, with which new rural houses would have to comply. These included the avoidance of flood plains, and compliance with the line of the surrounding landscape.
Amid some confusion over the exact nature of the clause they had introduced, councillors asked if the "supreme" clause meant that planners could not consider other planning concerns, such as environment in relation to a planning application from a qualifying rural dwellers. Council staff said yes.
Describing the provision as "catastrophic", senior planner Mr Paddy Hooper said he had explained the previous evening to councillors that by introducing the "supreme" rule, councillors were giving it precedence over 25 separate planning policies, many of which were embedded in legislation.
County manager Mr Eddie Sheehy said that while the amendment went "some way" to row back on the provisions, one-off houses could still be built on various environmental and tourist sensitive sites, including wildlife sanctuaries. He said councillors had "ignored mandatory and statutory obligations" by introducing the amendment.
Cllr Deirdre de Burca of the Green Party warned that councillors may have to review the clause if it was found by the Department of the Environment to be in breach of planning law.
The meeting which went on into the night, was again marked by rows and fighting.
Independent councillor Mr Tommy Cullen walked out of the meeting after the council chairman, Mr John Byrne, refused to allow him to introduce a last-minute amendment to the plan, which Mr Cullen said was to prevent the development of the controversial Glen Ding site in Blessington.
The walk-out followed a series of clashes and stand-up rows with staff and fellow councillors during the meeting over various issues. Following one exchange Labour councillor Ms Anne Ferris said that Mr Cullen and a small number of other councillors had made "a laughing stock" of the council.