Following 17 rezonings against the planners' recommendations Liam Reid reports on deep divisions in the county
It was to have been a routine, if lengthy meeting that Monday morning in July. In the dog days of summer, when most people had their eyes on the weather forecast, the two dozen members of Wicklow County Council gathered at 10 a.m. on July 12th to vote on amendments to the county development plan.
By the time the meeting finished - 18 hours later - the councillors had made a series of planning and rezoning decisions that have since evolved into arguably one of the biggest planning controversies in recent years in Ireland.
In the wake of the marathon meeting there have been threats of legal action, official complaints of a conflict of interest, calls for various inquiries and blazing rows among councillors and politicians over the decisions that were made.
Most of the controversy has centred on the 17 rezonings the councillors made, and the manner in which some of them came before the council at the meeting.
In the wake of the planning scandals that have been uncovered in relation to Dublin, it is now a fact of political life that planning is one of the most sensitive areas, and one where controversy should be avoided at all cost.
Privately, experienced politicians outside Co Wicklow have expressed amazement at what has transpired there. Dick Roche, the Minister of State for European Affairs and Wicklow TD, has been one of the staunchest critics of the manner in which the Wicklow rezonings were made. "What happened was absolutely chaotic," he says. "It has vastly, vastly increased cynicism about the planning process, although I do think the decisions were made in good faith by the councillors." The rezonings, all made against the advice of the planners, included 172 acres for commercial development, including a film studio and retail warehousing, near Ashford, one of the largest commercial rezoning decisions to have been taken in Ireland in recent years.
ALSO REZONED WERE a quarry and a timber shed factory that are the subject of enforcement proceedings because they have no planning permission. Another site was rezoned for a garden and exhibition centre, adjacent to a proposed dual carriageway. Part of the centre is also the subject of a compulsory purchase order.
The councillors also approved a holiday home and hotel development beside a small country road on poor land in a relatively remote area with no services. Commercial zoning for a nursing home was given for a site on another small country road beside a bird sanctuary.
The controversy is set to continue on Monday, when the minutes of the controversial July decisions will be available for the first time. The councillors will also hear legal advice on whether the meeting was in breach of planning legislation because decisions on the night of the meeting exceeded the designated deadline.
The July 12th meeting, the second of the new council, elected the previous month, was devoted to amendments to the draft county development plan. The amendment stage is one of the most important for elected officials because it is where they have the greatest input, having the ability to propose their own amendments, including rezoning and any final additions to the plan. The previous council commenced work on the plan in February 2003, but had been unable to complete it. Under the legislation, amendments to the draft plan have to be made within a certain date of its publication, which meant Wicklow councillors had to make amendments by July 12th.
A decision was then taken by councillors to hold a special meeting on that date, despite concerns by some councillors, notably Deirdre de Burca of the Green Party, that there would not be enough time to get through the submissions.
She was right. By the evening of July 12th, it became clear that councillors were facing an almost impossible task, with more than 150 submissions to consider. By 10 p.m. a decision was taken to complete the meeting, even if it went into the early hours of the morning.
It was also decided that there would be no debate on proposals, including rezonings, and that councillors would simply vote on them. By the time the meeting finished, shortly after 3 a.m., a majority of councillors had voted for 17 rezonings against the advice of the professional planners. They also voted for significant relaxations of planning rules to make it much easier for people to get planning permission for one-off houses, again against the advice of planners.
The chaos is evidenced by some of the documents on which the rezonings were based. One rezoning motion, for the Abwood Homes timber factory near Newcastle, was listed as being signed by three councillors who were no longer members of the council at the time of the meeting, and a fourth who wasn't even at the meeting.
In another rezoning proposal, there was no map showing the exact location of a 12-acre field near Newcastle for a nursing home.
To be fair, it was members of the council who first raised concerns about the decisions made at the meeting. They included John Ryan, a Fine Gael councillor from Bray, who issued a statement saying he had abstained from almost all the votes because of his concerns about the way in which the meeting was taking place.
LAST MONDAY WAS the first time Wicklow county councillors met since July 12th, and it was dominated by the aftermath of the decisions made at that meeting. While all accepted that the length of the meeting could have legal implications for running past the final planning draft deadline, many councillors stood over the rezoning decisions and everything that had taken place.
George Jones, a veteran councillor and Fine Gael's leader on the council, said there had been nothing unusual about what happened in July. The rezonings were not final. They were now on public display and the public could comment on them.
The county manager will have his report to make on the amendments, and only following that will the council make a final decision on the amendments.
During a heated debate that lasted almost two hours last Monday, insults and allegations flew across the council chamber, as councillors blamed each other, the professional planners, the media and the Government over the controversy.
Deirdre de Burca raised the issue of the links between the Labour Party and the planning consultant behind many of the successful rezonings, Pat O'Connor. A Labour activist from Ashford, O'Connor made 40 submissions on behalf of various clients for rezoning as part of the development plan. Of the 17 successful applications, five were made by his clients.
O'Connor has said his role in the planning submissions was a purely professional one, and had nothing to do with his own politics. Speaking to the Wicklow People last week, the planning consultant said he had sought support from councillors from various parties for the rezonings on behalf of his clients. He said: "I find out their [his clients\] political leanings and solicit help from all councillors but in particular, if they have a party affiliation, I will approach a councillor from that party." Reacting to the controversy he said: "Everybody loves a blood sport. This is not damaging to me."
Nicky Kelly, the Arklow Labour councillor who supported most of the rezonings, even went as far as accusing de Burca of being a liar and "a scumbag", a remark for which he has since apologised.
This whole debate has also been set against a background of deep division in Wicklow about the future of the county, where it has become a fault-line in the current planning climate. Because of its proximity to Dublin - landowners can expect windfall profits of up to €1 million an acre for development land - various interests clash over what councillors believe to be the best policy for the development of the county.
Kelly is adamant the rezonings were a good idea to generate jobs and, in the case of the timber shed factory, to save 70 jobs. "If Mary Harney came down to Wicklow to announce 70 new jobs, we'd be dancing naked at the crossroads," he said.
Fachtna Whittle, a solicitor and a newly elected Fianna Fáil councillor, proposed three of the controversial rezonings. Like Kelly, he has been adamant the rezonings were needed. "I make no apologies for that," he said.
Throughout the controversy, the planners and the staff of Wicklow County Council have been criticised. Both Kelly and Whittle have claimed the planners didn't zone enough land. The planners couldn't disagree more. Brian Doyle, the council's director of planning, points out that detailed plans have already been drawn up, or are currently being drawn up.
The planners are proud of their plans for the area, which will see major growth in the towns, with Wicklow town doubling in size, major growth planned for Arklow, and detailed plans for the greater Dublin areas of Greystones and Bray.
POLITICAL RIVALRIES AND accusations have also been to the fore within the debate. Apart from the highlighting of a Labour Party activist as a consultant on many of the rezoning proposals, it has also led to fall-out within Fianna Fáil.
Whittle, who has been involved in property development in Wicklow town on a personal basis since the early 1990s, was initially at the centre of the controversy because of his support for a number of contentious rezonings.
Seen as a likely candidate for Fianna Fáil in the next general election, Whittle publicly criticised his potential running mate, Dick Roche. Whittle has accused Roche of failing to defend him adequately when Roche appeared on RTÉs Prime Time to debate planning in Wicklow. The programme had focused on Whittle's involvement in many of the rezonings.
Whittle is not the only councillor to have attacked Roche over his stance. George Jones and Fine Gael have also been keen to point out that Roche, who had a seat on the council in 1999, proposed a number of large rezonings against the planners' advice.
Roche dismisses both criticisms, saying he has never questioned his Fianna Fáil colleague's motives regarding the rezonings, and has always maintained that the focus should be on the role of professional planners such as Pat O'Connor.
Roche has also acknowledged he put forward rezoning motions in 1999, but said this was done openly and debated at the time, and accused Jones of "trying to spread the smear."
"This debate is not about 1999, but about 2004, and no sane human being could possibly justify what happened in 2004. The procedures this time were unique and uniquely wrong."