The costly charade of votes without impact.

Yesterday was our February full Wicklow council meeting. The main agenda item was the voting on amendments to the Wicklow Local Area Plan (LAP). The development of the LAP has been an extensive piece of work, involving local community consultation, council staff, and elected members working together to produce a strategy for Wicklow. This same process will also take place in Bray.

The Chief Executive of Wicklow and the Elected Members proposed amendments to the LAP, which the full council had to vote on. However, this was a confusing process, as the wider council had not been involved in the planning process and therefore did not have the same level of information as the Wicklow elected members. Additionally, they did not have the same insights as those living in Wicklow.

There were many amendments proposed, and the majority were passed without contention. However, there were three amendments proposed by five of the six elected members of Wicklow to the LAP that, in my opinion, were not straightforward agreements. These were:

* The rezoning of a small piece of council-owned land for residential purposes.

* The extension of land boundaries proposed for residential zoning.

* The expansion of a business that would impact on land designated as a Special Area of Conservation under EU legislation.

The rezoning of the council-owned land would mean allowing houses to be built on lands that are at high risk of flooding. This means that any proposed development will not be granted planning permission.

The extension of land boundaries would result in the removal of mature trees, and the development would be taken closer to the river edge (although within the 25-meter advised distance, it is a location that has been identified as a high-risk area for future flooding). Again, this means that planning permission for this extra piece of land will not be granted.

The expansion of the local business would require a special application to have the protected conservation status removed from the land. This requires detailed reporting from ecological consultants, which would be reviewed in line with EU legislation. The council has already been advised that this will not be granted.

Myself, along with my Social Democrat colleagues and a few other councillors, were in the minority who voted against these three amendments. It can be challenging to vote against the majority, but I do not want to vote in a way that gives people false expectations and hope. Of course, we need more houses, but these should be sustainable developments that include future-proofing and will actually receive planning permission.