Local Development Plan set for third key vote as some councillors set for boycott protest
Wrexham Councillors are set for a third key vote that will likely see the county borough finally adopt a Local Development Plan.
Wrexham.com understands there are many councillors not willing to take part in the vote later today, in either objection to the plan itself, or unhappy with the firm warnings made ahead of the meeting.
The outcome is likely the meeting will be quorate, and going off the outturn of the previous two votes, the recommendation to adopt the plan will likely pass later today.
The meeting is being held at 2:30PM at the Guildhall and those who take part in the vote have two options, pending any amendments, to vote for as described by the council’s legal officer:
- Adopt: The process for adoption will be followed through including publication. The Council is liable for the costs of the Judicial Review claim.
- Do not adopt : The case will return to Court for further consideration by the Judge. This will incur liability for further legal costs payable by the Council. When a court order is breached, the judge can make an order for contempt of court and the court may impose a period of imprisonment, a fine, confiscation of assets or other punishment permitted by law.
As previously reported from internal council emails, the advice from the legal officer to councillors is very blunt, “If councillors choose to vote against adopting the plan again then the statutory duty will be breached again. The case will return to court, incurring further legal costs. The judge can find the Council in contempt of court if it disobeys a court order. As individual councillor votes will be available (presuming there is a recorded vote) then the court could make an order against those individuals. If the court finds a defendant in contempt of court, the court may impose a period of imprisonment, a fine, confiscation of assets or other punishment permitted by law. ”
The Legal Officer also passes on comments from the Judge:
The Court is not concerned with the merits of any particular version of the LDP – with the wisdom or appropriateness of the LDP or the modifications. Still less is the Court concerned with the wisdom or appropriateness of the applicable law. The Court is only concerned with the lawfulness of the decisions. All must remember that the Council is set up by law. Obligations and powers do not depend on some form of abstract democracy but upon statute. It is inevitable that some Councillors will find it irksome to perform some statutory duties or that they will be unhappy with some elements of a decision which the Council is obliged to take. Others, when they are citizens, will be aggrieved at the extent of their powers. But these are two sides to the same coin. Legislation is the source of both powers and duties.
But the Court is not concerned with the abstract question of whether the Council should be free to adopt or decline to adopt, but the concrete question of whether they have the legal power to do what they did
The effect is that the Council had no power to decline to adopt. It should have done so within 8 weeks of receipt of the Examiners’ Report. The resolutions not to adopt were ultra vires and/or irrational on the basis of a mistaken belief in the existence of a discretion. By declining to adopt there was, moreover, a breach of statutory duty.
The message passed on from the Judge is also very plain, “To be clear, only a resolution to adopt the LDP as modified by the Examiners, would be in accordance with this judgment”.
What is the LDP and how did we get here? A short potted history…
A Local Development Plan or LDP is a document which sets out how land will be used in a particular local authority area in the future.
Used to guide planning decisions and development for housing, employment, retail and other uses, LDPs replaced the old style Unitary Development Plans and are designed to be shorter and more concise then their predecessors.
Wrexham’s Unitary Development Plan expired in 2011 and there has since been one failed attempt at adopting an LDP locally.
Back in 2012, it was announced that progress on Wrexham Council’s original LDP had been halted after planning inspectors raised concerns with a claimed lack of housing provision proposed.
Wrexham’s LDP2 was formally deposited with the Welsh Government and inspectors for independent examination in November 2018 – with assurances in the chamber any final decision on if it would be adopted would be made when it ‘came back’ from that examination.
The deposit for inspection came despite concerns from both opposition councillors and some within the ruling independent and Conservative coalition about the impact it could have on Wrexham.
The LDP2 sets out lands where around 7,700 homes could be built in the area, including a number of large scale developments.
There were also objections against the potential location of three new gypsy and traveller sites in Brymbo, Hanmer and Llay, with the latter site sitting within Alyn Waters Country Park.
Hearings before two planning inspectors into the soundness of the plan began in the autumn of 2019.
However, it soon became apparent there were major issues again, with extra hearings fixed for the start of 2020.
Inspectors wrote to the local authority to highlight several outstanding issues, including the housing requirement set out in the LDP2 being potentially “flawed” after the number of new homes was reduced down from an initial figure of 11,715.
They also said there were fundamental issues with the selection of the three Gypsy and Traveller sites included.
In late 2020, the adoption of the LDP2 was thrown into fresh doubt after council leader Mark Pritchard and his group withdrew their political support for it in light of the inspectors’ concerns.
A Motion before council was also rejected in December 2020 that would have seen a vote on the LDP.
After the selection process for the sites was re-run, the inspectors formally wrote to the council requesting the removal of the land in Llay in early 2021.
Other changes saw the inclusion of an area of green land at the former Brymbo Steelworks site in the plan as part of the housing allocation, despite it originally being rejected, and extra houses at a site on Ruthin Road.
A final report by the inspectors was beset by delays after Natural Resources Wales (NRW) announced tough new targets to ensure planning applications do not increase phosphate pollution levels in rivers.
Inspectors said it had cast “considerable uncertainty” over the viability of sites included in the Wrexham LDP2.
However, the issues were later resolved and the inspectors shared their final “binding report” in March this year.
The inspectors’ report concluded that the LDP2 met all relevant procedural requirements and the tests of soundness.
The Welsh Government roads review scrapped improvements to A483 junctions, with improvements at junction 4 are mentioned several times during the planning inspectorate’s final report, with land at lower Berse Farm on Ruthin Road seen as a key strategic site for housing.
In a ‘Statement of Common Ground’ between Wrexham Council and Welsh Government in 2019 notes “Specifically the full release of Key Strategic Site 1 (Lower Berse Farm) and the Western Gateway Employment site (protected by policy EM1, site 9) require additional capacity at junction 4 of the A483”.
Opponents to the LDP adoption have also pointed to the Welsh Government’s “Future Wales 2040” strategy that points to over 50% of all new housing in North Wales being ‘affordable’ however the LDP has this figure under 10%.
In April the Full Council met and after an eventful meeting voted 23 v 27 not to adopt the LDP.
After the vote Labour warned that the non-adoption ‘could be viewed as an abdication of responsibility’ and asked if it was ‘ineptitude or incompetence‘. Council Leader Mark Pritchard was firm in his position, calling the vote ‘democracy’ and asking for Welsh Government to step in and ‘find a solution’. Local Plaid Cymru asked Welsh Government to ‘accept that it’s not fit for purpose for the remainder of the plan period (2028) and start working on the next LDP from 2028‘.
That however was not the end of the matter, and following the progression of a threat of legal action a second vote was then held in June re-running the same LDP plan and information on it.
The Full Council met and the same decision was reached – but with an increased majority 24 v 30.
The votes created a range of reaction, Wrexham’s MP was branded ‘‘clearly championing law-breaking‘ by Labour after Sarah Atherton MP backed the rejection voters. Locally Cllr Gary Brown had to come out and detail why he changed his vote, with the First Minister launching a highly specific attack on council administration – “The citizens of Wrexham thought they were electing a council fit for a city and have ended up in Clochemerle“.
The LDP has been subject to a two separate judicial review attempts, although due to a Harry Potter-esque charade the they-must-not-be-named actions saw little public reference.
One failed attempt was taken by three senior councillors, all at the time Group Leaders, who looked to “challenge the decision by the Welsh Government not to endorse the ‘no’ votes by Council”. The council cocked up a FOI redaction which allowed Wrexham.com to name them, and reveal the Judicial Review failed as the proceedings were ‘commenced in the name of Wrexham County Borough Council by three elected members without any express or implied power to do so’ “. There has been no clarity over costs incurred on that exercise, and who, if anyone has covered the bill.
The successful Judicial Review came via a consortium of developers who looked to quash the Full Council vote, and force the LDP to be adopted in Wrexham.
The developers legal bid was successful and thus the matter returns again before councillors this afternoon.
This does not cover the whole detail of the LDP process (full archives here) but hopefully gives a useful overview. Top pic: Passions were high at a previous LDP meeting.
Spotted something? Got a story? Email [email protected]
