Councillors back move to formally withdraw LDP

Alec Doyle, local democracy reporter

Wrexham councillors have voted to ask Welsh Government to formally withdraw the borough’s Local Development Plan (LDP).

A notice of motion to make the request was backed by two thirds of elected members in an extraordinary council meeting on Wednesday evening. It called for the council to formally recognise the legal rulings that have made the LDP an unadopted plan and to make the formal request to the Senedd.

The motion also included a clause instructing the council’s planning committee to prioritise using guidance in the Unitary Development Plan – which expired in 2011 – Future Wales, Planning Policy Wales, Technical Advice Notes and Welsh Government Circulars over the unadopted plan in decision-making.

Legal battle

The adoption of the LDP – known as LDP2 – was quashed after a long legal battle launched by Cllr Marc Jones and supported by Cllr Hugh Jones and Wrexham Council leader Cllr Mark Pritchard. Their challenge was largely triggered by plans to develop the key strategic housing sites, with 1,680 homes proposed for land in the Holt Road/Bryn Estyn Road/Cefn Road area and 1,500 homes proposed on Ruthin Road.

An amendment tabled by opposition Labour group leader Cllr Dana Davies to scratch that and allow councillors to retain the LDP2 – as a material planning consideration until it was withdrawn was quashed.

“Wrexham has been without a strategic development plan since 2011,” said Cllr Davies. “You can feel and see that impact.

“There has been sporadic and reactive development and a lack of infrastructure planning which has impacted sustainable growth.

“I have received three emails over the last two and a half years from residents opposing the LDP. In contrast I have received many, many, many more emails opposing a 9.5% council tax hike and opposing the decision made recently regarding hybrid working.

“Recognising we do not have the votes in the chamber we can support parts one and two of the motion as these will close the circle on LDP2 and formally start the process of developing an LDP3.

“Our concern is with part three which, in essence, is an instruction to a quasi-judicial statutory committee to limit their decision-making considerations and intentionally omitting the existing evidence base.

“There are significant legal risks in this that could present in the form of a judicial review or a conflict at appeal stage where the inspector must consider all material planning considerations.”

Appeal decisions

Planning committee chairman Cllr Mike Morris was one of those who opposed the amendment.

“Since the adoption decision was quashed we’ve had three or four appeal decisions come through and each of those relates exactly to what is mentioned in part three of the motion – the UDP, Future Wales etc.

“They’re using the same phraseology that we will be going forward.”

Cllr Anthony Wedlake also spoke out to back the motion but issued scathing criticism of the situation the council had created.

“We are at an impasse,” he said. “There are no winners here, only losers. This LDP should have been in place many years ago and we should all hold our heads down in shame that it is not in place.

“My fear is the reason we’re in this position today is far too many people are defending personal positions. To maintain coalition positions in this council no strategic view is taking place.”

Move forward

After council supported the motion Cllr Marc Jones, the original proposer, said it was time to move forward.

“The motion to urge the Welsh Government to formally withdraw the plan was passed overwhelmingly with 35 for, none against and 12 abstentions,” he said.

“We want to work with the Welsh Government to take this forward now. There are some big contentious issues to sort out, not least the two big key strategic sites on either side of the town. If the LDP had been allowed to stand these two sites alone would mean more than 3,100 extra houses.

“This more than anything – along with protecting greenfield sites – has been critical to the opposition that’s grown in the community and within the council itself.”