LDP: To adopt, or not adopt: that is the question

To “adopt the plan or not adopt the plan” are the only two options facing Wrexham councillors today ahead of a crucial meeting on the outcome of the Local Development Plan (LDP).

Yesterday’s executive board saw a taster of what is likely to come today in a full council debate over the controversial LDP, with Wrexham.com projections indicating it could be rejected by councillors by a very tight margin.

Despite senior councillors agreeing to move the report to today’s meeting, the straightforward process saw a few flash points, as well as a range of public questions.

Members of the Brymbo LDP Action Group submitted questions to the executive board – possibly as public questions are not allowed at full council – following their work lobbing Wrexham Council regarding various proposals in particular the allocation of land for a gypsy and traveller site at Coedyfelin Road in the village.

The council owned site – which was a former sewerage treatment works – has led to significant concerns around land contamination, as well as the potential for pollution into the adjacent River Cedigog.

Campaigners note that highway safety has also been identified as a major issue with this section of road having a history of road traffic accidents over many years.

The group have also expressed concerns online about proposals in the LDP for thousands of new homes across Wrexham, that they say without sufficient additional infrastructure will likely to put further pressure on already strained public services.

The questions were taken in an noticeably accommodating manner by the Chair of the meeting Cllr Mark Pritchard, who pressed officers when he felt some elements of the answers were lacking.

Due to the technical nature of the replies and officers correcting the lead members answers, we requested the pre-written replies and have included them in full at the bottom of this article.

Lead Member of Planning, Cllr Terry Evans was clearly deeply unhappy with the LDP giving a big list of problems he felt it contained, adding: “I feel like everything I’ve put forward has been completely ignored by officers.

“This is supposed to be a local development plan, but in my eyes it is nothing but an officer’s report” saying that ‘officers have put it together’.

Cllr Evans revealed that a ‘lessons learned’ workshop will be held soon to discover what went right, or wrong, with the ‘LDP2’ process.

Cllr Hugh Jones referred to parts of the LDP as being ‘fundamentally flawed’ and ‘not deliverable’, pointing out the age of the entire process, “I felt it was flawed the time that it was submitted. But with the passage of time it’s actually become even more out of date, and significantly out of kilter with Welsh Government’s national policy”

Cllr Dana Davies queried on the process, asking: “It is my understanding is that there’s two options.

“There’s an option to adopt, or there’s an option for withdrawal – and my understanding is the withdrawal process is to happen before it goes to council.”

The meeting was clearly told by the officer there were two options in the straight vote at the full council; “adopt the plan, or not adopt the plan”.

Cllr Bryan Apsley rolled the clock back to revisit what was decided late in 2018 (our meeting report from back then here), appearing to be regretful of the decision back then where the council voted to keep the ‘process’ rolling and move the LDP for public Inspection, with the decision apparently inadvertently noting a vote of ‘soundness’ of the plan.

He added that he “didn’t know that we’ve presented it the basis that the plan was sound” and apologising for any misunderstanding.

Cllr Apsley added he was unhappy affordable housing was now ‘reduced by 70%’ but said he would speak more at Full Council.

Cllr Mark Pritchard echoed comments from Cllr Hugh Jones on a range of issues that have changed since 2018, noting phosphates, the recent ‘roads review’, and more: “There was three gypsies and travellers sites in the plan, which went through the planning policy panel, now there’s only one and there’s a shortfall.

“I could give you a lot more examples. This conversation will go on tomorrow. ”

Cllr Morris referred to his personal archive and notes from 2018, giving a quick re-run of the vote, and his view the outcome was “yes, we think it is sound, take it forward and let the inspectors decide one way or the other”.

He added a view on Cllr Terry Evan’s earlier presentation of the report: “I do have concerns to some extent that the lead member has used this as a vehicle to act as a local member.

“I’ve never known a lead member deliver a report and then suddenly switch it to everything that’s happening in their own community.”

Cllr Graham Rogers gave a short trailer of what he will likely say at the Full Council meeting, promising a ‘a very healthy debate’.

The health of the debate itself has raised questions in public and on private emails lists, with the Council Leader saying at the Executive Board, “What I’m grappling with, and I am grappling with this as an individual, what is the point of Full Council meetings with 55 Members, if we’re told we have to adopt it? Just ask yourself that question.

“We are elected to represent our residents, our constituents, our communities. Let’s not forget the people who elected us and who we represent. Democracy, at the end of this, must be the winner.

“So whichever way it goes, we all need to respect it.”

There appears to be much debate over legal advice behind closed doors on the internal email lists, with Cllr Marc Jones claiming the Chief Planning Office “sprung” it on members, adding:”If the officer is suggesting that elected councillors have no option but to vote for this plan, then I would ask our Chief Legal Officer to outline the legality of such a claim.

“If councillors are being forced to vote in a certain way, it makes a mockery of the democratic process.”

“We had a lengthy session about improving behaviour and trust within the council. This last-minute attempt to cajole councillors into voting for a deeply flawed plan is sinister and should not prevent the democratically elected members from expressing themselves however they wish. We are here to represent the people of Wrecsam and I am deeply concerned at the direction of travel here.”

In a rare moment of bonhomie between them, Cllr Mark Pritchard said he ‘shared’ Cllr Marc Jones’ frustrations, adding: “I would like to make my position very clear in that I was not party to any discussions prior to the release of Counsel’s advice to all Members.

“I am extremely disappointed and feel very let down by the fact that I was not briefed. Should I have been briefed, I would have insisted that due process was followed. Also, the timing at which the advice was sent out was totally unacceptable.”

Appearing to hit out at officers, Cllr Pritchard wrapped up his email with a dig, “It is quite ironic that only yesterday afternoon Councillors and senior Officers attended a development session on values, behaviours and governance.”

The Chief Officer, Economy and Planning offered all councillors clarity: “This Counsel advice was received on Friday.

“Counsel was instructed a couple of weeks ago in response to concerns raised by some members that the decision of WG not to approve funding for the major infrastructure improvements to Junctions 3-6 of the A483 would prevent the delivery of the KSS1 site, thereby rendering the Plan unsound.

“The decision to take legal advice was made after the Member briefings that have taken place.

“The advice from Counsel is that the allocation for 400 houses can be delivered within the plan period, subject to localised highway improvements which would be funded by the developer in the usual way, and on this basis, it is sound.

“You will note that the Counsel advice also advises on the legal requirement to adopt the plan. This should not come as a surprise to you as it has been clearly outlined by me in every Member briefing that I have given. I am sure Linda will clarify further at Executive Board this morning.

“There is nothing ‘sinister’, as you put it, in sharing this advice – I would have thought I would have faced more criticism for not doing so. It is to help with your deliberations and as I have explained in our discussions, I fully respect whichever way you wish to vote.”

The Full Council meeting starts at 4pm today.

The Full Public Q&A text is below – thanks to the Lead Member for Planning, Cllr Terry Evans – and David Fitzsimon the Chief Officer, Economy and Planning,  for enabling the accurate reporting!

 

Q1. How will the Council prevent the any discharge from the water treatment entering the River Dee via the Alyn and Cedigog during reclamation and after the land is surfaced for the G&T

Answer: It is assumed this question relates to the allocated Gypsy and Traveller site at Brymbo. Conditions would be imposed on any planning permission granted requiring the site to be investigated for contamination and for a remediation scheme to be prepared and implemented to address any identified risks, as necessary.

As the site is located within an area served by public sewers, a foul sewer connection would have to be provided prior to the first occupation of the development in order to ensure no foul water discharges directly into a river or watercourse near to the site. To do so, the Council, as landowner, would need to secure a formal agreement under Section 104 of the Water Industry Act.

The public sewer at Brymbo connects to Five Fords WWTW which treats the foul flows before being discharged into the River Dee and Bala Lake SAC. In common with all other developments within the County Borough which generate a net increase in foul flows, planning permission would not be granted for the use of the site as a Gypsy and Traveller site until the current challenges posed by the ‘phosphate issue’ are resolved.

The site would also be subject to the provisions of Schedule 3 of the Flood Water Management Act 2010. This imposes a statutory requirement for the development to secure approval for a Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) from the Council as SuDS Approval Body (SAB). The SAB approval process is separate to the planning application process, but ensures that surface water from the site is managed appropriately.

Q2.  Regarding the siting of a Gypsy and Traveller site in Brymbo, I would like to ask the Executive board how many of the 10 members have visited the site?

Answer: To be provided by the Executive Board Members.

Q3. Can the council explain how they intend to fund and justify the proposed Gypsy & Traveller site in Brymbo, given that we understand that allocated funding from Welsh Government does not extend to remediation of the site, and we believe there is an extensive cost required regarding contamination, redesign of the topography of the site, acquisition of the access land and highway improvement?

Answer: When examining the Local Development Plan, the Planning Inspectors have concluded that the land at Brymbo is suitable in principle for use as a Gypsy and Traveller site.  Full planning permission would be required before the site could be used for this purpose.  Any related planning application would have to demonstrate that the usual development management requirements such as dealing with any potential land contamination along with the provision of adequate drainage and a safe and satisfactory vehicular access could be met.  In the first instance, it would be for the Council’s Assets Team to determine whether the site was viable in such terms, before proceeding with a planning application.

Q4. The Inspectors latest report on the proposed Local Development Plan states in paragraph 7.92 referring to Brymbo that “Welsh Government is committed to making highway improvements between junctions 3 and 6 of the A483 in order to improve traffic movements around Wrexham. According to WG’s website the estimated construction start date could be in summer 2023.”

Welsh Government has recently announced that these vital improvements will no longer proceed. This not only affects the hundreds of proposed new homes planned at Brymbo but potentially hundreds of homes in the plan including the delivery of the Council’s key strategic site off the A483.

Can the Executive Board confirm as a result of this decision whether Council officers have approached the Inspectors in writing on this issue as to the impact upon the plan and if so what was their response.

Answer: The Inspectors’ Report must be read in its entirety.  The previous paragraph of the Inspectors’ Report (paragraph 7.91) states:

‘Moreover, the holistic redevelopment proposed would benefit the community as a whole and result in a greater level of containment than currently. By providing for more everyday needs within Brymbo the number of existing trips out of the settlement would be reduced and the number of additional trips from the new development minimised.’

Furthermore, the following paragraph (7.93) from the Inspectors’ Report states:

‘All things considered we do not consider that there is compelling evidence that a strategy for the redevelopment of Brymbo should be excluded from the LDP on the grounds of its impact on the road network’.

The Inspectors do not raise any concerns that the scale of development proposed for Brymbo could not be accommodated on the existing highway network, or that it is dependent on the major infrastructure improvements to junctions 3-6 of the A483 which have been recently been rejected by Welsh Government following the recommendations of the Roads Review Panel.

With reference to the KSS1 housing site, the Inspectors’ conclude that the 400 houses allocated within the Plan period to 2028 could be built subject to the delivery of highway improvements outlined within the Traffic Assessment submitted to the Examination on behalf of Redrow.  These improvements could be secured by planning conditions and a planning obligation in the event that a planning application is submitted and permitted.  The Inspectors do not consider that the delivery of the 400 housing units at KSS1 is dependent on the major infrastructure improvements recently rejected by the Roads Review Panel.   Counsel advice has been received in relation to this matter, which confirms this interpretation to be correct.

Officers have not approached the Inspectors in writing for their observations on the decision of Welsh Government regarding the Roads Review and its implications for the Plan for two reasons.  Firstly, the final version of the Inspectors’ Report was published after Welsh Government’s announcement regarding the Roads Review on 14 February 2023.  On this basis, the Inspectors would have been aware of the announcement before their Final Report was issued.  Secondly, as a point of procedure, it is not possible for Officers to contact the Inspectors once the Final Report has been issued.