Welsh Government deal will preserve Wrexham planning powers
After winning its Supreme Court battle with the Welsh Government over the adoption of the Local Development Plan (LDP), the authority was supposed to fall back on the old Unitary Development Plan(UDP).
This meant planning officers and councillors would still have the legal right to refuse applications and enforce statutory obligations like the provision of play areas, shops and schools in larger residential developments.
But next week the Senedd will debate the Legislation (Procedure, Publication and Repeals) (Wales) Bill. Among the proposals in the bill is the scrapping of all existing, out-of-date UDPs.
In Wrexham, where there is no valid LDP, that would mean no adopted legal framework for the county borough. That could create a planning free-for-all, forcing the council to justify every individual planning refusal based on 'material planning considerations'.
After talks with the Welsh Government however, Wrexham Council leader Cllr Mark Pritchard says an agreement has been reached to avoid this potentially chaotic situation.
"There's been a commitment from the Welsh Government that that won't happen," he said. "There'll be an amendment to the upcoming legislation which will allow the UDP in Wrexham to stand.
"I'd like to thank the Welsh Government for taking a common sense approach. It tells me that they're genuinely working with us, not against us. I do believe there is a way forward here for the betterment of Wrexham."
Last month the Welsh Government finally dropped its legal challenge to Wrexham Council's refusal to adopt the new LDP having been through the High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court.
Read more:
"Landmark decision" as councillors win court appeal over Wrexham's LDP
'Wrexham remains the only Local Authority not to have an LDP'
Welsh Government urged to work with council after LDP left 'dead in the water'
Councillors who opposed the LDP, led by Plaid Cymru Cllr Marc Jones, were victorious but the result forced Wrexham to fall back temporarily on it's older, outdated UDP. A replacement plan has still not been agreed.
"We're hoping to work in true partnership with Welsh Government to resolve the issue," he said. "I felt I was pushed into a corner by what went on here, I was very uncomfortable with it but we have to move on.
"I'm just disappointed that we had to go through all that because it was very painful.
"I put a lot on the line here - if we had lost, I'd have had to step down. It became about more than the LDP, it became about democracy, freedom of speech and what we can say in that chamber.
"I pushed it only as much as I felt we needed to. Look at the standards on the wall of the council chamber. The Dunkirk standards are there. As we mark 80 years since VE Day, people from Wrexham and across this country - across the world - lost their lives for me and anybody in every chamber to have freedom of speech and freedom to exercise democratic process.
"You can't be threatened that you will go to jail or that there will be legal prosecutions or a cost put against your house for exercising your right as an elected member to vote. You have three options - to support, to vote against or to abstain.
"But I'm a realist, we now have to find a solution and we will find a solution. I do believe the Welsh Government are prepared to work with us and work alongside us and that's good news for me. Those dark days are behind us."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
6 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Justice Jackson warns Supreme Court is sending a 'troubling message'
"It is particularly startling to think that grants of relief in these circumstances might be (unintentionally) conveying not only preferential treatment for the Government but also a willingness to undercut both our lower court colleagues' well-reasoned interim judgments and the well-established constraints of law that they are in the process of enforcing," Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote. Jackson was dissenting from the conservative majority's decision to give Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency complete access to the data of millions of Americans kept by the U.S. Social Security Administration. Once again, she wrote in a dissent joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, "this Court dons its emergency responder gear, rushes to the scene, and uses its equitable power to fan the flames rather than extinguish them." A district judge had blocked DOGE's access to "personally identifiable information" while assessing if that access is legal. Jackson said a majority of the court didn't require the administration to show it would be "irreparably harmed" by not getting immediate access, one of the legal standards for intervention. "It says, in essence, that although other stay applicants must point to more than the annoyance of compliance with lower court orders they don't like," she wrote, "the Government can approach the courtroom bar with nothing more than that and obtain relief from this Court nevertheless." A clock, a mural, a petition: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's chambers tell her story In a brief and unsigned decision, the majority said it weighed the "irreparable harm" factor along with the other required considerations of what's in the public interest and whether the courts are likely to ultimately decide that DOGE can get at the data. But the majority did not explain how they did so. Jackson said the court `plainly botched' its evaluation of a Trump appeal Jackson raised a similar complaint when the court on May 30 said the administration can revoke the temporary legal status of hundreds of thousands of Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans living in the United States. Jackson wrote that the court "plainly botched" its assessment of whether the government or the approximately 530,000 migrants would suffer the greater harm if their legal status ends while the administration's mass termination of that status is being litigated. Jackson said the majority undervalued "the devastating consequences of allowing the Government to precipitously upend the lives and livelihoods of nearly half a million noncitizens while their legal claims are pending." The majority did not offer an explanation for its decision. More Supreme Court wins for Trump In addition to those interventions, the Supreme Court recently blocked a judge's order requiring DOGE to disclose information about its operations, declined to reinstate independent agency board members fired by Trump, allowed Trump to strip legal protections from 350,000 Venezuelans and said the president can enforce his ban on transgender people serving in the military. Jackson disagreed with all of those decisions. The court's two other liberal justices - Sotomayor and Elena Kagan - disagreed with most of them. More: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson can throw a punch. Literally. The court did hand Trump a setback in May when it barred the administration from quickly resuming deportations of Venezuelans under a 1798 wartime law. Two of the court's six conservative justices - Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito - dissented. Decisions are expected in the coming weeks on other Trump emergency requests, including whether the president can dismantle the Education Department and can enforce his changes to birthright citizenship.
The National
9 hours ago
- The National
Supreme Court's sex ruling faces legal tests – will they succeed?
Starmer's view was echoed by Equalities Minister Bridget Phillipson, who described the ruling as 'crystal clear' and stressed the need for 'services that are safe and appropriate and respect [everyone's] privacy and dignity'. But what was billed as legal clarity has created 'greater confusion as to what this now means in practice,' Dr Alexander Maine of City Law School, University of London, told the Sunday National. For example, guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) states that trans men must use women's toilets – from which they could be excluded for looking too much like a man. But they also cannot be left with nowhere to go. The question of which toilets trans people can use has become a battleground (Image: Pixabay) Dr Damian Gonzalez-Salzberg, an associate professor at the University of Birmingham Law School, said the guidance 'seems to go beyond what the Supreme Court has said, or at least it might not have taken the whole picture into consideration'. The guidance now faces multiple legal challenges, with allegations that it misreads the ruling, exceeds the law, and violates human rights. Rather than ending the debate on trans rights and single-sex spaces, it has triggered three court cases – pushing the issue back into litigation and the media spotlight. Challenge one: Good Law Project and human rights. THE first, a wide-reaching legal challenge, is being brought by the Good Law Project. The group has taken legal action against both the EHRC and Phillipson, the Equalities Minister, over allegations that the guidance on the Supreme Court case breaches the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Dr Maine explained that the core argument looked back to a crucial case for gender law in the UK: Goodwin 2002. This held that the 'UK was in breach of its obligations to uphold trans people's human rights, specifically the right to marry under Article 12 [of the ECHR], and the right to a private and family life,' he said. The case led directly to the 2004 Gender Recognition Act (GRA). Dr Maine said that, given the legalisation of gay marriage across the UK since 2002, the argument under Article 12 would no longer hold weight – but the right to privacy under Article 8 could prove crucial. READ MORE: Kelly Given: Defining women by our biology alone is chilling 'It may be that because trans people will effectively be outed if they have to use single-sex spaces that they do not appear to adhere to – for instance, a trans woman using a male space – that might go against their right to privacy,' Dr Maine said. Dr Gonzalez-Salzberg said Good Law Project's argument was 'very careful' and relied on European jurisprudence. 'They suggest that it was the EHRC that misunderstood the court,' he explained. 'So that's the first ground that they're proposing – your guidance is or will be in breach of human rights if implemented because you're misreading what the law is. 'Then the second argument is, OK, if you are reading this correctly, it's still a breach of human rights, actually. They focus on what the European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence has been regarding trans rights. The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg'This is a very, very lengthy jurisprudence that goes from the early 1980s … That jurisprudence has got to a point which is very clear that trans people have the right to live their lives in their acquired gender, which this guidance does not seem to allow you to do when, well, you don't even know where you can pee.' Dr Gonzalez-Salzberg further argued that there could be a case under Article 14 of the ECHR, which prohibits discrimination 'on any ground'. He said: 'If you're taking certain measures, you are affecting this group quite heavily, and that's one of the problems with the EHRC guidance. They said, OK, if you have mixed toilets, this might be indirect discrimination against women because women might be put in a disadvantaged situation by this general policy. 'They're not saying the same regarding trans people, and that is worrying. If you have a policy that trans people cannot use their gender's toilets, well, this will put them in a disadvantaged situation.' He added that Article 8 and Article 14 therefore represented 'two strong arguments to be made as to human rights of trans people'. Challenge two: Liberty and the consultation period. NINE days after the Supreme Court's ruling on sex, the EHRC issued its 'interim guidance' telling firms and public bodies how it should be interpreted. At the same time, it opened a two-week consultation period to advise on permanent guidance which is due to follow later this year. After concerns were raised, the EHRC extended this to a six-week consultation. However, human rights group Liberty launched a legal action calling this 'wholly insufficient'. Dr Gonzalez-Salzberg pointed to case law from the High Court, which in January ruled that an eight-week consultation period for £3 billion cuts to incapacity benefits was too short for such major changes. The door to the UK Supreme Court in London (Image: Archive)The academic further said that the EHRC was in danger of making the same mistake as the Supreme Court and excluding the voices of those most impacted – trans people. 'If you only get six weeks, you're really restricting the possibility of people intervening," Dr Gonzalez-Salzberg said. "Especially when you consider the claims about how trans people were not really listened to in the Supreme Court's case. For the EHRC now to repeat this sort of mistake seems quite serious.' However, on Friday the High Court dismissed Liberty's claim, with Mr Justice Swift saying: 'There is no 12-week rule. The requirements of fairness are measured in specifics and context is important. 'I am not satisfied that it is arguable that the six-week consultation period that the EHRC has chosen to use is unfair." Challenge three: The European Court of Human Rights. AS things stand, there is less information available about the third legal challenge against the UK's new rules on sex and gender. However, Dr Victoria McCloud, who was the first openly trans judge in the UK before stepping down in 2024, has made clear her intention to challenge the Supreme Court's decision at the European Court of Human Rights. In the wake of the ruling in April, Dr McCloud told the BBC that she felt it breached her human rights and left her with the legal "nonsense" of being "two sexes at once". Inset: Trans judge Dr Victoria McCloud (Image: NQ) Dr McCloud also raised concerns that trans people had not been heard during the Supreme Court's deliberations on the biological sex ruling. "Trans people were wholly excluded from this court case," she told the BBC. "I applied to be heard. Two of us did. We were refused.' Dr Gonzalez-Salzberg said the ruling would 'have a very strong detrimental impact on trans people'. 'It's already having that and that is clearly problematic, and in many ways also because trans people were in a very definitive way excluded from properly being heard in the ruling, which makes the situation even, even worse.' There is a clear pattern behind the three legal cases – trans people believe they were not listened to in a ruling which directly impacted their lives. Instead, they will make themselves heard in court.
NBC News
9 hours ago
- NBC News
New questions emerge from the new charges in Kilmar Abrego Garcia case
The sudden return of Kilmar Abrego-Garcia to the United States on Friday to face federal charges of smuggling migrants across the country was a messaging triumph for the Trump administration. The news deflected public attention from a series of unanimous court rulings —including a Supreme Court decision —that President Donald Trump did not have the power to unilaterally detain and deport individuals to foreign prisons without a review by a judge. And the allegations against Abrego-Garcia are damning. A federal grand jury found that the 29-year-old was an MS-13 member who transported thousands of undocumented immigrants, including children, from Texas to states across the country for profit for nine years. He allegedly also transported firearms and drugs, abused female migrants and was linked to an incident in Mexico where a tractor-trailer overturned and killed 50 migrants. Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, a lawyer representing Abrego-Garcia, said Saturday that he planned to meet his client for the first time on Sunday, but declined to further comment. A former senior law enforcement official who spoke on condition of anonymity, citing fear of retaliation, said he was struck by the large amount of resources the DOJ put into investigating Abrego Garcia. 'It is odd that they would use all of these folks to go after a low-level driver,' said the official. 'Usually, we used the driver to go after the coyotes and up if we could. But they really wanted to get this guy and it looks like they found a path.' In a telephone interview with NBC News's Kristen Welker on Saturday, Trump hailed Abrego-Garcia's indictment and predicted it would be easy for federal prosecutors to convict him. 'I think it should be,' he said. 'It should be.' Multiple questions about Abrego-Garcia, the case against him, and the political fallout remain unanswered. Will Democrats pay a political price? For months, Abrego-Garcia's lawyers, his wife, and some Democrats, have denied that he was an MS-13 gang member. They generally portrayed him as a Maryland construction worker and claimed he was transporting co-workers when a Tennessee state trooper stopped him on Interstate 40 on November 30, 2022. The indictment paints a different picture: Abrego-Garcia was transporting nine Hispanic males without identification or luggage in a Chevrolet Suburban. Prosecutors allege he 'knowingly and falsely' told the trooper they 'had been in St. Louis for two weeks doing construction' and were returning to Maryland. However, license plate reader data showed that the Suburban had not been near St. Louis for twelve months. Instead, it had been in Houston where, according to prosecutors, Abrego-Garcia had picked up the men. The vehicle was not carrying tools or construction equipment, but its rear cargo area had been modified with makeshift seating to transport more passengers. The apparent strength of the government's case could reignite debate among Democrats about the risks of focusing on Abrego-Garcia's case. For weeks, Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Maryland, and other Democrats emphasized that their criticism targeted Trump's decision to unilaterally deport Abrego-Garcia without judicial oversight, not a defense of Abrego Garcia himself. When Welker asked about Van Hollen, President Trump mocked the Senator and said defending the Abrego Garcia would backfire on Democrats. 'He's a loser. The guy's a loser,' Trump said, referring to Van Hollen. 'They're going to lose because of that same thing. That's not what people want to hear. He's trying to defend a man who's got a horrible record of abuse, abuse of women in particular.' Van Hollen defended his stance in a CNN interview. 'You know, I will never apologize for defending the Constitution,' he said. 'In fact, it's the Trump administration and all his cronies who should apologize to the country for putting us through this unnecessary situation.' What happened inside the Trump Administration? In an Oval Office visit on April 15, 2025, Trump, Attorney General Pam Bondi and other Trump administration officials asserted that it was not possible for the Trump administration to 'facilitate' the return of Abrego Garcia's return from El Salvador as the Supreme Court had ordered. El Salvador's President Nayib Bukele mocked areporter for asking whether he would do so.'How can I return him to the United States? Like if I smuggle him into the United States?' Bukele said, sitting beside Trump in the Oval Office. 'Of course I'm not going to do it. The question is preposterous.' Trump, in turn, chided the assembled journalists, saying, 'They'd love to have a criminal released into our country. These are sick people.' Bondi said only El Salvador could decide whether to return Bukele. 'If they want to return him, we would facilitate it, meaning provide a plane,' said Bondi said. 'That's up for El Salvador if they want to return him. That's not up to us.' Yet, in a Friday press conference at the Justice Department, Bondi described the return of Abrego-Garcia as smooth and seamless. 'We want to thank President Bukele for agreeing to return Abrego-Garcia to the United States,' she said. 'Our government presented El Salvador with an arrest warrant, and they agreed to return him to our country.' Asked what had changed since the traffic stop in 2022, she lauded Trump. 'What has changed is Donald Trump is now president of the United States,' Bondi said, 'and our borders are again secure.' In an unusual move, Bondi also described allegations against Abrego-Garcia that were not included in the indictment. She said that co-conspirators alleged that Abrego-Garcia 'solicited nude photographs and videos of a minor' and 'played a role in the murder of a rival gang member's mother.' For decades, attorneys general from both parties and state and local prosecutors have generally accused defendants of crimes only for which a grand jury indicted them. Discussing other potential crimes has long been regarded as an abuse of prosecutorial power, risking unfair harm to defendants' reputations. A former senior Justice Department official, who requested anonymity, citing fears of retaliation, said that Bondi often speaks as a partisan Trump loyalist, not a neutral law enforcement official. 'She says the president's name every time,' said the former DOJ official. 'She talks more like a politician, stumping for a candidate than an attorney general who is out there talking independently. You can see that in the words she uses.' Why did a top federal prosecutor in Tennessee resign? The Wall Street Journal reported on Friday that people close to the matter said the indictment prompted the resignation of a veteran career prosecutor who headed the criminal division at the U.S. attorney's office where the case was filed. The Journal did not name the prosecutor. However, days after Abrego-Garcia was indicted by a federal grand jury in Nashville, Ben Schrader, the head of criminal division in the U.S. Attorney's office in Nashville, resigned. 'Earlier today, after nearly 15 years as an Assistant United States Attorney, I resigned as Chief of the Criminal Division at the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Middle District of Tennessee,' Schrader posted on LinkedIn. 'It has been an incredible privilege to serve as a prosecutor with the Department of Justice, where the only job description I've ever known is to do the right thing, in the right way, for the right reasons. I wish all of my colleagues at the U.S. Attorney's Office in Nashville and across the Department the best as they seek to do justice on behalf of the American people.' :
