Second-chance for Wrexham Planning Committee to rule on 600-home plan
After the UK Supreme Court ruling that left Wrexham's Local Development Plan (LDP) unadopted, the scheme – on land that was included in the LDP – was left in limbo.
When the plans first came before the committee in 2020, councillors raised objections that the site lay outside the settlement area in the Green Barrier.
Once it was included in the LDP, that objection was withdrawn as the land was formally included in the council's development plans.
Related reading:
Now, with moves afoot to erase the LDP entirely and an inquiry by Planning and Environment Decisions Wales (PEDW) into the development due on September 29, Wrexham Council has a second chance to determine the application and submit a formal response to the inquiry.
In the report the committee will consider officers have recommended that Wrexham Council could not successfully defend an appeal if it reinstated its opposition to the development.
It also advises if they go against that advice and restore their objections, the committee will need to nominate two councillors to give evidence before the inquiry.
According to the report: 'Although the unadopted LDP no longer has the status of development plan, the Development Management Manual (DMM)advises that the weight to be attached to an unadopted LDP will depend on the stage it has reached.
'Local Planning Authorities need to carefully consider the underlying evidence to an unadopted LDP.
'In the event that members determine to reinstate one or more of the reasons for refusal, members will nominate up to two members of the Planning Committee to act as expert witnesses at the inquiry.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Channel 4
2 days ago
- Channel 4
‘More important than it's ever been': why Trans Pride matters
Thousands of trans and non-binary people are expected to flood the streets of central London tomorrow, along with their supporters, for London Trans+ Pride. The theme this year is Existence and Resistance, in response to the UK Supreme Court ruling in April, that women should be defined under equality legislation by their biological gender. Producer: Cat Mcshane Editor: Sophie Larkin-Tannett
Leader Live
2 days ago
- Leader Live
Ombudsman clears Wrexham councillor who challenged LDP
The independent Ombudsman has ruled that Plaid Cymru group leader Cllr Marc Jones did not breach the Code of Conduct by jointly initiating legal proceedings in Wrexham Council's name with two other members of the council. As a result, it has ruled no further action should be taken. 'The overwhelming feeling is of relief after waiting for 20 months,' said Cllr Jones. 'This feels like the end of a chapter, even if it's not the end of the entire saga surrounding the Local Development Plan (LDP). We stood up for what we believed was the right thing for Wrexham communities and the right of councillors and local democracy to be heard. 'Others didn't feel the same way and tried every way possible to silence us. Ultimately it didn't work and the courts, police and now the Ombudsman have found in our favour. 'It's time to move on and get the LDP withdrawn so that we can ensure we have a plan going forward that works for Wrexham and its communities.' That could happen next Wednesday when an extraordinary meeting of Wrexham Council has been called to debate a notice of motion asking Welsh Government to formally withdraw the LDP. Related reading: The LDP is the strategic plan that outlines where development is appropriate within Wrexham County Borough. It was considered a statutory duty for all Welsh Council's to adopt an LDP until Cllr Jones led a challenge against Wrexham's plan. The opposition to the plan stemmed from what Cllr Jones called the 'excessive allocation of housing on greenfield sites'. That challenge went all the way to the UK Supreme Court who ruled that the authority did not have to adopt the LDP. Currently planning committee can still use the LDP as a guide when deciding applications, but if withdrawn it will fall back to the outdated Unitary Development Plan. During the legal battle, a complaint was made to the Ombudsman that Cllr Jones and his supporters had breached the code of conduct for councillors by beginning legal action on the council's behalf. However, the Ombudsman accepted the explanation that Cllr Jones had taken the action to 'uphold and defend the democratic decisions of the council in April and June 2023 to reject the LDP'. It also accepted that while acting outside the council's usual legal framework could be considered bringing the council into disrepute, stating: 'the factual context of the Member's conduct and subsequent series of events provides strong mitigating factors which must be duly considered when deciding whether further action is required, in the public interest. 'I have considered that the council's statutory officers were acting in good faith and on the external legal advice received at the time, did not take steps to uphold the council/members' decisions not to adopt the draft LDP. 'However, as confirmed by the more recent Court of Appeal decision instituted by the Member, it appears that the officers' position, that the members were obliged to adopt the draft LDP, was based on an incorrect interpretation of the law. 'The crowdfunding campaign established to take further legal challenges against the adoption of the draft LDP received strong public support. Because of this, I have concluded that any impact on the public's perception of the member's conduct – and accordingly the public interest factors and considerations relevant to this complaint – significantly changed during the course of the investigation. 'For these reasons, I do not believe that any further action is required in the public interest.' Cllr Jones said the decision drew a line under the debate and added he wanted to move beyond the legal argument. 'People don't want urban sprawl,' said Cllr Jones. 'They don't want huge super-estates with no community facilities, they want improved public services, genuinely affordable homes, better transport links and the focus of any developments to be on derelict land and empty properties. 'That's the focus for me now – looking forward to improve Wrexham rather than looking back in anger.'
The Herald Scotland
2 days ago
- The Herald Scotland
Donald Trump vs the Scottish Government: A brief history
The wind farm feud One of Trump's most bitter fights with the [[Scottish Government]] centred on an offshore wind farm proposed near his Aberdeenshire resort. In 2013, he launched a legal battle against plans for 11 turbines, arguing they would ruin the view from his golf course. He then lost a legal challenge over the planned offshore wind farm when it was rejected by the UK Supreme Court. After years of litigation, Trump finally lost his battle against wind turbines in 2019 and was ordered to pay the Scottish Government's legal costs, though the exact sum was never disclosed. Read more: What happened on President Trump's previous Scotland visits? Trump's opposition to wind energy is well-documented. In 2016, he reportedly urged Nigel Farage to campaign against Scottish wind farms, calling them "monstrous," "ugly," and "dangerous'. He even claimed they would "bankrupt Scotland" and destroy tourism. Trump's lobbying against the wind farm included a series of bizarre letters to then-First Minister Alex Salmond, released to the public in 2016. In one, Trump claimed he was trying to "save Scotland". In another, he warned that Salmond would be remembered as "Mad Alex" and that he would fail in the independence referendum if the wind farm project proceeded. Trump alleged that Salmond and former First Minister Jack McConnell had verbally assured him no wind farm would be built near his resort. Donald Trump with former first minister Jack McConnell (Image: PA) "They wanted my money," Trump said. "I was lured into buying the site... then they announced the plan." When Salmond initially supported Trump's golf resort plans, the future president sang a different tune, hailing him as a "great man". Neil Hobday, the project director for Trump's Aberdeen course and who helped broker the controversial deal for the site, claimed the Scottish Government and the country were 'hoodwinked' by Trump's promise of a £1 billion project. Read more: What does Donald Trump own in Scotland? 'He was willing to fight the environmental battle and create this impression that this was a $1bn project and Scotland absolutely needed it. But I think he never really had the money or the intention of finishing it,' Hobday said. Tensions were not relieved from the windfarm debacle whatsoever once Nicola Sturgeon became First Minister, when she stripped Trump of his honorary business ambassador title in 2016 and has directed barbs towards the President ever since. When Sturgeon resigned in 2023, Trump addressed her back, stating 'good riddance' to the 'failed woke extremist'. Environmental damage and stripped protections Trump's [[Aberdeen]]shire golf resort was built on a protected dune system at Menie Estate, a Site of Special Scientific Interest. Environmentalists warned that construction would destroy rare habitats and were proven right. By July 2018, the Scottish Natural Heritage agency admitted that the dunes had been "partially destroyed" by construction and use of the course. By 2020, the Scottish Government officially removed the site's protected status, stating the damage meant the dunes "no longer merited special protection". Read more: Why is Donald Trump visiting Scotland – and where is he going? The government acknowledged that Trump International had taken some conservation measures but concluded that "they no longer have sufficient scientific interest to merit special protection". The unexplained wealth order controversy In 2021, a U.S.-based activist group sought a judicial review after the Scottish Government refused to investigate how Trump financed his golf courses in Scotland. The campaigners pushed for an Unexplained Wealth Order into Trump, a legal tool used to scrutinise suspiciously large cash purchases and recover assets, often dubbed a "McMafia order". The effort followed a February 2021 vote in the Scottish Parliament, where lawmakers rejected a similar motion. Despite the petition, the highest civil court dismissed the case. The financing behind Trump's golf courses is an issue that is raised every time the President visits. Last visit, Liberal Democrat MSP Liam McArthur remarked that Trump was playing 'the most expensive rounds of golf in history'.
