Wrexham begrudgingly adopts local plan after rejecting it twice before
A dramatic walkout by Plaid Cymru councillors and warnings that the judge-forced vote was “dangerous to democracy” were not enough to stop 26 councillors from voting to approve the twice-rejected local plan for Wrexham.
Their votes were enough to carry the motion regarding the local plan, which faced 11 abstentions including from Wrexham County Council Leader Cllr Mark Pritchard. Counting the entirety of the Plaid Cymru councillors, 19 councillors were absent from the proceedings.
Councillors were voting to adopt The Wrexham Local Development Plan 2013-2028, a strategic development framework that allocates space for more than 8,000 homes and 111 acres of employment space in the county.
Objections towards adopting the local plan centred around the number of homes needed, with several councillors stating that the projected number was inaccurate. They also cited insufficient infrastructure capacity to handle an influx of residents, and the fact these proposals would get rid of green fields.
The local plan has been in the works since November 2012, with Wrexham County councillors agreeing to send the plan to the Planning Inspectorate for examination in 2018. The inspector found the plan sound and sent it back to the council for a final vote.
After the rejection of the plan in April and again in June, a consortium of developers took the county council to court. There, Justice Stephen Eyre ruled in favour of the developers, stating that the county councillors had acted irrationally and unlawfully in rejecting the local plan.
His ruling also mandated that the county council once again put the local plan to a vote, with the understanding that the county council had a statutory obligation to approve the document and anything less than approval would be contrary to the court order and incur future judicial repercussions – such as being found in contempt of court, which could result in time in jail.
In her opening remarks, Wrexham County Council’s chief officer of governance Linda Roberts, reminded the councillors of the judge’s order. “We have a duty to uphold the law,” she told those at the extraordinary council meeting, adding: “Democracy is not above the law.”
Others disagreed. Plaid Cymru Cllr Carrie Harper said the judge’s order “criminalised the democratic process,” adding that the vote on Wednesday was not a free vote “because we’ve all effectively had a gun to our heads”.
Cllr Mark Jones, the leader of Wrexham’s Plaid Cymru group, said his party wouldn’t “be part of that undemocratic farce” of a vote and led the group out of the voting area and to where the residents stood watching.
Conservative Cllr Rob Walsh also expressed his discomfort in the situation, noting that he would rather the judge had imposed the adoption of the local plan instead of requiring the council to vote once again. Such a move was “dangerous to democracy” he contended.
“We’re being forced to vote against our beliefs and what our residents want,” he said. “This should never be allowed to happen again.”
Labour leader Cllr Dana Davies was among those who voted in favour of the plan. She seemed exasperated by the situation the council found itself in and stated that this was not a situation where democracy was in crisis – it was about acting lawfully.
“We are here today because of an unlawful decision that was made by this council back in April in answer to a statutory duty that this council should have undertaken,” she said. “It’s about upholding the law.”
In voting against the local plan in April and June, Davies argued that the council had “set the precedence now where elected members are wilfully, consciously, knowingly, and intentionally voting unlawfully.”
Fellow Labour councillor Malcolm King agreed. “The idea that we are setting an example to young people that we can pick and choose which laws we obey and then decide when we don’t really like them that we’re going to call it democracy and break them – it’s shameful,” he said.
Cllr Gary Brown, also with the Labour Party, had voted against the local plan in April but changed his mind in June when confronted with more evidence.
“A sad day for democracy is when people continue with a dogma of refusing to change in light of the facts of the situation,” he contended. “If I’m here for one purpose and one purpose alone… it is to be listening, more than talking, and to bring some intelligence and understanding to a situation that is emotive – and to do the right thing.”
Cllr Michael Morris, a Conservative, pointed out the importance of the local plan itself. “We’re not here just to let the county stagnate,” he said. “We’re here to see it grow.”
Related Articles
Analysis - The Subplot
The Subplot | Slaying real estate dragons
A fortune awaits the bold and the brave who are ready to face the monsters endangering the property market. We dig into where the opportunity lies – and what potential pitfalls face our heroes. Plus: a look at Northern economies and Sunderland’s high streets.
Analysis - The Subplot
The Subplot | Gigafactories are out, data centres are in
Blackstone’s mega data centre has risen from the ashes of BritishVolt’s Northumberland dreams. What does the stalling EV revolution mean for the push for data centres? Plus: good news all around for Leeds offices and Newcastle BTR.
What’s the point of a vote if a judge has told them how to exercise it on potential penalty of prison. It’s the judges actions that should be unlawful, not those with the responsibility to exercise democratic responsibility. Just who runs this country – the electorate or establishment judges?
By John
I have to agree what is the point in the vote. If you can’t oppose it then there is no point in the vote taking place.
By Anonymous
The judge is there to uphold the law. We vote in the councillors to abide by the law and do their statutory duty. That’s democracy. Simple !
By Irenelaw
John, you clearly don’t have a clue about the background of the local plan, or a understanding of what the law is. I’d also point out that democratic decisions can still be unlawful. Politicians, especially councillors, cannot simply break the law just because they have a small amount of political power. Being democratically elected doesn’t change the fundamental fact that they can carte blanche do whatever they like. They can’t, and they have statutory obligations and responsibilities to fulfil. The correct, and lawful decision was made today.
By Adam
If it’s a “statutory duty” that councils have no choice over then why impose the “vote”? Why should free people be forced to endorse something they don’t agree with? Fine, the council may be forced to do it by law. But they should not be forced to endorse it. It should be clear to voters who exactly they need to depose in order to oppose a “statutory duty”. In this case, it’s the government that needs to be removed to remove the statutory not the councillors who were forced to vote in favour of this by a judge.
That is a broken dictatorial system and not democracy.
By John
Dear oh dearie me! We have a number of councillors, who think they are above the law and have no concept of upholding the rule of law because it doesn’t suit them. What a sad day!.. We also have on hear a number of contributors who, likewise, have no concept of how the legal system works. if all the objectors were to ride roughshod over the system, we would anarchy and then where would we be?..
By Grumpy Old Git
John- your comment betrays your serious lack of understanding of the local plan making process. This plan, which has been drawn up by experts, on which has been consulted on by both councillors and statutory consultees, was found legally sound by the planning inspector. There is no basis within planning law to refuse it, and that’s the only thing that matters. Councillors do not get to simply ignore or make up their own laws just because they’re a low level elected politician. To ignore the law is dictatorial. You genuinely haven’t got a clue what you’re talking about.
By Adam
John – if councillors decided to have a vote and decided that the national speed limit should not be applicable in their local authority, and driving should banned entirely until the national speed limit is increased/ reduced (to an unspecified mph), would that be lawful or unlawful? Because that’s the scenario here. And before you mention the 20mph speed limit in Wales, this was done by the Welsh parliament which has powers at a national level far greater than a local authority.
By Tinpot
Inspector’s reports are binding John, and they have been for years. You don’t get to pick and choose what laws you want to follow. Have a think about how much this ego battle from these councillors has cost taxpayers. I know it’s panto season, the widow Twankey act should be kept in the theatre .
By PP
Those who denigrate objection to fake democratic processes and subjugation of individuals should move to China. Neither “experts” nor judges should have any right to force free people to endorse their views or work. The local plan is clearly imposed against local democratic wishes. The British government may believe it has the right to do what it likes with territory. But it should also be the case that a free people is able to object to it and make their objection clear without being threatened with prison unless they “change their minds”.
By John
“ Neither “experts” nor judges should have any right to force free people to endorse their views or work.”
That goes without saying. Everyone has the right to be heard. But that doesn’t mean people or institutions should be forced to agree with what you say. There are other views and interests. That’s why democratic and legal processes exist.
By Anonymous
Bonkers how the leaders of a borough that isn’t the most prosperous can be so against jobs, home, growth and development.
Those Councillors who did vote for the local plan should be proud of themselves for looking after the people of Wrexham. A place with plenty of opportunity, just badly managed by the bevy of nimbys on Council.
By Jobs