Wrthi'n llwytho
Does dim crynodeb o'r cyfarfod hwn eto. Caiff crynodebau eu hysgrifennu pan fydd y cyngor yn cyhoeddi'r cofnodion, sef ei gofnod swyddogol o'r hyn a benderfynodd cyfarfod. Maen nhw fel arfer yn ymddangos ychydig wythnosau ar ôl y cyfarfod.
1.1 Councillor Clive Davies took the Chair. It was explained that this was a special meeting to discuss two items from the CJC - Strategic Development Planning Sub-Committee of 14 July where the recommendations had not been able to be voted on because the meeting had not been quorate.
2.1 Apologies for absence were received from: • Clive Pinney (Powys County Council) • Councillor Gareth Ratcliffe (Powys County Council) • Christopher O’Brien (Bannau Brycheiniog NPA) 2.2 Due to Councillor Gareth Ratcliffe having sent apologies, Steve Raynor (Chair of BBNPA Planning Committee) was in attendance with delegated powers to vote on his behalf at this meeting. 2.3 The meeting was therefore agreed to be quorate.
3.1 There were no declarations of interest.
4.1 SGP gave a summary of the discussion held at the last meeting and an overview of the options paper circulated with the agenda papers and originally at the meeting of 14 July. 4.2 We have a statutory duty at present to undertake a Strategic Development Plan. That has been in place for at least two years but, due to resources and staffing, no real progress has been made. There is an officer working group and we have had several SDP meetings but – in terms of an actual start date and the writing up of a delivery agreement – we have not come to that position because there is no substantive budget in place. So, as a consideration of alternative options, Peter Morris had prepared a paper which set out three different options. 4.3 In brief these are: • Option 1 – Undertake an SDP and an LDP Lite. That would require those Authorities also undertaking their LDPs to continue to do so. It would not be adoptable until 2035/2036 by the time the SDP has been adopted, which is approximately 6 years and the LDP Lite would follow that. Costs are estimated at around £2.8m to undertake an SDP, not including the staffing costs. A large amount of evidence would be required, and a public examination. • Option 2 – Undertake LDPs alone and not undertake an SDP. This would necessitate a conversation with Welsh Government. LDPs alone each have a cost, but that cost is borne by the Authority and would need to happen regardless in Option 1 as well. • Option 3 – The region considers some form of collaborative agreement, which would be an early stage stepping stone to SDP work. This could involve shared development management policies, undertaking agreement over methodologies for certain types of research, and producing shared Supplementary Planning Guidance. There would be an associated cost due to needing staff time across the region to undertake such work. It would not be at the levels that an SDP is required, but it would also provide the benefits that an SDP would in terms of shared discussion and resources. 4.4 At the July meeting there was broad agreement that we were not in a good position to start an SDP financially and there is not at present a Policy Manager across the three LPAs. The budget allocated to the SDP is approximately £50k/annum, which is well below what we would need at around £350k/annum. 4.5 We also do not currently have the SDP manual from WG, as it has been pushed back repeatedly by them. It was now expected around autumn 2026. However, there was a letter sent by the Minister, with a guide hoping SDP regions would submit a delivery agreement by December 2025. In order to support that, they were offering £200k to each SDP region. That is less than 10% of the overall cost of an SDP estimated at this time. So, in the last meeting, the conclusion was that we should look for a conversation with WG about whether or not a regional collaboration would be acceptable, and that we would not work towards a delivery agreement. SGP added that it was very unlikely if we started work on a delivery agreement now that we would be able to prepare it, consult on it and take it through the relevant democratic processes to adopt and submit it by that deadline. 4.6 The broad recommendations of the previous Subgroup, though it wasn’t quorate, was that we pursue a conversation with Welsh Government about a regional collaborative agreement and we agree that we are unable to make the December 2025 delivery agreement deadline. It is those two points that SGP is asked to go to the CJC with on 6 October and confirm that the SDP Subgroup are content with that approach. 4.7 JB had been at the previous meeting that was not quorate and he affirmed that the above position was reflective of that conversation. 4.8 JB also noted that there is a proposal for a new National Park in North East Wales which is going through the process at the moment and is at the formal consultation stage. If that were to go through and be adopted, it would mean we would have to restart any work that we were doing around an SDP, as we would have a new partner in the Mid Wales region, which would be that new National Park if it were a planning authority. 4.9 SR stated that Bannau Brycheiniog are part of 3 separate regions and, although it would be good to have a consistent approach with 3 SDPs, he could see that what had been discussed today made sense – to approach WG and have discussions about the most sensible way forward. He was happy to endorse that discussion and see where it leads. 4.10 Recommendations: • Discuss the alternative options to SDP preparation with WG including removal of the Statutory Duty for the Mid Wales CJC to prepare an SDP. • Discuss with WG any plans to remove end dates to LDPs to support greater flexibility • Discuss with WG whether they formally intend to amend review periods for LDPs beyond 4 years and work back from the end date of the plan instead of the adoption date. 4.11 The recommendations were proposed by JB and seconded by SR. There was a show of hands to vote, and all voting members (JB, SR, AD, CD and GJ) voted to AGREE the recommendations.
5.1 SGP stated that if we progress the discussions under item 4 with WG, we will not be in a position to submit a delivery agreement and so will not meet the minister’s expectation. So, in terms of the forward plan, she would report back to the CJC that we do not intend to submit a delivery agreement this calendar year and that we intend to progress negotiations. 5.2 Therefore, the forward plan is to seek advice from Welsh Government on whether a collaboration agreement would be supported. If WG is happy with that conversation, SGP would then come back to the SDP Subgroup and suggest ways in which we could make that happen. 5.3 SGP asked if everyone was happy with that proposal. All the voting Members confirmed they were in agreement. 5.4 JB suggested that, although the £200k that WG had offered to each SDP region would not be enough for the SDP work, because this money had been on the table, we should make a common statement to say that it would be a very helpful contribution to the ongoing work of collaboration across the CJC. CD seconded this suggestion. ACTION to SGP to include this this the conversation with WG.
6.1 There was no other business.
Rhaid i gynghorwyr ddweud pan fydd ganddyn nhw gysylltiad personol â rhywbeth sy'n cael ei drafod, fel swydd, eiddo neu aelod o'r teulu. Mae buddiant sy'n rhagfarnu yn ddigon cryf i'r cynghorydd adael yr ystafell fel arfer a pheidio â chymryd rhan.
Caiff datganiadau eu darllen o'r cofnodion unwaith y byddan nhw wedi'u cyhoeddi.
Yn rhestru cynghorwyr presennol y cyngor yn unig. Nid yw aelodau cyfetholedig, swyddogion a chyn-gynghorwyr yn cael eu dangos.