Motion to boost planning protections around a military training area near Sennybridge is kicked into touch
A motion which sought to bolster planning protections around a military training area in Powys cannot be added into the present Local Development Plan, a planning expert has said
Reform UK group leader Councillor Iain McIntosh had a second chance to secure backing for his motion to: “reinstate and publish the Statement of Common Ground (SoCG) within the council’s adopted Local Development Plan,” at a Powys County Council meeting on Thursday, March 5,
The motion had been before councillors in December, but the debate had been paused.
The SoCG between the council and the Ministry of Defence (MoD) from 2017 refers to a 10-kilometre planning buffer zone around the Sennybridge Training Area (SENTA).
Cllr McIntosh (Yscir, with Honddu Isaf and Llanddew) said: “There’s been ample opportunity to view the background and wording of the proposal and correspondence between myself, (UK) government ministers, and the Ministry of Defence.
“The SoCG was created to protect one of the UK’s most important training sites; its value to national defence is unquestionable.”
He said that Council Leader Councillor Jake Berriman (Liberal Democrat – Llandrindod North) — a former planning officer — had asserted back in December that policy SP7 in the current LDP fully protects the MoD’s interest.
Cllr McIntosh continued: “Yet here we are, facing two wind farm proposals only a stone’s throw away from SENTA.
“So clearly the developers don’t consider policy SP7 as a barrier; otherwise, they would not invest time and money preparing these schemes.”
Due to this, he stressed the need for the original SoCG to be put into the LDP.
Senior strategic planning officer Adrian Humpage explained that the SoCG was created to deal with MoD objections, and a new renewable assessment was done for the LDP which created the 10km (kilometre) buffer zone around SENTA.
Mr Humpage said: “The LDP was adopted on April 17, 2018, and there was a six-week period when it could have been brought forward for review.
“Nothing happened, and as a consequence, the plan came into force, and that effectively froze it in stone.
“There is no legal mechanism to reintegrate or bring things back into the LDP.”
The council have now started work on a replacement LDP and are preparing the deposit plan that will eventually go out to public consultation.
This allows all issues with the current LDP to be “considered afresh.”
Mr Humpage said: “The MoD are an important stakeholder in that process.”
Cabinet member for legal and regulatory services Councillor Richard Church (Liberal Democrat – Welshpool Castle) asked: “What would be the legal implications and risks for this council if this motion were to be adopted, what force would it have?”
Principal planning solicitor Rachel Mole said: “There is no scope for addition to the LDP; there’s no statutory grounds for us to do that.”
Head of legal services Clive Pinney added: “It would have no legal effect, as we could not implement it.”
Cllr Church said: “So the whole debate would be completely pointless.”
Councillor David Selby (Liberal Democrat – Newtown Central) said: “My suggestion is we move to the next business; we have heard the issues, we are clearly informed of the action we ought to take, and we should just move on.”
This is a closure motion, which would stop the debate, and the meeting would simply move on without the motion being put to a vote.
Mr Pinney advised councillors that while three elements of the motion could not be carried, one point could still be agreed.
This was: to “Ensure that all future planning policy and decisions within this safeguarding zone give full weight to national defence interests and the operational integrity of the Sennybridge Training Area.”
Cllr McIntosh said: “There is still no harm in putting this through, as there is a principle behind it, and the council needs to do something about it.”
He wanted assurances that these protections would be included in the new LDP.
Mr Humpage confirmed that discussions with the MoD “regarding their requirements” were taking place as the council moves to complete its deposit plan.
The first vote for the closure motion saw 29 councillors vote in favour, 27 against, and two councillors abstain.
Due to this, the motion was not put to a vote.
