What survives a withdrawn local development plan?

Introduction

Wrexham’s withdrawn Local Development Plan (LDP) may be gone, but one key question remains: what survives its withdrawal?

Following the Ministerial Direction of March 2026, the status of the emerging plan itself is clear. The Minister stated that the plan “will cease to exist” and that its policies are to be excluded from the determination of planning applications [1 – MS Rebecca Evans, Welsh Government, “Withdrawal Direction: Wrexham LDP”, 16 March 2026 – copy available here]

The position of the evidence base is less straightforward. Planning and Environment Decisions Wales (PEDW) has advised that evidence scrutinised through examination may remain material and, in some circumstances, carry considerable weight [2 – PEDW – Advice Note 1 2025 – Updated to reflect the High Court’s decision to quash the Council’s adoption of the LDP – available here]

Evidence does not cease to exist simply because a plan is withdrawn. But what weight should be given to evidence prepared for a plan that was found sound, never adopted and ultimately withdrawn? In Wrexham, that question goes to the heart of the relationship between technical evidence, planning judgment and democratic decision-making.

How Wrexham’s LDP unravelled

Work on Wrexham’s now-withdrawn LDP began in 2012. Following consultation and examination, the appointed Inspectors concluded in February 2023 that, subject to recommended binding changes, the plan met the statutory requirements and tests of soundness.

Ordinarily, that would have marked the end of the process. In Wrexham, it was only the beginning.

In April 2023, councillors voted against adopting the plan. That decision led to litigation culminating in the Court of Appeal’s decision in Jones v Wrexham County Borough Council & Ors [2024] EWCA Civ 1603, which confirmed that elected members retained the legal discretion to decide whether the plan should be adopted [3]. The Supreme Court later refused permission to appeal.

The final chapter came in March 2026, when Welsh Ministers exercised their powers under section 66(1) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 to direct withdrawal of the plan. The Minister cited concerns including the currency of parts of the evidence base, changes in national planning policy, housing delivery significantly below projected levels and the implications of extending the plan period.

The result was a highly unusual outcome: a plan found sound through independent examination, rejected by elected members and ultimately withdrawn by Welsh Ministers.

Where does evidence end and policy begin?

The Ministerial Direction resolved the status of the plan itself. The emerging LDP was to be withdrawn, would cease to exist, and its policies would be excluded from consideration in the determination of planning applications.

PEDW’s post-withdrawal guidance addresses a different question: what status, if any, should be given to the material prepared to support the LDP? Unlike the Ministerial Direction, the PEDW Advice Note does not itself have legal force. However, it provides the most detailed available guidance on the planning consequences of withdrawal and is therefore likely to be a significant consideration in practice.

PEDW draws a clear distinction between the former LDP and the evidence underpinning it. Following withdrawal, the plan’s policies should no longer attract weight (para. 26). However, the position of the underlying evidence is more nuanced.

Paragraph 27 states that evidence scrutinised through examination may remain a material consideration, with the weight to be afforded depending on its age and any subsequent changes in circumstances. For housing and affordable housing need, the Advice Note goes further, stating that, “in the absence of any evidence to the contrary”, the “evidenced and tested need for housing/affordable housing” may be given “considerable weight”.

More difficult questions arise where evidence is closely intertwined with the planning judgments embodied in the plan itself.

The challenge is most apparent in PEDW’s analysis of allocations. Paragraph 28 states that, although no weight should be afforded to the LDP itself, a former allocation may indicate that a site was considered suitable for development following public consultation and assessment against the evidence base. PEDW suggests that, in some circumstances, a previous allocation may still be relevant as an indication of a site’s relative suitability.

Yet allocations are neither straightforward policy nor merely technical evidence. They are the product of a plan-making process combining evidence, consultation and planning judgment. The Welsh Government's Development Plans Manual treats policies and allocations as flowing from an underlying evidence base [4]. Some material, such as demographic projections, transport modelling and environmental assessments, may stand alone as material considerations. Other matters sit much closer to planning judgment. Housing requirements, growth strategies, settlement hierarchies and site allocations reflect not only technical evidence, but judgments about how identified needs should be met and where development should take place.

That distinction matters because PEDW’s guidance accepts that evidence tested through examination may remain material following withdrawal. The more difficult question is how that principle operates where the evidence forms part of a broader planning judgment embodied in the withdrawn plan. The closer a matter moves from technical evidence towards planning judgment, the harder it becomes to distinguish reliance on the evidential foundation from reliance on the conclusions it was intended to support.

For Wrexham, that may prove one of the most consequential issues arising from the LDP’s withdrawal. How far can the evidential basis for a withdrawn allocation properly be taken into account without, in substance, giving weight to the allocation itself? Allocations bring the question into sharp focus, but the issue is wider: where does a withdrawn plan end and the evidence, assessment and planning judgments that informed it begin?

Conclusion

The story of Wrexham’s LDP is no longer about whether the plan survived. It did not.

The more difficult question is what survives its withdrawal. PEDW’s guidance provides a framework, but applying it is less straightforward where evidence, assessment and planning judgment overlap.

For Wrexham, the issue extends beyond former allocations. As planning applications come forward, decision makers will need to determine what weight can properly be given to material prepared for a plan that was found sound, never adopted and ultimately withdrawn. That may require careful distinctions between evidence and the planning judgments it was intended to support. The status of the plan has been settled. The status of its evidential legacy remains far less certain.

Dr Rebecca Wright is Head of Law and Deputy Monitoring Officer at Wrexham County Borough Council.

FOOTNOTES

[1] – MS Rebecca Evans, Welsh Government, “Withdrawal Direction: Wrexham LDP”, 16 March 2026 – copy available here

[2] – PEDW – Advice Note 1 2025 – Updated to reflect the High Court’s decision to quash the Council’s adoption of the LDP – available here

[3] Jones v Wrexham County Borough Council & Ors [2024] EWCA Civ 1603

[4] Welsh Government, Development Plans Manual (Edition 3) March 2020 – available here