The following amendments have been selected: amendments 1 and 2 in the name of Siân Gwenllian.

The next debate is the Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee debate on the national development framework, and I call on the Chair of the committee to move the motion—Mike Hedges.

Motion NDM7487 Mike Hedges

To propose that the Senedd: 

1. Notes the draft National Development Framework, laid on 21 September 2020.

2. Notes that, in accordance with Section 3 of the Planning (Wales) Act 2015, the 60-day Senedd consideration period began on the day on which the draft of the Framework was laid in the Senedd.

3. Notes that, in accordance with Section 3 of the Planning (Wales) Act 2015, the Welsh Ministers must have regard to any resolution passed by the Senedd and any recommendation made by a committee of the Senedd with regard to the draft during that 60-day period.                                                                                                

Motion moved.

Diolch, Llywydd. I'm pleased to be able to speak in this committee-led debate on the draft national development framework, which is now called 'Future Wales: the national plan 2040'. Members of the Senedd will be aware that the Planning (Wales) Act 2015 set out scrutiny procedures for the draft NDF. The Act refers to a Senedd consideration period that lasts for 60 days after the draft NDF is laid. Welsh Ministers must have regard to any resolution passed by the Senedd and any recommendation made by a Senedd committee during that time.

The 60-day period comes to an end tomorrow. This debate is the second we will have had on the draft NDF, following a Welsh Government debate very early in the 60-day period. The purpose of today’s debate is to give the Senedd and Members a final opportunity to consider the draft NDF. This is not a debate on the Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee's report, although I hope it will be informed by our recommendations. As Chair of the Committee, I will not be addressing the amendments tabled by Members. It is more appropriate for the Minister to do so.

The committee published our report on Monday. In it, we made 26 recommendations across several policy areas. Before I go any further, I would like to thank everyone who gave their time to contribute to the committee’s work, either through written submissions or appearing before us virtually. I would also like to thank the committee’s expert adviser, Graeme Purves, for his assistance during the scrutiny process.

'Future Wales' is an important document; it sets out a 20-year framework for planning and development in Wales. If done right, it has the potential to articulate a bold, long-term vision for this country. As a committee, we are generally content with 'Future Wales'. All members of the committee can point to elements that they would wish to strengthen, or even remove, but overall, we were content. However, one Member of the committee expressed opposition to some policies in 'Future Wales' and, as a consequence, to aspects of the committee's conclusions and recommendations. I'm sure the Member will explain his reasons in full shortly.   

The overarching challenge the Welsh Government faces is to ensure that this 40-year planning framework is resilient enough to be able to respond to the three biggest challenges we currently face: COVID and any future viruses, Brexit, and the effects of climate change. The Minister has assured the committee that 'Future Wales' is sufficiently flexible and resilient to respond to societal changes arising from the COVID-19 pandemic.

But we believe it is too early to judge the medium and long-term impacts of decisions that are being made in light of the pandemic. For example, Welsh Ministers have talked about up to 30 per cent of Welsh workers working from home. This has the potential to fundamentally change the way areas such as town and city centres operate. And this will affect infrastructure, housing and connectivity, and very much those businesses that are based on providing services to those working in offices within city centres. 'Future Wales' needs to be able to reflect all of these changes. We've recommended that 'Future Wales' should include a clear statement to reflect the lessons learned from COVID-19 and explain how it will support post-COVID-19 recovery.  

One of our key concerns was around strategic development plans. 'Future Wales' will be the highest level of strategic plan, providing a national planning framework. Strategic development plans will fit between the national development plan and the local development plan. In terms of a hierarchy of strategic planning documents, this makes sense. But the approach is hamstrung by the absence of the middle tier of strategic development plans. Frankly, local authorities haven't shown much of an interest in developing these plans as yet. But for the Welsh Government's approach to work, they need to come on-stream as soon as possible. 

There is an added complication. Local authorities will need to come together to develop these plans under the Local Government and Elections (Wales) Bill, which was passed by this Senedd last week. The Bill provides for corporate joint committees to be established, which will consist of representatives of more than one local authority to develop SDPs. Of course, more co-operation between local authorities is a good thing in principle, but what we don’t want is an unintended reduction in accountability to local communities. One criticism we heard about 'Future Wales' was that, in places, it seems to extend into territory you would expect to be covered by strategic development plans. We hope this will be rebalanced over time, as SDPs come forward.

I will now turn briefly to some of the other key areas we have covered in our report. Energy: we have made several detailed recommendations in our report, but the main point I want to make is a strategic one. We believe that the shortcomings of the grid are impeding strategic development in Wales. We know that if you want to build a windfarm or you want to put in a solar farm, then you need to do it where there used to be a power station, so that you get access to the grid. That causes huge problems in lots of areas.

The Minister has said that 'Future Wales' will provide a basis for further discussions with National Grid and distribution companies. These discussions must happen as a matter of urgency, otherwise 'Future Wales' is hamstrung from the start when it comes to energy. There needs to be a strategy to improve electricity transmission and distribution infrastructure, including any new infrastructure required in mid Wales. We have recommended that the Welsh Government should work with National Grid, electricity distribution companies and the renewable energy industry to take this forward with urgency.

On housing, we were generally content with the policies set out in 'Future Wales', but we want to place on record our disappointment that amendments to Part L of building regulations have been delayed yet again. These amendments are necessary, but continuing to delay the inevitable changes is a cause of concern. We have recommended that the Welsh Government should progress the development of an amended Part L of building regulations so that the next Welsh Government, whoever it is, can introduce subordinate legislation as soon as possible following the 2021 election.

'Future Wales' talks a lot about connectivity. In our report published in November 2019, we said that 'Future Wales' needed to address the poor connectivity between north and south Wales. Despite being accepted by the Welsh Government, it doesn't go far enough. We also have concerns about connectivity to west Wales, which quite often gets forgotten, except by those who have to travel from Pembrokeshire towards the south-east of Wales. We believe that transport connectivity is an ongoing strategic problem across parts of Wales. 'Future Wales' places too much of the onus for promoting improved inter-regional linkages on the regions themselves. This must be addressed by the new national transport strategy that the Welsh Government is currently consulting on.

Finally, we made several detailed recommendations about biodiversity and green infrastructure, the national forest and the national parks. On the subject of green belts, contributors told us that local authorities should have more discretion than is set out in 'Future Wales' when it comes to determining the location and extent of green belts in their regions. As a committee, I’m afraid we could not agree. We believe that green belts are an essential tool in constraining urban sprawl. We have recommended that their function should be strengthened, and their benefits should be emphasised in 'Future Wales'.

In conclusion, I would like to end by thanking the Minister for the constructive way that she and her officials have engaged with the committee and the helpful way that the many documents related to 'Future Wales' have been presented and explained. When the committee published its report on 'Future Wales' in November 2019, we set out 50 conclusions with the aim of improving the NDF. Most of our recommendations were accepted. In this report, we have made a further 26 recommendations. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response. Thank you.

I have selected the two amendments to the motion and I call on Llyr Gruffydd to move amendments 1 and 2, tabled in the name of Siân Gwenllian. Llyr Gruffydd.

Amendment 1—Siân Gwenllian

Add as new points at end of motion:

Believes that the revised four-region model in Future Wales: the national plan 2040:

a) has been inspired by a Conservative, unionist agenda based on the UK Government’s city and growth deals;

b) would drive a wedge into Wales, splitting the north of our country from the south and would do little to proactively improve north-south connectivity; and

c) would neglect some of those parts of Wales most in need of regeneration and development, namely the western seaboard and the valleys of the south.

Calls on the Welsh Government to replace the four-region model proposed in Future Wales: the national plan 2040 with an alternative regional map of Wales focused on making Wales a connected, sustainable, prosperous and self-sufficient nation in every sense.

Amendment 2—Siân Gwenllian

Add as new points at end of motion:

Notes that Dr Neil Harris of Cardiff University, in evidence to the Senedd’s Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee, summarised the approach underpinning Future Wales: the national plan 2040 as one which is based on urban-focused growth and stability elsewhere.

Believes that the approach underpinning Future Wales: the national plan 2040:

a) threatens to entrench the failure to distribute wealth, growth and development equally across Wales as a permanent feature of Wales’s governance in this long-term plan; and

b) will lead to overdevelopment in the areas already prioritised as preferred locations for substantial residential and other development, whilst doing little to address the need for sustainable development in other areas including the need for social and affordable housing to meet the housing crisis.

Believes that the planning system in Wales must reflect the need for suitable development in the right places according to local need; give communities a greater say in developments in their areas and that the planning system must permit holistic planning at the appropriate level, but believes that the transfer of power and accountability over planning from local authorities to corporate joint committees through strategic development plans is likely to further limit the local voice in planning.

Calls on the Welsh Government to replace the approach which currently underpins Future Wales: the national plan 2040 with an alternative approach focused on distributing wealth, power and investment equitably across the whole of Wales by targeting intervention and growth to the areas in most need.

Amendments 1 and 2 moved.

Thank you very much, Llywydd. We could spend a great deal of time going through the individual recommendations made in the committee’s report, many of which I agree with, but I have more fundamental issues with the foundations of the development framework, which are, of course, highlighted in the amendments tabled by Plaid Cymru, and by the fact that the committee’s report, ultimately, is a minority report.

One of the problems I have is that the spatial footprint of the NDF is flawed. It, in my view, puts in place the United Kingdom Conservative Government's vision, a unionist vision, which is entrenching Wales’s reliance on the English economy. There are four regions, of course, modelled on Boris Johnson’s growth deal areas, and it’s disappointing that the Wales map for the future is based on serving the Northern Powerhouse, the Bristol and Western Gateway, and the Midlands Engine—the east-west axis that means, of course, that the economic future of Wales will be based on crumbs from someone else’s table. Yes, we need cross-border collaboration to bring benefits to Wales from these entities, of course we do, but we shouldn’t base the whole vision of 'Future Wales' on that model. And the failure to prioritise building the Welsh economy in its own right does create, of course, more reliance on decisions taken by Conservatives in London and less likelihood that Wales, of course, will grow stronger and stand on its own two feet.

Now, rather than providing a vision that unites Wales, Labour, in doing this, are risking pushing south, mid and north Wales further apart. It does neglect the need—the great need—for better connectivity between north and south Wales, in my view. The Minister has said in her evidence that the framework was flexible enough to respond to north-south transport policies. But we shouldn’t be responding, we should be driving the vision and the ambitious policies that we need in order to bring Wales together. And that, of course, is reflected in one of the committee’s recommendations, which refers to the lack of focus on connectivity within Wales.

The second fundamental problem I have, of course, is the way in which the NDF does centralise growth in certain specific areas, and that inevitably will be at the expense of other areas. And Dr Neil Harris, an expert from Cardiff University, drew our attention as a committee, in his evidence, to the fact that the plan is based on growth that is focused on urban areas, but only mentions stability in other areas. Now, that isn’t the vision of sharing prosperity across Wales that we would want to see. It’s that failure to distribute wealth, growth and development in an equal way throughout Wales that is one of the features that I want to see overturned. You could say that that is one of the failings of devolution over the past 20 years. But what’s happening now, of course, is that that is being entrenched as a permanent feature of the Welsh Government vision until 2040.

There isn’t sufficient emphasis on Arfor and the need for growth in the west of Wales, as I’ve previously raised with the Minister, or on the Valleys as a specific entity that needs a stronger focus, in my view. There’s also a risk, of course, that these growth areas will ultimately face overdevelopment. We’ve seen it happening in certain parts of Wales already. When you look at those areas that are prioritised as favoured locations for significant residential developments, well, of course there’s risk of overdevelopment there, when there’s virtually nothing, on the other hand, to tackle the need for sustainable developments in other parts of Wales, particularly when it comes to the need for social housing and affordable housing to meet the housing crisis.

There are also problems, of course, with the top-down nature when it comes to the planning system. We had that debate at the time of the passing of the Planning (Wales) Act 2015, some years ago, but this takes the problem to the next level, through the regional development plans and through the reliance on the corporate joint committees, which take those key decisions further away from the communities affected by those decisions.

So, to conclude, Plaid Cymru cannot support this plan, which plays into the hands of the unionist agenda and the agenda of the Conservatives in London, which will weaken rather than strengthen Wales as an economic entity, a social and cultural and political entity. In light of that, we feel strongly that we must make fundamental changes to the national development framework for Wales.

This is the second time I've spoken on the NDF, and during the last debate I clearly outlined a number of weaknesses in the NDF. During committee, my resolve that these need addressing has strengthened.

As I have said previously, the current regional approach is flawed, especially when looking at north and mid Wales. I recommended that policy 20 should be amended, so that the whole of north Wales benefits, and that the main focus should be shared between Wrexham and Deeside and Caernarfon, Bangor and the Menai strait area. So, I implore you to ensure that north-west Wales has a national growth area. Plaid Cymru are wrong to call on the regional model to be replaced—the problem is actually with where the national growth areas are to be. So, I must express my frustration again that policy 25 has not been amended to introduce Aberystwyth as a main focus for investment.

'Future Wales' continues to fail to drive investment to the west of the whole of Wales, and this brings me to my support of recommendation 10, that a clear statement is needed now as to how the strategy will help to further post-COVID recovery. Yes, there is a statement on this pandemic in there, but you actually need to show how the document has evolved because of this horrendous pandemic. For example, should you amend policy 20 and see more drive for investment in north-west Wales, it could be said that you are responding to the need for boosting economic growth in the region following the 114 per cent jump in universal credit claims in Conwy, 117 per cent in Ynys Môn and 147 per cent in Gwynedd.

Similarly, in response to COVID-19, considerable emphasis is being placed on the opportunity for a green recovery. Now, the Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Boris Johnson MP, has given a brilliant boost to fostering a green revolution in the UK. This strategy does not reflect any such ambition. Now, I agree with the committee recommendation 11 that the Welsh Government should work with National Grid, electrical distribution companies and the renewable energy industry to develop a shared understanding of the strategic improvements that need to be made to electric transmission and distribution infrastructure. I would even go further, and ask that you include a commitment in policy 17 that if new grid infrastructure is to be built across mid Wales, that this will be placed below ground. Attention should also be given to the oral evidence of Hedd Roberts, who highlighted the need to protect the limited number of sites suitable for cable landfalls. That would help align 'Future Wales' with the national marine plan. As the Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales's Montgomery branch have highlighted, there needs to be a greater emphasis on a range of renewables, including marine energy.

Policy 22 refers to the need for a green belt around Wrexham and Deeside, and you will be aware that our committee have recommended that their function should be strengthened. I agree, but I am still concerned that by stipulating strong policy protection for the green belt in one corner of Wales, it could have a negative impact elsewhere. For example, if you wish to be direct, why not amend policy 22 so that it protects the green area around Llanrhos in Aberconwy? Again, there seems to be only two references to brownfield sites in this whole document. We should have a policy that gives priority to development in those areas.

It has been made clear to us that national parks are facing major challenges, so I do agree with recommendation 25 that there should be a specific policy on the matter, and this is what the Snowdonia Society themselves have advocated. I agree that policy 12 should include an additional priority: support for measures to reduce car dependency and to facilitate greener modes of access to our anchor visitor destinations in designated landscapes that are currently experiencing such chronic road congestion, proving more so during the times of the release of lockdown during the COVID pandemic. Despite you accepting the committee recommendation that the framework should address the poor connectivity between north and south Wales, it isn't there yet, as a lot of responsibility is being placed with the regions themselves.

Finally, I want to note my disappointment that 'Future Wales' in policies 4 and 5 leaves the future of rural areas to strategic and local development plans. Issues affecting rural Wales are of national significance, and as such, I reiterate calls for those policies to be amended so that they champion the saving of our rural schools and facilities, improvement of our B roads, diversification on our farms, and the Welsh Government working with digital communication providers to address the needs of rural areas. I urge you to act on these constructive calls, and to go back to the drawing board on this NDF. Thank you. Diolch.

There are lots of good things in the revised version of 'Future Wales'. A picture tells a thousand words, so the maps of proposed zones for different activities are very welcome, and much easier for citizens to understand how 'Future Wales' is relevant to their vision for the well-being of future generations. So, I think there's been a considerable improvement on the first iteration. Thank you very much, Minister, for that.

There are two points I'd like to make. First of all, it's imperative that 'Future Wales' has a strong and clear message that we have to have green belts to stop the urban sprawl that joins up different communities. For example, we must have a green belt between Cardiff and Caerphilly, because otherwise, developers will always want to build on the edge of Cardiff, because they can make more money out of it than building in Caerphilly, and if we don't have that sort of arrangement, then it makes a mockery of our strategy for developing our Valleys communities and ensuring that Cardiff doesn't just become a monstrous overcrowded city with no green spaces to easily access. Equally, I think it's really important that we protect the floodplains between Cardiff and Newport, to safeguard them against the appetite of developers to build wherever they can, so long as it's on a greenfield site, even if it's on a floodplain. And the uncertainty over our future food supplies imported from the European continent make it even more important that we are able to safeguard this floodplain as a place where we can produce food for both Newport and Cardiff, and therefore improve our food security.

I'd also like the Minister to clarify the extent of the protection given to sites of special scientific interest. Wildlife Trusts Wales told the committee that SSSIs must be sacrosanct or, at least, granted the same protection as they are in continental Europe. Could we give Welsh SSSIs the same assessment steps as Natura 2000 sites, so that SSIs are afforded the necessary protections against development? This seems particularly important, given the disturbing loss of species across Wales from a multitude of activities by human beings. So, can we specify in 'Future Wales' that a habitat regulation assessment is de rigueur to test the impact of any proposed development and probe the conservation objectives of any particular proposal? If they're judged to have a significant impact, this could, then, be followed up with an appropriate assessment to determine whether the integrity of the site would be damaged. If this assessment, then, says such an impact would be unavoidable, despite mitigation efforts, then it seems to me that the only way development could proceed is if there are no alternative solutions and there are imperative reasons to override the public interest.

Most recently, we saw a proposal to build a relief road to the M4 going across the Gwent levels, which would have, of course, meant the invasion of this environmentally protected site by vehicles, which would have destroyed the virtues of the site. I hope that if the Welsh Government implements revised and more rigorous standards they can ensure that we never see such a proposal having traction again. It is, of course, brilliant that the First Minister decided the impact on the environment in that proposal was, indeed, far too great to allow it to go ahead and many other alternative proposals are now being drawn up. Thank you.  

I rise to contribute to this debate as the Chair of the Culture, Welsh Language and Communications Committee. We felt it was incumbent upon us to take evidence with regard to the possible effects of the national development framework on the Welsh language and on the Government's own target to reach a million speakers of Welsh. We took evidence on 15 November and we have written to the Minister. Of course, we await her formal response in due course. It is true, at a national strategic level, that the framework does make a number of references to the Welsh language, but at a regional and spatial level, the references are much more general, and overall our committee believes, and the evidence that was presented to us showed, that this risks being a missed opportunity in terms of using our spatial planning as a nation to protect and ensure the future of our national language. 

Witnesses raised a number of concerns and I'll touch on a few of them briefly. One concern was around the issue of accountability at a regional level. The framework makes a great play of the need to operate at a regional level, and there is some reason for that, though I have personal concerns about the regions as set out in the framework. But, for example, the Welsh Language Commissioner's office noted that its oversight of statutory duties relates to legal entities and individual bodies, and it's very far from clear to the Welsh Language Commissioner how his legal responsibilities for ensuring that those bodies operate properly in the Welsh language legislation—how is that going to be carried out when they're co-operating at a regional level. Where is the responsibility? If he has to make representations about a failure, where and to whom does he make that representation? It isn't clear how the regional approach, as set out in the framework, will support and promote the Welsh language, and the committee would like the Welsh Government to show much more clearly how it intends to ensure greater transparency of the work of the regional bodies and how they can be accountable. 

Another area where we took extensive evidence was the issue of housing and the Welsh language. We know that for the language to have a future it needs to have live communities in which it is spoken regularly on a day-to-day basis. And we know that, in those communities in the north and the west, access to housing is a huge issue. Members will remember the story from last year of a headteacher of a primary school who could not afford, in Gwynedd, to buy a house that was within 40 miles of the school where she lived—for somebody in that senior professional position not to be able to afford a home in her community. Now, we don't feel that this is adequately addressed as an issue in the framework, and the impact of not having access to affordable and, crucially, social housing will really get in the way of those communities being able to survive as living communities and, therefore, the future of the language. We recommend that the link between social housing and affordable housing in Welsh-speaking areas, and the impact on the Welsh language, should be set out much more thoroughly in the framework document.

We are concerned about the way in which rural communities are referred to in the framework as a hinterland for towns and cities. It is in those rural communities where the Welsh language is often at its strongest, and to see rural communities as something that just exists in the context of the town that they surround is really an error, in our view. We would like the Government to take a more balanced approach to helping urban and rural centres to prosper, rather than one that focuses on urban centres with their hinterland, as if, somehow, the rural area belongs to the city or town. The framework we'd like to see updated to take account of the greater need for fast and reliable access to broadband—that, again, is crucial to enable people to work in those communities. And more information from the Government on what they're thinking on local hubs.

And finally, Llywydd, to touch on the issues of mainstreaming the language, there needs to be a recognition of the impact of these policies on the Welsh language at all levels of the document, not just at a national strategic level. We also think there's a need to see stronger links with other strategies. Where, for example, are the links with the Welsh in education plans? How will the framework contribute to the 'Cymraeg 2050' strategy? All this this needs to be spelt out, and then it needs to be monitored. We've asked the Government to specify how the contribution to the outcomes of 2050 will be measured and monitored if the framework is rolled out, and we've asked for the regional level of spatial planning in the framework to be flexible enough to allow the growth of partnerships that address specific issues. For example, those counties where Welsh is a community language should be able to work together beyond the framework as set out here.

We look forward as a committee to the Minister's formal response. There is still time to address our concerns. If they are not addressed, this will be a missed opportunity for the Government to put real meat on the bones of their commitment to 'Cymraeg 2050', and it will be necessary for an incoming Government to substantially reform the framework if this is not addressed. 

As a Member of the committee that scrutinised this Bill, I stand here to make some comments. There is no doubt that we need a national development plan, and underneath that, there's no doubt that we probably need a strategic development plan. But I'm going to raise my voice in support of communities that might feel somewhat removed from that process.

I note that the local government and elections Bill does have a mechanism for the development and establishment of a strategic development plan, and would be delivered by corporate joint committees, and that's made up of representatives from more than one local authority. Whilst I do support that, I think it's absolutely critical that we put in a system and a process to ensure that those representatives are, indeed, reflecting the views and the principles of the local communities that they serve. And I think that it is absolutely important that the frustrations of the current planning Act are not repeated. Over and over again we've seen development not able to go forward because there was no local development plan, and that, clearly, is not a good place to be in terms of trying to get any investment into that area.

I do want to welcome the fact that the neighbouring local authorities are considered when strategic plans are drawn up. The Minister, when she gave evidence, gave the example of Ystradgynlais, which is, of course, in mid and west Wales, as an area where connectivity into the Swansea city bay area is as good as its connectivity back into that area. Particularly when we talk about Powys and Ceredigion joining together in an economic development area, which, again, I support, it's about those peripheral areas that are joining other areas. Powys is a particular example where, along its very long periphery, it will abut many other areas, including some parts of England. So, it is really important that that is taken note of.

The biggest challenge, of course, is outlined in building back green and blue into the economy. When we look at the alternative energies that are writ large in this, if we particularly look at the offshore energy developments, there will have to be, in all cases, access back to the land. I know that the Minister has made it quite clear that this has to be read alongside the Marine and Coastal Access Act (2009). Nonetheless, the two have to work together. Otherwise, we cannot have the energy that we all hope to have—the new green energy—without that joining up together.

I do have to say that I support what Jenny Rathbone, and, I think, others have said here today, that we have to absolutely ensure the integrity of Natura 2000 sites. We must absolutely avoid, as a result of any implementation of policies within 'Future Wales', the degradation of biodiversity. It is never going to be good enough that we maintain things as they are, because to maintain things as they are, in terms of biodiversity, is only to keep us behind the loop, when, actually, what we need to do is restore what we've got to a pre-existing state, before it was degraded in the very first place. Thank you. 

Can I thank, first of all, the climate change and rural affairs committee for their work on the NDF? I have some observations of my own to make, and I'm also going to reference the Economy, Infrastructure and Skills Committee, which also scrutinised relevant aspects of the NDF that were relevant to that committee. But, I should add that I'm not speaking in my capacity as Chair of that committee today.

There have been a number of rounds of consultations, and I broadly welcome a number of very significant changes and improvements that have been made up to this point. There is a big 'however' coming later in my contribution. In regard to the EIS committee, we did feel strongly that, for the purpose of the NDF, Wales should be best broken down into four regions, not three. So, I was very pleased that the Government took note of that and introduced a four-region model. That was very positive indeed.

I note that in the Government's consultation process response, they strongly refuted the committee's view that the NDF lacked ambition. I think this is disheartening. I think a key national planning document like this needs to set an agenda, and it needs to make clear the route that we can take to tackle national challenges like economic an social inequality. I'm pleased as well to see that the updated NDF included a reference to the foundational economy. Earlier drafts did not include any reference to the foundational economy, and later documents did, so another positive change as well.

I'm coming on now to the bit that I mentioned—the 'however' bit. I, like many people across mid Wales, am deeply, deeply disappointed that the representations from across rural mid Wales seem to have been ignored, and that the renewable energy section has only been strengthened in what seems to be a drive to increase onshore wind. I will remind the Minister of the June 2011 protests that took place outside this Senedd a month after I was elected. Thousands of people came to protest, in dozens of buses that came from mid Wales. This is a signal that, yet again, the Welsh Government considers the huge damage to our landscapes to be acceptable, but it is not acceptable. It is not acceptable to me and it's not acceptable to the people of mid Wales, and it's clear that the Welsh Government give far more credence to the lobbying from onshore windfarm developers than the population of rural mid Wales, who they are supposed to represent.

I listened very carefully to the comments of Jenny Rathbone when she talked about the Welsh Government's scrapping of the M4 relief road due to environmental factors. Isn't it interesting that that's important to the First Minister when it comes to that particular project, but when it comes to mid Wales, it's a different story? In the NDF, no evidence or objective or rationale in regard to the designated area is outlined, and landscape is not an expendable commodity, and once spoiled, it is lost for future generations. Once again, the Welsh Government has opted to place far too much emphasis on onshore wind.

I know that the Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales made strong representations in this regard. I'm just going to highlight a few of them in the time I've got left, but tourism is critical to the rural economy. In Powys, it is the second highest producer of GDP, at around 11 per cent. Rural Wales's unique selling point as a fabulous landscape cannot be ignored, and this isn't just a case of being about national parks or areas of outstanding natural beauty, but the whole wonderful variety of tranquility and extensive unspoilt panoramic views. Rural Wales attracts tourism all year around.

And there are, of course, negative opinions regarding turbines and transmission lines, which are all very well documented. Then there is the flood risk, which CPRW point out in more detail as well, and the scale of what is proposed, how that would change water flows and have wider damage. Then there is the transport of turbines, also to remote rural areas, and that creates huge logistical issues in terms of narrow roads and steep winding roads and low bridges. Then, of course, there is the issue of remote locations that require extensive transmission infrastructure across considerable areas of beautiful countryside. The landscape implications of this are simply ignored within the NDF.

So, I would urge you, Minister, to consider very carefully again what I've outlined today and the views of CPRW. We need to have greater emphasis on a much wider basket of renewables, including offshore wind in that. Ten years ago, the people of my constituency called for 'Technical Advice Note (Wales) 8: Planning for Renewable Energy' to be scrapped, and the Welsh Government said 'no'. Now they are scrapping TAN 8, but they're effectively putting in place something that is worse in regard to this particular section of the NDF.

Like Russell George, I am deeply concerned about the potential impact—indeed, the likely impact—of the national development framework upon the landscapes of mid and west Wales. I'm an enthusiastic member of the Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales, and I see in this document the fundamental aim of the Welsh Government, which is to wreck the landscapes of mid and west Wales in order to conduct a virtue-signalling exercise in relation to renewable energy.

Huge blocks of Ceredigion, Carmarthenshire and Powys are designated for solar and wind, and big areas of Pembrokeshire for solar farms. We've just spent some time this afternoon debating the effects of plastic pollution. Well, at least with plastic you can pick it up and remove it, but when the hills of Wales are covered with windfarms and solar panel parks, then they are going to be there for a generation or more, and as Russell George has just pointed out, mid and west Wales relies on its landscape to generate a huge quantity of the economic activity within the region. Tourism is fundamental to the Welsh economy in these areas. I think it's monstrous that the Welsh Government, which is overwhelmingly urban in its representation and its interests, will be now riding roughshod over the interests and opinions of the people of mid and west Wales.

What we're seeing here is a strategic centralisation of planning and planning decision making. The national development framework and 'Planning Policy Wales Edition 10' will override any strategic development plan that might be developed and the local development plans that are currently in existence. We've seen this already in a number of controversial instances. The Welsh Government has ridden roughshod over local opinion in relation to the Hendy windfarm, for example, near Llandrindod Wells, where the local authority rejected the proposal, the planning inspector appointed by the Minister rejected the proposal and the Minister just approved it nevertheless.

The developments of national significance that are at the heart of all this, which are identified in the national development framework, will mean that decision taking in these areas is taken away altogether from local people and their representatives at a local level, and will be ultimately harboured in Cardiff. You know, when devolution was introduced, it was supposed to bring Government closer to the people, but I don't think that the people of mid and west Wales, and less still people in north Wales, feel closer to Cardiff than they feel close to Westminster. And so, the result of this national development framework, I believe, will further undermine the support for devolution, which has been draining away in any event in recent years.

Developments of national significance are windfarm developments, for example, of over 10 MW. Compared with England, that's very, very small, because the threshold figure in England is 50 MW. What does this mean? It means that there's a presumption in favour of development for these kinds of schemes, and associated acceptance of landscape change. Well, that's a fine phrase, isn't it—'landscape change'. Well, it is a change, isn't it, from glorious countryside to massive wind turbine developments that could be up to 250m in height. You can't avoid seeing these things and it completely wrecks any enjoyment of the countryside and I think will be a dagger aimed at the heart of the tourism industry in mid and west Wales.

It overrides the importance of landscape, amenity, heritage, nature conservation and, indeed, the tourist industry itself. And, as the Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales Brecon and Radnor branch, of which I'm a member, has pointed out, recent flagship legislation has committed Welsh public bodies to sustainable management of natural resources, sustainable development and the enhancement of resilient ecosystems, and also to work towards the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 goals, seven of them. Well, the promotion of industrial-scale renewable development, including wind turbines of up to 250m in height across much of rural Wales, coupled with a permissive policy that will reduce the weight to be given to local concerns isn't compatible with the objectives of the Environment (Wales) Act 2016 or indeed the well-being of future generations Act itself, or indeed the nature recovery plan. 

So, I believe that here, we've got a disaster in the making of a really colossal kind. And we've seen a gross abuse of the system already. There's another windfarm near Llangurig called Bryn Blaen, which Members, I'm sure, will be well familiar with. Planning permission for that was given in 2016 and it hasn't generated a watt of electricity, but the accounts of U and I Group PLC, the company that ultimately owns it, for 2019 show that they have generated £4.7 million-worth of cash—that's taxpayers' money, basically, that's gone into their pockets, out of Wales and into England, for no benefit in terms of saving the planet, either. It's pure rent-seeking abuse. And that's what disturbs me about this whole—

You will need to bring your comments to a close, now, Neil Hamilton.

Right, Llywydd. Thank you very much. 

And that's what disturbs me about this policy; there's no proportionality in it at all. You can believe that you're saving the planet by renewable energy, but you're not going to do it, I think, in an acceptable way, at the expense of many other desirable objectives—first and foremost, preserving and protecting the landscapes of wild Wales.

This motion has three parts. The first noting the national development framework being laid on 21 September 2020. The second notes that section 3 of the Planning (Wales) Act 2015 gives a 60-day period for Senedd consideration. So, today being 25 November, we're presumably outside that statutory period, or that's saying we don't note, or, if haven't wholly understood the situation, I hope Mike will inform us later what the situation is on this. And the third point about Welsh Ministers having to consider any resolution passed—I think, as this is only a 'take note' motion, I trust the Minister will listen to the debate and give proper consideration to what's been said.

Looking through this framework, I quite enjoy the quality of the document and some of the maps; it's quite interesting to read. But a few things struck me. One thing I'd quote. It says:

'Clear decisions should be made on the scale and location of growth through the preparation of a Strategic Development Plan'.

It's a very statist statement. It assumes that what we do, through this plan, is going to drive growth and determine where it is, whereas, actually, much, if not most, of that is going to reflect decisions made within the private sector. And I think a greater degree of humility in writing this and an understanding of how important private actors and their pursuit of profit are, compared to what we might like to put in a document such as this—ideally, the two should work together.

Within the section on south-east Wales, including the south central region for this purpose, we've got statements like:

'Cardiff will remain the primary settlement in the region, its future strategic growth shaped by its strong housing and employment markets and it will retain its capital city role'.

I'm not sure where that takes us. The next section, though, says:

'Strategic and Local Development Plans will need to consider the interdependence of Cardiff and the wider region.'

And that certainly is right. And what I was particularly struck with was with the local development plan, initially, at least, with Caerphilly and all that housing that was put up towards the boundary with Cardiff, and only road transport being available to take those people likely into jobs in Cardiff, and that wasn't joined up. We then have a statement:

'Cardiff relies on people from across the full region and ensuring communities around the Capital are vibrant, prosperous and connected helps to support Cardiff.'

Well, yes, perhaps, and, to the extent those areas are connected with Cardiff and we reinforce that further, clearly that will support Cardiff. But if those connections are elsewhere within the regions, they may not, and, if they're outside the region, not to Cardiff, then they may well not support Cardiff, or even take growth away. So, one example of that would be the Ebbw Vale line, and whether services on that should only come into Cardiff or we should also have at least one an hour to Newport. And if that then goes on to Cardiff, clearly, that—if you make one decision, it supports Cardiff growth more than another, where you may help in having more growth in Newport that might otherwise have been in Cardiff.

Similarly, the connections within the region outside the region also matter, and, to take Newport as an example, improving those connections to Bristol could have a really big benefit for Newport. But it's unlikely to support Cardiff to the same degree if it leads to a greater focus of the Newport economy towards Bristol rather than Cardiff, although, of course, we would prefer them to be complementary. We go on to say that investment should be

'located in the most accessible and sustainable locations within the context of the whole region', but what about the other regions, what about areas across our border in England? I heard Siân Gwenllian complain earlier about how this was far too much focused on east-west links and cross-border agglomerations, and, actually, I don't see that much of that. And, certainly, in the south-east Wales section, it doesn't appear to be mentioned. For instance, we say,

'Cardiff is currently experiencing a period of growth in population and employment, but the city cannot continue to expand indefinitely without major consequences for the environment. It is a compact city nearing its physical limits', and it's in that context that we then go on to say about Newport—or the Government does—in this document:

'The Welsh Government is determined to see development and growth in Newport, allowing the city to fulfil its potential as a second focal point for the region'.

So, of course, one reason Newport might grow is because of constraints on growth in Cardiff, but surely we need also to consider what are those constraints on growth in Bristol. And you see a much tighter green belt around Bristol, you see much higher levels of house prices and very significant constraints on development. So, at least for Newport and other areas near the border with England, we need to be focusing on how do we attract business from there in order to increase wealth and prosperity within the south-east region, and I don't think we are doing that sufficiently at the moment. However, I do give credit to the Welsh Government in the areas where—so, Help to Buy, about a quarter of the spend, at least, I think, has been on properties around Newport, many of which are being occupied by people who are then commuting to Bristol, albeit supporting the Welsh income tax base. Similarly, I think Ken Skates has worked very strongly on lobbying to improve services from Cardiff through Newport to Bristol, and, again, that would benefit the whole region.

So, although I think there are things Welsh Government are doing that are working cross border in supporting that growth, this document itself doesn't seem to do that to the same degree, and it seems very regionally focused within the sub bits, rather than looking for those opportunities to work across the border and drive prosperity for Wales. Thank you.

I call on the Minister for Housing and Local Government, Julie James.

Diolch, Llywydd. I very much welcome this debate and the contributions made by Members today. This is not the first time we have debated 'Future Wales' or the national development framework, so Members will know that I consider this plan to be vital in making our planning system focused on the big issues we face. This debate again proves that we all have ideas on how the planning system should operate, what its priorities should be and whether 'Future Wales' will achieve our ambitions.

Members have highlighted a breadth of issues addressed in 'Future Wales', including the climate emergency, social and affordable housing, transport, the economy, green infrastructure, the Welsh language, digital infrastructure and our energy supply. I will, of course, be spending the next couple of months reflecting in detail on the Senedd's recommendations, and, due to time constraints, I cannot cover them all here, but I will address just a few of the points raised so far.

Mike Hedges and a number of others raised concerns about the ability of the plan to respond to COVID, and whilst, of course, it's important not to be complacent, this is a plan committed to improving health and well-being throughout the planning system. The policies on green infrastructure, active travel and town centre first will be crucial to aiding the recovery. In terms of a number of contributions, it's also important to remember that 'Future Wales' is not the whole of Government policy. It does not replace our other major strategies, rather it works with them.

And, Llywydd, the Bill we passed only last week establishes CJCs as corporate bodies, so I can reassure Members that they are covered by all Welsh Government policies, including the Welsh language.

It's great to see the committee and Jenny Rathbone recognise the value of introducing the green belt, both in the south-east and the north-east. The green belts will, of course, help to achieve place-making objectives in places like Newport, Chepstow and Cwmbran, in Wrexham and Deeside, and they will ensure we avoid irresponsible, sprawling development on productive agricultural land. And, of course, 'Future Wales' has affordable and social housing provision at its core. Indeed, we commissioned new needs data specifically to support that element.

Llywydd, I will be opposing the Plaid Cymru amendments today. They seem not to have noticed that changes have been made following consultation on the draft plan, nor recognise the role of cross-party committees and their own Members in arguing for those changes. I agreed from the outset that any regional planning footprint should reflect an existing footprint, rather than creating a new one. My initial view was to use the economic action plan three-region footprint, but I agreed to change to the four-region footprint more favoured by Senedd committees and local authorities. If I may, Llywydd, I would like to draw attention to two consultation responses to the draft NDF. The Plaid Cymru-led Ceredigion council said, and I quote, 'The NDF must recognise mid Wales as a discrete region, drawing on the development of four growth deals across Wales'. Meanwhile, the Growing Mid Wales Partnership, which is, of course, a joint undertaking between Ceredigion council and Powys council, said, 'Strategic planning issues across mid Wales would be best addressed by collaborative work between Ceredigion and Powys local planning authorities.' So, Llywydd, we have listened closely to what the regions have told us. I fear that Plaid Cymru's amendments would contradict the views of the regions, and we will be opposing them for that reason.

Llywydd, this is likely to be the last debate on the plan before it is published, so it seems a good opportunity to reflect a little on my experience of developing 'Future Wales' and bringing it to this stage. I have found the process has been a blend of working within existing structures and of being able to introduce fresh ideas and new ambition. This plan does not set overarching Government policy, but rather it sets out how the planning system can help achieve it. For example, we want a healthy population and environment, so the plan will deliver more green spaces and places that get us out of our cars. We need to decarbonise, and therefore the plan focuses the biggest developments on the areas where public transport and active travel are or can be made most resilient. We want a fair and prosperous economy, so we have big growth areas and we are seeking to spread the development of jobs right across them, rather than concentrating on the biggest city centres.

Writing a national plan is a balancing act between taking action on every possible subject and remembering that local planning is often the best place to address the challenges. It is also a balance between repeating another document and not ignoring a topic. I've also found that people welcome the 20-year time frame for the plan, but expect immediate solutions as soon as the plan is published. Many people want a plan that is flexible, but are uncomfortable when outcomes are uncertain. Our energy policies are a great example of this. We have developed evidence-based policies that will help achieve national targets for electricity from clean sources that protect our designated landscapes. We have done this while working with communities and the development sector. We have considered our geography, thought about what will be needed in 20 years' time, and how society might be different by then. We looked at where existing infrastructure is, and where there is a skilled workforce ready to take advantage of new opportunities. We looked at where it is windy or sunny and we thought about what electric vehicles would mean for demand. We recognised that the planning system and its duty to act in the public interest raises unforeseen issues, so we've made sure that there are more options available to developers than will be needed. And yet I'm told that this plan should be more specific on where new wind turbines will go, more focused on offshore wind, on local and micro generation, and that projects will take too long to come to fruition.

Llywydd, the great potential of this plan is in the fact that the planning system looks at all our big issues—health, the economy, Welsh language, the environment, the climate emergency—and thinks it can do something to improve the situation in a holistic way. Whether or not you agree with the content of 'Future Wales', every decision we have taken has been tested through formal consultation in stakeholder engagement events and using impact assessments. We also have a monitoring framework that will help us to reflect and refine the plan over time. The public involvement in stakeholder engagement work has helped us to deliver a plan that we are confident will have a great and positive influence over our planning system.

I welcome the scrutiny this plan has received, and I'm looking forward to considering the Senedd's recommendations. In February I will publish a report setting out how I've responded to all the recommendations, as well as the final version of 'Future Wales'. Diolch yn fawr.

I call on Mike Hedges, the Chair of the committee, to respond to the debate. Mike Hedges.

Diolch, Llywydd. Can I thank Members who've taken part in the debate? And I'd also like to again thank the Minister.

I don't think anybody agrees with 100 per cent of it, but lots of us like bits of it, and I think that's what you end up with with a document this size. This is important to everyone in Wales.

To reply to Mark Reckless, we have one day left, because, when we're on recess, it doesn't count against the 60 days.

The vision of four regions in Wales is driven by the local authorities in Wales, not by Westminster. This includes, as Julie James said, Plaid Cymru-controlled Ceredigion. They see a community of interest in terms of their local development. The city deals and regional deals are aimed at improving the local economy and the strategic development plan has to support them. We want this to work. It's the jobs of our children and our grandchildren we're talking about.

Post-war Wales has seen growth in the north and south Wales coast. That has been driven by the private sector. The likelihood is that the private sector is going to drive any growth in the future. I'm disappointed that people who I would describe as Welsh unionists do not accept the regions of Wales—hugely disappointed in that, because I really believe in the importance of the south-west Wales region, which is not dissimilar to one of the ancient kingdoms. Green belts are hugely important, but I was going to say that green wedges, stopping communities merging, are more important in lots of areas where you don't want the different villages to merge together, or, within urban areas, you don't want the different communities to merge together.

The SSI protected against development; I think that's something that there is general agreement on. We need all plans to cover the same areas. We've had a history in Wales of every Minister developing their own footprint, and that has not necessarily worked for the benefit of anybody. I used to describe Swansea and Neath Port Talbot as Janus-like, because sometimes we looked to the east and sometimes we looked to the west.

I think Helen Mary Jones made some very good points on the Welsh language, and all these plans should fit together. We shouldn't have this plan here and that plan there, and, 'Well, they're nothing to do with each other because they come from different silos within Welsh Government.' They should all fit together.

We need the national development plan and strategic development plans to fit together as well, but there's something else that to me is really important—that we actually realise that the sea and the land meet. I know we've talked about that in our committee quite a lot, but it really is important that the marine plan fits in with the national development plan rather than being seen as something entirely different.

Energy is always controversial: onshore wind or offshore wind, nuclear or gas power—all have supporters and opponents, often in the same party. We need an energy debate, and I think sometimes parties could do with their own energy debates, but I think we need to see where we're going with energy. I think, generally, this is a good document and the four regions work, and I think it's going to work for the economic benefit of Wales. They might not fit into everybody's idea of how they would like things to be, but they fit into my view of how it's going to be. Thank you. 

Thank you. The proposal therefore is to agree amendment 1. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is an objection. So I defer all further voting under this item until voting time. 

Voting deferred until voting time.

Before we break for a break, can I just inform Members that it's been drawn to my attention that there were Members seeking to object in the previous debate on item 6, the legislative proposal? Given that there were many Members seeking to object, but I failed to see them all on Zoom, I will now be allowing a vote on item 6 during voting time. But, for now, we'll take a short break. 

Plenary was suspended at 17:16.

The Senedd reconvened at 17:23, with the Deputy Presiding Officer in the Chair.