Carmarthenshire Local Plan: pre-adoption rules published

Carmarthenshire Local Plan applicants face a potentially important change in the policy balance before the authority formally adopts its revised development plan. The county council has published guidance on how officers will treat applications awaiting determination when the Inspectors’ examination report for the Revised Local Development Plan 2018 to 2033 becomes available. Its Local Plan page was updated on 30th September 2026.

The significance is not just a new plan moving towards adoption. Applicants who submitted schemes under the existing policies may see emerging policies carry significant weight while the application is still in the system. The council expressly discusses applications waiting for section 106 agreements and those that have passed agreed determination deadlines.

The authority has not, on the inspected official webpage, confirmed that the Inspectors’ report has been published. Nor has it adopted the new plan. Carmarthenshire’s approach is therefore a forward-looking statement about a transition, not a decision that all current planning applications are suddenly governed by the revised LDP. The announcement concerns Carmarthenshire in Wales, excluding the part within Bannau Brycheiniog National Park.

Carmarthenshire Local Plan guidance published

The council’s official guidance for pending planning applications says applications validated before the publication of the Inspectors’ report remain to be considered against the existing adopted Local Development Plan. But if a decision is made between publication of that report and formal adoption, officers should also consider the emerging revised LDP and the report’s recommendations.

This creates two distinct dates to monitor: publication of the binding Inspectors’ report and the subsequent council adoption resolution. The council says substantial weight may be attached to the new plan policies once the report has been published. That is not the same thing as treating them as formally adopted policies.

For a live case, it is sensible to ask which version of the proposed plan the officer is relying on. The document examined in public has been subject to proposed changes. Reliance on an older deposit draft could lead to the wrong assessment of the project’s policy position.

What happens between the report and adoption?

Under the Welsh Government’s planning examination procedure guidance, publication of the Inspectors’ report concludes the examination stage, while formal adoption makes the new plan operative. The local planning authority is expected to complete adoption within eight weeks of the report, subject to the statutory framework.

The council’s advice is therefore aimed at a short but consequential period. Officers may have to assess an application under the existing adopted LDP whilst giving weight to a nearly completed replacement plan. How much weight is justified depends on the state of that plan, the substance of its policies and the issues particular to the application.

The council specifically says its decisions will have regard to the emerging plan after the report appears. It has not identified a fixed publication date in the material checked. Practitioners should avoid relying on anticipated report timing when advising clients on the likely determination date or prospects of permission.

Conflicts between old and new policies

Carmarthenshire describes two situations likely to matter to developers. One is an application that complies with the existing adopted plan but conflicts with the replacement. The council expects the revised policy to receive significant attention after the Inspectors’ report. The other is a proposal that conflicts with the existing plan but is consistent with the emerging revision. In that case, the revised policy may support the applicant’s arguments.

Neither example produces an automatic approval or refusal. There may be different development management policies, site allocations, design requirements or infrastructure expectations engaged by the same proposal. The evidence and the relevant planning judgement will still need to be set out clearly, rather than asserting that one plan wins in every case.

For applicants, the main lesson is that validation does not freeze the applicable evidence or material considerations. An otherwise well-prepared planning statement may need updating if its key justification relies on a policy that the new plan changes.

The legal position under section 38(6)

A crucial qualification is provided by section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Where planning decisions must have regard to the development plan, they must be determined in accordance with it unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Until the revised LDP becomes operative, the adopted plan remains the statutory starting point.

An emerging policy, particularly one supported by an Inspector’s report, may be a powerful material consideration. But increased weight is not the same as an automatic substitution of an unadopted plan for the development plan. References in the council’s practical guidance to revised policies prevailing must be understood within that legal framework.

A robust officer report should identify the adopted policy, explain what the emerging plan says and assess why the emerging provision is relevant and influential. A planning statement should do the same. This will matter most where the proposed outcome would depart from the existing development plan.

Extensions of time and section 106 cases

The guidance expressly recognises planning applications delayed by an extension of time or negotiations over a section 106 obligation. Some might reasonably have been decided months earlier, before the revised policy reached its present stage. The council says the balance should be assessed on the facts of each case.

Applicants should record the history of their application and the reasons for delay. If consultation replies, revised drawings or legal obligations have kept a case open, that sequence may be relevant to the officer’s understanding, but it does not automatically exempt the application from new material considerations.

Applicants discussing affordable housing, highway works or other obligations should check whether the emerging plan proposes provisions material to the negotiations. A change in policy may justify reviewing heads of terms before completion. It does not follow that every extant section 106 discussion must be reopened.

Why the plan has reached this stage

According to the independent examination page, Planning Inspectors Nicola Gulley and Ian Stevens were appointed to examine the revised LDP. The principal examination hearings took place in October and November 2024. A letter issued on 31st January 2025 required the council to revisit housing supply, leading to further consultation and hearing sessions in September 2025.

The council subsequently prepared Matters Arising Changes to address the soundness issues arising during examination. The public consultation on those changes ran from 11th May to 26th June 2026. The council reports that the relevant changes were agreed with the Inspectors and that consultation responses have been returned for consideration.

This explains the timing of the transitional advice. It is preparing applicants and officers for the possibility of a report and adoption, rather than recording a completed adoption. The evidence should be checked afresh when the examination recommendations are published.

Practical steps for developers and agents

For cases approaching determination, the first priority should be a policy comparison using the current adopted LDP and the latest revised text, including the Matters Arising Changes. Check whether allocations, development boundaries, housing policies, environmental considerations or infrastructure requirements affect the specific site.

The second priority is a timetable. Establish the validation date, the agreed extension of time, outstanding consultations and the expected determination date. Ask the case officer how publication of the Inspectors’ report would be reflected in the delegated report or committee recommendation. If the proposal is materially affected, consider submitting a focused policy addendum.

Finally, distinguish pre-application discussions from a planning permission. The council says an application validated after adoption will be assessed against the new adopted plan even if its pre-application consultation took place before publication of the Inspectors’ report. Applicants should not treat old advice as a commitment to the older policy regime.

Wales-only implications and next milestone

This guidance concerns the Welsh Local Development Plan system and does not implement England’s new 30-month plan process. Carmarthenshire’s revised plan covers its own planning area outside Bannau Brycheiniog National Park. Other Welsh planning authorities have their own adopted plans and development-plan reviews. The separate Welsh National Development Framework evidence exercise forms part of the wider policy context, not this council adoption decision.

The next event to watch is the publication of the Inspectors’ report on the council’s revised Local Development Plan webpage. At that point applicants can test the final recommendations and identify which emerging policies may carry the greatest weight. A subsequent adoption decision would change the formally operative plan.

For now the important point is procedural accuracy: no Inspectors’ report or adopted replacement should be claimed until the official record confirms it. The council’s guidance provides a clear warning to review pending schemes, and section 38(6) supplies the legal discipline needed when the two policy positions diverge.