Councillor Davies declared a personal interest in relation to the petition in Item 4, being employed by a compostable packaging company.

The lead petitioner Ffion Maidment Cardenas spoke on the subject of the petition in Item 4.

To agree whether to refer to the Executive or full Council for action. Councillor Lucas introduced the petition. The committee agreed to refer the petition to the Cabinet Member, Catrin Maby.

Cabinet Member Paul Griffiths introduced the report. Huw Owen presented the report and answered the members’ questions with David Jones.

Challenge:

We can pass laws and establish fines but enforcement and its method is always the challenge, when it comes to having an impact.

The PSPO process itself is helpful as a reminder to the public about picking up waste, where to take their dogs, etc. If we declare any dogs on leads exemption areas, they will be signposted appropriately. One option for enforcement is for authorisations to be spread across a number of directorates/departments. We also have parking enforcement officers who carry out proactive patrolling of car parks etc.; we are already discussing whether they can be authorised. The review of littering and flytipping will address this area, too, as it relates to fixed penalty notices and community support officers, in particular. Officers are also working on intelligence in following up complaints, particularly as owners tend to walk their dogs in the same places.

How would the new controls affect trustees of land? For example, in relation to the land in Caldicot for which the trustee is the Town Council, and which includes a play park and sports field.

As stated in Recommendation 2.3, we have sent correspondence to all town and community councils, setting out the proposed dogs on leads and dogs exemption areas for each council. They can come back to us with any concerns and questions, which might pertain to the land in Caldicot, in that instance. Those details will be considered on a case-by-case basis. If a certain area such as a park is included in a PSPO, it becomes an offence to breach the rules that are to be agreed. Beyond that, the Trust’s control of the land should not be affected.

Would an officer be allowed to implement a ticket on a trustee’s land? Some owners disregard the signs in Caldicot, leading to big problems with the field. The Police have said that nothing can be done without a by-law. Where would a by-law come in, if at all?

The PSPO will set out exactly the areas that are covered, on the Council’s website and by explicit signage in the area concerned. So, the rules should be absolutely clear to anyone entering an area, and a resource implication in the report therefore concerns signage.

Regarding enforcement, is there more information about what is available? How many authorised officers are there in the county? What is the budget for enforcement?

Currently, the authorised officers are across Environmental Health and the Waste and Street Cleaning sections, for the current designation order that’s in place, and the Fouling of Lands Act. It is unlikely there will be scope to substantially increase budgets to take on Enforcement Officers but that's to be considered in one option. But there could be authorised officers in other sections such as Estates, Leisure, etc. We have 5 Environmental Health officers and a number of potential officers in Waste and Street  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

Cabinet Member Paul Griffiths introduced the report. Daniel Fordham presented the report and answered the members’ questions with Claire Sullivan.

Challenge:

In reality, the thoroughfare of cars is an important part of Monmouth, especially if something happens e.g. when emergency vehicles need to access areas. So another avenue for cars is important.

One of the core elements of the proposal is that Monmouth needs to maintain traffic for exactly that reason e.g. when the dual carriageway is closed. So, it's not pedestrianised, we're not creating a shared space, so the volume of traffic that Monnow Street can deliver will be exactly the same as now. The existing situation is itself not perfect though, and when one of the two routes is blocked it causes problems elsewhere, but it's not negatively affected by these proposals.

Are there not too many crossings e.g. one either side of the bus station?

The number of crossings has been the subject of much discussion. There were more in earlier versions of the design, so we've taken out some and have tried to find a balance i.e. not overburdening the street with crossings but ensuring that wherever someone wants to cross there is a convenient and safe opportunity to do so nearby. The balance might not be perfect yet but that's the direction of travel.

It is a worry that the carriageway will be even narrower than it is currently as, even now, buses have problems turning on to Monnow Street. It only takes one person parking badly to cause a problem. Would the change to the crossing places by the Robin Hood make it too tight for large vehicles?

The Monnow Street carriageway has historically been very wide – were a street like this built now, it would be much narrower. That would not affect its capacity to deliver traffic through. The proposed width is 6.3 metres, which is still more than enough for two HGVs or buses to pass each other. With buses exiting from the bus station, and the corner at the Robin Hood,the designers have tracked those to make sure that large vehicles can make those turns. If this design proceeds we would revisit that tracking at detailed design stage to confirm that those movements can be made.

If the parking spaces go in at the angles they are currently – albeit they are only temporary – it will encourage people to get into spaces that aren’t really there. So that needs to be looked at.

Vehicles parked illegally always have the potential to block Monnow Street, and that risk would not be removed through this design. But the fact that there's more formal parking provision, in particular for loading and unloading – which is one of the things that tends to be a source of illegal or antisocial parking – should improve that situation. Nevertheless, as always, some level of enforcement will be required.

Disabled bays left out of the bus station could be wider to give security to the drivers.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

A member asked that a report about the Community Improvement team be added to the work programme – ACTION

The committee approved the minutes.

The committee approved the minutes.

Thursday 25th May 2023 at 10.00am.