Agenda and minutes

Councillor Crook declared a non-prejudicial interest in the Langley Close site, Magor.

Scrutiny Committee Public Open Forum ~ Guidance

Our Scrutiny Committee meetings are live streamed and a link to the live stream will be available on the meeting page of the Monmouthshire County Council website

If you would like to share your thoughts on any proposals being discussed by Scrutiny Committees, you can submit your representation in advance via this form

·     Please share your views by uploading a video or audio file (maximum of 4 minutes) or;

·     Please submit a written representation (via Microsoft Word, maximum of 500 words)

You will need to register for a My Monmouthshire account in order to submit the representation or use your log in, if you have registered previously.

The deadline for submitting representations to the Council is 5pm three clear working days in advance of the meeting. 

If representations received exceed 30 minutes, a selection of these based on theme will be shared at the Scrutiny Committee meeting.  All representations received will be made available to councillors prior to the meeting.

If you would like to attend one of our meetings to speak under the Public Open Forum at the meeting, you will need to give three working days’ notice by contacting Scrutiny@monmouthshire.gov.uk .  

The amount of time afforded to each member of the public to speak is at the chair’s discretion, but to enable us to accommodate multiple speakers, we ask that contributions be no longer than 3 minutes. 

If you would like to suggest future topics for scrutiny by one of our Scrutiny Committees, please do so by emailing Scrutiny@monmouthshire.gov.uk

A number of public speakers delivered remarks to the committee. The majority of speakers expressed concerns about the suitability of Bradbury Farm for Gypsy and Traveller accommodations, citing issues such as noise pollution, land contamination, concentration of sites and lack of amenities.  

The historical significance of the area and potential ecological impacts, including the presence of protected species, were highlighted as reasons against the development of certain sites. 

The lack of safe access and egress, especially for large vehicles, and the absence of nearby amenities were mentioned as challenges for the proposed Bradbury Farm.  

There were criticisms of the consultation process, with some feeling that it did not adequately consider community feedback or engage effectively with the Gypsy and Traveller community.  

Suggestions were made for exploring alternative solutions, such as collaborating with neighbouring authorities, enhancing existing sites with Welsh Government funding, and reconsidering the selection process for new sites.  

There were also representations in support of Bradbury Farm, and expressing solidarity with the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller community. 

In addition, there were a number of statements about the unsuitability of Langley Close. These statements aligned with the reports’ recommendation that Langley Close should be removed from the site identification process. 

Pre-decision Scrutiny of proposals

Local Ward Members Lisa Dymock, Phil Murphy and Frances Taylor addressed the committee. 

Councillor Dymock: 

Councillor Dymock expressed concerns about the suitability of proposed sites for Gypsy and Traveller accommodations, highlighting issues such as noise pollution, land contamination, and lack of amenities. She raised concerns about the concentration of three of these sites being located all within one mile and concerns around the dual site proposal and the many challenges that creates.?She emphasised the historical significance of the area and potential ecological impacts, including the presence of protected species, as reasons against the development of certain sites. She mentioned the lack of safe access and egress, especially for large vehicles, and the absence of nearby amenities as challenges for the proposed sites.  

Councillor Dymock criticised the consultation process, arguing that it did not adequately consider community feedback or engage effectively with the Gypsy and Traveller community, and expressed disappointment at the timing and the way information was presented to the public.  

She suggested exploring alternative solutions, such as collaborating with neighbouring authorities, enhancing existing sites with Welsh Government funding, and reconsidering the selection process for new sites. The reliability and transparency of the RAG ratings and the rationale for accepting or rejecting certain sites was questioned, and she emphasised the need for a transparent and inclusive process that takes all stakeholders along the journey. Councillor Dymock proposed that the committee recommend Option 4. 

Councillor Taylor: 

Councillor Taylor supported the report's recommendation to remove Langley Close from the Gypsy and Traveller site identification process due to its unsuitability based on noise, land contamination, and other additional material planning considerations.  

Councillor Taylor stated that she considers Langley Close to be completely unsuitable and could not agree with the comment in the report that it was ‘less suitable.’ Councillor Taylor asked that the term be replaced with ‘unsuitable’ to reflect the material findings, evidence from public consultation and site investigation surveys which she stated indicate that the site is entirely unsuitable.  

Councillor Taylor highlighted that the noise assessment shows there is a ‘high’ risk of noise adversely impacting the northern part of the site, whilst the rest of the site would be subject to a ‘medium’ risk of noise adversely impacting the site. She stated, however, that it is important to note that this guidance is intended primarily to deal with dwellings which are constructed from bricks and mortar. Mobile homes provide significantly lower levels of sound attenuation between the exterior and interior.  

The location of the developable area, referred to as NEC B, (subject to mitigation measures) would have an impact on the layout and size of the proposal which would further constrain the developable area and present design issues. This is likely to be further compounded by the likely presence of ‘made ground’, as identified by the land contamination survey. 

She asked that the committee support Langley close’s removal and agree that the site is not simply ‘less suitable’ but ‘unsuitable’. She advised that it was important to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

The meeting went into closed session, in order to discuss authorised and unauthorised sites in which confidential information might be disclosed. Part 4 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 (paragraphs 12 to 18) can enable the exclusion of the press and public for the discussion of exempt information, providing that an officer has made an assessment that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.?The Chair asked the report author to make an assessment of the public interest and to advise the committee on the basis for the exemption.  

The officer advised that the relevant paragraphs for exemption under Local Government Act, Schedule 12A, Part 4 were paragraphs 12 - information relating to a particular individual, 13 – information which is likely to reveal the identity of an individual?and 14 – information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information). The Chair asked the committee if they accepted the basis for the exemption and a vote took place with all members in agreement. A short break took place whilst the press and public were asked to leave the meeting.  

Chair’s Summary and formal outcome of the scrutiny: 

Thanks were given to the Cabinet Member and officers. Each member present expressed their deep appreciation especially to the members of the public for their contributions and time. 

Five Members recommended that the Cabinet proceed with Option 4. The reasons given were that members felt that sites were unsuitable, there would be a concentration of sites in a small hamlet and that there is a need for more exploration of private?sites and greater detail required on the revenue costs. The members who recommended Option 4 felt that Langley Close as a potential site should be removed. 

Four Members recommended that Option 1 be taken forward, the reasons being that they felt the explanation had been extensive, their questions had been answered and that there was a need to meet the legal responsibilities in terms of Gypsy and Romany Travellers. Two of the Members who recommended Option 4 also felt that Langley Close should be removed. 

The committee’s formal recommendation to Cabinet was therefore Option 4: to withdraw all three sites for development as Gypsy, Roma and Traveller sites. 

3rd September 2024 (Special) and 10th October 2024.