Agenda and draft minutes

None.

A resident’s video submission was played to the committee, in which the following concerns were raised:

·                  Strong public opposition to the closure: petitions, Town Council support, and consultation results are overwhelmingly against it.

·                  Concern that this opposition was not acknowledged in the report; the perception that democratic views were ignored.

·                  Traffic being pushed onto Somerset Road, creating congestion and safety risks.

·                  Goldwire Lane provides vital resilience: it remained passable during flooding when the main road is closed.

·                  The Experimental TRO is undermined by unclear signage, Google Maps routing, and inconsistent traffic apparatus.

·                  The consultation had lowengagement, was poorly timed (during/after Covid), and not representative.

·                  Increased safety concerns on Somerset Road for children and pedestrians; cyclists are now using the lane and creating conflicts.

·                  The fatal collision at the Somerset/Wonastow junction was not properly considered.

·                  Existing pedestrian/cycle infrastructure (e.g. Drybridge Street) was described as inadequate.

·                  Questions were raised as to whether pedestrian responsibility was fairly considered alongside motorist responsibility.

Cabinet Member Catrin Maby delivered a presentation and answered the members’ questions with Graham Kinsella, Carl Touhig and Debra Hill-Howells. 

The Cabinet Member presented the report, explaining that the experimental TRO had been introduced for road safety reasons, following a request from elderly local residents, who used this route to travel on foot or on mobility scooters to the community centre, church and into town. It was noted on investigation that the road was too narrow to allow vehicles to pass other road users, and that cars attempting to exit onto Drybridge Street also posed a hazard to oncoming traffic and to those using the pavement. It was considered that the main vehicle route along Somerset Road was more suitable for cars, being full width, while other road users needed their own safe route, provided by this Lane, which continues directly on from the old pedestrian bridge over Clawdd Ddu. 

Questions and comments: 

Did children have a voice in the consultation? 

The Cabinet Member explained that consultation was carried out with those directly affected on the specific section of the lane. Wider consultation (including with children across the area) would have been a very large exercise if undertaken for every small road?safety intervention across the county. When the wider public TRO consultation went out, those who objected were generally drivers using that one section, not residents specifically contacted. The Cabinet Member acknowledged that if the lane were to be reopened, a much wider consultation might be appropriate, covering all the surrounding residential areas. 

If the lane were reopened to through?traffic, would a risk assessment be required? Would the Council be liable if a collision occurred after reversing safety improvements? 

The officer replied that a formal risk assessment would not necessarily be required, but a follow?up report explaining the rationale for any decision would be needed, including potential outcomes. They stated that collisions on the public highway are normally attributed to driver or pedestrian error, although environmental factors can sometimes be considered. The Cabinet Member added that given the known hazards (narrow pavements, blind corners, heavy pedestrian use), if reopening were ever proposed, a much broader consultation should probably be carried out due to the wider impact. 

Why was an alternative public footpath (running from the Riverside Hotel into the estate) missed from the map, given that it provides a safe route for pedestrians including wheelchair users? 

The Cabinet Member responded that this path is private land belonging to the hotel, not an adopted public footpath. She stated that people had reported falls and accidents using it, that it contains narrow sections and metal features, and that MCC cannot require the hotel to adapt it for prams or mobility scooters. Therefore, it is not considered a viable or safe alternative route to the Goldwire Lane pedestrian access. 

Are decisions being made based on anecdotal evidence rather than on the formal consultation results and other documented evidence? 

The Cabinet Member acknowledged the role of consultation but emphasized  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

The Chair noted that the report title should have been ‘…its relationship with the RSPCA and other bodies’. 

Gareth Walters and Zoe Phillips delivered a presentation and answered the members’ questions. 

The overview set out that Monmouthshire’s Animal Health & Welfare Service plays a critical role in protecting animal welfare, public health, the local economy and community wellbeing, delivering both statutory and increasingly essential non?statutory functions as welfare pressures rise. Gareth Walters explained that the service operates with limited and highly specialized resources, including a small team of animal health and trading standards officers and support from the national Animal Licensing Wales (ALW) model. Zoe Phillips outlined the extensive statutory powers held by local authorities under animal health and welfare legislation, including inspection, enforcement and seizure powers, and emphasized that these powers do not extend to charities such as the RSPCA, which cannot lawfully enter premises or take enforcement action without council or police involvement. 

The presentation also highlighted the breadth of regulatory work undertaken, from farm and market inspections to dog?breeding, abattoir investigations and reactive welfare complaints, alongside growing pressures linked to increased companion?animal cases, cost?of?living impacts and reduced capacity in charities and policing. Limits on data?sharing with charities were explained in legal terms, particularly around GDPR and the absence of statutory powers. Looking ahead, Gareth identified key priorities including workforce resilience, embedding the ALW national approach, preparing for new legislation and managing rising and more complex enforcement demands, warning of reputational risks if expectations and resources are misaligned. He concluded by stressing the strategic role of members in shaping realistic expectations, helping residents understand the council’s powers and constraints, and recognising that animal welfare issues often sit within wider social challenges. 

Questions: 

How many inspectors does the Council have to cover the whole of Monmouthshire? 

The Council currently has 3.8 FTE officers covering Animal Health and Fair Trading. One post is temporary, funded through the feed delivery programme. Another officer has a broader Trading Standards remit, reducing capacity. For licensing work, Animal Licensing Wales has 10 officers available nationally, but they cover all of Wales, not just Monmouthshire. 

How is the service managing with so few officers? 

The team’s work is highly reactive, responding to issues as they arise. They rely on additional expert support from Animal Licensing Wales when necessary. If temporary funding stopped, the capacity challenge would worsen. 

Has there been an increase in animal neglect cases due to the COVID?era surge in dog ownership? 

There is no formal data available to quantify the increase. However, the service is seeing a rise in issues involving dogs, with problems likely still building rather than peaking. Some cases are hidden because veterinary practices deal with many issues directly, so the full picture is not visible to the Council. 

Residents say veterinary bills are extremely high — does the Council have any role in vet?practice regulation? 

The Council does not regulate veterinary businesses. However, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) is  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

A list of Surplus Assets has been received and will be sent on to members for consideration as to the possibility of scheduling an item on them e.g. on 21^st May – for members to consider further on receipt of the list – ACTION

Noted.

The minutes were agreed.