Agenda and draft minutes

None.

The minutes were agreed.

Members were reminded about Welsh Water visits at Monmouth and Pwllmeyric on 24^th April. Members were asked to give contact details for disability reps and for the public to get in touch, ahead of the Active Travel item at the next meeting.

Councillor Strong read a submission on behalf of a resident, concerning the Nedern, Item 8. The resident noted that the Nedern was problem-free until the mid-1990s when the construction of the second Severn Bridge began. The river runs through a tunnel under the M4 Motorway, which is protected by a screen. This screen often gets blocked with debris, causing the river to flood. In the 1980s, the river was dredged to remove weeds and silt but now only weeds are removed, which leads to additional problems. The river runs alongside the old Pill House site, which now hosts a concrete recycling business. This business stores large amounts of aggregate near the river, posing a risk of spillage without a proper removal mechanism. Winter flooding from the Nedern could hinder access to the walk from Caldicot Castle to the Cornfield project. A new drainage channel was constructed to remove water from house building plans in the area. However, with high river levels, previously dry areas are now flooded. This issue could be resolved by fitting a non-return flap on the river end of the drainage channel. The proposal to build around 100 houses is welcomed, but it is important to consider that this will lead to more water draining into the river. To address these issues, the resident suggested redesigning or modifying the M4 tunnel screens to make them more efficient, to implement an early warning system for high river levels, and to establish a better river maintenance program.

A resident delivered a presentation outlining concerns about the protection of bats, relating to Item 9. They raised concerns about the removal of key protections for bats by Monmouthshire County Council, questioning the rationale behind it. They highlighted the importance of stringent safeguards for developments in the bats' core sustenance zones, as recommended by environmental consultants. They emphasised the need for specific bat surveys and mitigation measures to protect bat populations and criticised the council's replacement of specific survey requirements with vague wording in policy NR1. They provided information on the greater horseshoe bat, its habitat requirements, and its endangered status and discussed the impact of proposed developments on bat habitats, particularly the Lease Brook site near Newton Court. They suggested that the council remove the dilution of protections for bats and adding specific wording to ensure no adverse effects on bats from developments. They highlighted the importance of protecting the bats' core sustenance zones and ensuring proper survey and mitigation measures are in place.

Andy Karran, Evidence Manager at Gwent Wildlife Trust, provided comments relating to Item 9, specifically on the HA4 site in Monmouth. They expressed concerns about the impact on the triple SI, SAC, and the greater horseshoe bat population. Andy noted that the 1-kilometre juvenile sustenance zone is not commonly used in Wales and referenced its use in North Somerset and Mendip SAC guidance. They emphasised the need for more survey work to determine the impact on the bats, suggesting that surveys should be conducted by qualified  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

James Galsworthy (NRW) answered the members’ questions with Ross Price.

• Can you provide an update on NRW’s maintenance programme for the Nedern and its offshoots?

The maintenance programme for the Nedern involves annual grass cutting around September-October and in-channel vegetation removal around December-January. This work is done by contractors and used to be every other year but is now done annually.

• What exactly is NRW's role and responsibility when it comes to protecting river health and preventing pollution?

The responsibility for river health and pollution prevention is not within the remit of the speaker from NRW, and such questions should be directed to their enquiries team, as the ultimate responsibility for river health lies with the landowner.

• Whose responsibility is it to maintain the public land where the Nedern runs through Magor?

The responsibility for maintaining watercourses rests with the landowner. For public land, it would be the responsibility of the relevant authority, such as Monmouthshire County Council.

• Can we arrange a separate meeting to establish responsibilities for the Nedern maintenance and flooding issues?

James agreed to attend a separate meeting to discuss these issues, and it was suggested that David Penny from the internal drainage district team should also be involved.

• How effective is the current maintenance programme in preventing further flooding?

NRW recognises the significant impact of flooding on local businesses. The current maintenance programme involves annual grass cutting and in-channel vegetation removal, which has been increased from every other year to annually. This has improved the effectiveness in preventing flooding.

• What are the risks of the current level of maintenance?

The risks of the current level of maintenance include potential flooding if the maintenance is not sufficient to manage significant flood risks, especially in areas with limited numbers of properties.

• How effective are the relationships between NRW, MCC, and English Highway in managing flood risks?

Effective relationships between NRW, MCC, and English Highway are crucial for managing flood risks, especially regarding assets like the trash gate. Coordination and communication among these entities are necessary to address flood risks effectively.

• What responsibility does NRW have for maintaining rivers on land owned by Monmouthshire County Council or private landowners?

The responsibility for maintaining rivers rests with the landowner, but NRW has permissive powers to undertake work where there is a significant flood risk. This applies to both council-owned and private land.

• How is the Nedern managed through the Country Park?

Any work in the main river watercourse, including the Nedern through the Country Park, would require a flood risk activity permit from NRW. Coordination with NRW is necessary to determine the requirements for such work. The trash gate is a Highways England asset, with remedial work being their responsibility.

• How are river health and flooding related, especially concerning sewage discharge?

River health and flooding are related because sewage discharge during flooding can impact both residents and businesses. The health and safety concerns arise when polluted water affects these areas. There have been previous site meeting with Welsh Water to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Craig O’Connor delivered introductory remarks, in which they emphasised MCC’s commitment to the climate and nature emergency, ensuring that development proposals are sustainable and balanced. He clarified that MCC is not removing protections for bats and aims to protect and enhance ecological and wildlife interests. Craig explained that the council's approach to policy wording aims to avoid being too prescriptive, allowing flexibility to request bat surveys and ecological assessments across all development types and areas, not just within core sustenance zones. He assured members that the replacement local development plan is undergoing a detailed consultation process, including addressing concerns raised by Natural Resources Wales regarding the habitat regulations assessment methodology. Craig mentioned that the plan will be reviewed by an independent planning inspector, who will examine the habitat regulations assessment and make an informed decision on the development's acceptability.

Kate Stinchcombe delivered a presentation, outlining MCC’s responses to the concerns that have been raised. Craig O’Connor and Kate Stinchcombe answered the members’ questions:

• A member asked Andy Karran of Gwent Wildlife Trust if they believed that there has been a dilution in protection for horseshoe bats.

Mr Karran stated that he did not believe there had been any dilution in the protection of horseshoe bats. He explained that the wording changes were made to ensure impacts on bats are assessed across all areas within Monmouthshire under different circumstances. He expressed concerns about the significance of the proposed development area within the core sustenance zone, noting that areas closer to the maternity roost may be more valuable. He emphasised the need to look into whether the proposed development area is still of significance despite being a small percentage of the sustenance area.

• A member expressed concerns about the general details of the core sustenance zones for greater and lesser horseshoe bats, specifically mentioning a site in Shirenewton. They questioned whether surveys were being conducted for other sites within these zones.

It was clarified that the Redlands site in Shirenewton is within the two-kilometre zone of a hibernation site, which requires different survey considerations compared to maternity sites. It was explained that the Redlands site had low ecological value, with closely managed hedgerows, and highlighted the importance of case-by-case assessment. The need for flexibility in survey requirements to address site-specific conditions was emphasised.Members were assured that effects on hibernation roosts are being considered in the addendum to the habitat regulations assessment.

• The member argued that removing specific details of bat surveys and mitigation from the policy weakens it. They suggested that local policies should reinforce national policies to emphasise local importance.

It was explained that the replacement local development plan (RLDP) must align with Welsh Government's guidance, which requires avoiding duplication of national policies. They acknowledged the challenge but emphasised that the RLDP is part of a broader planning policy framework, including national and regional policies. They assured that all consultation responses are being reviewed, and amendments may be made to strengthen policies where necessary.

• She noted a general weakening of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Thursday 22^nd May 2025 at 2.00pm.