Agenda item

https://www.youtube.com/live/Uu0L_icjpik?si=635rwVQqnpzE8mZp&t=836

The Chair welcomed David Cummings, Chair of the Gateway to Wales Action Group to present the following questions to in relation to the Deposit Replacement Local Development Plan:

1.     Monmouthshire has set permissible Nitrogen Dioxide levels at four times the levels recommended by the World Health Organisation. Why has MCC chosen a site, close to A40, to build houses where the extra emissions from cars will further break those WHO levels and create more PM 2.5 particulates?

2.     The catchment area in which HA4 is located already has phosphate levels exceeding the maxiumum permitted. Why has MCC chosen a site where run off will increase those levels and further pollute the Wye above where the drinking water for our town is extracted?

3.     Site HA4 is primarily Grade 2 prime agricultural land. MCC is bound to use the lowest grade agricultural land first. Why has it not chosen a site with poorer quality agricultural land?

4.     This site is close to the Wye Valley AONB and is the Gateway to Wales. Why have MCC chosen a site that, if developed, despoils and changes a view that has not changed for visitors since the Wye Tour of 1782?

5.     We ask what assessment has been undertaken of the impact of the additional traffic exiting this site either for access to work via the A40 or into the town?

6.     In view of the many issues with site HA4 should not an alternative site be chosen for Monmouth, such as CS0274 off Wonastow Road, which has far fewer issues? Can the council agree to consider this option during the Deposit Plan consultation process?

The Cabinet Member for Planning and Economic Development, Deputy Leader, thanked Mr. Cummings for the questions and provided a response. 

1.     Environment officers monitor air quality across the County.  The evidence is that this site has permissible air quality levels according to nationally set standards.  The evidence has not led to this area being an air quality management area.  Nevertheless, because of the strong points made at the Scrutiny Committee, the Deputy Leader has asked that further testing of this site takes place during the public consultation period.

2.     In terms of issues relating to water quality, the Monmouth Treatment Works are benefitting from investment in strategic treatment work improvements.  This work is being undertaken now and once completed it will remove high levels of phosphates.  All the new developments in Monmouthshire will require a sustainable drainage system to ensure there is no increased runoff as a consequence of the development. 

3.     With regards to agricultural land, in Monmouth the debate has been whether the future development should focus on the proposed Leesbrook site or the Wonastow site.  The Leesbrook site has a marginally lower agricultural quality and that will be considered during the public consultation. 

4.     In terms of the position of the site, the proposed development site at Leesbrook is on a smaller scale than that agreed by the Council in 2020.  The proposal has drawn further back from the hillside and provides a green corridor and a landscape buffer.  The proposed development was thought to be seen as an extension of the existing settlement. 

5.     The site promoter has submitted transport strategies and statements to evidence the impact of the development on the local area.  A strategic transport assessment has been conducted by Transport for Wales and this does not indicate significant impact consequential on the development itself.

6.     Our assessment is that on balance Leesbrook has advantages over Wonastow but if during public consultation evidence emerges that there is a preference and more evidence which would favour Wonastow then that evidence will be given detailed consideration.