Minutes:
There was a significant public presence at the meeting with verbal statements made and written statements submitted, reflecting the following key points:
Dr Geoff Walker ~ Site HA11 – east of Burrium Gate)
Site Positives: The proposed development site is sensibly located on the edge of Usk, close to facilities, and has potential for reasonable road access, making it logical for further development.
Drainage Concerns: Significant issues with drainage (surface water and foul drainage) need to be resolved before permission can be granted. There is uncertainty about how previous drainage issues have been addressed, and the site’s steep slope increases the risk of surface water runoff and flooding, which has already affected residents.
Access Issues: Access to the site is problematic. The short stretch of Monmouth Road may not support additional junctions, and access via Burrium Gate is considered highly undesirable for residents.
Both drainage and access solutions will require considerable expenditure, either from the developer or the County Council.
The development could proceed if drainage and access issues are fully resolved; otherwise, there is risk to current residents.
Gareth Williams - Lichfields: Barrett Redrow Homes and Simon Taber - Ecology Solutions ~ Site HA4, Leasbrook, Monmouth
There is a significant need for affordable housing in Monmouthshire, with the Council identifying a requirement for 148 new affordable homes per year in the Monmouth housing market area.
The Leasbrook site will provide 270 new homes, including 135 affordable homes, helping families who otherwise could not access the housing ladder.
Leasbrook is the only strategic housing allocation proposed in Monmouth and represents nearly half of the town’s housing allocation.
The allocation is central to the LDP strategy, as Monmouth is a primary settlement and must contribute to meeting local needs.
Delivering new homes in Monmouth is challenging, requiring a balance between urgent housing needs and other considerations.
Necessary studies have been conducted in line with planning policy and professional standards, showing that Leasbrook can be developed with appropriate mitigation measures.
Proposed mitigation includes a new 25-metre tree line boundary and sustainable urban drainage systems.
He confirmed that Simon Taber would address ecology issues.
Jonty Pearce ~ Site HA4, Leasbrook, Monmouth
Wales is described as one of the most nature-depleted countries, quoting the Future Generations Commissioner.
Councillors face a stark choice: to destroy or save an environmentally sensitive site.
The Council and consultants claim limited bat activity, but the Dixton Bat Project recorded the rare greater horseshoe bat 893 times in August alone, averaging 26 recordings per night.
The site hosts 12 bat species, representing 80% of all bat species found in Wales, which is remarkable and worth saving.
The Council withheld the 2024 bat survey, which detected only two species and missed the soprano pipistrelle bats from a nearby maternity roost.
Natural Resources Wales did not agree with the conclusion that there would be no adverse effect on bats.
The issue should not be wildlife versus affordable housing, as selecting a different site could provide both.
Proceeding with the current plan risks legal challenges, including appeals and judicial review.
The evidence supports protecting the site, and the decision is in the Councillors’ hands.
Rebecca Cunningham ~ Site HA4, Leasbrook, Monmouth
The RLDP is one of the most significant decisions the Council will make, and Councillors should keep this in mind.
The Scrutiny Committee received 15,000 pages of documents to review in just seven days, which is unrealistic for thorough consideration.
Over 4,000 responses were received from 900 individuals and organisations, with many objections from residents, statutory bodies, and other stakeholders.
Site HA4 faces major concerns from all directions, yet the Council responded with no changes, which is not meaningful consultation.
The Council’s consultation report claims HA4 is environmentally viable, but its own evidence shows it is the most environmentally damaging option for Monmouth in terms of biodiversity, landscape, heritage, and farmland.
Developer reports do not reflect the true biodiversity of the site, and HA4 conflicts with the Council’s own policies and strategies, including the Nature Recovery Action Plan and Green Infrastructure strategy.
The site is within 500 metres of the River Wye and adjacent to the Wye Valley Woodlands Special Area Conservation, and development would remove priority habitats, undermining conservation objectives.
The plan relies on vague mitigation promises, while proper green infrastructure should be embedded from the outset.
Ignoring consultation responses and misrepresenting evidence undermines scrutiny and democracy.
She urges Councillors to put aside political agendas, listen to residents, and ensure all evidence, including citizen science, is properly considered before moving the RLDP forward.
Ann Langford ~ video submission ~ Monmouth
Ann lives in Monmouth and expressed concern that Monmouth could be negatively impacted by surrounding housing estates and increased traffic if the proposed plan to build 270 houses, plus 110 more at the drilling estate, were to go ahead.
Ann highlighted that Statistics Wales projects a 5% population growth for Monmouthshire from 2018 to 2033, which aligns with past trends, but stated that the plan proposes a 15% increase in housing, which she believed to be excessive. The plan would lead to more pollution and traffic, especially as many new residents would likely commute to the M4 corridor for work.
Ann noted that Monmouth already experiences traffic congestion, particularly at the Dixton roundabout, suggesting this would worsen with new developments.
She mentioned potential problems with increased sewage affecting the River Wye.
Ann concluded that the proposed growth is unnecessary and called for a rethink, emphasising that only 5% growth is needed, not 15%.
Frank Brehany ~ Monmouth Air Quality
Frank, a Monmouth resident and legal activist with extensive experience in stakeholder reports on consumer and chemical compound issues, raised concerns about air quality at the HA4 site. He stated that his previous submissions and communications with the Council had not been properly addressed or included in the Consultation Report.
Frank criticised the Council’s reliance on the Local Air Quality Management (LAQM) standards, which only monitor nitrogen dioxide and do not use the discretionary or precautionary principles allowed.
He advised that objections about air quality were met with a standard response that impacts would be assessed at the planning application stage, which he felt was inadequate and delays addressing the issue.
He advised that his submission on air quality was eventually included in the meeting pack after he complained, but he clarified that his comments were about air quality, not water.
He highlighted that the council’s response claimed air quality monitoring methods are outside the RLDP process, which he sees as inconsistent, given that methodology is crucial for future assessments.
Frank emphasised that only monitoring one contaminant does not provide a comprehensive picture of air quality, and without a proper baseline, future assessments are unreliable.
He urged the Council to adopt robust scientific principles and engage meaningfully with residents on air quality before advancing the RLDP, warning that failure to do so would be remembered as a fundamental oversight.
Rob Elliott ~ Monmouth Air Quality
Rob expressed concern about increased road traffic from the proposed housing development at HA4/CS-0270, particularly at the Dixton Road junction, which already experiences significant idling and heavy vehicle traffic.
He warned that more houses would mean more cars and lorries, leading to increased air pollution from particulates, noise, and vibrations, especially affecting children passing through the area.
Rob argued that the solution is not more housing on greenfield sites but a national sustainable population policy for a stable future environment.
He requested that all Councillors be made aware of these concerns.
Barwood Land ~ HA3 – Land at Mounton Road, Chepstow)
The submission supported the draft allocation of site HA3 (Mountain Rd, Chepstow) in the RLDP and appreciated the Council’s work on the plan.
They emphasised that the site has been rigorously tested and scrutinised, with clear policy requirements to ensure high-quality, sustainable development.
The development would deliver 146 new homes (half affordable), a hotel, and a specialist care home, supporting independent living, job creation, and the local economy.
More than half the site would remain undeveloped, providing extensive open space, parkland, and long-term ecological protection with significant biodiversity net gain.
The new homes and buildings would be energy efficient, built to last, and designed for a “20-minute neighbourhood” with easy access to shops, services, and sustainable transport options.
Features would include electric vehicle charging, broadband, a mobility hub, and measures to reduce car reliance and carbon footprint.
Barwood Land has received strong interest from care home providers and hotel operators and is committed to working with the Council and community to deliver the site’s vision and maximise benefits.
Richard Liddell ~ HA3 – Land at Mounton Road, Chepstow)
Richard is an architect and planning consultant with long-standing experience and local ties, living next to the Mounton Road site.
He outlined the planning history, noting the Mounton Road site has been designated as a green wedge since 1981 to prevent urban sprawl and protect open land around Chepstow.
He referenced multiple planning policies and structure plans over the years that reinforce the need to maintain this green wedge, including the Monmouthshire LDP and specific policies like LC6.
Richard highlighted a 2024 Council screening application that concluded development would have a significant adverse impact on the valued landscape, biodiversity, and cultural links.
He described the site as a key part of Chepstow’s countryside setting, visible to those entering the town, and important for maintaining its market town character.
Richard advised he had conducted a local petition, finding that 70% of nearby residents are opposed the development (46 houses were visited, with 32 responses received). He suggested the majority of Chepstow’s population are against it.
He argued there is no need to use this site for development when alternatives exist, and noted that as recently as 2024, Council officers were against development due to significant adverse impacts.
He concluded that the proposal contradicts established planning policies and the majority of local opinion, without addressing additional concerns like traffic and pollution.
Zoe John - Monmouthshire Housing Association ~ HA1 - Land to the East of Abergavenny
Zoe spoke on behalf of Monmouthshire Housing Association and landowners regarding the site, which is allocated for 500 homes, with 50% affordable housing, a mixed-use neighbourhood centre, park and ride, and B1 uses.
The allocation followed detailed dialogue with officers and was informed by consultation feedback.
The site will be a well-connected, sustainable, and deliverable urban extension, contributing significantly to Monmouthshire’s housing needs.
An independent viability assessment confirmed the site is deliverable, considering infrastructure and build costs.
Monmouthshire Housing Association is committed to delivering the site as allocated, bringing economic, environmental, and social benefits, especially in addressing affordable housing needs.
Adoption of the RLDP will support more housing, jobs, and economic prosperity.
Requested support and endorsement for the RLDP to realise its benefits for Monmouthshire.
William Morgan - Raglan village ~ proposed solar panels and extension to the?existing enterprise park
William and his family farm the land proposed for solar panels and the expansion of Raglan Enterprise Park. He stated there had not been any prior consultation before receiving notification.
The Enterprise Park extension would be inconvenient but potentially manageable; however, the solar panel project would be disastrous for their dairy business.
Their farm prioritises wildlife habitat, maintaining wide and tall hedgerows, which could reduce solar panel efficiency due to shading and debris.
Installing solar panels would undo years of regenerative farming, harm soil quality, and make grazing impossible, especially at night, as 80% of their night grazing land would be lost.
Crossing the road to access remaining fields is unsafe for cows, especially in poor visibility, increasing the risk of accidents.
The loss of grazing land would end their dairy business, resulting in at least four local job losses and wider impacts on secondary sectors.
William noted inconsistency, as another local farmer was refused permission for solar panels, while his younger family-run business faces closure if the project proceeds.
He raised concerns about increased flood risk from water runoff due to the solar project.
William supports clean energy but suggests solar panels should be placed on buildings or car parks, not productive farmland.
He argued the project contradicts the Well-being of Future Generations Act by threatening young farmers’ livelihoods and local food security.
He urged reconsideration of the project to allow his family to continue producing local food.
Gareth Barton – Turley ~ speaking in relation to several sites
Gareth represented Richborough, promoters of the Showground site, part of the strategic allocation east of Caldicot. He emphasised the collaboration with site owners and other promoters.
He acknowledged the significant work and challenges in preparing the LDP, highlighting the ambitious nature of the plan, including 50% affordable housing and high sustainability standards.
He stated that the allocation is supported by extensive technical work and consultation, covering flood, drainage, ecology, landscape, transport, heritage, and infrastructure.
He explained that a master plan and policy HA2 guide the allocation, with ongoing opportunities for engagement and input during detailed design and planning applications.
He outlined key benefits: the site is the most appropriate location for strategic allocation in Caldicot/Severnside, as it is partly brownfield, will deliver zero carbon homes (50% affordable), a new primary school, employment, a multi-use games area, and a neighbourhood centre.
He highlighted the substantial open space and green infrastructure, with no built development in flood zones or west of the former Ministry of Defence (MOD) railway line, protecting the castle setting and ecological designations.
Gareth spoke of the integration with active travel improvements and contributions to bus services for connectivity. He encouraged the committee to endorse the work and support the LDP as it moves forward.
Catherine Blyth - Asbri Planning ~ (EA1 - Employment Allocations (Site Ref. EA1L: Land at Former MoD Site, Caerwent; HA9 - Residential Allocations - Land at Former MOD, Caerwent; EA1B - Poultry Units, Rockfield Road, Monmouth)
Catherine represented two site promoters: the mixed-use allocation at the former MOD Training Centre in Caerwent (HA9) and the employment allocation at the former poultry units, Rockfield Rd, Monmouth.
In terms of the former MOD Training Centre, she emphasised it is a brownfield site, which is vacant, and unused, which is proposed for 20 affordable and 20 open market homes plus flexible office workspace.
She noted extensive survey and assessment work has been done to show the site can be acceptably developed, with further work planned at the application stage, including biodiversity protection and enhancement.
She stated the site promoter looks forward to working with the authority to deliver homes and jobs on a sustainably located brownfield site.
For the former poultry units at Rockfield Rd, she stated it is a deliverable and viable employment allocation on brownfield land in a sustainable location, able to provide high-quality employment space and meet demand for office accommodation in Monmouth.
Catherine mentioned that there were no objections to the poultry units allocation and the promoter looks forward to progressing the site and working with the authority.
Lynne Garnett - Travelling Ahead
Lynne supported the inclusion of land in the RLDP for a future Gypsy and Traveller site in Monmouthshire.
She highlighted the Council’s statutory legal duty under the Housing Act to provide for Gypsy and Traveller communities, which remains unmet.
She emphasised the importance of identifying and setting aside land to address this unmet need.
Michelle Morgan - Monmouthshire Housing Association
Michelle spoke on behalf of Monmouthshire Housing Association, the largest registered social landlord in Monmouth.
She stated there are over 3,900 households on the Council’s affordable housing waiting list, including 203 accepted as homeless.
She highlighted that 52% of applicants have a recognised housing need, including homelessness, medical/welfare needs, and overcrowding.
She stated that 76% of applicants are of working age, with 52% in employment, highlighting affordability issues in the county.
She identified that the highest demand for affordable housing is in Abergavenny, followed by Chepstow, Caldicot, and Monmouth.
She advised that 51% of applicants require one-bedroom accommodation, with 70% of those being of working age.
Last year, 423 homes were allocated, with 51% going to homeless households.
On average, 98 bids are received per property advertised, showing high demand.
Wait times for high-need applicants are 12 months or more, varying by property type and area.
She shared two case studies: one case where social housing had prevented a family breakdown and another case where a working individual remains unable to secure housing despite numerous bids.
Michelle concluded that there is significant need for affordable new homes, which the replacement local development plan aims to address.