County Councillors: D

MONMOUTHSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL Agenda item 4 Minutes of the meeting of Monmouthshire County Council held at County Hall, Usk on Thursday 27th June 2013 at 2.00 p.m.

PRESENT: County Councillor D.L.S. Dovey, (Chairman)

County Councillors: D. Batrouni, Mrs. D. Blakebrough, R.F. Chapman, P.R. Clarke, Ms. J.E. Crook, A. Easson, D.L. Edwards, Mrs R.M. Edwards, D.J. Evans, P.S. Farley, P.A. Fox, J. George, R. J. W. Greenland, Mrs. E. J. Hacket Pain, R.G. Harris, R.J.C. Hayward, M. Hickman, P.A.D. Hobson, G. Howard, S.G.M. Howarth, D.W.H. Jones, Mrs. P. Jones, Ms. S. Jones, S.B. Jones, R.P. Jordan, J.I. Marshall, P. Murphy, Mrs. M. Powell, J.L. Prosser, Mrs. V.E. Smith, B. Strong, Mrs. F. Taylor, A.C. Watts, Mrs. P.A. Watts, Mrs. A.E. Webb, Mrs S. White, K.G. Williams and A.M. Wintle.

OFFICERS IN ATTENDANCE:

Mr P. Matthews Chief Executive Mr S.M.W. Andrews Monitoring Officer Mr. G. Ashworth Head of Planning, Place and Regeneration Mr M. Davies Development Plans Manager Mr. R. Hoggins Acting Chief Officer, Regeneration and Culture Mrs J. Robson Head of Finance/Section 151 Officer Mr R. Tranter Deputy Monitoring Officer Mrs M. Wilkinson Deputy Chief Executive Mr P.M. Evans Democratic Services Manager

1 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE These were received from County Councillors G.C. Burrows, G.L. Down, Mrs L. Guppy and R J Higginson.

2 CHAIRMAN’S REPORT AND RECEIPT OF PETITIONS The Chairman had attended a number of events including the following:

 Wednesday 15th May - Freedom of the Borough Ceremony and Parade of the Welsh Guards - Ysysangharad War Memorial Park, Pontypridd  Saturday 18th May - Celebration of the Rotary Club’s 50 years of Service to Chepstow & District - Chepstow Castle  Tuesday 21st May - Monmouth Scouts AGM - Centenary Scout Hall  Saturday 25th May - Welsh Perry & Cider Festival – Caldicot Castle  Sunday 26th May - Abergavenny Steam Rally – Bailey Park  Sunday 2nd June - Abergavenny Town Council Civic Sunday – Christchurch, Avergavenny  Wednesday 5th June - GAVO Awards Evening – Glen yr Afon House Hotel, Usk  Thursday 6th June - Royal Garden Party – Buckingham Palace, London

Page 2 Minutes of the meeting of Monmouthshire County Council dated Thursday 27th June 2013 continued

 Friday 7th June - Supper Party, Bishopstow  Sunday 9th June - Monmouth Town Council Civic Service – Priory Church of St Marys the Virgin, Monmouth  Sunday 9th June - Wye, Oh! Wye Concert – The Drill Hall, Chepstow  Saturday 15th June - Gwent Young Farmers County Rally – Skirrid Farm, Nr Abergavenny  Saturday 15th June - Abergavenny Eisteddfod Concert/Competition – Borough Theatre, Abergavenny  Monday 17th June - Business Breakfast – Tithe Barn Food Hall, Abergavenny  Thursday 20th June - Royal Ascot Ladies Charity Day – Chepstow Race Course

The Chairman announced that an event to celebrate the life and work of Steve Greenslade would be held on Friday 19th July at 2.00 p.m. at County Hall.

3 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST These are recorded under the relevant minute heading.

4 “STATE OF MONMOUTHSHIRE” DEBATE We received a statement from the Leader setting out the context of change within which the Council was working, including the Hill Report on Education, and the Public Services Commission which was due to report by the end of the year. There was an unprecedented challenge to public service finance in Wales. Meanwhile people were living longer, but not necessarily living well for longer, and our young people were facing real difficulties in getting jobs and homes of their own. Despite political differences members had a common aim to serve the community. The Leader drew attention to the following achievements of the whole Council:

 A change in the way we work to agile working, with a 50% reduction in desks. Other organisations wanted to know how we had achieved this.  An alteration in our estate and a move into modernised buildings eg the Cattle Market, a new County Hall, Innovation House, new primary schools.  An integrated team for Older Peoples’ Services.  Considerable savings from waste with an excellent service maintained and high recycling rates.  Increased investment in highways infrastructure despite a reducing settlement.  A comprehensive Single Integrated Plan  Taking on the challenge and potential of social media and new technology eg Monmouthpedia.  We had taken 2% - 3% out of the budget over the last few years with only a marginal effect on services.

Page 3 Minutes of the meeting of Monmouthshire County Council dated Thursday 27th June 2013 continued

There had also been some salutary lessons:  The Estyn inspection had been a disappointment, but had given us a wake-up call to do more to develop the potential of our children.  It had not been easy having no home or base for the first year of the new Council.

There was due to be a 2% cut in funding from Westminster to the Welsh Assembly Government and this would translate into massive cuts for local government including Monmouthshire. The level of savings we would need to make would have to at least double in 2014/15 over this year. To protect education and social services, we may need to lose 20% - 50% of resources in other services. To do this we would need to invest in workforce capacity.

The Leader highlighted the following messages:

 All the children in Monmouthshire should have a fair start.  A modern secondary school estate was needed.  The need to recognise that some families need specific assistance.  The need to develop the potential of brighter children from poorer homes.  The need to harness the social capital of Monmouthshire.  To move on at speed the “whole place” agenda to deliver attractive, vibrant places.  Can we tap into the capacity for communities to be more sustainable for food, energy, transport and recycling?  We need to link people digitally in ways that are multi-generational.

To achieve this we needed to have a different sort of conversation and relationship with our communities. We also needed to engage with our democratic partners in town and community councils.

A members’ seminar on service re-design would be held on Wednesday 3rd July at 10.00 a.m. and a further seminar would be held on Wednesday 31st July at 10.00 a.m. There would be further events during the autumn.

The Leader concluded by inviting all members to join in a debate about the state of Monmouthshire and it’s fitness for the future.

In response to a question from County Councillor S.G.M.Howarth as to whether the Leader wanted backbenchers to come on board with the Cabinet, the Leader stated that the whole Council had a part to play. He had to maintain an executive function and no Cabinet re-shuffle was envisaged. The question was, how do we sustain high quality services with half the money?

In response to a question from County Councillor A.C.Watts about what the Leader intended to do to protect people living in pockets of deprivation, the Leader referred to the need to take forward the agenda on “narrowing the gap”. There were high levels of deprivation in small pockets.

Page 4 Minutes of the meeting of Monmouthshire County Council dated Thursday 27th June 2013 continued

In response to a supplementary question from Councillor Watts as to how the Leader would work with other parties, the Leader stated that he wanted to use the best expertise in the Council Chamber to raise expectations in families and to provide opportunities for children and young people.

County Councillor R J C Hayward asked if the Council had received a 0.6% increase in funding over last year, and the spending review had identified a 2% cut in real terms – wasn’t that an increase, bearing in mind inflation? And was talk of cuts of 50% scaremongering?

In response, the Leader confirmed that the headline figure was a 2% cut, but the funding to WAG from the Treasury was flat lining, and in real terms there was a cut. The Institute for Fiscal Studies had indicated that councils could expect cuts of anything up to 20% up to the end of the decade. The Leader hoped that he was wrong but he was relaying the message passed on by the Institute of Fiscal Studies and WAG Ministers.

County Councillor Mrs F Taylor welcomed the intention to address poverty and deprivation but stated that this needed to be a whole Council debate. There was a need to harness social capital. Community engagement was not understood in the Council.

In response, the Leader acknowledged the need for better engagement. The forthcoming members’ seminars would provide an opportunity to address these issues.

5 MINUTES We resolved that the minutes of the following meetings of the County Council be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman:

(a) Annual Meeting 14th May 2013 (b) County Council 16th May 2013

6 PUBLIC FORUM ITEMS None received.

7 COMMITTEE MINUTES We resolved that the minutes of the following meetings be received:

(a) Democratic Services Committee 10th April 2013 (b) Standards Committee 4th March 2013 (c) Standards Committee 7th May 2013 (d) SACRE 26th February 2013

8 NOTICE OF MOTION The following motion was moved by County Councillor D Batrouni and seconded:

“That this Council values all its employees and believes a hard day’s work should be rewarded with a liveable wage. Consequently, this council should implement

Page 5 Minutes of the meeting of Monmouthshire County Council dated Thursday 27th June 2013 continued the living wage as a minimum standard of pay for all Monmouthshire County Council employees by the next financial year 2014-15.”

In moving the motion, Councillor Batrouni highlighted the following points:

 This was a moral argument, a hard day’s work should be rewarded by fair pay, and the Council should pay a decent liveable wage.  The cost of living was rising.  Generally, people who worked in Monmouthshire earned less.  There were 172 people employed by the Council who earned below the living wage, 90% of whom were women.  People at the lowest income levels were in difficulties  The deficit reduction plan had hit women hardest.  The JAG meeting on 4th March had been informed that this measure would cost £194,000.  To pay for this we should freeze the amount paid to private consultants, which amounted to £500,000.00 in the last three years – this was about a change of priorities.

The following amendment was moved by County Councillor R J W Greenland and seconded:

“That this Council values all its employees and believes a hard day’s work should be rewarded with a liveable wage. Consequently, this Council should consider the implementation of the living wage through the next budget setting process.”

In moving the amendment, Councillor Greenland acknowledged that the current economic crisis meant that a lot of people were suffering, especially those on the lowest wage. The motion as originally moved, would affect our next budget, and we had a strict protocol on budget preparation including the need for reports, consultation and for proposals to be considered in the light of all the facts. This issue needed to be properly considered through the budget setting process.

Consultants were employed where we did not have the knowledge in-house.

During a debate, the following issues were raised:

 At least 40% of part-time staff earned less than £7.19 per hour. This issue affected women and had an impact on child poverty.  The proposal needed to be subject to the equality impact assessment process.  Other authorities are living wage authorities.  The Council had a moral duty to fight poverty.  There had been a rapid rise in the single person’s tax allowance.  The motion was a means of addressing the issue of the poverty of families in work.  There was a need for proper consultation with the unions.

Page 6 Minutes of the meeting of Monmouthshire County Council dated Thursday 27th June 2013 continued

In response to a question seeking an assurance that this matter would be properly considered by the Cabinet, the Leader supported the amendment and stated that there was a need to take all factors into account, including that 259 people would be affected and that the cost would be £114,000.00. He was serious about this, and it had to be considered along with other issues in the budget

On being put to the vote, the amendment was carried, became the substantive motion, and was carried.

We resolved:

9 APPOINTMENT TO DRAGON WASTE BOARD Dragon Waste was a joint venture between Monmouthshire County Council and Viridor Waste Management Limited. The company had been established in the early 1990’s and had won contracts for management of MCC transfer stations and disposal of waste, as well as the management and running of the four civic amenity sites (now known as Household Waste Recycling Centres).

Dragon Waste was a limited company with Viridor controlling 81% of the shares and MCC 19%. The company had a board of directors and the shareholder agreement allowed Monmouthshire to appoint one board director and Viridor five.

In response to a question about the length of the contract with Dragon Waste, it was confirmed that the contract was open-ended but could be terminated with 12 months’ notice on either side.

In response to a further question, it was confirmed that reports on the management of the contract would be submitted to the Strong Communities Select Committee.

In response to a question as to whether the Council was looking at bringing recycling in-house, it was stated that the Council would have the option either to bring the contract in-house or to work with a different company.

We resolved that Roger Hoggins, Acting Chief Officer and Head of Infrastructure Networks and Sustainability be appointed as MCC Director on the Board of Dragon Waste Limited.

10 MONMOUTHSHIRE LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN: COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY, INTERIM POLICY GUIDE TO PLANNING OBLIGATIONS AND DRAFT INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) was a new levy that local authorities in England and Wales could choose to charge on new developments in their area. The money could be used to support development by funding infrastructure that

Page 7 Minutes of the meeting of Monmouthshire County Council dated Thursday 27th June 2013 continued

the local community needed. It applied to most new buildings and charges were based on the size and type of the new development. Liability to pay CIL for a development would not arise until the Council had adopted a charging schedule, which had to be based on an up-to-date development plan i.e. an LDP, and was subject to consultation.

The report sought the Council’s agreement to the commencement of preparatory work for a community infrastructure levy with a view to adopting a CIL charge as soon as is practicable following adoption of the local development plan.

The report also sought the Council’s endorsement of interim policy guidance on planning obligations, and advised members of the preparation of an associated Draft Infrastructure Plan, both of which were attached to the report. The Draft Infrastructure Plan set out infrastructure requirements for each site.

During a debate the following issues were raised:  In response to a question it was anticipated that developers would add the cost of infrastructure to the price of the homes.  Concerns were raised that in some cases the Infrastructure Plan did not contain sufficient detail, nor reflect what is needed in terms of infrastructure in each area, eg Rockfield Farm, Undy.  Concerns over the shortage of burial spaces and recreation space in Magor.  The need for further information on the timing and cost of the Magor and Undy by pass and the possible new railway station at Magor.  The need for appropriate routes to school and pedestrian crossings in Magor.  Concern over the lack of infrastructure in Trellech United.  Further information was requested on the proposal to redevelop/refurbish an existing school to provide a community campus in Abergavenny.  The need to clarify the timing and funding of Thornwell School Phase II given that Phase I had not begun.  Concern that all the proposals in Chepstow were in one ward: St Mary’s.  In response to a question it was confirmed that there was no time limit for when CIL monies needed to be spent.  Concern that these proposals could affect landowners’ willingness to bring forward sites for development-there was a need for further consultation  Community and Town Councils would receive 15% of CIL funding and there was concern about the capacity of community councils to manage infrastructure projects.  Concern that there was nothing in the report about the implications within the Brecon Beacons National Park.  The report would be subject to a consultation process which would seek wider community views, before a further report to Council.

We resolved:

Page 8 Minutes of the meeting of Monmouthshire County Council dated Thursday 27th June 2013 continued

1. To agree to the commencement of preparatory work for CIL with a view to adopting a CIL charge as soon as is practicable following adoption of the LDP. 2. To endorse Interim Policy Guidance on Planning Obligations. 3. To note the Draft Infrastructure Plan that has been prepared to accompany the LDP.

11 MONMOUTHSHIRE LOCAL DEVELOMENT PLAN: INSPECTOR’S PRELIMINARY FINDINGS REGARDING INCREASED HOUSING TARGET A public examination of the Council’s deposit LDP by an Independent Inspector had begun in May, and had been adjourned until 1st October when it was proposed to hold three further sessions to consider:

 Overall provision and additional housing sites.  Affordable housing (continuation of Hearing session 5).  Closing matters (to consider any matters arising, changes etc).

The Inspector had issued a Preliminary Findings Note informing the Council that it must identify sufficient land to provide an additional 900 dwellings in addition to the current LDP target of 4,000 dwellings for the period 2011 – 21, to be achieved through extensions to the existing strategic sites and the identification of additional sites.

The Inspector had concluded that a shortfall of around 450 dwellings had occurred since 2008 and that there was a need to provide a flexibility allowance of about 10% or 450 dwellings.

In response, officers had put forward to the Inspector proposals to meet this target, which the Inspector had confirmed as a positive way forward, and the Council was now asked to endorse amendments to the LDP strategic sites and the list of additional housing sites, as set out below:

a) A.1 Wonastow Road, Monmouth – extend boundary to provide an additional 80 units. b) A.2 Fairfield Mabey, Chepstow – provide an additional 110 units. c) A.3 Crick Road, Portskewett – delete 1 hectare employment land to provide an additional 35 units. d) A.4 Rockfield Farm, Undy – delete 2 hectares employment land to provide an additional 70 units. e) B.1 Land at Vinegar Hill, Undy - new site for 225 units. f) B.2 Former Paper Mill, Sudbrook – new site for 190 units. g) B.3 Land to the south of School Lane, Penperlleni – extend boundary to provide an additional 25 units. h) B.4 Land at Chepstow Road, Raglan – new site for 45 units. (i) B.5 Coed Glas, Abergavenny – urban housing potential site for 60 units.

A number of members raised concerns about the need for development to be supported by infrastructure. Concern was expressed that the Council did not

Page 9 Minutes of the meeting of Monmouthshire County Council dated Thursday 27th June 2013 continued

have the resources to fund the infrastructure necessary to support these housing developments and the view was expressed the infrastructure should be provided before the developments took place.

In response to the view that development sites should have been “pepperpotted” across the County rather than relying on strategic sites, the view was expressed that main settlements should take the majority of development because this was more sustainable.

A debate took place on each of these sites as set out below:

A.1 WONASTOW ROAD, MONMOUTH – EXTEND BOUNDARY TO PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL 80 UNITS. 1. County Councillor Mrs R M Edwards declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this site by virtue of renting the land, and took no part in the debate or the vote, having left the Council Chamber prior to the debate.

2. County Councillor Mrs S White declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this site by virtue of an interest in the land and took no part in the debate or the vote, having left the Council Chamber prior to the debate.

During the debate, the following issues were raised:

 Councillor R.J.C.Hayward stated that the town of Monmouth has been allocated 827 houses, more than 10% of the houses in the town at the present time.The additional allocation was unfair as Monmouth was already taking more than its fair share.  There was no mention of IT infrastructure in the development of Wonastow Road and the developer had not expressed any interest in industrial development at the site.  In response to the suggestion that 800 homes would lead to 200 additional children and that two out of the three schools in Monmouthshire were full, it was stated that consultation had taken place with education officers and the only school where there was likely to be an issue was Kymin View; however, pupils could be accommodated elsewhere. It was also noted that the Council planned for 28 school children per 100 homes but that this was not a requirement but a planning tool.  Concerns were expressed over road access; residents would not give up their private road. In response it was stated that an alternative access was via Portal Road.  Concerns also were expressed over the pedestrian access.  In response to a suggestion that the Council should identify land at Oakley Way, Caldicot, for housing, as an alternative to Wonastow Road, it was stated that there were re-development proposals for the flats; part of the land was used for allotments and could be considered as a green lung, and that only a modest amount of houses would be possible.  Concerns were raised by County Councillor A. Wintle about the danger of flooding arising from run off from the hills. In response it was stated that all

Page 10 Minutes of the meeting of Monmouthshire County Council dated Thursday 27th June 2013 continued

the Wonastow Road site was above the flood plain of one in a thousand years.  It was acknowledged that there would be a need for more infrastructure including sewerage, and medical practitioners.  There was a problem with the pumping station at the other end of Wonastow Road.  Dixton Road should be considered as an alternative.  The view was expressed that it was not unreasonable for Monmouth to provide 80 out of 900 houses.

It was moved by County Councillor R J W Greenland that the following proposal be endorsed:

A.1 Wonastow Road, Monmouth – extend boundary to provide an additional 80 units.

On being put to the vote, the motion was lost.

County Councillor A. Easson left the meeting at 5.03 p.m.

A.2 FAIRFIELD MABEY, CHEPSTOW – PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL 110 UNITS. County Councillor P Farley raised concerns about the additional volume of traffic on the A48 which would be generated and stated that he would not support an increase in housing provision without joint working by all agencies to address these problems. There was a need for a by-pass.

A number of other members expressed concern about the additional traffic movements which would be generated, particularly on Hardwick Hill, together with concerns over the inadequate road infrastructure.

In response to concerns over traffic, it was acknowledged that the downside of this proposal would be the additional traffic generated on Chepstow’s historic road network. However, the Welsh Assembly Government were content that the Highways Agency could solve these issues by improvements including to the High Beech roundabout, which would improve traffic flow and improve air quality.

The site would provide much needed housing and was within walking distance from the town centre and the railway station.

We resolved that the provision of an additional 110 units at A.2 Fairfield Mabey, Chepstow, be endorsed as an amendment to the LDP in order to achieve the revised LDP housing target, with a view to issuing the proposals for consultation prior to discussion at the re-convened LDP Examination.

A.3 CRICK ROAD, PORTSKEWETT – DELETE 1 HECTARE EMPLOYMENT LAND TO PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL 35 UNITS.

County Councillor A C Watts left the meeting at 5.23 p.m.

Page 11 Minutes of the meeting of Monmouthshire County Council dated Thursday 27th June 2013 continued

County Councillor J I Marshall referred to flooding in the Green Lane Ward, including flooding at Castle Lea, and stated that the Crick Road site flooded and that the Neddern Brook had a pollution problem. This development would add to flooding problems and he could not support the need for additional housing.

In response, it was stated that this site was not in the flood plain, and had not flooded. It was also stated that flooding would not be exacerbated by this development and that the site may intercept some of the water.

County Councillor Mrs S White left the meeting at 5.31 p.m.

It was noted that Crick Road was too large as an employment site and that land at Castle Gate may yield one hectare of employment land. The alternative site at Oakley Way suggested by the local member had not been put forward as an alternative site and included allotments. The site had not been through the proper alternative sites process.

We resolved that the following site be endorsed as an amendment to the LDP in order to achieve the revised LDP housing target with a view to issuing the proposals for consultation prior to discussion at the re-convened LDP Examination:

A.3 Crick Road, Portskewett – delete 1 hectare employment land to provide an additional 35 units.

A.4 ROCKFIELD FARM, UNDY – DELETE 2 HECTARES EMPLOYMENT LAND TO PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL 70 UNITS

County Councillor D L Edwards left the meeting at 5.41 p.m.

County Councillor J Crook stated that Undy was suffering from lack of infrastructure arising from the 1970’s housing development. There was no junction off the M48 and the proposed by-pass would not happen soon enough.

County Councillor Mrs F Taylor stated that Magor was not a main settlement and that this proposal would change the basis of the local development plan, which was supposed to concentrate on main towns. Some 40% of the proposed development would take place in Severnside whilst 45% of the development would take place in the main towns. Magor was supposed to be a secondary settlement and only had the facilities and infrastructure of a secondary settlement. The infrastructure should be developed before the houses. This development was unsustainable.

In response, it was noted that in the LDP Deposit Plan, the Council had accepted Severnside as a sub-region on a par with Monmouth, Abergavenny etc. Physically, Magor and Undy were treated as one settlement for planning purposes. This was a reasonable area of land. It was acknowledged that none of our settlements had good roads due to the historic road network in Monmouthshire. There were proposals for junction improvements at the end of

Page 12 Minutes of the meeting of Monmouthshire County Council dated Thursday 27th June 2013 continued

the village. The lack of leisure facilities in Magor and Undy was acknowledged and it was hoped that the additional housing would lead to the development of leisure facilities.

We resolved that the following proposal be endorsed as an amendment to the LDP, in order to achieve the revised LDP housing target, with a view to issuing the proposals for consultation prior to discussion at the re-convened LDP Examination:

A.4 Rockfield Farm, Undy – Delete 2 hectares employment land to provide an additional 70 units

B.1 LAND AT VINEGAR HILL, UNDY - NEW SITE FOR 225 UNITS. County Councillor J Crook stated that a third of the new dwellings proposed were in her ward and raised concerns over inadequate infrastructure including a lack of burial spaces and recreation space. The development proposed was out of proportion to the housing proposed for the rest of the County. These additional houses would place travel infrastructure under pressure and there were no plans for a railway station.

In response to Councillor Crook’s statement that she disagreed with the phrase “the limited extent of residential development proposed”, the Head of Planning stated that this phrase referred to the whole of the Severnside area, not only to this proposal.

County Councillor Mrs F Taylor referred to the lack of amenity space in the villages of Magor and Undy and stated that proportionally, there should be 56 acres. Since the 1980’s 1600 houses had been built in Magor and Undy but no infrastructure had been put in. Although Magor and Undy was classed as a secondary development, it was taking the majority of development in the county if these proposals were taken into account. The site proposed was outside the current village development boundary and included mineral land. There was no youth provision from the Council within Undy. This area, although an active community, was a dormitory area. These proposals would take the heart out of the village.

Concerns were also expressed about the need for road improvements and doctors’ surgeries.

In response the Head of Planning acknowledged that the provision of infrastructure in Magor had not kept pace with housing development, which had been agreed by Gwent County Council on their land. This was regrettable but Monmouthshire had shown we could keep pace with infrastructure. Section 106 funding would provide decent recreation facilities. All our greenfield sites were outside the village boundaries. To be refused on highways grounds, applications had to cross the threshold of unacceptability and for this development, highways officers had said that there was no insurmountable problem. The area had better access to transport than many other parts of the County. The Council did not have a statutory responsibility to provide burial grounds but we would look at

Page 13 Minutes of the meeting of Monmouthshire County Council dated Thursday 27th June 2013 continued

burial grounds in Magor and Undy. Magor with Undy was now one of the largest settlements in Monmouthshire and was a strategic site. This development represented in-fill and rounding off of the site.

In response to a question about access from Vinegar Hill, it was stated that an additional access road should be provided from the west.

In response to concerns about the mineral status of this land, it was stated that much of south east Monmouthshire was a mineral safeguarding area because of limestone. We had advised the Welsh Assembly Government that it was not practicable to extract limestone close to housing. No letter had been sent to the Welsh Government about minerals but minerals could not be worked within 200 metres of an existing settlement.

In response to concerns about amenity land, it was stated that amenity land was not necessarily the same as a publicly available area.

In response to a question about what the Council had done to monitor traffic or air quality, it was stated we were not aware that air quality issues or traffic had been raised, and in response to concerns about the adverse impact of a mobile telephone mast, this was a decision for prospective house purchasers to take into account.

We resolved that the following site be endorsed as an amendment to the LDP, in order to achieve the revised LDP housing target, with a view to issuing the proposals for consultation prior to discussion at the re-convened LDP Examination:

B.1 Land At Vinegar Hill, Undy - New Site For 225 Units.

B.2 FORMER PAPER MILL SUDBROOK – NEW SITE FOR 190 UNITS County Councillor P.A. Fox referred to previous planning applications on this site, which had been refused, and raised concerns over access. There was one road into Sudbrook, which was an historic village of 140 houses, over a small narrow bridge. The approval of 190 houses would lead to further development and would lead to a couple of thousand vehicular movements per day. There was no secondary access to the village, for which he had campaigned. He also made reference to the impact on the churchyard corner and drew attention to the fact that additional traffic would be generated along a safe route to school.

In response it was noted that the previous application for 340 houses had been refused, but not on access grounds, and that the access had been sufficient for the traffic generated by the previous paper mill including HGV’s. The existing highway network and bridge had been built to serve the paper mill including HGV’s. The Head of Planning undertook to check the structural survey of the bridge. A development of 190 houses appeared to be just viable; a development of 340 houses, which was the subject of the outstanding appeal, would be too large and lead to the development on the flood plain. This was a brown field site which was an eyesore.

Page 14 Minutes of the meeting of Monmouthshire County Council dated Thursday 27th June 2013 continued

County Councillor Mrs P. Watts also spoke against this site.

County Councillor Mrs P. Watts left the meeting at 6.48 pm.

In response to a question the Monitoring Officer advised that there was nothing to prevent Planning Committee members taking part in the vote on this site at this meeting, provided they kept an open mind when considering any future planning application at the Planning Committee.

It was moved by County Councillor R.J.C. Hayward that site B2 Former Paper Mill, Sudbrook, be allocated for 340 units. On being put to the vote the motion was lost.

We resolved that the following proposal be endorsed as an as an amendment to the LDP in order to achieve the revised LDP housing target with a view to issuing the proposals for consultation prior to discussion at the reconvened LDP examination:

B2 Former Paper Mill, Sudbrook – new site for 190 units.

County Councillors R.F. Chapman, P. Murphy and A. Wintle left the meeting at 7.33 pm.

B3 LAND TO THE SOUTH OF SCHOOL LANE, PENPERLLENNI – EXTEND BOUNDARY TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL 25 UNITS County Councillor S.B. Jones expressed concerns over the site as School Lane was a one way street and there was a need to improve the access from School Lane onto the A4042. He also expressed concerns over drains in Goytre.

B3 Land to the south of School Lane, Penperllenni – extend the boundary to provide additional 25 units.

B4 LAND AT CHEPSTOW ROAD, RAGLAN – NEW SITE FOR 45 UNITS Note: County Councillor Mrs V.Smith declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this site by virtue of an association with the owners of adjacent property, and took no part in the debate or the vote, having left the Council Chamber prior to the debate.

County Councillor Mrs P. Jones expressed concerns over access for this site and asked if the problem of access would be considered at the planning or consultation stages, prior to planning approval. In response the Head of Planning stated that highways were already considering traffic calming measures before or after the development is finished.

Page 15 Minutes of the meeting of Monmouthshire County Council dated Thursday 27th June 2013 continued

It was moved by County Councillor R.J.C. Hayward that the Council agree in principle to the allocation of 45 houses in the vicinity of Raglan, but, that the choice of site be delegated to a politically balanced committee of 12 members of the Council. On being put to the vote the motion was lost.

We resolved that the following proposal be endorsed as an amendment to the LDP in order to achieve the revised LDP housing target with a view to issuing the proposals for consultation prior to discussion at the reconvened LDP examination:

B4 land at Chepstow Road, Raglan – New site for 45 units

Note: County Councillor Mrs P. Jones asked that it be recorded in the minutes that she had abstained on the above vote.

B5 COED GLAS ABERGAVENNY – URBAN HOUSING POTENTIAL SITE FOR 60 SITES. We resolved that this site be endorsed as an amendment to the LDP in order to achieve the revised LDP housing target.

In response to a question, the Head of Planning confirmed that notwithstanding the shortfall of 80 units from the target set by the Inspector, officers would report back to the Inspector with details of the sites that had been approved. If an additional site was needed a report would come back to the Council.

12 APPOINTMENT OF CHAIR OF DEMOCRATIC SERVICES COMMITTEE We resolved that County Councillor D.J. Evans be appointed as Chair of the Democratic Services Committee.

13 ROLE DESCRIPTION FOR ELECTED MEMBERS We resolved that this report be deferred until the next meeting of the Council.

14 IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2013/16 The Council had a statutory requirement to produce an Improvement Plan each year and we received the Stage 1 Improvement Plan for 2013-16, which set out the Council’s annual improvement objectives for 2013-14.

During a debate a number of issues were raised:

• In response to a suggestion from Councillor D. Batrouni that the report should highlight weaknesses, the Chief Executive agreed to include an ONS table showing the number of homeless people with children, and a table showing the Council’s relative performance on fly tipping.

• In response to a question from Councillor S.G.M.Howarth about systems thinking, the Chief Executive explained that this was an ongoing concept which allowed the Council to focus on outcomes, and agreed to forward a list of reviews

Page 16 Minutes of the meeting of Monmouthshire County Council dated Thursday 27th June 2013 continued

and outcomes so far. There would be further reviews over the next 12-15 months.

• In response to a question from Councillor P. Farley, the Chief Executive agreed that suggestions for inclusion in the report which had been made by the Adults Select Committee, should be taken into account.

• Councillor R.J.C.Hayward referred to the statement in the plan that “Our desire is to keep economic development driven and shaped by the market and not just the Council” and asked if this was consistent with the LDP, where we had set aside land for development without evidence from the market? The Chief Executive stated that the decisions taken by the Council on the LDP at this meeting did not affect this statement.

• Councillor Hayward also asked for further detail on the split of residual waste figures which the Chief Executive agreed to check.

We resolved that the Council endorses the Improvement Plan 2013-16 as amended.

15 WELSH LANGUAGE MONITORING REPORT 2012/13 The report set out compliance with the action plan in the Welsh Language Scheme and also contained evidence of good practice carried out by the Council over a 12 month period.

We resolved that the report be approved as a record of the Council’s activities over the last year in respect of its compliance with the Welsh Language Scheme, and forwarded to the Welsh Language Commissioner’s Office by 30th June 2013.

County Councillor Mrs M. Powell left the meeting at 8.18 pm.

16 MEMBERS’ QUESTIONS (a) From County Councillor J. Crook to County Councillor S.B. Jones, Cabinet Member for County Operations.

Due to the lateness of the hour County Councillor Crook agreed to defer this question until the next meeting of the Council on 25th July 2013.

(b) From County Councillor Crook to County Councillor G. Howard, Cabinet Member for Environment, Public Services and Housing.

“I would like some justification from the leading partnership of this council as to why it is deemed appropriate for the VILLAGE of Undy to have the highest number of proposed units in the proposed updates to the LDP than any other area throughout the whole county. Undy has 495 proposed units in this newest addition to the LDP. This would not only takes up a huge proportion of the already low area of green sites in the village of Undy but also will put huge pressure on already extremely thinly spread resources and facilities in the area.

Page 17 Minutes of the meeting of Monmouthshire County Council dated Thursday 27th June 2013 continued

Undy has no community centre, even after years of campaigning and trying to raise funds.

Undy and Magor’s Railway station was closed in 1964 and although a new campaign has been started to get a new and very much needed rail way station for the area there is currently not one. Undy has no youth provisions from the county council, the nearest youth centre being Caldicot. What Undy does have is one small sweet shop, a football club and a church. These 3 facilities are not enough for the current population of 3,658 let alone the proposed population if all of these dwellings are built. I and the community I represent are appalled by the proposals. Given the lack of community facilities and provision how does the partnership justify these proposals?”

In view of the lateness of the hour County Councillor Crook agreed to accept a written answer to this question, to be circulated to all members.

In view of the lateness of the hour County Councillor Batrouni agreed to defer this question to the next meeting of the Council on 25th July 2013.

The meeting ended at 8.37 p.m.