At a meeting of the Monmouth Town Council Monday evening, Nov 18, councillors voted to raise concerns about the proposals to develop 270 houses on a site at Dixton Road.

The town council does not directly have control over the development proposals but can make recommendations to planners at Monmouthshire County Council (MCC).

They have raised concerns after local objections highlighted the lack of employment within easy walking distance as well as the potential increase in traffic congestion and subsequent air pollution, the potential decline in water quality and the negative impact on the environment.

Councillor Martin Sweeney expressed concerns about the loss of habitat for Monmouth’s endangered Greater Horseshoe Bats. He highlighted that the Dixton Road site was close to Newton Court Site of Special Scientific Interest and situated within the 3km Core Sustenance Zone of protection for the bats.

Two members of the Gateway to Wales Action Group spoke at the meeting and highlighted a recent letter from Cadw, the Welsh Government's historic environment service to MCC.

The letter said that the proposed development area “is located some 40m from the boundary of the Dixton Conservation Area and some 180 metres from the boundary of scheduled monument MM125 Dixton Mound.

The letter went on to say: “The proposed development will bring modern, dense development much closer to the designated historic assets and will be clearly visible from them. As such, there is a clear likelihood that it will have an unacceptably damaging effect upon the settings of scheduled monument MM125 and the Dixton Conservation Area”.

The council meeting comes just days after a public meeting at Monmouth Baptist Church attended by over 70 residents which concluded that the best way to object to the proposals was to send an email or a letter to the county council, headed ‘RLDP Consultation Response on site HA4 Dixton Road Monmouth’ and to send a copy to their local councillor.

The consultation runs up until December 16.

The Town Council also identified an alternative site that was deemed suitable for development, due to the fact that it is closer to employment and retail infrastructure.