MONMOUTHSHIRE County Council's bid to build a new livestock market at Bryngwyn depends on the outcome of a public inquiry reports ANDY SHERWILL.

The local authority is attempting the compulsory purchase of land adjacent to the council owned 27-acre site at Bryngwyn earmarked as an alternative location for a livestock replacement market for both Abergavenny and Monmouth, in order to obtain the shooting rights covenant.

Planning inspector Clive Nield heard arguments for and against the order as part of the four day hearing at County Hall in Cwmbran called because the land has a covenant on it that gives the owner, a right to shoot up to ten times a year at 24-hours notice.

In his opening statement, Anthony Porten QC, on behalf of Monmouthshire County Council, said the shooting rights were not compatible with the intended use of the land being used as a livestock market and that the authority's negotiations to buy the shooting rights from Jack Hanbury-Tenison of Pontypool Estates had failed forcing them to apply for a CPO.

Mr Porten added: "During the period over five years since Monmouthshire acquired the land, there has been no exercise of the rights in accordance with the 1986 Deed of Exchange. The Monmouthshire council believes the provision of the new livestock market brings public benefits that far outweigh the loss to Mr Hanbury-Tenison if he were to lose his rights.

"It seems the objector places a higher value on the rights than the Monmouthshire council has been prepared to offer. Mr Hanbury-Tenison has said that the value of the shooting rights should reflect the value that they would hold in restricting development on the site."

Mr Porten said the council disagreed that the loss of the rights would severely impact on the sport. He also pointed out that the authority ultimately needs the Abergavenny Improvement Acts, 1854-1871 to be repealed and the acquisition of the land contained in the order to build a new £5million livestock market.

He added: "There is no requirement that one should precede the other. The Welsh ministers do not need to be satisfied that the development will definitely be carried out but, rather that without the compulsory purchase order being in place it cannot."

Mr Porten concluded by stating that the Bryngwyn development was not dependent on the capital receipts from the sale of the current town centre market for a replacement to be built.

However Paul Brown QC, counsel for Mr Hanbury-Tenison, said there was no "compelling public interest" and questioned the need for relocation, suggesting that "a significant part of the benefits in relocating to Bryngwyn put forward by the council could be achieved on the existing site in Abergavenny."

Mr Brown suggested that the case which the authority had presented fell 'woefully short' of what is required

"There has not been any proper consideration of alternative locations. Indeed there is clear history that there have been at least two sites which either obtained planning permission for use as a livestock market (Llanfoist) or had a resolution to grant such an application (Little Castle Farm at Raglan).

"There are other sites available today which are more suitably located including Mr Hanbury-Tenison's proposal at Mamhilad, which would meet the need of local farmers equally well.

Debra Hill-Howells, Monmouthshire County Council's estates manager, said that if the shooting rights remained it would impose significant operational difficulties.

"The auctioneers will not be able to hold a market on the ten days the rights were exercised because of the proximity of live ammunition being fired.

"In addition shooting within such a proximity of the animals would inevitably lead to stress and fear for the livestock held on the site and the health and safety of those employed or visiting the market."

Mrs Hill-Howells warned: "The 24-hour notice period renders any advance planning impossible. If the market is called off at short notice due to a shooting request, they will lose credibility and this will inevitably result in loss of trade."

She added: "In the five years since the council has owned the land at Bryngwyn we have not had any requests from either of the Hanbury-Tenison brothers, John and Capel, to enjoy their shooting rights."

However Mr Brown said: "The rights have been exercised by Capel Hanbury-Tenison, even though notification may not have been given to the council in advance."

Mrs Hill-Howells pointed out that the £5million funding for the replacement market was available through the authority's capital programme and was not dependent on the town centre site being sold for redevelopment to Morrisons.

She added that in the event of ongoing delays additional costs would be submitted to full council for approval.

Mr Brown asked if the scheme would be a drain on the public purse?

Mrs Hill-Howells replied: "The annual income we receive from the auctioneers is only one percent of our investment. We have made an on going commitment to operate a livestock market in the county for the next 50 years.

"When we looked further afield into land in neighbouring authorities we were asked for significant funding for any scheme to go ahead.

"We then decided that the replacement market had to be within the authority's administrative area and Raglan, with its road network, was deemed as to be the ideal location for it to be situated."

Mrs Hill-Howells explained that the council had attempted to obtain the shooting rights through negotiation offering in excess of the market value and added: "But this has been unsuccessful, which in turn has led to this inquiry."

Asked what measures had been taken to completely redevelop the town centre site, Mrs Hill-Howells replied: "No attempt has been made to quantify the amount of expenditure which would be required to update the current market.

"Even if the market were to be modernised, the size of the site will remain constant therefor the lack of suitable loading and unloading space would remain.

"Given the physical constraints of the site, this cannot be overcome through a refurbishment of the existing buildings.

"The increasing legislation surrounding animal welfare within market environments combined with the restraints of the existing location, it would be very difficult to make the market both legally compliant and viable.

"We consider that the proposed relocation has been well publicised through council papers and media coverage and we remain committed to the provision of a seamless transfer to a modern compliant livestock market befitting the needs and users of the 21st Century."

Keith Spencer, director of Abergavenny & Newport Market Auctioneers Ltd told the hearing that since attracting new custom following the closure of Newport's livestock market in February 2009 in one of the most favourable trading positions in its history.

"We've experienced a throughput of stock higher than we could have imagined. We are now desperate for a site that is fit for purpose because we are operating at full capacity at least one day a week now and we are experiencing problems with various aspects of the running of the market on this site.

"The historic site at Abergavenny is too small, the Victorian drainage system is not suitable for today's requirements and traffic congestion on market days in Abergavenny can be a real problem, especially in the morning.

"We support the move to Bryngwyn as it will be beneficial to the farming industry, especially the drivers of triple deckers who don't wish to negotiate town centre sites.

"Even though our rent would increase fourfold at Bryngwyn, we feel that it will still be a viable business proposition and the move would be beneficial to all sectors of the farming industry, as its just one mile from the Raglan interchange."

At the time of going to press Arfon Hughes of Mango Planning and Development was due to speak on behalf of Pontypool Estates . Capel Hanbury-Tenison along with Keep Abergavenny Livestock Market campaigners Philip Bowyer and Jenny Long were also due to present their cases.

The inspector is due to visit all the sites referred to during the inquiry and his final decision on whether the council can issue a compulsory purchase on the land is expected in about three months time.