Abergavenny Cattle Market Regeneration Project

A Brief History

Early Studies: In 1998 the Monmouthshire County Council (MCC) commissioned studies of Chepstow, Monmouth and Abergavenny known as the Three Towns Study. The consultants Drivers Jonas were employed and there was wide consultation. As regards Abergavenny the major findings were that the town is well served with non-food shopping but that there was a lack of food shopping which should be met by the provision of a 'quality foodstore' in the town centre. This finding was supported in February 2002 by a report of Colliers CRE, which recommended "a good quality food store" and a size of 2,445 sq.m. - 2,565 sq.m. (in round figures 26,000 - 27,000 sq.ft.). A subsequent reappraisal by Colliers CRE [date ???] does little to deny their previous conclusions.

Sale of the Site of the Livestock Market: In 2003 MCC started to implement a long-standing resolution to sell the livestock market for redevelopment. The site lies between Lion Street and Park Road, King Street and Hereford Road. It is bounded on three sides by Conservation Areas and is understood to be the site of a Roman settlement and road. Park Road is the trunk road A40.

Outline Planning Permission: As a precursor , MCC commissioned a design study from Mountford Piggot. This provided for a mixed development of appropriate small-town scale and diversity, comprising a foodstore of 25,000 sq.ft., a replacement library for the town, 31 housing units dispersed in three locations and parking for 262 cars. A major element in the approved scheme was the retention and reuse of the former abattoir complex on grounds of its potential contribution to the character of the development and its significance in the history of a very active market town The scheme's supporting text is attached as Appendix 1.

Initial Consultation: The drawings and model were displayed to the public in the Town Hall for three days, the MCC Head of Planning being in attendance to answer questions. The Head of Planning subsequently presented the proposals to a public meeting convened by the Civic Society. In general the consultations found approval for what was regarded as a high quality scheme, sensitive to the town's character.

Outline Planning Approval: This consultation was reported to the County Planning Committee on 6 April 2004, when the scheme received approval, subject to rigorous conditions which were delegated for implementation by the Director of Environment. These conditions included a requirement that the foodstore/supermarket be limited to 25,000 sq.ft. and that no demolition of the abattoir complex be permitted until detailed proposals had been approved by the Committee.

Tendering Process: The process of inviting expressions of interest began in 2004. After a short-list of six schemes was under consideration it was decided, for reasons outside the scope of this paper, that the prospective developers should include also the shell of a future cinema and two retail units totalling 7,000 sq.ft. (projected as for traders such as Curry's and Halfords, which were underprovided for in the town and might seek out-of-town locations).

Failure to Consult: From then on a regime of secrecy was maintained by the Cabinet of MCC which prevented even other County Councillors, on all sides of the chamber and including the County Councillor for the ward involved, from knowing what commitment was being entered into. For this reason it is impossible for us to be precise as to dates. On frequent occasions, both formal and informal, the Cabinet was asked by our various organisations and the Bryn y Cwm Area Forum (a body set up by MCC for purposes of involvement and consultation) to provide information as to the proposal which it was about to accept under contract. Even County Councillors were kept in the dark. It was only through some investigative reporting by the local press that it emerged that the supermarket operator would be Asda, and that the balance of provision had swung away from food to non-food retail.

During this period of secrecy it was known that the Design Commission for Wales was concerned at the absence of consultation or forewarning as to what it would be required to comment on when the proposal was submitted for Detailed Planning Consent. Repeated requests to the MCC Cabinet that it allow the Commission to offer advice were ignored.

Detailed Planning Application: On 25 th July 2005 MCC signed an Agreement with Henry Boot/ASDA which contained so much detail of the Development that it effectively neutered the impartial consideration of the Planning Application by Officers and the Planning Committee. The Agreement differed in significant respects from the approved Outline Approval and was seen to be inappropriate to Abergavenny and driven solely by commercial considerations. Following an excessively long review Officers recommended acceptance by the Planning Committee. On 3rd October 2006 the Application was rejected by 8 to 2 with a recommendation that the Reasons for Refusal be presented for approval at the next meeting.

At this meeting on 17 th October the Chief Planning Officer put forward a suggestion that he should go back to the developer and get agreement to a change of appearance of the buildings which was agreed. On 6 th December, Public Interest lawyers, retained by SAUCE wrote to the Chief Planning Officer setting out potential grounds of an application for judicial review based on errors and omissions in the Officers Report to Committee. (Available to view on this web site) The application returned to the Committee on 12 th December and Members were made aware of this letter. The Application was refused once more by a majority of 8 to 6 and on 9 th January 2007 the 5 Reasons for Refusal were overwhelmingly approved by a majority of 10 to 4.

Planning Appeal: The Developer confirmed that they would appeal but delayed doing so until 6 days before the expiry date of the 6 month period allowed for submission.

The delay was ostensibly so that MCC could consult with the people of Abergavenny so that a new application meeting their aspirations could be submitted and consequently, the Appeal withdrawn. SAUCE was accepted as an interested third party in the Planning Inquiry and prepared the Statement of Case (available on this website). However the Appeal was not withdrawn until 3 days before the deadline for submission of Written Evidence to the Planning Inspectorate, after a Deed of Variation of the original Agreement was signed by MCC/Henry Boot. This variation provided for an “Architectural competition” to obtain the best design solution for the Development. However the Design Brief and Deed of Variation constrain the proposals and fail to respond to 3 of the Reasons for Rejection of the original Application. ( a comparison of features of the original Agreement and Deed of Variation is available on this web site). It is thus a cynical manipulation of the public to conceal the continuation of the commercial supremacy of the original design. Far from meeting aspirations, it has removed or diminished the Community content of the Development. SAUCE is committed to continuing their campaign to obtain an appropriate scale and mix of development on this site.