SIR About ten years ago, Monmouthshire County Council asked me if I would be willing to relinquish my tenancy on one of The Meend Farm fields at Penallt, as they were interested in it as a site for Monmouth burials. Although a small field, it was agriculturally productive and was used over the years for growing oats, barley, potato crops, hay and silage. I refused to release it, partly as I felt that all agriculturally viable fields should be used for food production, but also because it was obviously unsuitable as a burial ground. Parts of the field are naturally wet and neighbouring farms below the field have water bore holes. Since the foot and mouth outbreak it has been illegal to bury fallen stock on farm land in case of pollution to water courses. Clearly therefore, the site would also be unsuitable for human burial. Whilst I was farming at The Meend Farm the proposals were shelved. When I gave notice to Monmouthshire County Council in January 2010 that I intended to resign my farming tenancy, the proposal to site a burial ground on that field was immediately brought up again by them. At the subsequent public meeting, held at the Pelham Hall, it was pointed out to representatives from MCC that there were issues with both water courses and bore holes in the area. As the council had already done a number of tests on the site, presumably to do with the water table, the field's unsuitability should have been obvious before the sum of "around £80,000" was spent on the project. In the article in last week's Beacon, mention is made that there may be an increase in council tax if the new plans for Monmouth Cemetery go ahead. If £80,000 had not been spent on feasibility studies at Penallt, I presume we would have seen a fall in our council tax bills. Arthur Edmonds (Lydart)