Summary of Critique

Summary of Criticisms of Officers’ Report

• Case Officer fails to mention that in Appendix 2 of LDP cap of just x12 dwellings is set on allocation site. Also fails to mention Authority has been served with Barrister’s Advice stating that failure to respect same could be successfully challenged in Court.

• Parks Direction Officer states that LDP makes provision for commitment to 40% 4Affordable Housing proportion, when in truth it states 70%, the lower figure being supplanted by 2014 SPG instead. Again fails to mention Barrister’s Advice, stating that SPG is not a “material planning consideration” in this instance, which would avoid democratic procedural guidance.

• Same Officer fails to mention that no “viability statement” has been provided in relation to the particular housing mix currently subject of this current Application.

• Buildings Conservation Officer failed to recommend Application be advertised in local paper, as required by law, notwithstanding he accepts it will “affect the setting of” listed buildings, namely Newport Church and Castle

• Same Officer states wrongly that affect on “the setting of” a Conservation Area is not a “material planning consideration”, despite the fact that PPW Chpt. 6 clearly states that it is.

• Report fails to mention that Authority has not yet heard back from DC/WW as to why it said only two years ago that there would be problems providing this site with potable water.

• Report states that Applicant provided full Transport Assessment to West Wales Trunk Road Agency, when in fact Applicant’s own Agent stated they considered one was not required. Also Report fails to mention why Case Officer considers 160 daily (peak-time only) excess trip rates does not comprise a significant increase, justifying a full Transport Assessment as per LDP §4.242

• Case officer states that development site is “within centreline of Newport” without stating how such an absurd situation arose, nor that the LDP Inspector must have been aware of same when setting cap on the number of dwellings on site, nor that “30 dwellings per hectare” Policy 44 is only applicable where “this is compatible with character of Centre”.

• Case Officer refers to a perceived shortfall in current supply of general housing needs, by some 2.3 years, as justification for gross departure from LDP; whilst failing to advise that PPW §2.2.7 expressly requires that such apprehensions of LDP obsolescence must be addressed through formal statutory review and revision procedure only.

• Case officer states that LDP proportional commitment to AH on this site is 40% without so much as making reference to WG TAN 2 §14.3 which again requires that any changes in viability of AH commitments in an LDP can only be addressed via statutory review & revision procedure, rather than via conflicting and inconsistent figures provided in subsequent SPG.

• Officer comments that Applicant’s proposal seeks to “retain and strengthen existing hedgerows”, whereas in truth more than 80m+ of ancient hedge bank will be removed to make way for requisite multiple site junctions and safety visibility splays, including loss of mature trees not disclosed by Applicant in documentation as originally submitted.

Preserve, protect and defend the natural beauty and enjoyment of the Park through respect for the Local Development Plan its proper and lawful review and revision. Refuse this Application.

Stop the largest development in Newport for decades