Your Views

On this page we display your comments and opinions and also we invite readers to post their views about this development and related matters.
We start with comments added to this site in recent weeks, then have a section containing selected comments from the petition.
Finally you can add your own comments at the end – or click this link to go straight there.

Recent Comments on this Website.

Pat Caplan
21st April 2015 at 6:23 am
In my experience, developers almost always ask for more than they expect to get, wear out the opposition, then accept something like half of the starting number, so do bear this tactic in mind. Would the campaigners accept 14 houses, the figure mentioned as possible by an inspector? What proportion should be social housing?

Victoria Fairbairn
21st April 2015 at 8:32 am
The planning authority should ONLY consider Brown Field sights for further development . This is , yet again, a travesty of protection of areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

Alison M
24th April 2015 at 12:46 pm
Another concern for me is the potential impact on the little brook Afon Ysgolheigion. A footpath is planned to exit the development onto Goat street and a footpath will have to be built on the east side of this very beautiful stream. I know this is a small issue compared to the ones listed above, but I don’t understand the needless destruction of vegetation in this brook.
Good luck team

Susan Plumb
26th April 2015 at 8:46 am
Newport is full of holiday homes, local youngsters stand no chance of getting on the housing ladder as they can’t compete with “outsiders” coming in and buying second homes. If they work in or around Newport the chance of finding an affordable house to rent let alone buy is impossible. When you can get £350 plus a week renting a house for holiday makers , youngsters stand no chance. In my opinion if houses are going up 75% should be affordable and youngsters helped to live and work locally. Knowing the area it’s far to big a development anyway….in the summer it’s gridlocked with cars trying to pass and visitors who come to Newport to get away from traffic jams and being packed in like sardines will get fed up trying to get along packed lanes, having no where to park and the beautiful countryside they’ve come to see covered with another exclusive housing estate .

gwenda joyce jones
26th April 2015 at 1:28 pm
this will spoil the area and the community

Alec James
29th April 2015 at 2:15 pm
Very well put – it really is that simple. Let us not be distracted by the “affordable homes” argument. This is not some act of altruism borne out of a recognition for the plight of the masses by a few beneficent individuals. This is a scheme to benefit a few individuals at the expense of a whole community.

Sioned James
26th April 2015 at 5:14 pm
I can’t imagine the congestion during the Summer period, which is already bedlam as it is due to narrow roads and lanes. Market St would be insufferable and the adverse effects in whole, is difficult to fathom.

Catherine Phillips
30th April 2015 at 9:38 am
Personally, I can’t wait for these houses to be built as I have lived in Newport most of my life and worked in Pembrokeshire since I left school but I have never been able to afford to buy my own house here as the ones that have been for sale have been snapped up as holiday or retirement homes. Time for us Welsh people to reclaim our town!

Ros McGarry
30th April 2015 at 4:29 pm
The Group is all for affordable housing to buy and rent in Newport. The information provided on this site and documentation which has been submitted as part of this campaign, has supported housing for local people, particularly young people. We have also stated that we are not happy that the percentage of affordable housing, has been reduced on this application from 70% as promised in the 2010 development plan, to 40%, while the open market housing has been greatly increased. We would like to see plans put in place to ensure suitable sites within Newport are provided for majority affordable homes; but we do not support an application which purports to provide houses for local people, but in reality is an estate of open market houses, with the affordable/social housing alienated on a small section of the estate. The application is contrary to the Local Development Plan, which allowed this site to be included in order to address the local housing needed. This application does not address that need. As a Welsh born person, who has lived here for nearly 50 years, and learned Welsh, any suggestions that the objectors to this proposal are only non-Welsh in-comers is completely untrue.

Selected Comments from our petition

Mr Clive Baker
This is a National Park – isn’t that supposed to mean planning is extremely restricted? We want the area to continue to be an attraction for locals and holidays makers. We can see plenty of new housing estates in Milton Keynes where we live!

Mr Bolton
In my opinion the developer has instructed the agent to produce a scheme that far exceeds the amount outlined in the LDP document cramming the maximum number of units into a medium site, the only people to gain are the developers as Newport is natourious for very high housing prices. Although there are 13 affordable units within the proposal these will be out of the reach of local people on local wages and why produce a plan that segrigates people who are on lower wages by placing the affordable units in one corner of the site this is contary to policy and causes social unrest. In my opinion these types of units should be mixed within the development to aid social inclusion.

Ms Sue Carver
I fully support the objections raised by the BDOP. In addition, the proposed development is grossly out of scale in such a sensitive location, praised for “The importance of the overlapping effect of trees, woodland and hedgebanks” that “create the feel of a town in a woodland when viewed from the north east across the estuary – a unique feature in the coastal context of this part of the National Park.”
(Source: Pembrokeshire Coast National Park — planning guidelines)

Ms Mandie Colman
this hideous plan is a total blot on the landscape.

Mr David Hunter
I object to this development in its entirety. It is in the wrong location. It destroys the setting of the Landscape of Historic Interest recognised in the National Park Plan.

It creates a “native reservation” of affordable housing trapped st one corner of the site where there are existing brownfiled sites in Newport and sites closer to the village school and other amenities that would not require families to cross the main road. indeed it does not address the core issues Newport has as identified in the local plan as it is a commercially driven development.

Mrs Janet Lochery
Out of character with the rest of Newport . Traffic problems , and maintenance of the National Park will suffer

Mr Robbie Manson
Unlike as with the Bettws Newydd debacle, the Members of the National Park Authority still have time, this time around, to avoid betraying the good folk of Newport again. They are watching.

Ms Ros McGarry
This development will ruin Newport if it is allowed to go ahead. It is contrary to the Local Development Plan. The number of housing is 2/3 more than put into the plan. The narrow lanes around the site will not cope with the extra 50+car it will create and will have a knock-on effect in town. The site abuts the conservation area and the church and castle. Newport as we know it will never be the same again.

Ben Plewes
As someone who was brought up and raised in Newport and continues to visit on a regular basis, I am deeply concerned about the impact this new development will have on what has to be one of the finest seaside villages Pembrokeshire has to offer. My fear is that the negative impacts will be substantial and the changes irreversible. I would urge the National Park Planning Authority to reject this application as it clearly contradicts earlier promises made on maximum development size.

Mr Hughes
I am particularly concerned that this proposed dense housing estate
1. will further extend the built boundary of Newport
2. will spoil the view from Newport up Carningli and from Carningli down to Newport
3. will grossly exceed the number of properties for which any original planning permission may have been granted
4. will place unacceptable pressure on approach roads which cannot be widened
5. will place an artificial barrier between affordable and unaffordable housing
6. will exceed the capacity of the available sewer drainage

If you haven’t already done so, please sign the petition and make your own comment or observations here.

Reply with your own views below

6 thoughts on “Your Views”

  1. A roof over your head and/or a home that you can call your own is a fundamental human necessity. Is there anybody in Newport who has not been watching the terrible refugee crisis that has been unfolding throughout Europe whilst the Bentinck Development site debate has been going on? Has Newport divorced itself from its obligation to shoulder some of the burden for building new homes for our increasing population?
    Yes, it will be disruptive for the neighbours of the site for several years. Yes, some people’s views, privacy and personal space will change. Yes, traffic issues will have to be addressed. Everyone can sympathise with this.
    But people need homes. We do not live in isolation from the rest of the world. This site can easily accommodate 35 houses.
    There is a saying amongst locals ‘move out of Newport and you can never afford to move back in’. There is a large, non vocal element of residents in Newport and its surrounding area that welcome this development.
    Many of us feel this development is right and appropriate. We can also understand why those living close to the site do not welcome it.

  2. In reply to the previous comment, while the writer shows some understanding and sympathy towards the residents living near the proposed development site, the message is that people need homes. The Opposition Group are in total agreement with this view. However, they are campaigning for these homes to be provided on suitable sites in suitable numbers for the town. The analogy between the current Middle East refugee crisis and this allocation makes no sense. Do you seriously think allowing 35 houses on this site will help the refugees? As for the ‘non-vocal elements of residents’, who have it would appear vocalized their support for the proposed application. Likewise, there is a large element of non-vocal and vocal residents who are totally opposed to it, for the same reasons as the Opposition Group. Incidentally, the objectors to the proposal as it stands are from all over Newport, not just surrounding the site -refer to both the Petition and the Objector’s Letters on this site.

    Some members of the group have worked for years to try to bring affordable accommodation to the table, ‘rented and low cost to buy’. We are not against the development , it has been accepted that development would take place on this site but, we are asking that it keeps to the number in the Local Development Plan. The number of dwellings were capped due to the restraints of the site and surrounding lanes. We do not agree that the site can easily accommodate 35 houses and neither did the Inspector at the Inquiry into the LDP and, that is why he made his recommendation.

    We have explained in a previous comment why we are unhappy, about the small percentage of affordable housing that is now being offered on the site. You can also go to ‘we explain here’, on the homepage, or you could contact the Applicant, J Roberts for Bentinck Development and ask him to explain why it is, that there is so little accommodation for social rented and so very much for the open market (which includes 12×4 bedrooms).

    The market value for these houses in Newport will be over £400,000. Figures for the other housing can be found on this site. The owners have implied to people that these houses are for local people, how can this be unless the young families of Newport and the surrounding areas are on city wages? Ask them to explain how they propose to ensure that local people get these houses.

    Recent sales of houses in Newport have mainly fallen into the second home sector. Let’s have what the Inspector intended 70% affordable and a few open market to give a modest return to the owners, not the pot of gold that is being sought. Or if the owners are as altruistic as they suggested at the Town Council Meeting and have implied since, let’s have it all for affordable rented and at prices the people in the area can afford.

    For Newport and the future generations we need to protect our heritage, while recognizing the need for housing, it needs to be provided sympathetically and catered to the needs and pockets of the people who live here. There is nothing on offer for the growing families that fall into this bracket on this site.

  3. Absolutely mortified that this development has been allowed to go ahead. Yes people do need housing can’t see how these small units are going to benefit families of Newport. The national park I always assumed was there to protect Newport from developers creating ghettos on the beautiful landscape they are obviously not fit for purpose. Bentinck opposition well done for your hard work in trying to prevent an overdevelopment of this area which when and if it is built the locals will realise what it is going to do to the town. But then on the other hand there might not be that many local people left in the town the percentage of holiday homes will have increased dramatically.

    1. “Noun : ghetto ‎(plural ghettos or ghettoes or ghetti)

      An (often walled) area of a city in which Jews are concentrated by force and law. (Used particularly of areas in medieval Italy and in Nazi-controlled Europe.)
      An (often impoverished) area of a city inhabited predominantly by members of a specific nationality, ethnicity or race.
      An area in which people who are distinguished by sharing something other than ethnicity concentrate or are concentrated.

      Etymology
      Borrowing from Italian ghetto, from Venetian, ghèto ‎(“foundry”). Alternatively an apheresis of the Italian borghetto, diminutive of borgo ‎(“village”). Initially used of the areas Jews were concentrated, later extended to concentrations of other ethnicities and then non-ethnic groups. The adjective and verb derive from the noun.

      Pronunciation
      (Received Pronunciation) IPA(key): /ˈɡɛtəʊ/
      (General American) IPA(key): /ˈɡɛtoʊ/, [ˈɡɛɾoʊ̯]”

      https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ghetto

      Being appropriately used here in the third (modern) sense of “an area in which people who are distinguished by sharing something other than ethnicity concentrate or are concentrated.” in this instace the shared feature being simply poverty or certainly housing poverty.

      The housing density in the now permitted Affordable Housing “ghetto” = 1/ [(1.5x 0.2) /14] = approx. 47 units per ha. Whereas, open market housing in the remainder of the site will have a density of just 18 dwellings per ha. (1/[1.5×0.8)/21] or more than x2.5 times less dense. They will be fully detached 2-storey homes with assigned car parking spaces for x2 cars per unit, reasonably spacious back gardens, easy access to open space “play area” – all of which will be denied the poor residents of the “AH Ghetto” housed in a terraced cul-de-sac.

      All of this despite the fact Welsh Planning Guidance (TAN2), witheld by Planning Officers from the ‘evidence’ provided to the Membership of the Pak’s planning committee states :

      11.1 As set out in Planning Policy Wales16, good design can protect the environment and enhance its quality, help to attract business and investment, promote social inclusion and improve the quality of life. These objectives apply equally to market housing and to affordable housing, the overriding principle being to establish a sense of place and community.For small sites the visual integration of old and new development is of particular importance. Affordable housing should also be indistinguishable from market housing provided on the same site, in terms of external design quality and materials.

      and perhaps even more importantly the joint Pembs. County & Park Supplementary Planning Guidance on AH which used to apply to both equally, and certainly still applies at least in the County, states under “Design Requirements” @ Paragraph 10.2 page 15, as follows :

      “Schemes should respect the character and distinctiveness of the area in which they are being built and should be externally indistinguishable from general market housing provided on the site. Affordable units should not be concentrated in one area but dispersed in smaller groupings throughout the site. This will help produce mixed and diverse communities.”

      So supporters of the development, the likes most especially of Cllr.Reg Owens (St.Ishmaels), might like to pause and consider that morally it is far far worse to actually house people in a modern day ghetto, albeit with running water and electricity; than it is simply to reasonably fairly and accurately describe their prospective housing accommodations as a “ghetto” – by comparosin.

    2. I stand by my use of the word ghettos as this is what the National Park was established for to prevent developments which would be detrimental to the landscape. From past history in Newport this has not always been adhered to. Nobody is against the building of social housing in Newport but families are not going to be happy in a hen house with a matchbox garden. A little thought is needed here with some common sense added into the mix.
      Diolch yn fawr Robbie for the explanation.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Stop the largest development in Newport for decades