FOLLOWING the Pembrokeshire Coast National Park Committee decision in the planning meeting, November 11, to approve 35 houses in Newport, there is total disbelief among many people in the community as to how this has come about, considering that in the previous meeting on September 30 the members were “minded that” the application should be refused giving grounds which officers then accepted were planning material considerations.

For the residents who attended both the meetings, it was beyond belief what went on in the second meeting.

There was no continuation of the previous meeting and little substance in planning terms.

Despite the fact that some of the members present had not been present at the first planning meeting, the officer’s report stated what had occurred since the first meeting, which very strongly emphasised reasons to approve.

No objector was allowed to speak and no letters of objection were mentioned, including one from Cymdeithas yr Iaith, the Welsh Language Society, who fear that “the construction of so many houses of the type intended”

will have a negative impact on Welsh culture and use of the Welsh language in Newport, and strongly objected.

But astoundingly, instead, the chairman of the National Park, Cllr Mike James (St Dogmaels) stated in his contribution to discussions that Cymdeithas yr Iaith had actually written in support!

Newport Town Council’s opposition, the Grampian condition required by Dyfed Archaeological Trust and the question mark over Dwr Cymru/Welsh Water being able to supply potable water to the site, were not mentioned.

As a result, only four members, all of whom had attended both meetings, did not alter their position and continued to seek refusal.

Residents are asking many questions as to how a development that is so far from its intended use could be granted approval, with very little affordable housing being provided, when this site was allocated in the Local Development Plan (LDP) for housing to meet local needs, and principally for affordable housing.

How has the vast increase in the number of units, the majority large open market homes, over and above what was allocated in the LDP, come about?

Why were those planning committee members who voted for this development to be approved not concerned about the destruction to the landscape, loss of 80m of ancient hedgebanks and the traffic chaos that will ensue on the narrow lanes surrounding the site?

How strange that Cllr Reg Owens (St Ishmaels) supported this application but, even at the same committee meeting, objected to an application on his own patch, citing destruction to the hedgebanks as the reason for refusal. Why are those hedgebanks more precious than ours?

Why has the National Park let us down and compromised its position of protecting the landscape, a statutory obligation of the Authority, for what amounts to a minor contribution to the social rented section of affordable housing and far less than in the LDP?

There is only 25% of the bed space on this site dedicated to this provision and it compares very poorly in terms of design and amenity as against the accommodation on the rest of the site.

There are so many questions that need asking.

Why did a petition in support – submitted in the “cooling off ” period between the two meetings – that had travelled all over Pembrokeshire, Ceredigion, Carmarthenshire and further afield to collect signatures from people who were unlikely to know the site, let alone the issues involved, not only get put forward by the agent as Newport having “spoken in united voice”, but by the planning officer as a “material planning consideration”

and he advised should be given considerable weight in his report to the committee?

Did the Authority not check the supporters’ petition for not only its geographical validity but also other anomalies?

Why if one petition in support was considered a material consideration and presented as an important one, was the other, containing more local signatures in objection, not so treated?

Why was a list, not on headed paper, with 59 typed business names on it and containing no signatures whatsoever, stated to be from “59 businesses in Newport”

and also considered to be a “material consideration”

when again, only a few of these were from the Newport area?

The owners seeing the writing on the wall in the first committee meeting, used the cooling-off period to muster support, by any way they could.

Meanwhile the opposition stuck strictly to planning considerations. Unfortunately, only to end up with an unfair result.

Misconceptions and irrelevances which influenced planning committee members are what have brought about this result, and a planning authority that won’t adhere to its own LDP, which it believes we should place good store in, but then ignores when it suits them.

Why? Because the National Park planners have enormous pressure on them to get housing built and seemingly almost anywhere will do, so long as they get the boxes ticked.

Forget about upholding Park purposes when those watching them are considering the very continued existence of the Park as a separate planning authority.

The agent talks of halfempty classes in the school, arguing 35 houses are needed to keep numbers up, in fact the school already has the number of children attending for which it was built.

He says we need this development to keep the surgery going, when it can already take weeks to get an appointment and the service is further stretched in summer when visitors fill the town, and there is a known difficulty filling GP posts.

Committee members believe the development will provide affordable houses to buy when they don’t know the cost of a property and believe that the market housing being offered and the prices stated will be far cheaper, seemingly forgetting that there is no way these prices can be controlled.

The chairman of the National Park says he wants to approve the application because of the amount of time the planning officers have spent on it, when in truth it took so long because the owners pushed and pushed for maximum profit by upping numbers to a maximum, when officers at first tried to resist.

If this development goes ahead Newport and its residents and visitors will bear the brunt.

The ironic thing for the Authority, so worried about its reputation and performance, is that the decision has done nothing for the National Park locally, yet again.

ROS MCGARRY

Newport