The opposition group (BDOG) has been portrayed as a load of selfish nimbys who are against affordable housing for local needs.

Nothing is further from the truth.

The reality is that we want a greater proportion of affordable housing on the site, as already required by the National Park Local Development Plan (LDP).

We have made this very clear from the outset and it is not good enough for such tactics to be employed to draw attention away from what is really going on here - which is a blatant attempt to try to make people believe that the land owners are being generous in providing ‘some’ affordable housing in Newport.

For, it is for housing for local people, principally affordable, that the site was allocated in the first place in the LDP.

Let’s not lose sight of that.

The land was far less valuable and classed as “open countryside” before then.

The LDP did not intend for this site to be treated as a building site for mostly openmarket housing as in the current application which is geared to major profit for its many owners, rather than the fair profit which would be made if the site were developed in line with the LDP.

BDOG is campaigning for affordable housing both to rent and to buy, at prices local people can afford and will be certain of getting. Members of our group have tried to persuade the National Park to keep 70% affordable housing on allocations for Newport through participating in consultations, and we have paid for legal advice to see how this could be retained at Feidr Eglwys – rather than just the meagre 40% as now.

If this development goes ahead, there will be many people in Newport who will be disappointed.

The petition in support promises some affordable housing but doesn’t explain that this will be in social rented units only.

No “low cost homes” will be available to buy.

The majority of houses – 21 of them – will be sold on the open market and have no controls on price or occupancy.

They will not be affordable to people on average Pembrokeshire wages, unless they also have access to a considerable amount of capital to enable them to buy them.

And why have such people not bought one of the many existing properties for sale recently, both older and newly built - the majority of which have sold as second homes - as these will be?

And even those who signed the petition because they think we need more social rented houses probably didn’t check out the plans first.

The LDP sought 70% affordable housing and 30% market houses on this site in recognition of local housing need which this site was specifically created to help meet.

The owners are now claiming they need to provide 60% market houses to make the development sufficiently financially viable for them.

This is curious when as recently as Feb. 2013 the planning applicant confirmed according to the National Park planning officer, that just 20 houses of which just 30% executive houses with 60% affordable units, was “the most viable option”.

Significantly, the planning applicant has provided no up-to-date financial figures to show they now need over 3 times the number of market houses to make the site viable.

Just 25% of all the bedrooms on site will be affordable (in social rented units only), half of them single bedroom units, and these will occupy less than one fifth of the land. They are also completely segregated from the other housing by high fencing.

We want to see these homes laid out in less cramped conditions, taking up more of the land available, and with safe access into town and the site’s open areas than is proposed in the current application.

We are against 35 houses when the Local Development Plan allocated this site for a maximum of 20 because of the obvious constraints on the site.

That’s a 70% increase!

Did the people who signed the petition in support think about the problems existing in Newport which this will only aggravate?

There are around 40% second homes in Newport.

We have serious traffic issues, especially on the lanes surrounding this site and in summer, and then there is the problem of pedestrian safety - these lanes have no pavements There is a shortage of parking spaces serving the shops and church and we fear that these will not be retained in future if this goes ahead.

All this is not to mention the chaos during what will inevitably be a prolonged construction period.

Would these signatories seek this small amount of social rented housing here at any cost or did they just not think or care about other consequences?

There are other smaller sites - several of which could be developed to meet Newport’s local housing need without the accompanying environmental, socio-cultural and infrastructure damage that this oversized development will bring with it, if is allowed to proceed as planned at present.

Bentinck Development Opposition Group