Newport Gipsy sites consultation raises 40,000 issues

South Wales Argus: Newport Gipsy sites consultation raises 40,000 issues Newport Gipsy sites consultation raises 40,000 issues

MORE than 40,000 issues were raised during a consultation regarding eleven proposed Gipsy and traveller sites in Newport.

During a 28-day consultation, which ended on October 4, more than 7,000 individual responses were received raising more than 40,000 issues, a Newport cabinet meeting heard on Monday.

These issues covered 26 themes including access to sites, highway safety, economic impact and flooding /drainage.

A report produced by a policy review group of councillors summarised the responses received, which had all been read, and made recommendations regarding the sites to the cabinet following extensive research.

This included the recommendation that the former road safety centre and adjacent land at Hartridge Farm Road be the preferred residential site with the former Ringland allotments listed as the second preferred choice for a residential site.

A small-scale site of four pitches at Brickyard Lane is considered acceptable as a contingency for housing need.

A yard next to the A449 is recommended as the preferred transit site while land at Celtic Way, Marshfield, is recommended as a fallback position for a transit site if negotiation to secure the A449 access is not successful.

Cabinet members stressed that no decision has yet been made and agreed the proposals go back to technical officers for a detailed assessment.

The council’s local development plan includes five proposed Gipsy and traveller sites but in June the new administration asked for a reexamination of the sites and released the new list of 11 sites in September.

A final decision about whether to amend or replace the five sites already identified in the local development plan with the newly chosen areas is due to be made by the council next March.

The council has to provide a designated Gipsy and traveller site as part of Welsh Government policy.

Comments (17)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

3:00pm Tue 13 Nov 12

Llanmartinangel says...

Presumably we will be told we live in a democracy when the issues are ignored and the sites placed where the councillors decide, (which, to the uninitiated, will be nowhere near where they live).
Presumably we will be told we live in a democracy when the issues are ignored and the sites placed where the councillors decide, (which, to the uninitiated, will be nowhere near where they live). Llanmartinangel

3:01pm Tue 13 Nov 12

robertce says...

I am surprised it's only 40,000 issues. as there are 150,00 people in Newport.
I am surprised it's only 40,000 issues. as there are 150,00 people in Newport. robertce

4:04pm Tue 13 Nov 12

33daverave says...

Llanmartinangel wrote:
Presumably we will be told we live in a democracy when the issues are ignored and the sites placed where the councillors decide, (which, to the uninitiated, will be nowhere near where they live).
The Councillors won`t be allowed to decide as no Councillors wants the Gypsies in their ward.
This will be a delegated decision i.e. made by UNELECTED civil servants like Mark Hand and a I bet it won`t be anywhere near where the decision makers live.

Democracy...........
.yea ok.
Let us plebs decide and not the unelected up the Civic.
[quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: Presumably we will be told we live in a democracy when the issues are ignored and the sites placed where the councillors decide, (which, to the uninitiated, will be nowhere near where they live).[/p][/quote]The Councillors won`t be allowed to decide as no Councillors wants the Gypsies in their ward. This will be a delegated decision i.e. made by UNELECTED civil servants like Mark Hand and a I bet it won`t be anywhere near where the decision makers live. Democracy........... .yea ok. Let us plebs decide and not the unelected up the Civic. 33daverave

5:07pm Tue 13 Nov 12

Bobevans says...

Quite why they refer to them as gypsies I do not know. Almost none of them are true Gypsies.

They are itenerant travellers (Well sort of travellers most do not travel far)

They just no how to milk the system and get special preferential treatment

Intersiting to not you will get a rude letter from Newport Council if you put your bin out on the wrong day or put the wrong think in it threatening you with fines but if you are a gypsy no such worries just chuck your rubbish any way and dont worry about what it is the council will come round to collect it when you move on.
Quite why they refer to them as gypsies I do not know. Almost none of them are true Gypsies. They are itenerant travellers (Well sort of travellers most do not travel far) They just no how to milk the system and get special preferential treatment Intersiting to not you will get a rude letter from Newport Council if you put your bin out on the wrong day or put the wrong think in it threatening you with fines but if you are a gypsy no such worries just chuck your rubbish any way and dont worry about what it is the council will come round to collect it when you move on. Bobevans

6:16pm Tue 13 Nov 12

Llanmartinangel says...

Bobevans wrote:
Quite why they refer to them as gypsies I do not know. Almost none of them are true Gypsies.

They are itenerant travellers (Well sort of travellers most do not travel far)

They just no how to milk the system and get special preferential treatment

Intersiting to not you will get a rude letter from Newport Council if you put your bin out on the wrong day or put the wrong think in it threatening you with fines but if you are a gypsy no such worries just chuck your rubbish any way and dont worry about what it is the council will come round to collect it when you move on.
Those letters are your recognition for your being a tax paying law abiding citizen. You only get anything in this world by being a leech on society.
[quote][p][bold]Bobevans[/bold] wrote: Quite why they refer to them as gypsies I do not know. Almost none of them are true Gypsies. They are itenerant travellers (Well sort of travellers most do not travel far) They just no how to milk the system and get special preferential treatment Intersiting to not you will get a rude letter from Newport Council if you put your bin out on the wrong day or put the wrong think in it threatening you with fines but if you are a gypsy no such worries just chuck your rubbish any way and dont worry about what it is the council will come round to collect it when you move on.[/p][/quote]Those letters are your recognition for your being a tax paying law abiding citizen. You only get anything in this world by being a leech on society. Llanmartinangel

10:02pm Tue 13 Nov 12

RichardL99 says...

robertce wrote:
I am surprised it's only 40,000 issues. as there are 150,00 people in Newport.
The council did a very good job of not widely advertising the consultation.....

I submitted comments to the consultation but we are going to raise further objections to the report as we do not feel the council have fully listened to peoples comments.

If you feel strongly about the outcome of the report then you should submit your views to the Council
[quote][p][bold]robertce[/bold] wrote: I am surprised it's only 40,000 issues. as there are 150,00 people in Newport.[/p][/quote]The council did a very good job of not widely advertising the consultation..... I submitted comments to the consultation but we are going to raise further objections to the report as we do not feel the council have fully listened to peoples comments. If you feel strongly about the outcome of the report then you should submit your views to the Council RichardL99

7:35am Wed 14 Nov 12

Severn40 says...

Regardless the wider issue of long term sites which do need to be addressed, could this new Council stop pretending that this is 'real' consultation and 'real' decision making. It is nothing of the sort. The real motive is that Labour councillors didn't like the list of previous sites and are using their prejudices to draw up an alternative list that suits their own political ends. In addition to the debate about potential sites, there needs to be a wider debate about the way the Council is shamefully handling the matter.
Regardless the wider issue of long term sites which do need to be addressed, could this new Council stop pretending that this is 'real' consultation and 'real' decision making. It is nothing of the sort. The real motive is that Labour councillors didn't like the list of previous sites and are using their prejudices to draw up an alternative list that suits their own political ends. In addition to the debate about potential sites, there needs to be a wider debate about the way the Council is shamefully handling the matter. Severn40

7:59am Wed 14 Nov 12

Woodgnome says...

Severn40 wrote:
Regardless the wider issue of long term sites which do need to be addressed, could this new Council stop pretending that this is 'real' consultation and 'real' decision making. It is nothing of the sort. The real motive is that Labour councillors didn't like the list of previous sites and are using their prejudices to draw up an alternative list that suits their own political ends. In addition to the debate about potential sites, there needs to be a wider debate about the way the Council is shamefully handling the matter.
Fully agree Severn40. Most useful comment on the issue for some time
[quote][p][bold]Severn40[/bold] wrote: Regardless the wider issue of long term sites which do need to be addressed, could this new Council stop pretending that this is 'real' consultation and 'real' decision making. It is nothing of the sort. The real motive is that Labour councillors didn't like the list of previous sites and are using their prejudices to draw up an alternative list that suits their own political ends. In addition to the debate about potential sites, there needs to be a wider debate about the way the Council is shamefully handling the matter.[/p][/quote]Fully agree Severn40. Most useful comment on the issue for some time Woodgnome

11:46am Wed 14 Nov 12

No point moaning says...

No one seems to be aware that the "former road safety centre" is not a "former" road safety centre at all. It is still in use, delivering much needed road safety education to the young people of Newport.

Where does the Council intend the "former" road safety centre to be situated once they have handed the site over for use as a residential site?
No one seems to be aware that the "former road safety centre" is not a "former" road safety centre at all. It is still in use, delivering much needed road safety education to the young people of Newport. Where does the Council intend the "former" road safety centre to be situated once they have handed the site over for use as a residential site? No point moaning

12:48pm Wed 14 Nov 12

Mr_T says...

No point moaning wrote:
No one seems to be aware that the "former road safety centre" is not a "former" road safety centre at all. It is still in use, delivering much needed road safety education to the young people of Newport. Where does the Council intend the "former" road safety centre to be situated once they have handed the site over for use as a residential site?
Perhaps the road safety centre will still be their but with added safety obstacles for them to learn about.....wild animals.......unlice
sensed and unisured drivers and vehicles.......rubbi
sh and waste dumps...etc.etc.?

I do agree with you though, it is inteesting that a 'former' anything is considered this when the orignal use is still in operation? The political definitions are always interesting and usually totally off the mark!
[quote][p][bold]No point moaning[/bold] wrote: No one seems to be aware that the "former road safety centre" is not a "former" road safety centre at all. It is still in use, delivering much needed road safety education to the young people of Newport. Where does the Council intend the "former" road safety centre to be situated once they have handed the site over for use as a residential site?[/p][/quote]Perhaps the road safety centre will still be their but with added safety obstacles for them to learn about.....wild animals.......unlice sensed and unisured drivers and vehicles.......rubbi sh and waste dumps...etc.etc.? I do agree with you though, it is inteesting that a 'former' anything is considered this when the orignal use is still in operation? The political definitions are always interesting and usually totally off the mark! Mr_T

1:08pm Wed 14 Nov 12

Llanmartinangel says...

Mr_T wrote:
No point moaning wrote:
No one seems to be aware that the "former road safety centre" is not a "former" road safety centre at all. It is still in use, delivering much needed road safety education to the young people of Newport. Where does the Council intend the "former" road safety centre to be situated once they have handed the site over for use as a residential site?
Perhaps the road safety centre will still be their but with added safety obstacles for them to learn about.....wild animals.......unlice

sensed and unisured drivers and vehicles.......rubbi

sh and waste dumps...etc.etc.?

I do agree with you though, it is inteesting that a 'former' anything is considered this when the orignal use is still in operation? The political definitions are always interesting and usually totally off the mark!
All this illustrates is the undue haste with which our Labour leaders tried to get the existing list of five sites changed. They also didn't know about heritage sites at two on the revised list, or flood risks or school places or.... Someone should send Newport CC on holiday and make sure they pack clean underwear and their crayons.
[quote][p][bold]Mr_T[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]No point moaning[/bold] wrote: No one seems to be aware that the "former road safety centre" is not a "former" road safety centre at all. It is still in use, delivering much needed road safety education to the young people of Newport. Where does the Council intend the "former" road safety centre to be situated once they have handed the site over for use as a residential site?[/p][/quote]Perhaps the road safety centre will still be their but with added safety obstacles for them to learn about.....wild animals.......unlice sensed and unisured drivers and vehicles.......rubbi sh and waste dumps...etc.etc.? I do agree with you though, it is inteesting that a 'former' anything is considered this when the orignal use is still in operation? The political definitions are always interesting and usually totally off the mark![/p][/quote]All this illustrates is the undue haste with which our Labour leaders tried to get the existing list of five sites changed. They also didn't know about heritage sites at two on the revised list, or flood risks or school places or.... Someone should send Newport CC on holiday and make sure they pack clean underwear and their crayons. Llanmartinangel

5:29pm Wed 14 Nov 12

Welshman76 says...

It is a no win situation. There has to be provision made as they will just rock up and park where ever they can and leave a mess when they leave or forced to leave. but on the other hand no one is prepared to have a site near to their properties. The ridiculous would say let's get rid of them full stop and we all know the result of a certain German leader who had ideals such as this. Im glad im not involved in making a decision on this matter because it will inevitably incur the wrath of someone!! Good luck
It is a no win situation. There has to be provision made as they will just rock up and park where ever they can and leave a mess when they leave or forced to leave. but on the other hand no one is prepared to have a site near to their properties. The ridiculous would say let's get rid of them full stop and we all know the result of a certain German leader who had ideals such as this. Im glad im not involved in making a decision on this matter because it will inevitably incur the wrath of someone!! Good luck Welshman76

3:06pm Thu 15 Nov 12

Radio Wales says...

It's irritating to have submitted a detailed objection (as requested) to NCC concerning the itinerant settlement areas and not even know whether they even received it, let alone actually read it, or if they did read it, whether they paid any attention or just laughed.

I wonder if it still exists or has it conveniently disappeared? It was certainly never acknowledged.

When fundamental points of democracy like this remain unanswered, it encourages one to believe that the only thing the councillors considered was inventing excuses to justify keeping the sites far away from their doorsteps.

Political gerrymandering at its most unpleasant is what occurs to me.
It's irritating to have submitted a detailed objection (as requested) to NCC concerning the itinerant settlement areas and not even know whether they even received it, let alone actually read it, or if they did read it, whether they paid any attention or just laughed. I wonder if it still exists or has it conveniently disappeared? It was certainly never acknowledged. When fundamental points of democracy like this remain unanswered, it encourages one to believe that the only thing the councillors considered was inventing excuses to justify keeping the sites far away from their doorsteps. Political gerrymandering at its most unpleasant is what occurs to me. Radio Wales

6:42pm Thu 15 Nov 12

Llanmartinangel says...

Welshman76 wrote:
It is a no win situation. There has to be provision made as they will just rock up and park where ever they can and leave a mess when they leave or forced to leave. but on the other hand no one is prepared to have a site near to their properties. The ridiculous would say let's get rid of them full stop and we all know the result of a certain German leader who had ideals such as this. Im glad im not involved in making a decision on this matter because it will inevitably incur the wrath of someone!! Good luck
Sorry but that's a total cop-out. The reason it's difficult is because of the planning requirements that WAG have deemed necessary. The gypsies are entitled to be: near bus routes, walking distance to schools, shops, doctors surgery. The are entitled to privacy, away from flood risk and not near access routes to cities or towns. They are also entitled to comment on locality. A quick look at the WAG document means they have to be placed near existing settlements regardless of the damage to YOUR quality of life, house value etc. they have way more rights than you. If they want what we have then get a house.
[quote][p][bold]Welshman76[/bold] wrote: It is a no win situation. There has to be provision made as they will just rock up and park where ever they can and leave a mess when they leave or forced to leave. but on the other hand no one is prepared to have a site near to their properties. The ridiculous would say let's get rid of them full stop and we all know the result of a certain German leader who had ideals such as this. Im glad im not involved in making a decision on this matter because it will inevitably incur the wrath of someone!! Good luck[/p][/quote]Sorry but that's a total cop-out. The reason it's difficult is because of the planning requirements that WAG have deemed necessary. The gypsies are entitled to be: near bus routes, walking distance to schools, shops, doctors surgery. The are entitled to privacy, away from flood risk and not near access routes to cities or towns. They are also entitled to comment on locality. A quick look at the WAG document means they have to be placed near existing settlements regardless of the damage to YOUR quality of life, house value etc. they have way more rights than you. If they want what we have then get a house. Llanmartinangel

7:57pm Thu 15 Nov 12

Welshman76 says...

Llanmartinangel wrote:
Welshman76 wrote:
It is a no win situation. There has to be provision made as they will just rock up and park where ever they can and leave a mess when they leave or forced to leave. but on the other hand no one is prepared to have a site near to their properties. The ridiculous would say let's get rid of them full stop and we all know the result of a certain German leader who had ideals such as this. Im glad im not involved in making a decision on this matter because it will inevitably incur the wrath of someone!! Good luck
Sorry but that's a total cop-out. The reason it's difficult is because of the planning requirements that WAG have deemed necessary. The gypsies are entitled to be: near bus routes, walking distance to schools, shops, doctors surgery. The are entitled to privacy, away from flood risk and not near access routes to cities or towns. They are also entitled to comment on locality. A quick look at the WAG document means they have to be placed near existing settlements regardless of the damage to YOUR quality of life, house value etc. they have way more rights than you. If they want what we have then get a house.
Why is it a cop out? I state clearly provision has to be made and that nobody wants them near where they live. A lesson in inference is clearly needed before you comment and put me down!
[quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Welshman76[/bold] wrote: It is a no win situation. There has to be provision made as they will just rock up and park where ever they can and leave a mess when they leave or forced to leave. but on the other hand no one is prepared to have a site near to their properties. The ridiculous would say let's get rid of them full stop and we all know the result of a certain German leader who had ideals such as this. Im glad im not involved in making a decision on this matter because it will inevitably incur the wrath of someone!! Good luck[/p][/quote]Sorry but that's a total cop-out. The reason it's difficult is because of the planning requirements that WAG have deemed necessary. The gypsies are entitled to be: near bus routes, walking distance to schools, shops, doctors surgery. The are entitled to privacy, away from flood risk and not near access routes to cities or towns. They are also entitled to comment on locality. A quick look at the WAG document means they have to be placed near existing settlements regardless of the damage to YOUR quality of life, house value etc. they have way more rights than you. If they want what we have then get a house.[/p][/quote]Why is it a cop out? I state clearly provision has to be made and that nobody wants them near where they live. A lesson in inference is clearly needed before you comment and put me down! Welshman76

8:29am Fri 16 Nov 12

Llanmartinangel says...

I did not mean to put you down and if I came over in that way then I apologise. My 'cop-out' remark refers to rewarding illegal behaviour (pitching up illegally and fly tipping) with better proposals than other citizens would otherwise get. When my 81 yr old mother was trying to get housed, there was no such consideration by the council, of proximity to shops, bus routes, doctors etc. and guess what, she had worked and paid tax until she was 72. Why do gypsies get special rules only applicable to them?
I did not mean to put you down and if I came over in that way then I apologise. My 'cop-out' remark refers to rewarding illegal behaviour (pitching up illegally and fly tipping) with better proposals than other citizens would otherwise get. When my 81 yr old mother was trying to get housed, there was no such consideration by the council, of proximity to shops, bus routes, doctors etc. and guess what, she had worked and paid tax until she was 72. Why do gypsies get special rules only applicable to them? Llanmartinangel

8:07pm Wed 21 Nov 12

Llanwernlad says...

It would be interesting to know if the council have any figures on the number of gypsies or traveler's, that have used the Newport tip, as they record every vehicle and person that use it. At £56.00 per visit I would expect the council to answer either none or they don't know.
The £56.00 per visit is probably the reason so many are fly tipping.
As they are unemployed working for cash in hand they pay no tax, and would therefore not have to pay council tax or site rent, as they would be entitled to housing benefit.
It would be interesting to know if the council have any figures on the number of gypsies or traveler's, that have used the Newport tip, as they record every vehicle and person that use it. At £56.00 per visit I would expect the council to answer either none or they don't know. The £56.00 per visit is probably the reason so many are fly tipping. As they are unemployed working for cash in hand they pay no tax, and would therefore not have to pay council tax or site rent, as they would be entitled to housing benefit. Llanwernlad

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree