Plan backed for ‘monster’ Newport flats

First published in News

PLANS for a development that could see as many as 77 new flats in a 14 storey building at a site near George Street Bridge in Newport are to go before a planning committee.

Officers have recommended the outline plans be granted with conditions – despite long-standing opposition to the scheme, previously dubbed a “monster.”

A previous attempt at planning permission in 2011 was turned down by Newport council’s planning committee, which will consider the newer application on Wednesday.

The previous application was turned down on the grounds of insufficient parking and the excessive scale of the building, but officers have now recommended plans be given the green light , saying the changes to the landscape aren’t unacceptably harmful. The decision is however up to councillors.

Developers Messrs Webber & Hill are looking to build an apartment block on land at Coverack Road, Newport, that at its maximum height would be no taller than 46 metres, or around 14 storeys.

Other parts of the building vary from two to seven storeys in height, with up to 94 parking spaces provided.

Some 22 letters and emails were sent to Newport council objecting to the plans, together with a petition with 248 signatures, according to planning documents.

A myriad of reasons were cited, including fears of a loss of privacy from back-gardens and bedrooms; that the development is out of keeping with surrounding residences; and that the scale of the building wouldn’t be consistent with the residential area.

However the Design Commission for Wales has previously stated that the height and mass of the building was acceptable within the context of the bridge and new development across the river.

Officers said there was potential for the building to overlook the gardens of nearby properties, but it wasn’t considered that there would be any loss of privacy to habitable rooms.

Gwent Police said that 94 parking spaces may be insufficient, but the head of Newport Council’s street scene department said it was acceptable.

The Argus previously reported on the application in 2012 – with one resident calling it a “monster.”

Comments (16)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:38am Fri 30 May 14

Walter Devereux says...

Good. We need more housing and we need more landmark buildings. No-one but NIMBYs could argue against this kind of development.
Good. We need more housing and we need more landmark buildings. No-one but NIMBYs could argue against this kind of development. Walter Devereux
  • Score: -12

8:08am Fri 30 May 14

Katie Re-Registered says...

Let's face it, most of the people who live in the Corporation Road area struggling on low incomes and unfortunately have little political clout in comparison to those middle class folks in wealthier areas of Newport so I guess this was calculated to be a 'safe' place to put the flats as our opinions count for nothing in the eyes of the ruling elite anyway.
Let's face it, most of the people who live in the Corporation Road area struggling on low incomes and unfortunately have little political clout in comparison to those middle class folks in wealthier areas of Newport so I guess this was calculated to be a 'safe' place to put the flats as our opinions count for nothing in the eyes of the ruling elite anyway. Katie Re-Registered
  • Score: 5

8:35am Fri 30 May 14

bobbajob says...

Why on earth is it being labelled a "Monster" ! I'm a local resident and I think it will be an "asset for the area". Stick that in the headline argus and stop such biased reporting.
Why on earth is it being labelled a "Monster" ! I'm a local resident and I think it will be an "asset for the area". Stick that in the headline argus and stop such biased reporting. bobbajob
  • Score: 15

8:53am Fri 30 May 14

blackandamber says...

Walter Devereux wrote:
Good. We need more housing and we need more landmark buildings. No-one but NIMBYs could argue against this kind of development.
We don't need more housing we need places for people to work. There has to be ten thousand new houses either built, in the process of being built, or planned to be built in Newport in the near future. WHY.
[quote][p][bold]Walter Devereux[/bold] wrote: Good. We need more housing and we need more landmark buildings. No-one but NIMBYs could argue against this kind of development.[/p][/quote]We don't need more housing we need places for people to work. There has to be ten thousand new houses either built, in the process of being built, or planned to be built in Newport in the near future. WHY. blackandamber
  • Score: 16

8:57am Fri 30 May 14

Walter Devereux says...

blackandamber wrote:
Walter Devereux wrote:
Good. We need more housing and we need more landmark buildings. No-one but NIMBYs could argue against this kind of development.
We don't need more housing we need places for people to work. There has to be ten thousand new houses either built, in the process of being built, or planned to be built in Newport in the near future. WHY.
A city would cease to exist without people. As I have mentioned on other threads we need to grow to be able to attract businesses. We are coming out of a recession, so we need to be able to fight for investment. Constant negativity and rejection of development will help no-one in the long term.
[quote][p][bold]blackandamber[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Walter Devereux[/bold] wrote: Good. We need more housing and we need more landmark buildings. No-one but NIMBYs could argue against this kind of development.[/p][/quote]We don't need more housing we need places for people to work. There has to be ten thousand new houses either built, in the process of being built, or planned to be built in Newport in the near future. WHY.[/p][/quote]A city would cease to exist without people. As I have mentioned on other threads we need to grow to be able to attract businesses. We are coming out of a recession, so we need to be able to fight for investment. Constant negativity and rejection of development will help no-one in the long term. Walter Devereux
  • Score: 10

9:23am Fri 30 May 14

Floppy backed says...

We need to build flat over endless rabbit warrens of so called executive houses you cant swing a cat in. Flats solve problems with land use and are usually only 2 bed. Much more affordable to first time buyers and commuters. Building in city centres is good for good use as walking and cyclists too.
We need to build flat over endless rabbit warrens of so called executive houses you cant swing a cat in. Flats solve problems with land use and are usually only 2 bed. Much more affordable to first time buyers and commuters. Building in city centres is good for good use as walking and cyclists too. Floppy backed
  • Score: 10

11:16am Fri 30 May 14

-trigg- says...

In most parts of the country high-rise tower blocks are looked upon as a failed experiment and being demolished, due to the disruptive influence they have on nearby commuities and the increased crime rate such high density housing brings in its wake.

I know we sometimes joke about Wales being several decades behind the rest of the UK but it is disheartening to see this so dramatically demonstrated.
In most parts of the country high-rise tower blocks are looked upon as a failed experiment and being demolished, due to the disruptive influence they have on nearby commuities and the increased crime rate such high density housing brings in its wake. I know we sometimes joke about Wales being several decades behind the rest of the UK but it is disheartening to see this so dramatically demonstrated. -trigg-
  • Score: 9

1:53pm Fri 30 May 14

peckylecky says...

At least those on the higher floors need not worry about thr river flooding them out.
At least those on the higher floors need not worry about thr river flooding them out. peckylecky
  • Score: 7

1:54pm Fri 30 May 14

Walter Devereux says...

-trigg- wrote:
In most parts of the country high-rise tower blocks are looked upon as a failed experiment and being demolished, due to the disruptive influence they have on nearby commuities and the increased crime rate such high density housing brings in its wake.

I know we sometimes joke about Wales being several decades behind the rest of the UK but it is disheartening to see this so dramatically demonstrated.
Entirely untrue. High-rise *Council housing* from the 50s and 60s is the failed experiment. High-rise privately owned apartments are being built throughout the UK and the world.
[quote][p][bold]-trigg-[/bold] wrote: In most parts of the country high-rise tower blocks are looked upon as a failed experiment and being demolished, due to the disruptive influence they have on nearby commuities and the increased crime rate such high density housing brings in its wake. I know we sometimes joke about Wales being several decades behind the rest of the UK but it is disheartening to see this so dramatically demonstrated.[/p][/quote]Entirely untrue. High-rise *Council housing* from the 50s and 60s is the failed experiment. High-rise privately owned apartments are being built throughout the UK and the world. Walter Devereux
  • Score: 13

1:57pm Fri 30 May 14

cymruamblyth says...

Walter Devereux wrote:
Good. We need more housing and we need more landmark buildings. No-one but NIMBYs could argue against this kind of development.
Jesus wept! Newport is full derelict sub standard house's, such as the Black Crawson site that are still lying empty as they can't sell them!

Maybe they can build on the vast swathes on Land in Essex that your illustrious Devereux family owns..
[quote][p][bold]Walter Devereux[/bold] wrote: Good. We need more housing and we need more landmark buildings. No-one but NIMBYs could argue against this kind of development.[/p][/quote]Jesus wept! Newport is full derelict sub standard house's, such as the Black Crawson site that are still lying empty as they can't sell them! Maybe they can build on the vast swathes on Land in Essex that your illustrious Devereux family owns.. cymruamblyth
  • Score: -5

2:37pm Fri 30 May 14

Good Job No Kids says...

blackandamber wrote:
Walter Devereux wrote:
Good. We need more housing and we need more landmark buildings. No-one but NIMBYs could argue against this kind of development.
We don't need more housing we need places for people to work. There has to be ten thousand new houses either built, in the process of being built, or planned to be built in Newport in the near future. WHY.
Because there is market for them, developers don't do it for fun.
[quote][p][bold]blackandamber[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Walter Devereux[/bold] wrote: Good. We need more housing and we need more landmark buildings. No-one but NIMBYs could argue against this kind of development.[/p][/quote]We don't need more housing we need places for people to work. There has to be ten thousand new houses either built, in the process of being built, or planned to be built in Newport in the near future. WHY.[/p][/quote]Because there is market for them, developers don't do it for fun. Good Job No Kids
  • Score: 6

4:32pm Fri 30 May 14

Magor says...

Council owned: High Rise Slums. Privately owned: Luxury Apartments. Strange but true.
Council owned: High Rise Slums. Privately owned: Luxury Apartments. Strange but true. Magor
  • Score: -3

5:56pm Fri 30 May 14

Limestonecowboy says...

Most Councils don't own housing stock with most HA housing being of a higher standard than those in the private sector.
Most Councils don't own housing stock with most HA housing being of a higher standard than those in the private sector. Limestonecowboy
  • Score: 1

9:29pm Fri 30 May 14

cath 872 says...

If you walk over George Street Bridge you can see into people's gardens anyway. We need more homes.
If you walk over George Street Bridge you can see into people's gardens anyway. We need more homes. cath 872
  • Score: 1

12:31pm Sat 31 May 14

Abertillery29 says...

I wonder what Newport City Council officers would have recommended if this proposal was put forward for the old Allt-ty-ryn college site?
I wonder what Newport City Council officers would have recommended if this proposal was put forward for the old Allt-ty-ryn college site? Abertillery29
  • Score: 4

2:08pm Sun 1 Jun 14

Brat1965 says...

Good old NCC. As far back as I can remember successive Labour councils have approved idiot schemes such as this. They'll never change!
Good old NCC. As far back as I can remember successive Labour councils have approved idiot schemes such as this. They'll never change! Brat1965
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

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