A CONTROVERSIAL plan to build a 14-storey block of flats next to Newport’s Grade II-listed George Street Bridge has been rejected on appeal.

The block – branded as a ‘monster’ by objectors when it was first proposed in 2012 – formed the largest part of a 77-apartment complex also including sections with fewer floors.

Newport council’s planning committee refused permission for the scheme in June last year, despite officers having recommended that approval be granted, as it considered the development would “have an adverse effect on existing residents by reason of overshadowing and overlooking.”

Earlier this year, developers Tim Webber and Chris Hill appealed against the committee’s decision.

But a Welsh Government planning inspector has dismissed the appeal, broadly agreeing with the committee’s concerns, and concluding that the 14-storey block would impact adversely on the bridge.

Last year’s planning application for apartments on the site – on Coverack Road – previously occupied by what was known as the Uskside Putty Mills, was the second.

Both it and the original, which was also rejected by councillors, attracted objections from residents in the area.

Last year’s application increased the number of parking spaces in response to previous concerns, but still attracted 22 letters and e-mails of objection, and a 248-name petition opposing the plan.

Welsh historic monuments body Cadw also opposed the plan, arguing that George Street Bridge, built in 1964, is of national importance due to it being the first cable-stayed cantilever bridge in Britain, and a Grade II-listed structure.

Cadw said the block would have: “a detrimental impact on the character and setting of the listed bridge and its surrounding street scene.”

The inspector concluded that a 14-storey block would dominate and overwhelm surrounding homes, while the effect of the shadow it cast would cause a loss of light at certain times of the day and year, particularly affecting three properties in Argosy Way.

He also concluded that the block would harm the stand-alone prominence of the bridge, which is a key aspect of its significance.

All of these matters were considered contrary to Local Development Plan (LDP) policies, and were deemed to outweigh potential benefits.

The site has subsequently been added to the council’s LDP, for a smaller scale residential development.