PLANS to build dozens of new homes on a Newport football pitch have been turned down by the council’s planning committee.

Peter Landers, chief executive of Newport YMCA, submitted the application for up to 55 houses and flats to be built at the site at Mendalgief Road in Pill to generate revenue for the self-funded charity.

The 29-hectare site to the east of the YMCA’s conference centre currently contains a football pitch and stand, as well as a multi-use games area and a portion of waste land.

Recommending the reasons why the application should be rejected, planning officer Stephen Williams said officers had “worked hard” to negotiate amendments but the application's agent refused to extend the deadline.

“We stated we would not support a scheme in excess of 50 per cent of affordable housing,” he said. “We would think this would fail to create a balanced and mixed community.

“We requested compensation for its [pitch] loss to help provide a new football pitch on Pill playing fields. The agent’s view is that the pitch is private and provides no community benefit.”

Pill councillor Omar Ali called for the application to be deferred so more information about it could come to light.

“It’s clear from everything Stephen said that the agent hasn’t engaged correctly and hasn’t engaged properly,” he said.

“I think it would be really useful if we could defer this to try and get a proper conversation with not just the agent but the YMCA as well.

“This agent has let the YMCA down and has been very difficult for the officers to work with.”

Echoing these sentiments, Lliswerry councillor Ken Critchley said more information was needed from the applicant.

“It’s a green field but it’s not accessible to the community - it’s not a community open space.

“It’s a designated football field laid out and set out to meet the standards of the FA [Gwent County Football Association].

“I’m a little bit worried in making a decision on that when we are making it on incomplete information.”

Marshfield councillor Richard White said he supported the planning officers' recommendation to turn down the application.

“The agent hasn’t complied with what he should do, but he’s put in a planning application,” he added.

Five members of the planning committee voted to refuse the application while two voted to support it.