NEWPORT is gripped by a gipsy dilemma. Newport council must allocate an area of the city for a gipsy site, but opposition is fierce, with hundreds of people voicing their concerns about site proposals in Pye Corner, Nash Mead, Queensway Meadows, Marshfield and Bettws.
NATALIE CROCKETT looks at why a site is needed and the reasons behind it; the concerns of residents and the turmoil of city councillors as they debate the issue COUNCILLORS were embroiled in a heated debate on the gipsy site issue at Tuesday’s full council meeting.
Labour members hit out at the council’s Lib Dem/ Conservative coalition for its handling of the issue, after violence erupted at a public meeting in Bettws last week.
Many said that while they understood the need for designated sites, there should have been more consultation before a decision to shortlist the five areas was made.
They also demanded to know what criteria was used to choose the sites.
Lliswerry councillor Allan Morris said: “There’s nobody in this chamber who is antigipsy, racist or anything else.
“What we are concerned about is the way this decision has been made.
“There’s no more emotive subject than a travellers’ camp.
“This should be taken right back to the beginning and should be debated by the full council meeting.”
Cllr Morris said he was concerned the subject had caused violence in Bettws and feared it could happen in other areas of the city.
He also criticised the Marshfield councillors for not speaking out about the issue, despite a site being proposed in Coedkernew.
Ward councillor Richard White later responded by saying the time to make any objections would come after the sites had been surveyed and planning permission was being sought.
Concerns about the planning process were raised by Cllr John Richards who said proposals to submit only outline applications for the five sites were dangerous because they were not detailed, which could cause problems for the council later.
He called for any planning applications concerning gipsy sites to be considered by full council instead of the planning committee to ensure total transparency.
In response to their concerns Cllr Townsend reiterated that this was only a shortlist and not a decision about where sites would be built.
He said the council had a legal obligation to provide traveller sites under its Local Development Plan (LDP) and it would face a six-figure fine if it failed to do so.
The St Julians councillor refuted claims about a lack of consultation and said councillors were given the opportunity to discuss the authority’s plans for travellers at LDP seminars.
He said: “I find it hard to know of any council that has been able to manage this extremely well. We are taking it extremely seriously.
“This council is charged with making difficult decisions.”
He added that only council leader Matthew Evans and planning committee chairman Richard White had the power to make a decision on whether the planning applications should be discussed by full council.
Map of proposed Newport sites (click on markers to see locations).
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article