Plans for a housing development in Manorbier have been deferred for a site visit.

The application submitted by Mr. S. Stalbow, of the Pembrokeshire Housing Association, which proposes the erection of 23 affordable homes with associated access, parking, landscaping and engineering works, at Station Road, came before members of Pembrokeshire Coast National Park Authority’s development management committee at a meeting last week.

Full planning permission is sought for the construction of 23 affordable dwellings, comprising - one three-bedroomed bungalow, four two-bedroomed bungalows, eight two-bedroomed houses, two three-bedroomed houses, and eight one-bedroomed flats (set out in two blocks).

The proposed development would be arranged around a new estate road with turning facilities, provided via the existing access off Station Road.

Also proposed as part of the application are an area of amenity space to the north of the site, a pumping station, along with boundary treatments.

Manorbier Community Council have recommended refusal, stating that they had concerns that the proposed development was entirely made up of affordable homes, which would present an ‘unbalanced development’.

They also raised concerns that the proposed development would be situated between the settlements of Jameston and Manorbier, where currently, no shop amenities exist in the locality.

Road safety concerns were also expressed, as this and other proposed developments in Station Road would see a large increase in traffic in a minor road where a school is situated.

One objector, Mr. Jonathan Fiddy, addressed the meeting on behalf of some of the local residents, stating that the amount of affordable homes proposed on this plot was ‘unreasonable’ and would be an overbalance in what was a small community.

Committee member, Clr. Phil Kidney, said that he knew the area well and felt the locals must be ‘fed up’ with this and other planning issues they had recently experienced in the area, and added that the community was ‘up in arms’ about the development.

“I share Mr. Fiddy’s frustrations regarding this area,” he commented, stating that it was an ‘awful spot’ for such a development.

“We have an excellent and very busy school in the village, but it’s absolute chaos there mornings and afternoons with traffic, and this would add to the problems.

“I have no idea where people would go shopping in this area as it’s a two-mile walk to the nearest shop and the transport links are horrendous.

“There’s half a footpath, no lighting, and it’s a half-an-hour walk to the train station. The bus service in the winter is very infrequent.

“It’s just not reasonable and just ridiculous, and the community council have given you enough good reasons to turn it down.

“It’s not a case of ‘not in our backyard’, as there has already been a housing scheme recently confirmed nearby in Jameston. I think the committee really needs to see where this is.

“Yes we need affordable housing provision for the area, but its doesn’t mean we’ve got to wave them all through. The highways department seems to be waving this one through, but we really need to start listening to the local residents, as it’s something we don’t do enough of, and it’s time we started backing them.

“We also need to tap into the local knowledge of the community council, as we haven’t listened to them before and it’s come back to bite us!” added Clr. Kidney, before recommending that they defer the matter for a site meeting.

Clr. Tony Wilcox said that he, too, would be concerned about how the local school would cope with an influx of possibly 80 extra children living in homes in the the area.

“This proposal for affordable housing does seem a lot for this small area and I’d be more concerned about the school’s capacity, as you can’t have 80 extra kids in a very condensed area with no nearby school to go to,” he commented.

Fellow committee member, Clr. Mike Evans, said that the present number at the local school was 56, which had risen in recent years, and the benefit of more families living in the area could actually lead to the sustainability of the school.

He did, however, raise concerns about the small number of parking spaces included in the development, stating that it didn’t seem to be enough.

When put to the vote, the majority of members agreed to a site visit for the proposed development.