Dear Editor

We are responding to the letter by Andrew Vaughan-Harries (agent) for the proposed housing development at Rushacre, Narberth, (January 13th).

As a commissioned agent for the developers he has, not surprisingly, been selective in his facts and misrepresents the views of residents in this community.

Residents are not opposed to new housing development on the site. They recognise the demand and need for quality housing in the area.

The Joint Unitary Development Plan (JUDP) issued in 2001 described the potential development as low density development (30 houses). No objections were raised by the residents to this plan. The current proposal, (54 houses) represents an increase of 80% without any subsequent consultation with residents.

The proposed development allows only for a single route of access via Bloomfield Gardens. Other options were (and remain) available. In a rural area, access for housing and industrial needs should be complimentary. Responsibility for any conflict rests with developers and planners who wish to impose restrictions.

The inclusion of “affordable units” is a requirement by national and local Government. Non inclusion may result in a revision of the plans.

The accusation levelled at local residents of “nimbyism” is an unjustified slur on the legitimate concerns of residents. Residents have dealt with development in this area for more than 20 years. They know only too well the potential effects that a development of this size will have on our lives.

Finally, the one point upon which we agree is that we do not want a conflict between industrial vehicles and residential traffic, pedestrians and children. For this reason is it not logical that the construction traffic should access the site through Rushacre Industrial Estate.

This is a point upon which the agent and the developers could easily agree to show their caring and responsible nature.

John Morgan and Chris Helps
Bloomfield Gardens,
Narberth.