Calls to revamp Newport city centre as shops boarded up
The study also found that nearly 5 per cent of high street expenditure escapes Newport and is spent in neighbouring Cardiff.
This is due to low local spending power, an abundance of retail space, and retail spending leakage to bigger cities.
Natasha Asghar has called for a major city revamp (Image: Office of Natasha Asghar) Natasha Asghar, South Wales East Member of the Senedd, has called for an urgent revamp of Newport city centre.
She said: "Newport has a lot to be proud of and is a fantastic city, but it is clear more needs to be done to revamp the city centre and increase footfall.
"Businesses in Wales are operating under extremely challenging conditions having to contend with the highest business rates in Great Britain and the hike in National Insurance contributions.
"It is imperative that the Labour Welsh Government and Labour-controlled city council put their heads together and come up with a meaningful strategy to fully regenerate Newport and unleash our city's potential."
One of the prime examples is the Wildings centre, which has remained shut since 2018.
Wildings has been boarded up in Newport city centre for years (Image: NQ) The Centre for Cities report recognises a significant drop in the number of empty units since the last report in 2022 but highlights an issue that distorts the true picture, according to Newport Council.
The statistics are significantly impacted by the oversupply of retail properties in the city centre.
Newport has the largest amount of retail space per head than any of the other 62 centres featured in the report.
This means that while the number of occupied premises is similar to some other places, including high-performing retail centres such as Milton Keynes, this is masked by the oversupply of commercial units.
Newport Council leader Dimitri Batrouni says the council are determined to transform the city centre (Image: NQ) Newport Council leader, Councillor Dimitri Batrouni, said: "We absolutely agree that the number of retail units in the city centre needs to be reduced as the centre is too big for present-day demand.
"The challenge is that city centre properties are mainly privately owned, sometimes by absent and neglectful landlords, and it will require significant investment to achieve a reduction.
"However, we are determined to transform our city centre to be fit for the 21st century."
The report also highlights the increasing footfall figures.
In the first quarter of this year, it was 10 per cent higher than in the first quarter of 2019, before the pandemic and the sharp rise in online shopping.
John Griffiths MS has said Newport needs more tools to improve the city centre experience (Image: NQ) John Griffiths, Member of the Senedd for Newport East, said: "High streets across Wales and the rest of the UK are all going through challenging periods and Newport is no different.
"But I am pleased Welsh Government is backing our town and city centres – through schemes such as the Transforming Towns fund.
"There is always more to do – and I would like to see some changes around compulsory purchase orders, so councils such as Newport have more tools to improve the overall city centre experience."
The Welsh Government announced a consultation on plans to change business rates in Wales in May, giving smaller shops a lower rate, with the consultation running until August.
A Welsh Government spokesperson said: "We co-funded the recently approved Newport City Centre Placemaking Plan through our Transforming Towns Programme.
"This sets out a strategic vision to transform Newport's city centre into a vibrant and thriving destination.
"We know our towns and city centres bring people together, sustain local economies, and underpin communities' sense of pride, heritage and belonging.
"That is why we have protected budgets for our Transforming Towns Programme, with £40 million available for 2025-26.
"This funding will help breathe new life into these spaces and develop our town centres as locations for a range of services, beyond retail."
Jayne Bryant MS has welcomed recent investment into Newport, including the refurbishment of Newport Market (Image: NQ) Senedd Member for Newport West, Jayne Bryant MS said: "Newport, like any other high street across the country, is navigating a challenging and transformative period.
'As the Member of the Senedd for Newport West, I welcome investment in the city centre, including the refurbishment of Newport Market, the redevelopment of Market Arcade, and the new Leisure & Wellbeing Centre that's under way.'
'It takes time, bold decisions, and sustained investment to deliver lasting regeneration. We are firmly on that path, the impact on Newport is already visible in rising footfall, thriving independents, and a continued sense of pride in our city.'
The Centre for Cities calls for £5 billion in public investment to remodel struggling city centres.
The report recommends that the government treats city centres as critical parts of the national economy and allocate £5 billion of its recently announced £113 billion investment to remake city centres with more office space, improved public realm, and fewer shops.
It also suggests that cities increase the size of the catchment of their city centres through building more homes in inner-city locations, as opposed to more developments on the edge of town.
The report also advises that cities should be realistic about visitor strategies and should prioritise making city centres attractive to residents first, as visitor appeal will follow.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
2 hours ago
- The National
How war became a route to growth for the west
The UK Government's Strategic Defence Review in June promised expanded submarine, weapon, and drone production, integrated digital command, at least six new munitions factories to 'create more than 1000 new jobs' (perhaps familiar from the 'scrapping Trident is anti-worker claim against Scottish independence in the mid-2010s). It represents an increase of already-above-Nato-baseline defence spending to 3%, and, crucially, a 'whole-of-society approach' that involved 'widening participation in national resilience'. READ OUR DEFENCE MINI-SERIES This is necessitated, the review says, by multiple new hybrid threats – a staple rationalisation since the Cold War, as in David Cameron's 2013 claim that nuclear weapons were needed 'more than ever'. Against a background of population economic punishment, the tellingly-named 'sovereign warhead programme' needed another £15 billion – roughly the size of the 'black hole' agonised over by Labour last year, and also of the current nuclear overspend stated in that year. There has been some grim technocratic inevitability to this, particularly since 2008. As asset prices gradually became inflated by central bank money channelled into stagnant investments, leaving governments struggling to deliver growth and protect their own legitimacy, classical capitalism was relieved of any lingering responsibility to deliver actual improvement, and the very temporality of progress could be inherited by crisis realism. Or as the review enthusiastically puts it, 'constant innovation at wartime pace'. War becomes a final route to growth – one marked by the 52% increase in the BAE Systems share price between January and July. Moreover, post-2000s rearming has lacked much of the protest once coming from civil society. This has a lot to do with US tech giants combining investments in infotech, AI, and aerospace (Alphabet, Microsoft, Lockheed Martin), their war on attention, and their siloing of individuals, reducing their ability to share moral concerns. Attention capture has increasingly accompanied the rearming, directing even those far up the political chain away from long-term thinking (the scenario of Don't Look Up). Covid lockdowns were a great accelerator of this, with Silicon Valley's sifting and directing of communication – in an economy Mackenzie Wark has called 'vectoralist' – automatically extracting rent through proprietary algorithms, turbocharging inequality, effectively wrecking the economy for the population, and forcing the turn to war for growth. Post-2008 algorithmic silencing helps explain the eerie quiet over permacrisis as stability. As numerous nuclear commentators have noted, there is a paradox in claiming to defend democracy by concentrating means of apocalyptic violence in fewer and more secretive hands. Such a purely performative democracy is an admission of societal dysfunction and some kind of addiction. It leaves a defence realism that, in contrast to the Cold War, struggles to imagine apocalyptic war and so raises it as a political issue. Benoit Pelopidas has described a need for depictions of nuclear war keep civil society involved, and avoid a sleepwalk into extinction. For Elaine Scarry, this sleepwalking is the very function of 'out-of-ratio' weapons, which eclipse citizen participation in defence, and effectively 'delete the population'. Even George Orwell noted something similar after the 1945 atomic demonstration on the recalcitrant beyond of Atlantic commercial empire. Under the new Pax Americana, fighting had effectively been put out of populations' reach, 'whereas when the dominant weapon is cheap and simple, the common people have a chance'. This submission to a cybernetics of extinction is what EP Thompson called exterminism, with technocratic governments finally captured by arms manufacturers promising growth and so political legitimacy. UK governments duly held on to nuclear weapons as a financial stabiliser even after the end of the Cold War, and through to the 2020s removal of the previous warhead cap, and as Timmon Milne Wallis describes, 'voted against, blocked or boycotted virtually every other multilateral nuclear disarmament initiative'. In British ideology, nuclear securitisation has always meant financial securitisation. Chancellor Alistair Darling, who would later front the anti-Scottish-independence organisation Better Together, reacted to the 2008 financial crisis by promoting [[Trident]] renewal as public investment. Keir Starmer echoed that this year when he described nuclear rearming as crucial to drive growth. But way beyond this, British authority has always depended on progressively shifting physical stakes in conflict to economic arbitration, writing populations out of society-as-economy. The 'disarming' enacted on 1740s Jacobites is also the disarming of Scarry's 'thermonuclear monarchy', in which the Lockean social contract degrades into the apocalyptic whims of small economic elites. A fully abstracted violence as a 'peaceful' proxy of citizen defence was even a pillar of a British welfare state – in fact from as early as 1941, when the Blitz-era MAUD Committee insisted atomic weapons had to be completed and used. Absolutised defence extended war togetherness even through the original 'austerity', finding funds for nukes and joining the whole population as a single target. In 2024 Starmer could comfortably appropriate this welfare terminology to describe Trident's ''triple lock', a term previously used for state pensions. This homeliness remains an issue in defining the militarisation of the economy as a problem. As Margaret Thatcher understood, the idea of the economy as a defence against politics and populations is deeply British, and can command patriotism even from a sceptical population. Mindfulness of the real violence being abstracted as growth will be crucial to any civil involvement. Michael Gardiner is author of Empire of Deterrence (2025), published by Repeater
The National
2 hours ago
- The National
Labour defence spending 'one of most inefficient ways' to create jobs
It comes as the UK Government has gone all in on the idea of growth through military spending. It was one of the key tenets of the Strategic Defence Review (SDR) – which was published in June and accepted in its entirety by Labour. 'The SDR will help make defence an engine for growth—boosting prosperity, jobs and security for working people across the UK,' the document read. READ MORE: Keir Starmer's defence plan will not make UK safer, says ex-UN adviser Keir Starmer quickly announced the [[UK Government]] would open six new munitions factories, build up to 12 new nuclear-powered submarines and invest £15 billion in nuclear warheads – as well as a raft of other commitments. 'Through this strategy we will bring the whole of society with us, creating jobs, growth and wages for working people,' the Prime Minister said. In Scotland, meanwhile, Ian Murray launched a £250 million investment at the base housing the UK's nuclear weapons – HMNB Clyde at Faslane – in July, to be spent over the next three years to improve infrastructure at the site. The Scottish Secretary described the spending as a 'defence dividend' as he also talked up the economic impact of investing in the sector in Scotland, including through the Clyde 2070 programme, which will see billions pumped into the industry in the coming decades. But the extent to which this investment will positively impact Scotland and create jobs across the UK is a matter of debate. It's not that jobs won't be created, James Meadway – who is the host of the podcast Macronomics – told The National. Defence minister John Healey 'Look. If the government spends a bit more money on something in the real world, it will – other things being equal – mean that there is more economic activity,' the economist, who is also a member of the Progressive Economy Forum and a former economic adviser to the shadow chancellor, said. 'There'll be a bit more growth somewhere, there'll be a few more jobs somewhere. That's kind of what's going to happen.' He added: 'The trouble is it's just not very many for the obvious reason that if you look at military investment now and the kind of things that arms companies are producing – this is all really high tech stuff,' he said. 'This is not just churning out millions of shells or bullets. This is stuff that you use a great deal of high technology to produce, and that is also quite high technology. And if you are producing millions of shells, it's also now very capital intensive, rather than labour intensive, due to big machines making them.' Meadway added: 'And if you've got lots of high-tech stuff, like you're making drones and you're making quite sophisticated drones. It's capital intensive. You don't have many people employed doing it. You don't actually create many jobs and investment. 'So, as a starting point, if the Government is saying military spending, ramping up defence production will create more jobs, this is a bad way to do that.' He went on: 'The stuff that really creates jobs, it's actually probably fairly obvious. If you go to the NHS and you put more money into that, that means you're pretty immediately going to employ more nurses, more doctors, more people to your hospitals – all sorts of people working in a pretty labour-intensive healthcare occupation. 'Same thing goes for social care, same thing goes for education, to a significant extent. If you spend more on schools, you're going to need to employ more teachers. So, these things create lots of jobs. Military spending does not create lots of jobs.' Mark Seddon, a professor of economic history at Sheffield University and the director of the Centre for United Nations Studies, also suggested that defence spending was an inefficient way of creating jobs. READ MORE: 'Building new royal naval craft, ships and submarines at Govan or Barrow-in-Furness, that's got to be a good thing. I'm all in favour of keeping skilled jobs and expanding them in key sectors like that,' he said. 'But I'm not persuaded by this substantial increase in defence spending that it's going to actually result in a lot of jobs in Britain.' Seddon added: 'It's not just the [[UK Government]], but the EU – which to my mind is becoming synonymous with NATO – seem to have a policy, which is increasing military spending in an effort to save their economy. "I don't think it will, I think it makes life a lot easier for the extreme-right politically, and I don't think it's going to bring jobs in any large numbers into the industrial areas.'
The National
2 hours ago
- The National
Keir Starmer's defence plan will not make UK safer, warns ex-UN adviser
Over the past few months, the Prime Minister has been consistently turning up the dial on defence spending while confirming cuts to foreign aid as part of a 'blueprint' to make Britain 'safer and stronger'. But Mark Seddon, who was a speechwriter and adviser to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, said he is 'unconvinced' by Starmer's plan, insisting the idea that spending more on weapons factories was going to make us more secure and save the economy is 'for the birds'. READ OUR FULL DEFENCE MINI-SERIES: Professor Julian Richards, who worked for GCHQ for nearly 20 years, also said Starmer's approach was all about political 'signalling', when in fact it is 'impossible' to say whether upping defence spending would enhance the UK's security. Having already pledged to increase defence spending to 2.5% of national income by 2027 through a cut to foreign aid in February, the Prime Minister then promised in June to make Britain 'battle-ready' as he unveiled a defence review designed to counter threats from countries such as Russia. Speaking at the BAE Systems shipyard in Glasgow, he promised to spend billions more on weapons factories, drones and submarines, even if it meant raiding the welfare or aid budget once more. READ MORE: Labour defence spending 'one of most inefficient ways' to create jobs Later that month, the UK and its Nato allies agreed to increase spending on defence and related areas to 5% of GDP by 2035. Starmer said his defence review was a 'blueprint for making Britain safer and stronger' and would create an 'armour-clad nation'. But former Labour member Seddon, who also advised María Fernanda Espinosa when she was president of the UN General Assembly, said: 'I think this has been a crisis management government and I think that it has sought to find a solace in defence spending as some kind of Keynesian demand-driven recovery plan, [suggesting] this is how we get back British industry. 'It's moved very firmly away from traditional Keynesian economic policies to believe that militarisation can do all of this and get the industrial jobs that were lost back. 'I'm really not convinced. 'We've already announced that a lot of the weapons we're going to be buying are from the US. We simply don't have the capacity to build things like we used to, like Harrier jump jets, we now have to buy F-35s from the US. 'We're promising to increase defence spending eventually to 5% which is a very substantial increase, and that can only mean major cuts in education, health spending, welfare spending, right across the board. That isn't really being debated in any serious way, it seems to me.' He added: 'I think they [Labour] are making us more insecure. 'The idea that spending more on munitions factories is going to save the British economy and make us safer is for the birds.' Richards (below), who now works as the director of the Centre for Security and Intelligence at Buckingham University, said he felt Starmer's claim of making Britain safer was an 'impossible calculation'. (Image: Supplied) He told The National: 'To a certain extent, measuring the effect of defence expenditure, and indeed the effect of foreign aid expenditure, is a virtually impossible thing to do if your metric is our safety. 'It's difficult to say for each pound you spend on defence capability how much safety does that delivers us. I'd suggest it's a totally impossible calculation. The same goes for foreign aid expenditure because that's always been a difficult area to quantify in terms of its effect. 'I challenge anyone to say that what the Labour Party are doing makes us safer or not.' He went on: 'It's very political. It's about signalling. 'They're trying to shape the Russian mindset by saying we're prepared to do something that would have been politically impossible a short while ago. 'Starmer wants to be right at the helm of that robust signalling to Russia, so then he can quote himself as one of the leaders of the West.' The boost to defence spending has come about amid a pledged reduction of the foreign aid budget from 2027 to 0.3% of gross national income – the lowest level in more than a quarter of a century. (Image: PA) Richards said he felt the UK Government had made this decision because of pressure from the US, which has cancelled most US Agency for International Development (USAID) programmes. European Nato members have also come under pressure from the US to spend more on defence, as Richards explained, America has for many years felt it has been 'shouldering too much of the burden'. However, Richards said he hoped the current approach by the UK Government would be temporary. READ MORE: Labour defence spending 'one of most inefficient ways' to create jobs 'One would hope what we're doing at the moment is not permanent,' he said. 'We would hope that if in five or six years, the security situation is more stable, it may be the case [that] we could shuffle back to where we were and put a break on defence expenditure and put more back into foreign aid.' Asked if this would be the last cut to foreign aid that we see from Labour, he said: 'I certainly wouldn't bet on it being the last. '[But] I would hope that further cuts to the foreign aid budget would be politically more difficult than this first ripping off of the plaster. If it turns out this was just the beginning of a series of death by a thousand cuts, that could start to become politically very difficult.' Starmer once lamented a Tory plan in 2021 to slash the UK's aid budget to 0.5% of GNI, adding that investing in international aid was in Britain's 'national interest'. But Seddon, who sat on Labour's national executive committee for nearly a decade, said it was yet another area of policy where Starmer seemed happy to U-turn in the name of the 'practicalities of office'. In 2015, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development was adopted by all UN member states with 17 sustainable development goals at its heart, including zero hunger, clean water and sanitation and climate action. Seddon, who was a Labour member for 45 years and was on the party's national executive committee for nearly a decade, said Labour seemed to be 'rowing back' on this commitment, adding that 'tinkering' with foreign aid can have huge consequences. 'Foreign aid is not something to be tinkered with or got rid of altogether, it has major repercussions, whether it's HIV programmes, drought, poverty, all of these things,' Seddon, who quit Labour after 45 years of membership two years ago, said. He added: 'Britain was a founding member of the UN and are supporters of the sustainable development goals we're supposed to be getting to by 2030, to make the world a safer, better place. And we seem to be rowing back from all of that. 'I think what a lot of people find difficult to believe is this is from a Labour Party leader and Labour government. If you'd said to me, 'Can you imagine any political party cutting or getting rid of foreign aid?', I would never have said it would be the Labour Party.' A Ministry of Defence spokesperson said: 'Britain is entering a new era of warfighting readiness, driven by the biggest sustained boost in defence spending since the Cold War – rising to 2.6% of GDP by 2027, with an ambition of hitting 3% in the next Parliament. 'This government is not only strengthening national security but turning defence into a driver of economic growth, delivering on the Plan for Change. "The Strategic Defence Review lays out major investment in UK defence industries - backing British manufacturing, innovation, and jobs, ensuring prosperity and security across every nation and region. The forthcoming Defence Industrial Strategy will build on these commitments.' The FCDO has been approached for comment.
