Tenby councillors have again expressed their anger over what they feel is a lack of consultation on proposed plans for the enhancement of the town centre.

Meeting with officers of Pembrokeshire County Council and developers of the scheme, Capita Symonds, at an extra-ordinary meeting last week, town councillors were able to raise a number of issues that concerned them, with some claiming that Tudor Square only needed 'tidying up', rather than a complete overhaul.

It was felt that the Square still needed to be 'recognisable', with the suggestion being made that the introduction of slightly wider pavements with proper kerb edges and a tarmac carriageway would suffice.

Councillors felt that a reduced scheme along these lines would also take less time in construction, further addressing the concerns of traders over the proposed timescale of the project.

Capita Symonds and county council representatives said that all comments would be taken on board and further adjustments would be made to the plans, with further consultation to take place.

However, they stressed that a decision needed to be made soon, so that a proper design brief could be made to meet the target start date for the scheme, which is scheduled to be autumn of this year.

The matter was raised again at Tuesday night's meeting of the town council, when Clr. Mike Thorne criticised a report by the county council into the planning consultation process on the scheme.

"The report firstly confirms that there had been no consultation with interested parties prior to the presentation to us in February," he stated.

"This was the wrong approach, and it is now clear that the briefing process by Pembrokeshire County Council officers was flawed, if not inadequate," he claimed, stating that the town council's own views were not included in the report, and there appeared to be no representations from the visual and deaf impairment officers. It was also not clear whether the National Park Authority's views were included.

"We have some very partial information here," continued Clr. Thorne. "Thankfully, we have gathered more information through our Tenby Connect meetings, where it was clear that interested parties were highly critical of the scheme and the process of consultation.

"It is noteworthy that in paragraph 1.5 the report's authors say that they have 'endeavoured to retain the original scheme concept whilst balancing this with the constructive comments received through the consultation process' - it is therefore clear that county council and their consultants were only minded to make minor alterations to the original scheme," he told his fellow councillors.

Clr. Mrs. Trisha Putwain felt that the town council should push for total rejection of the proposed scheme.

"They keep tweaking it here and there, but I think they should just abandon it altogether as no-one likes it," she said.

Clr. Mrs. Tish Rossiter felt that something needed to be done in the Square, but that these proposals were not suited. She also warned that the town council had to work alongside the county council on the matter or they would seek to spend their funds elsewhere out of Tenby.

Deputy Mayor, Clr. Mrs. Julie Evans, who chaired Tuesday night's meeting in the absence of the Mayor, said that it was regrettable that the town council and people of Tenby were not asked for their comments from the word go as to what they would like to see.

The majority of councillors proposed that the scheme be amended as follows - maintain the number of spaces for parking for the disabled; maintain the present overall shape and dimensions of the existing carriageway, renewing the pavements with slabs and normal kerbs, similar to the scheme already carried out in the High Street, except for a widened area of pavement to incorporate the Dyster Fountain; that most of the carriageway be tarmac surface, apart from areas of block paving in the parking bays and for 'pedestrian crossing tables' at top and bottom of the Square, similar in design to that already built in the High Street; floral standards be introduced instead of block bollards; proper wooden seating benches rather than stone; further lighting possibly fixed to buildings rather than standing; introduction of cycle stands.

It was agreed that the amended proposals and views should be conveyed to the county council.