Sir, Pembrokeshire County Council has some sympathy with the frustration expressed by the chairman of the Saundersfoot Community Council at its inability to bring forward the Barbecue project. However, the attack on the county council is misplaced, wrong and undeserved. The key facts are: • In February 1999, the county council first resolved to allow negotiations with the community council. • The terms were clear: the Tourist Information Centre would stay in the building and the community council would retain the income from the kiosks and adjoining newsagents (approximately £13,000 pa) • Negotiations continued and in March 2002 the community council asked the council for assistance in preparing an independent business plan/ feasibility study. The county council contributed the major £4,000 share of this cost. • In April 2003, the consultants advised that the transfer of the building to the community council should not take place, the reason being that 'any additional benefits gained from the community are minimal compared to the burden of costs, risks and liabilities the community council would be taking on'. • Subsequently, when it seemed clear that no progress was or could be made, the county council agreed to dispose of that part of the property occupied by the newsagent and this allowed improvement of that local business. • Following that decision, the community council indicated it wished still to pursue its project. Mr. Roger Barrett-Evans, the county council's director of development, attended a public meeting in the village in November, 2004, and as a result, agreed to take no progress on the disposal of the building until January, 2005, to give the community council further time to work up its project - clearly now without the benefit of any income from the newsagent and the loss of approximately £8,600 rental. • Despite pressure to meet this deadline, the county council did agree to further time extensions. • In January 2006, a draft lease was issued to the community council and indeed the Cabinet subsequently agreed following comments from the community council to extend the deadline for final take-up of the terms to December 2008. As regards the so-called stringent conditions and the four examples quoted: • The first was clear from 1999. • The second was the basis of the 2003/04 Feasibility Study, i.e. the community council would fund refurbishment of that order of costs. • The third is a very standard condition to protect this council's interest in the building; and • The fourth sets out the reasonable case that the community council should only use it for the community purposes it plans, i.e. not commercial development. The community council always being reassured that any income from a café or shop genuinely part of a community facility would be permitted. In conclusion, the county council recognises the disappointment in some quarters, but feels that every opportunity has been given to allow the community council to come forward with a viable scheme.
Clr. John Davies, Leader of Pembrokeshire County Council