Two local planning applications were among the first to be turned down for failing to meet the Pembrokeshire Coast National Park Authority's new 'local needs' criteria on Wednesday.

In a bid to preserve local communities within the National Park, a new policy has been proposed for the Joint Unitary Development Plan for Pembrokeshire which states that any new build or conversion must be assessed on local and essential needs.

Although the draft JUDP is on deposit for consultation, the National Park agreed that any planning applications received after January 23 this year would be considered under this policy.

Before the Park's development control committee on Wednesday were several applications to be considered under this criteria, including the conversion of a Tenby guest house into flats and a dwelling in Saundersfoot.

Mrs. Cathy Milner, development control officer, outlined the first application by Mrs. Lynn Delabertouche to convert the Sherbourne guest house in Tenby's Sutton Street into two flats while also retaining a ground floor maisonette.

Mrs. Milner explained that the guest house had been created from four flats in 1975, and this application sought to reconvert the building to its former use.

However, Mrs Milner added that in the view of Mr. Ifor Jones, head of development control, consideration of the application without taking account of the emerging JUDP in respect of future occupation could prejudice the development plan process.

She also felt that, in this respect, no relevant points had arisen concerning occupation of the proposed flats other than that they "would likely to be purchased by local residents or those with an essential need to live in the locality."

She added the applicant had not proposed any future occupier, nor was she prepared to sign a legal agreement over future occupancy.

Mr. Jones also read out a letter from Mrs. Delabertouche outlining her personal circumstances and the reason for the application.

He revealed that she had sadly been widowed recently and wished to retire from the guest house business she had run with her husband.

The application would allow her to remain in the matrimonial home, assisted by the income from the sale of the two flats.

However, while acknowledging Mrs. Delabertouche's situation, Mrs. Milner felt that these were insufficient grounds to divert from policy, and recommended the application be refused.

Clr. John Allen-Mirehouse, while understanding the reason for the policy, felt the National Park was "using the wrong tools for the job" in using planning policy which "smacked of unfairness."

However, Mr. Elwyn Owen felt that the recommendation for refusal was consistent with the policy agreed by the Park earlier in the year.

The second application refused as a result of the 'local needs' policy was by A. J. Collins Ltd. for a dwelling on land adjacent to 2 Frances Cottage, Sandyhill Road, Saundersfoot.

Mrs. Milner explained that while outline planning permission had been granted in 1998, the three-year period for the submission of a full application had expired in June last year.

As the five-year period for commencement of work on the site had not run out, however, the applicant was seeking a 12-month extension to allow the submission of a reserved matters application.

However, although this was the case, Mrs. Milner and Mr. Jones felt that this application should also be considered in the context of the emerging local needs policy as, in law, an application for an extension of time was a new planning permission.

Account had been taken of the fact that the five-year construction period had not lapsed and that it was 'accepted practice' for an extension of time to be given in such circumstances.

However, Mrs. Milner pointed out that planning time limits were imposed by the Government and applicants who "do not stick to them run the risk of planning policies changing."

She pointed out that the emerging JUDP was a relevant consideration in this case and the applicant had given no indication that occupancy of the constructed dwelling would be in accordance with that policy.

As such, she recommended that the plan be refused.

However, Clr. Tom Sinclair expressed concern.

"I am getting more and more disturbed by this policy," he commented. "If this applicant came forward with the name of a local person wishing to buy the property then we would grant consent in this case.

"Is the applicant fully aware that we would be implementing this procedure today? Does he know that the goalposts have been slightly changed?"

Mrs. Milner pointed out that the applicant fully understood the situation, and was aware that the recommendation was for refusal on 'local needs' grounds.