Sir,
I write in response to the letter from Clr. Brian Hall, cabinet member for transport and environment in last week's Observer concerning the recommendation to refuse the Bluestone project as it stands.
He says "to add insult to injury, the report, some one inch thick, contains totally irrelevant information, but I assume this is to justify the length of time the National Park has taken to come up with a conclusion".
The county council cannot be accused of wasting time in researching background to some of the decisions it has reached. His department was not able to produce any substantiation for statements made in a report to cabinet regarding a precedent for Tenby's pedestrianisation scheme. Now the council has admitted it is unable to; can anyone out there come up with a precedent for Tenby's scheme?
Perhaps if his officers had taken a little more time with their paperwork, the council would not have found itself in 'another fine mess'
What ever he thinks of their decision he should not criticise the National Park in this way, when they are attempting to do a professional job.
The National Park is fulfiling their statutory obligations. The boundaries of the Park determine the due process required. Whatever decision is finally made they should be congratulated for adhering to their legal obligations and undertaking such thorough research, consultation and debate. To imply that anyone complying with this process is not sensible is rich when the council's record is studied.
Richard Walker,
1 Lexden Terrace,
Tenby.