Despite the threat of legal action, members of the Pembrokeshire Coast National Park Authority voted unanimously this week not to alter their decision to grant outline planning permission for the Bluestone Project.
Just over a month after PCNP authority had given the go-ahead for the multi-million pound holiday village and leisure complex at Canaston Bridge, they were threatened with High Court proceedings.
At an extraordinary meeting on Wednesday, the authority met to consider the implications of a letter from solicitors representing the Council for National Parks, which presented the authority with an ultimatum to take them to judicial review unless they reversed their decision.
Debate at the meeting opened with discussions on allegations made against eight members of the PCNP Authority who are also members of Pembrokeshire County Council. The allegations centred on a possible breach of the authority's code of conduct for members by their decision not to declare an interest in relation to the Bluestone planning application.
However, after his investigations into the claims, the Local Government Ombudsman found that there was no evidence that any of the members had breached the code of conduct; as the code required, members had acted in accordance with their view of the public interest.
The Ombudsman found that the planning application before the National Park authority did not "relate to" the county council, and the county council did not have a beneficial interest in the application.
In the Ombudsman's view: "The whole point of having county councillors as ex officio members of a National Park Authority is to enable the National Park's primary focus on conservation to be tempered by an understanding of the needs and wishes of local people. The code of conduct exists to ensure that members act solely in the public interest, not to frustrate them from carrying out the role for which they were elected or appointed."
Solicitor to the PCNP Authority, Mr. David Prescott presented to members at the meeting, a joint report by himself and the head of conservation into the threat of judicial review proceedings.
"The opinion of the counsel the authority has previously engaged in connection with issues surrounding this case, Mr. Robert McCracken QC, has been sought from and a copy is attached to this report," said Mr. Prescott.
"Whilst understanding the concerns that CNP undoubtedly have in respect of the wider issues and the implications that granting this development might be seen to have on the Pembrokeshire Coast National Park and National Parks generally, we do not consider that the service of a letter threatening judicial review is reason of itself to change the decision.
"The spectre of judicial review is always with us in respect of every decision taken by the National Park as a planning authority and we should not necessarily be swayed by the threat of such action, unless there has been a material change in circumstances, which the letter does not raise," continued Mr. Prescott.
Advice given by Mr. McCracken QC, stated: "The threat of judicial review should not deter the NPA, its members and officers from the proper performance of their duties and responsibilities.
"It is important that members of public bodies, whether elected or appointed, have the courage to make the judgements they are required to do and stand firmly by them; sometimes that will involve them in the risk of legal proceedings," advised Mr. McCracken QC.
Some members of the authority were clearly incensed by the threat of legal action by CNP, with Clr. John Allen-Mirehouse the first to attack their form of "blackmail" which left him feeling "betrayed".
Clr. Allen-Mirehouse even suggested that unless CNP withdrew their threat of a judicial review, that members of the PCC should withdraw as an authority of the National Park.
"The PCNP Authority fulfilled its duty in great detail and length to determine the outcome of the Bluestone application," said Clr. Allen-Mirehouse.
"It was entirely in order for the CNP to express its opinion in opposing the application and voice their disapproval, but not appropriate for them to turn around and then try to blackmail the National Park to change the corporate decision made. In the words of the great man Gladstone, I say, publish and be damned.
"I propose we reject the threat of CNP and do not alter our decision to grant planning permission for Bluestone," stated Clr. Allen-Mirehouse, who was unanimously backed by members.
CNP RESPONSE
Responding to the decision, Ruth Chambers, CNP's head of policy, commented: "CNP is deeply disappointed by the decision by the National Park Authority not to change its mind on the granting of permission for the Bluestone planning application for a major new tourism development in open countryside.
"CNP considers that this development will seriously harm National Park purposes and that this approval sets an unwelcome precedent for this and other National Parks. As the officers of the National Park Authority concluded, this development is in breach of the national and local policies designed to safeguard the National Park and allowing it to go ahead drives a coach and horses through the policies which are meant to ensure protection of the National Park," she continued.
"As the authority has declined to reverse its decision to approve the Bluestone development, CNP's trustees are now in a position to make a final decision on whether to proceed with a legal challenge of the authority's decision in the High Court. We expect that this decision will be made in the next few days."
Ruth Chambers concluded: "We have been accused of delaying tactics because we have been considering a legal challenge of the Park Authority's decision. That really misses the point, as a legal challenge of a planning authority's decision is an established part of our land use planning and legal system. Legal challenge is now the only way to protect the National Park from the Bluestone development. We have sought to be open about our intentions and have done all that we can to avoid a legal challenge. Going to court should always be a last resort, given the serious risks involved for all parties."
CPRW DISMAY
Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales were also dismayed to learn that the PCNP Authority members failed to take the opportunity to reverse their previous decision.
CPRW's director, Mr. Peter Ogden, said: "This decision is particularly disappointing coming as it does on the very same day as the Environment, Planning and Countryside Committee in the National Assembly, met to consider the main findings and recommendations of the Review 2 of NP Authorities in Wales.
"Bluestone highlights exactly what this Review recognises as a significant weakness of National Park governance, namely Local Authority members who sit on a Park Committee, failing to take a Park perspective in the exercise of their functions," continued Mr. Ogden.
"CPRW now recognises that the normal democratic procedures to resist this proposal have been exhausted and its national council agreed at its meeting on March 13 to support, in principle, any legal challenge that CNP might make.
"It will in the light of this decision now be urgently considering what form its support will take," he concluded.
After Wednesday's decision, Bluestone chief executive Mr. William McNamara said he was glad that members of the PCNP Authority had had the "courage to stand by their decision and for the third and hopefully final time, they have spoken emphatically in favour of Bluestone."