Sir,

On April 19 it was reported that the National Park Authority had refused planning consent to convert a guest house in Sutton Street, Tenby, into two flats and a maisonette on the grounds that it would be contrary to a policy to be introduced in the Joint Unitary Development Plan, which will limit additions to the housing stock in the National Park.

This policy is intended to restrict any new dwellings being built in the Park unless the occupier can show that he/she is a local person with a housing need, or has a very close connection with the community.

The JUDP and this new planning restriction has yet to be considered by the public, subjected to the rigours of a Public Enquiry and approved by the National Assembly. The procedure may take another 30 months. On January 23, the Park Authority agreed that the new policy would, with immediate effect, become a 'matter of material consideration,' and applied as from that date.

The decision to refuse the planning application to re-convert the guest house back to its pre-1975 status is unsatisfactory on two grounds. Firstly, the policy implies new building. In the committee discussion there was frequent reference to availability of building plots. Secondly, the policy does not mention conversion. This application does not require any new building; no land will be taken up and two new dwellings will be available, possibly at a more affordable price than a new house on a green field site.

In principle, the policy appears attractive and might ease the difficulties of first time buyers. But to restrict planning consent to individuals, who were lucky enough to be born and bred, find work or have relations living in the National Park is a strange departure from the accepted idea that planning is related to land use, landscape and site suitability. It is questionable if this is a proper function of a local authority.

Why is the policy being proposed for the National Park and not for the county? The official reason is that there are only limited opportunities available in the National Park for new housing (the officers obviously never thought of Sutton Street).

Maybe is there something more sinister? It is worth noting, that one third of the Park Authority members are not elected, and are not answerable to anyone. What contribution did the appointed members make, and do they have any right to aid and abet decisions on who lives in Pembrokeshire? Do we need them? The other two thirds are county councillors and are subject to re-election at regular intervals. This may account for any reluctance of their colleagues on the county council to seek to adopt a similar policy.

The National Park has made a magnificent contribution to Pembrokeshire over the past 50 years. Much of the Park would have been destroyed by commercial development if there had been no dedicated authority in control. Mistakes have been made, and will be made again, but there is no need for the authority to begin its second half-century by hitting a potentially vulnerable developer over the head with the equivalent of a legal baseball bat.

Mr. M. Brace,

Thomas Chapel House,

Begelly.