Sir, Re. the Barbecue building at Saundersfoot Harbour, I write as chairman of Saundersfoot Community Council (SFCC) to inform residents of my council's efforts to secure the future of this vital historic and iconic building at the heart of our village for the benefit of generations to come.

In April of 2005, our clerk received a letter from the Property and Asset Management Department of Pembrokeshire County Council (PCC) offering very harsh terms upon which they would grant a lease to SFCC. Notwithstanding those terms, my council resolved to set up a working committee to prepare a feasibility study. This working committee laboured hard for several months. They obtained reports on the condition of the fabric of the building, the economic feasibility of the project and the legal implications. They had the generous help and advices of Pembrokeshire Coast National Park Authority, Pembrokeshire Business Initiative, Planed, together with reports from a firm of chartered architects, a chartered surveyor and a solicitor. Representatives of a number of other local organisations also gave of their time to attend the regular meetings which took place between April and July of 2005.

The working committee had to operate under constant pressure from PCC who gave a final deadline of July 31, 2005, for my council to say it would want to pursue the matter. In the hope that reasonable negotiations with PCC would be possible, our clerk duly confirmed our desire to proceed in principle on July 29, 2005.

However, the draft lease was not delivered until late January of 2006, a delay of six months!

Unfortunately, the terms of the lease were extremely stringent. For examples of some of the provisions:

1. Notwithstanding the nominal rent of £1 per annum, and a potential term of 99 years, SFCC were not to have possession of the ground floor which would be occupied rent free as a Tourist Information Centre by Pembrokeshire County Council.

2. SFCC were to accept full responsibility to complete the renovation and refurbishment of the first and second floors together with the roof, foundations and main structure of the building. The cost of these works had been professionally estimated to be in the region of £216,000, excluding VAT and fees, of which some £22,700 (excluding VAT and fees) would need to be undertaken urgently.

3. If SFCC were unable for any reason to commence these works within the first two years, or if a start had been made, but the works remained incomplete by the end of the fifth year, PCC would repossess the property without any payment of compensation to SFCC.

4. The lease contained a total prohibition against SFCC sub-letting any part of the main building to generate income to help with running costs. For example, the second floor has had planning permission for use as two flats, but our request to be allowed to let the same was refused out of hand. An attempt by our solicitor to request amendments to the draft lease or engage in negotiations to explain the commercial reality of our needs to raise grant finance and similar were simply dismissed.

Their stated reason for such a hard line was to ensure that SFCC retained the building in public ownership for community usage. This is what we were endeavouring to do by developing the historic theme of the building and its associated garden as a testament to the industrial heritage of our community.

We were therefore very disappointed at this totally dogmatic refusal to negotiate, as we feel our proposals would benefit our community far more than selling it off to the highest bidder for commercial use, which is presumably now what will happen.

How could a community council fund such a project with its hands tied behind its back in financial terms? We are advised that grant providers and other funders would be unable to assist with such limited security offered by the proposed lease. Sadly, we have to conclude that PCC must have been aware of our obvious limitations and have, in our view, cynically gone through the motions. I strongly feel that this is a very shabby way for one local authority to treat another.

Why, we must also ask, have PCC allowed this historic building to fall into such a poor state of repair? If they felt they were protecting the public purse by being intransigent with us, is not their continued neglect of the building over the last decade been a more significant failure of public stewardship?

Clr. D. Poole,