The public inquiry into Tenby's controversial pedestrianisation scheme finally concluded last Friday after running into a fifth day. However, with a five-week wait now expected before planning inspector, Mr. Clive Nield, releases his report and recommendations to Pembrokeshire Councy Council, many local opponents of the scheme still feel the hearing left a lot of questions unanswered. Mrs. Gillian Mackay says she feels "privileged and proud" to live in the harbour area of Tenby and is not against some form of pedestrianisation in the town, but she feels that the scheme in its present form is detrimental to maintaining permanent residents within the walled town and therefore damaging to the community. "Alarm bells should be ringing now because I believe the future of Tenby and its community is being jeopardised," said Mrs. Mackay, believing that the pedestrianisation scheme should be subject to a social impact assessment. "During pedestrianisation there will be different impacts on people's lifestyles. Some residents can get by with very little distruption, while others find it intolerable. We should all be catered for," she stressed. Mrs. Mackay was also critical of the Pembrokeshire Coast National Park Authority who she said had a statutory duty to foster the social and economic well-being of the communities within its boundaries. However, a letter she received from the Park Authority in 2005 suggested that residents who live within the walled town 'should make a sacrifice for the many who benefit from the scheme', something that Mrs. Mackay believes contradicts their statutory duty. "I undertook research and found no research/data into the social impact of the pedestrianisation scheme," she explained, adding that National Park planning officer, Sarah Middleton, had told her that they had not undertaken such a survey. "I would have thought it sensible that in 2002 at the start of the scheme, that base data be recorded concerning the number of permanent residents in the town, the number of holiday and second homes, and perhaps the number and nature of businesses. This would form base data from which social impact assessment could be undertaken," continued Mrs. Mackay. Turning to the town's electoral roll as a source of information, Mrs. Mackay discovered a worrying trend in the figures, with a 30 per cent decline in the number of properties and the number of people on the electoral register in just three years between December 2001 and December 2004. In her view some of the properties have turned into holiday homes, contributing to the reduction in permanent residents and therefore altering the composition of the community. "In my opinion, it is not just a coincidence that the timing of a scheme by which people's lives are severely restricted corresponds with such a marked decline in permanent residents," claimed Mrs. Mackay. "There are likely other factors involved, but by taking away residents' freedom of access the county council in my belief are accelerating the decline of permanent residents within the walls or are instigating a policy of social engineering." Following the outcome of the public inquiry into the pedestrianisation scheme, Mrs. Mackay would like to see a transparent social impact survey. She also believes that unfettered access for all permanent residents who appear on the electoral roll would turn a negative situation into a positive one. "This outcome would attract more permanent residents, and would certainly solve most if not all of the walled town residents' problems," she added.
