There are two sides to every story, so the old saying goes. And that certainly seems to be the case at Manorbier at the moment, where a row is continuing to rage over possible Housing Association developments at the Skrinkle estate. Regular readers of our Letters column will know that the row has blown up over the question of whether Manorbier Community Council were made aware of the proposals. Or have they been kept in the dark? In May, the council received a petition from local residents objecting to plans to build on areas that the children play on. At the time, the chairman, Clr. Tony Wales, admitted he had not been aware of the proposed developments and had only found out through the local press a few weeks before. This subsequently drew a response from the area's Pembrokeshire County Councillor, Clr. Malcolm Calver, who claimed this was not true. In a letter in our issue of May 25, he said the community council were fully aware of the proposals, as he had kept them informed at previous meetings. Not so, retorted Clr. Wales, with the backing of three other councillors, in a letter published in our columns two weeks later. "I can categorically state that Manorbier Community Council have never ever been informed by Clr. Calver or Pembrokeshire County Council or any other body of any intention to sell land at Skrinkle estate to Pembrokeshire Housing Association," the letter stated. Was this true, or had they indeed been informed? Yes, according to three letters received last week, including one from a member of the community council himself, Clr. Martin Davis, and another from two members of the public, who all claimed they had been present at a meeting when Clr. Calver had made the council aware of the proposals. At this stage, the county council also entered the fray, in the form of a letter from Clr. Huw George, cabinet member for the environment, planning and regulatory services. In attempting to clarify the position, he pointed out that the county council had notified the community council by letter on April 26, 2006, that various plots of land at Manorbier had been identified as possibly surplus to requirements. "The letter said that consideration would now be given to their best future use and that historically, the land was acquired under the Housing Acts, but had never been used for its intended purpose and had been left as grass verge or green areas for many years, " he said. "It also stated that the council would be grateful for any comments which Manorbier Community Council wished to make and that they could contact the county council if they had any queries or required further information." Surely conclusive evidence and an end to the matter. No, far from it. It seems that Clr. George only succeeded in muddying the waters. From information received with further correspondence this week, it appears that the letter in question was apparently sent to Clr. Calver, with only a copy being forwarded to the community council. Unfortunately, at the time, the community council was without the services of a clerk, who had ceased employment with them, and they maintain that it was never received. "I can confirm that as proper officer to Manorbier Community Council, the council was never ever made aware of the existence of such a letter and that the first Manorbier Community Council knew of this letter was when a member of the public produced a copy of the letter at the council's meeting on June 7, 2007", said Clr. David Neads this week. "The letter asked for Clr. Calver's comments regarding the disposal of this land." he added. "It did not ask for any comment from Manorbier Community Council." We will leave it to our readers to reach their own conclusions on the rights and wrongs of the whole affair, but one thing is certain, if Manorbier Community Council didn't know of the Skrinkle proposals before, they certainly do now, and hopefully the matter can be laid to rest. That seems unlikely in the immediate future, however, as the Observer is led to believe that a complaint in relation to the dispute is being lodged with the local government ombudsman. We have, therefore, decided to draw our own line under the matter and will accept no further correspondence on the issue at this present time.
