Sir,

I would be obliged if you would allow me to respond to the letter from the chairman of the Pembrokeshire Coast National Park Authority development management committee in last week's Tenby Observer, 'Park gave full consideration to residents' views'. Clr. Brinsden has made a number of points in defence of his members in his letter regarding planning permission being granted on the Skrinkle estate, Manorbier.

My first point is: Because the parcel of land that was subject of the planning application is within the so- called development limits, does not necessarily mean it has to be developed. Yes, I accept that the land is not designated as an amenity or play area; this is in part due to the fundamental failings of the JUDP process to begin with. Nonetheless, 98 per cent of the residents who actually live on the estate were against this development taking place, their reason being, that they did not want to see their estate's green areas being continually concreted over to make way for yet more housing.

The green areas that remain are an essential part of the local amenity for the estate's residents and more importantly the children's needs. The parents and children consider that these spaces provide a valuable contribution towards living in a green and pleasant environment - surely the very essence of supposedly living in a National Park.

Furthermore, these open areas provide a very valuable contribution to the children's development and well-being as play areas - what right has anyone to deprive the children of their right to play in a safe and secure environment close to where they live? Where is the logic in providing more houses and at the same time removing the children's play areas?

Since 2002, there has been a steady erosion of the estate's green open spaces by Pembrokeshire Housing Association. It would appear there is a desire to turn the eastern boundaries of our village into a large urban housing sprawl. Should Manorbier be expected to provide all of the need for affordable housing in Pembrokeshire?

When members of the planning committee visited the estate, I stated that if planning permission was granted, it would be in contravention of Policy 69 of the JUDP - this is the very policy that provides protection of public and private open spaces.

What's the point of having policies if it suits the planning officers to interpret them in a way to suit the application in question on the day? Why have a planning committee, if the members are not going to question the respective policies in a proper way. I am still of the opinion that, if put to the test at a planning appeal, Policy 69 would protect these open spaces from this kind of development. My second point is: Clr. Brinsden is reported as saying 'members gave full consideration to residents' views'. What is the point of residents voicing their concerns and expressing their democratic rights and views to the members of the planning committee? Some 93 letters of objection, 98 per cent of the residents, stated that they were opposed to this development - so much for local democracy. Interestingly, the JUDP document states under its Corporate Objectives, 'Recognises a need to foster the well-being of residents' - not much hope of that happening in Manorbier.

And what about the members themselves? Perhaps some of them have conflicting interest as members of Pembrokeshire County Council, who of course own Skrinkle estate - who appoints them to the National Park Authority. Surely their primary concern should be to represent the National Park and its residents?

The planning development committee seems to have become nothing short of a sub-committee of PCC. Perhaps its time to ask - should the members reside in the Park? Should all of the members of the National Park be democratically elected and not appointed? I personally believe the people in their respective communities should elect them.

I note with interest that Clr. Brinsden has stated that 'There is a growing need for affordable housing in this area'. Clr. Brinsden should be aware that the growing need for affordable housing is not unique to Manorbier; it's a problem throughout Pembrokeshire.

I fully support National Park's efforts to provide affordable housing. I do, however, object and do not support this shortsighted approach as demonstrated by the decision to grant a planning consent for Skrinkle.

I would further question the system as to how any new housing is awarded. It would appear that the true local need to provide housing is often neglected, and the current system does not provide affordable housing for rent for the local people in my community.

Lastly, what difference does it make by saying that the permission granted is only an outline permission. The fact of the matter is that the open space will be built on; this will be another open play area lost to the residents and children. Some five members of Clr. Brinsden's own planning committee recognised this and stated, if planning permission was granted, it would be to the detriment of the estate.

I stand by my comments that I made in last week's Tenby Observer. How can members of the planning committee be so flagrant in disregarding the views of the residents? Therefore, I offer no apologies for what I said; I will continue the fight for the democratic rights and views of the residents and children of Skrinkle estate to be heard.

Clr. Tony Wales, Manorbier