A member of Tenby Town Council has told his colleagues that he finds it ‘extraordinary’ that a former county councillor for the seaside town, continues to flout planning rules set out by the Pembrokeshire Coast National Park Authority.

Full and listed building planning applications submitted by Mike Evans of the Harbwr Brewery to the Pembrokeshire Coast National Park are for a retrospective ‘change of use’ of parts of the former Grade II Listed stables building and stable yard on Sergeants Lane, to A3 use for the sale of food or drink for consumption on the premises.

The retrospective plans also include alterations to roofs, and some changes to fenestration, windows and openings, and addition of roof lights.

However, the alterations to the former stables near Tenby harbour to form a ‘drinking quarters’ which has on occasion included karaoke nights, neighbours have stated, have already taken place, before planning consent has been approved.

Members of the public met recently with members of the Town Council’s planning committee to voice concerns over the retrospective plans for the medieval lane.

Residents of Bridge House wished to put their views across at the meeting, stating that they had been in support, in principle, of the applicant regenerating the area and the endeavours to date, but pointed out that no prior consultation had been undertaken with neighbouring residents on the work recently carried out by the applicant, with the lack of consultation, a concern to them.

They felt that the applicant was fully aware of the Town and Country Planning Act and granting permission to this application may establish a precedent whereby others may not adhere to legislation and undertake development to suit themselves.

They stated that Tenby Town Council as a planning authority consultee and PCNPA need to send a strong message that due process must be followed, as a retrospective application suggests a rather significant presumption that planning will follow.

The neighbours said they were surprised to note a ‘relaxed attitude’ that this business abuts a public highway and uses it as an integral part of the premises.

Concerns were also raised from a number of residents that, in the past there has been considerable noise generated by associated developments within the lane, and extending the A3 premises could exacerbate this.

Residents noted several noise issues relating to businesses operating not in keeping with the original consents, for example, ‘office space’ being used as a bar with karaoke in the stable area which was part of the retrospective application on the table.

They reiterated they support regeneration of the town, but want due process to be followed. They would like any consents granted adhered to, so they could all ‘live harmoniously’ and without undue intrusion.

They noted that there was a focus on second home owners pushing out local residents, but they felt in this case, it was a business man pushing out the locals.

After hearing the views of neighbouring residents, members of the Town Council’s planning committee - Councillors Paul Rapi, Tish Rossiter, Charles Dale and Dai Morgan went onto consider the application.

Cllr Dale mentioned that the applicant always did a ‘good job’ welcoming visitors and locals alike, however he was somewhat guilty of making umpteen retrospective planning applications!

“He knows the rules but still we see retrospective applications,“ remarked Cllr Dale.

“There does not seem to have been enough consultation with neighbours on these plans, and I find it slightly problematic if, as we have heard, original consents were not being adhered to.”

Cllr Rapi commented: “The applicant was a county councillor for 15 years on Pembrokeshire Coast National Park Authority dealing with planning. He knows the rules and I cannot understand why he keeps flaunting them.

“He does produce a good product but this is a residential area. There are residential flats at the tope of the lane, at the bottom and to the side. It would have been courteous to discuss the plans with neighbours and submit the plans at the proper time, before any work was undertaken not after.

“The town council has discussed retrospective applications in the past and agreed that it will not be accepting planning that is retrospective. It makes a mockery of the system when we are asked to comment on developments when they have been completed.”

The town clerk reminded members that it being retrospective was not sufficient grounds to refuse an application.

“In this case, the person making the retrospective planning application knows the system better than anyone and I would like PCNPA to know that we do not accept an application from a previous member of council that determined people’s planning for 15 years,” continued Cllr Rapi.

Cllr Dale said that he found it ‘extraordinary’ that the applicant put himself in this position. “He does step up and put things right when requested but it would make life simpler,” he said.

“I accept that the fact that a retrospective planning application alone is not enough grounds for refusal but if planning permission then being flouted, then surely it is a reason to not give permission for something which will extend development to areas where it is not meant to be,” he added.

Cllr Rapi proposed that the town council write to PCNPA stating that they were unhappy with another retrospective application where no prior consultation has been undertaken.

The application is due to come before PCNPA’s devleopment management committee in the near future to be determined.