Manorbier Blog

Deja Vu

2007-01-07T00:06:00.000Z

A warning to St Florence Community Council

I see from the report on manorbier.com that County Cllr Calver is interfering with the running of St Florence Community Council. Be warned St Florence! He is using the same tactics on you as he has used to bog down the operation of Manorbier CC, namely the relationship between Council and Community Association and declarations of interest. If you let him succeed you could end up in as big a mess as Manorbier CC.

Don't listen to Cllr Calver, he has his own agenda and he is certainly not an expert in the regulations governing the operation of community councils.

He says on his website (for those of you who are not already aware manorbier.com is Cllr Calver's website) that "The procedure that councillors must adopt is clearly set out in their Standing Orders of the Council" (sic). I am not familiar with St Florence CC Standing Orders and there may or may not be a standing order relating to declaration of interest but the legal document that covers declarations of interest is the "Conduct of Members (Model Code of Conduct) (Wales) Order 2001 (SI 2001/2289) (W117)" which all councillors sign up to when taking office.

Cllr Calver's website again " Councillors were asked by Cllr Calver on several occasions to declare what their interest was..." It is not the prerogative of anyone to ask councillors about their interests nor should they be allowed to do so in Council. The rules state that a declaration of interest is a matter solely for the individual councillor concerned to decide . Councillors can, of course, seek guidance from the Clerk and Chairman and, as a final authority, the Monitoring Officer of Pembrokeshire CC. It is not up to other councillors or members of the public to question an individual councillor on their interests.

If some councillors also sit on the committee of the Community Association then there may be conflicts of interest so I suggest that St Florence CC would be well advised to write to the Monitoring Officer explaining the situation in full and ask for his advice and guidance. Even if interests exist the Standards Committee of Pembrokeshire CC can still grant dispensations. Again ask the Monitoring Officer.

Cllr Calver states "when an interest becomes apparent a councillor must declare an interest, disclose the nature of the interest and then withdraw from the meeting". Although the first part of this statement is true the part about withdrawing from the meeting does not always apply. There are certain types of interest where the councillor with the interest can remain in the meeting and speak on the subject but not vote. Again get unbiased advice from the Monitoring Officer, don't listen to Cllr Calver's distorted interpretation of the rules.

Finally, why do you allow this man to speak at your Council meetings? He has no right to do so!

The law says that only members of your Council should speak while the Council meeting is underway. Exceptions to this rule are if someone, not a member of the Council, is on rare occasions allowed to speak at the invitation of the Chairman or by a resolution in Council. Cllr Calver is not a member of your Council so when your Council is in session he has no more rights than any other member of the public. He has no extra rights by virtue of being a County Councillor. Again, you can confirm this with the Monitoring Officer.

Be on your guard St Florence CC.

Speak to the Monitoring Officer without delay and get these matters sorted out.

Good luck.

Happy Christmas Manorbier

2006-12-23T15:10:00.000Z

As the season of goodwill to all men (and women) is now upon us I would like to wish you all a Happy Christmas and a peaceful and productive New Year. May you receive the blessings and good fortune that you wish for others. Remember that after your family and friends the next most important thing is the community that you live in.

Manorbier Taxpayer - xenophobe?

2006-12-16T15:44:00.000Z

The semi-literate xenophobic rantings of "Manorbier Taxpayer" in his post of 13th December http://manorbiertaxpayer.blogspot.com/2006/12/i-am-not-on-benefits.html
really does mark an all time low in Manorbier blogging.

Since it's obviously not possible to conduct a serious debate with someone who holds these extreme and bigoted views I won't waste my time trying. Instead I'll pose a few questions that he might like to consider and perhaps provide some answers to.

Back in 2004 when the 10 Community Council seats were up for elections only 7 people could be bothered to put their names forward! Where were you when our community needed your help?

It is to my deep regret that I didn't come forward for the Council at that time. It was only when the issue of Night Firing arose and I became aware of the digraceful conduct of certain councillors that I decided I should try to do something, which was why I set up this blog.

You say you think the Council should do things properly. So who should decide what constitutes doing things properly - you?

I suspect what you mean is if the Council do things you approve of that is proper, but if they do things you don't approve of that isn't proper.

A rather self-centred attitude don't you think?

You'll no doubt be pleased, as we all are, that the Christmas tree is now standing.

Did you take up my suggestion that you should volunteer to help? I doubt it.

The rest of your rant doesn't merit any reponse except to say that I feel a sense of sadness and shame that my village can harbour someone with your views!

Caveat:

Although, in the above post I have treated "Manorbier Taxpayer" at face value I do have serious doubts. I have strong suspicions that the person behind this blog is not the semi-literate they would have us think. So, reader, I urge you to look on all blogs(even my own) with the critical eye of experience and judge them for yourself , as independently and impartially as you can.

For the benefit of "Manorbier Taxpayer" xenophobia = an intense or irrational dislike or fear of strangers

The Welfare State Whingers

2006-12-11T14:31:00.000Z

The latest post by someone who calls himself "Manorbier Tax Payer" is typical of what I call the 'Welfare State Whingers'. They are very hot on their 'rights' and are quick to hold out their hands for any benefits that are going and expect some mysterious 'they' to do everything for them without wanting to lift a finger to help themselves or others. When it comes to the 'responsibilities' that go with 'rights' they suddenly become very quiet and sit on their hands.

"Manorbier Tax Payer's" current whinge is that the Manorbier Christmas tree was not put up as quickly as he would have liked. He puts the sole blame on the Community Council who "...cant be bothered to put "OUR" xmas tree up" (sic).

Can I suggest he shows the Christmas spirit that he thinks is lacking in the Community Council and gets up of his backside and volunteers to lend a hand to erect the tree, it is after all YOUR tree! That way you can enjoy Christmas in the knowledge that you have done at least one thing this year to help your local community.

It only takes a telephone call to the Chairman and an hour of your precious time.

Why Didn't One of You Take the Minutes Then? cont...

2006-12-09T23:26:00.000Z

I really seem to have hit a raw nerve with Cllr Martin Davies judging by his latest post (4:28 pm 9th December) on his blog "Manorbier Life". It appears he is so short of logical and reasoned argument that he is forced to descend to the level of personal abuse, calling me 'yellow' and a 'village idiot', always the sign of someone on very shaky ground with no valid arguments left. Still, if it makes him feel better it doesn't upset me, so you go ahead Cllr Davies bring the council into disrepute again - I've been called worse things by much better men than you and I'm still going strong!

With his wide knowledge of the law, Cllr Davies should be familiar with the rules surrounding the working of community councils but when it comes to the duties of the vice-chairman it seems that he falls flat on his face!

Let me try, once again, to enlighten him. The only extra duty falling to the vice-chairman is, as the title suggests, to chair meetings in the absence of the chairman, nothing more nothing less. With this one exception he has exactly the same responsibilities and duties as every other member of the council. So with that in mind one has to ask why, when Cllrs Davies, Calver and Kidney declined to take the minutes, Cllrs Davies and Calver thought there was nothing untoward or sinister about their decision. On the other hand when Cllr Coleman also declined this was to be interpreted as the sign of some dark plot? A rather warped and biased point of view don't you think?

Since both Cllr Davies and Cllr Calver seemed to get so hot under the collar when Cllr Coleman declined to take the minutes and failed to 'help' the council I must repeat my original question.

If they were so convinced that there was some dire plot afoot then why didn't either Cllr Davies or Cllr Calver put a stop to it by stepping in to volunteer to take the minutes themselves and 'help' the council?

This is a very simple and easily answered question but one which seems to cause them considerable difficulty!

According to Cllr Davies their only reason for declining to take the minutes was because Cllr Coleman wasn't prepared to and they weren't going to do something Cllr Coleman wouldn't do!

I really can't believe that they are both such timid sheep that they meekly follow Cllr Coleman's lead in everything!

Why Didn't You Offer to Take the Minutes Then?

2006-12-09T13:42:00.000Z

I see that Cllrs Davies and Cllr Calver have both rushed to publish their distorted, but strangely similar, versions of the December meeting of the Community Council.

Let me put the record straight. I have spoken to 3 of the 5 councillors present when the meeting opened and to 1 member of the public, their account is a little different.

The Chairman opened the meeting and announced that because Cllr Neads, the Proper Officer, was unable to attend the meeting he was asking councillors if one of them would volunteer to take the minutes. There were no volunteers so the Chairman had no option but to adjourn the meeting(it is a legal requirement that minutes are taken at council meetings).

Both Cllr Calver and Cllr Davies suggest in their posts that someone had something to hide.

If they were genuinely concerned that there was some dire plot underway they had a simple and effective way to forestall it. One of them could have offered to take the minutes but, strangely, they too declined to do so, I wonder why!

So I repeat the question I posed in the title of this blog.

Why didn't either Davis or Calver offer to take the minutes.

If, as they seem to suggest, there is some guilt attached to not wanting to take the minutes of the meeting then it attaches equally to them. Perhaps they are the ones with something to hide! Think about it.

A Letter to the Editor of the Western Telegraph

2006-12-06T18:47:00.000Z

Dear Editor

I waited with interest to see if there would be any letters published in your 6th December edition commenting on the article by Simon Carr "Beware of potential pitfalls or risk being forced to 'blog off'" (29th November). Its a great pity you didn't see fit to let any of your readers reply to your extremely one sided picture of blogging.

I will comment mainly from the point of view of my own blog without getting too deeply into the debate on blogging in general.

The first impression I got on reading your article was that it was an attempt on your part to placate Cllr Calver after you had the temerity to report his behaviour in relation to pupils in Manorbier Primary School in your previous edition. Perhaps I'm being too cynical!

The article asserts that "...many people believe these new opportunities are fraught with danger". Who are these 'many people' and what is the danger? You seem to have only spoken to three people. Cllr Calver, a man who cannot stand legitimate criticism and questioning whether by blog or by newspaper, Owain Carter, who believes that the benefits of blogging greatly outweigh the potential problems and your legal adviser, David Scott, who quite rightly points out that the same laws that apply to newspapers apply equally to blogs.

You go on to say "...gives everyone ... a way of publishing their views without screening or censorship". Surely this is a good thing, this is one of the main strengths of blogs. I am amazed that a newspaper would give a millimetre of column space to the idea that any form of publishing should be subject to censorship!

Remember, with censorship there must be a censor (a post that Cllr Calver would apply for like a shot) and if blogs become subject to censorship how long before newspapers follow?

Your next point "Some people can abuse the facility, making up lies, spreading rumours or bullying ... while remaining anonymous" seems to imply that the subject of a blog is powerless to rebut what is said. Not so! A person who is the subject of a blog has a full right of reply, he or she can set up their own blog to counter any accusations made. Some blogs, my own included, also allow a right of reply by the posting of comments.

When Cllr Calver's supporters accused me of posting lies I responded with the article entitled "An Offer They Can't Refuse" (20 March 2006).

What I said in that article was:

"Well here is an offer to Martin Davies and Malcolm Calver and anyone else who thinks they know the truth. Tell me which parts of my blog are untrue and provide me with your 'documentary evidence' and I will post it in this blog and if your evidence in irrefutable I will even post a full apology"

Needless to say this offer was greeted with a deafening silence.

Now lets consider "There is no system in place to ensure that what is published ... is legally, morally or factually sound". Both criminal and civil law are available if blog writers step outside the law. As to moral soundness, who is to be the judge of the moral soundness of a blog? Perhaps the same person who is going to wield the censor's blue pencil? If transgressing the bounds of morality were a crime then a major percentage of the population would be in jail. As for being factually sound, I endeavour to publish the truth as I'm sure you do, but what publications are ever completely factually sound and can we ever find the whole truth indeed is there such a thing as absolute truth? I learnt many years ago not to believe unconditionally what I read, hear or see in the media and I would advise others to adopt the same attitude.

Oh dear! so"Cllr Calver experienced the unpleasant side of blogging" did he! What Cllr Calver finds unpleasant about the Manorbier blogs is that they mock and ridicule him, something that the self important find intolerable, and worse still the blogs ask uncomfortable and awkward questions about his conduct as our County Councillor. This ability to question is still a right that we all enjoy however inconvenient and uncomfortable politicians may find it and however much they would love to silence us.

Indeed Cllr Calver succeeded in closing down a campaign run by the opponents of night firing at Manorbier that they had running on one of the BBC community sites.

Cllr Calver's statement "It bothers me that people are able to say what they like about anyone" really does take first prize for hypocrisy, for years he has been running his own website on which he has been saying exactly what he likes about other members of the Community Council with scant regard for the truth. Now that he is on the receiving end he suddenly thinks freedom of speech might not be such a good idea after all! A case of the biter bit?

Providing what we say is not libellous then we still have a modicum of free speech in this country however uncomfortable the truth may be to the likes of Cllr Calver.

He goes on to say "I think it is disgraceful that the police say that they can do nothing about it". I am sure that if the writers of the Manorbier blogs were doing or saying anything illegal then the police would take action but until the day the "thought police" become a reality we will continue to ask those awkward and uncomfortable questions of our elected representatives - indeed that is still our right. The fact that we do it anonymously is completely irrelevant.

Finally, can I suggest that one of the reasons for the anonymity of the Manorbier blogs is Cllr Calver's propensity to threaten anyone who opposes or upsets him with legal action which, however unlikely to be carried through or succeed, does deterred some people. (Does this sound familiar to you Mr Editor?).

Yours in search of the truth

Manorbier Sam

Weasel Words from Pembrokeshire County Council

2006-11-23T17:39:00.000Z

Following my recent post under the title 'Bringing the Council into disrepute - again', when I reported on Cllr Calver's inappropriate actions in relation to pupils of Manorbier Primary School, I was pleased to see that the Western Telegraph printed a report in their 15th November issue confirming what I said in my post.

Its heartening that at least they had the backbone to print this story naming names, unlike the Tenby Observer which could only manage a tiny entry tucked away at the bottom of page 37 and didn't even have the guts to name Cllr Calver. Its sad to see a once respected local newspaper reduced to little more that an advertising tabloid afraid of it's own shadow.

My main reason for coming back to this topic is the absolutely unbelievable response to this affair by Pembrokeshire County Council spokesman Len Mullins as reported by the Western Telegraph. When questioned on the matter Mr Mullins' feeble reply was "This is an internal matter for the school to deal with".

Well, I'm sorry Mr Mullins you can't get PCC of the hook so easily!

I'm sure we would all like to know how Mr Mullins thinks PCC has no responsibility in this matter. Since Cllr Calver is the Pembrokeshire County Council LEA appointee to the board of governors of Manorbier Primary School his actions bring PCC and the LEA into disrepute.

They cannot sweep this matter under the carpet!

They have a duty under the code of conduct to report this to the Ombudsman and should do so at once!

They have the power to remove him as their representative on the board of governors and should do so at once!

The school and board of governors deserve the full support of the LEA, lets see them get it!

Perhaps the Western Telegraph would care to follow up on this point?

Over to you PCC, lets see some evidence of your backbone.

By the way, don't try to pretend that you don't read the Manorbier Blogs, I know that they seep into the rarified atmosphere of County Hall by one route or the other.

Manorbier Community Council Meeting - Thursday 2nd November

2006-11-07T18:14:00.000Z

You're all corrupt!

This was the cry that was heard from a member of the public at the meeting of the Manorbier Community Council on Thursday November 2nd.

One of the items under discussion was the recent court case brought by ICT Marketing against the Council.

Previous discussions by the Council of this case have been in confidential sessions of the Council. A not unreasonable course of action since discussion in public would have meant forewarning the opposition of the Council's tactics in advance of the court case.

Since the hearing of the case has now finished the need for confidentiality has ceased so, at last Thursday's meeting, the Chairman gave a brief update to councillors in open session.

Later in the meeting a letter was read out from a member of the public, Mr John Tew, asking for information under the Freedom of Information Act. The Council's Proper Officer, Councillor David Neads, said that gathering the requested information would entail a considerable amount of work on his part and he then described Mr Tew as a "problem". Councillors Davies and Meyrick thought that Councillor Neads should not have used the term "problem".

To place Cllr Neads comment in context, it is worth looking at the behaviour of Mr Tew over the last couple of years.

Mr Tew is a chronic "serial" complainer. Since the new Council was formed in June 2004 he has put in numerous formal complaints to the Local Government Ombudsman alleging misconduct by various Councillors. (I don't know the exact number of complaints - perhaps one of the Councillors would like to leave a comment on this blog to let us know the exact number.) Some of these complaints have been resolved and I think I am right in saying that of those that have been resolved none have been found to have any substance. Some are still waiting to be resolved. The law requires that any formal complaint to the Ombudsman or the Monitoring Officer of Pembrokeshire County Council must be investigated. Each of these complaints wastes a considerable amount of individual Councillor's time in answering them and the time spent by the Ombudsman is paid from general taxation and if the Monitoring Officer becomes involved the cost is to the council taxpayer. No doubt Mr Tew will say that his reasons for this avalanche of complaints a wish to see Council business conducted properly and we might even believe this if he was even handed in his targets, but when we see that practically all his spleen is vented on only three Councillors (Cllr Tony Wales, Cllr David Neads and Cllr Pat Griffiths) one has to question his real motives.

The law also gives individuals the right to information held by the Council and Mr Tew is a most vigorous user of this law having made numerous requests to the Council for information with the letter read out by Councillor Neads at Thursady's meeting being the last in a long line. So one can have some sympathy with Cllr Neads use of the description "problem".

This rather mild rebuke seemed to get under Mr Tew's skin and he started to accuses the Councillors of "always meeting in secret" and then really "lost it" and accused Cllr Wales of being corrupt, When Cllr Wales objected to this accusation, Mr Tew widened his accusation to all the councillors present, shouting several times "you're all corrupt".

Well, Mr Tew, I wonder how long it will be before you hear the thud of solicitor's letters on your doormat?

Bringing the Council into Disrepute - Again!

It seems that Cllr Malcolm Calver has put his foot in it again.

At last Thursday's Council meeting two letters written by a lady in Jameston were read out. One was to the Chair of the Governors of Manorbier Primary School and the other was to the Monitoring Officer of Pembrokeshire County Council.

Both were complaining about Cllr Calver's behaviour in questioning her children about an alleged incidence of vandalism. The first incident took place while the children were playing in the street when Cllr Calver threaten the boys with the police. When one of the boys asked who he was he refused to identify himself and when the boy offered to fetch his parents Cllr Calver got back into his car and drove off. Unforntunately for Cllr Calver one of the other boys in the group recognised him.

To compound this unwise behaviour the letters go on to report the second, much more serious, incident which involved Cllr Calver going into the boy's class in Manorbier Primary School and questioning him without the permission of the head teacher and without the presence of his parents or a responsible adult. Now as I understand the law even the police are not allowed to question a minor without the presence of a responsible adult so what makes Cllr Calver think he can?

It was this intrusion into the school which most upset the boy's parents and in her letter to the Board of Governors the mother asked for a formal enquiry into the matter.

We understand that the Governors set up a Complaints Committee to consider the matter and that this committee has now looked into the facts and have upheld the mother's complaint. It is unclear what sanctions, if any, are available to the School Governors but one would have thought that the least Cllr Calver could do would be to resign as a governor.

The boy's mother has asked the Monitoring Officer to look into her complaint against Cllr Calver and has also made a formal complaint to the police.

We look forward with interest to any action which either may take.

What a Bore!

2006-07-26T16:14:00.000Z

I had intended a summer free from blogging to enjoy the wonderful weather that we are having and spend a little time on the water. But I can't let it pass without comment when Cllr Malcolm Calver spits out another of his venomous and truth mangling articles on his website (manorbier.com).

The subject was the meeting of Manorbier Community Council on Monday 17th July when Mr Phillip Newman of ACAS gave the Council his thoughts on the Council's position in the pending Employment Tribunal hearing.

Let's look at Cllr Calver's allegations:

He says it was a secret session, but the meeting had been advertised on community notice boards for the statutory period required by law so anyone who was interested would have known the meeting was taking place.

When the meeting started the Council voted in favour of a resolution to go into private session because the matter to be discussed was a claim for wrongful dismissal by Mrs P Davies (former Clerk) and would inevitably contain references specific to Mrs Davies, which I'm sure she wouldn't want in the public domain.

This is also the reason why Mr Newman said he couldn't talk to the Council in open session as he would be giving advice on a specific case.

At this point it is worth noting that, although the discussion was specifically about his wife's claim and possible monetary compensation against the Council, Cllr Davies refused to declare an interest and remained in the meeting when members of the public left. It would also be interesting to know if he took part in the discussion. Perhaps one of the councillors present would like to tell us? Surely his failure to declare an interest is a breach of the Code of Conduct?

On Cllr Calver's bleat about costs to local council tax payers, if he had taken the trouble to read the literature which all councillors received from ACAS he would have seen that the service provided by ACAS is funded by central government and costs the local council tax payer NOTHING. So, no, Cllr Calver this will NOT be "another high expenditure item requiring local financial support from the charge payers".

Perhaps Cllr Calver would like to tell us why he seems so opposed to the involvement of ACAS, which, for his information, I will spell out in full. ACAS, The Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service. No doubt conciliation and arbitration are words foreign to Cllr Calver's vocabulary, his favorite word seems to be confrontation.

But enough of that and on to other things.

Since I have been prodded into starting blogging again and since I have been accused in the past of spreading village gossip I'll do just that but to avoid being accused of libel I'll name no names although I'm sure most of my readers will know who I'm referring to.

Who is the councillor who has developed the bad habit of wandering into people's houses unannounced and uninvited and in some cases surprising the inhabitants in various stages of undress?

Much more serious, the rumour mill has it that this same councillor has been questioning various children about alleged vandalism both in the street and on one occasion entering Manorbier school without the head teacher's knowledge and questioning a child when no teacher was present. I hear that the mother of the children in question has written to the Board of Governors of Manorbier school asking for an official enquiry, and complained to the police and the Monitoring Officer of Pembrokeshire County Council . If this story is true then we must hope that these bodies treat this matter with the seriousness that it deserves and no attempt is made to 'sweep it under the carpet'.

How Desperate Can You Get?

2006-04-26T23:48:00.000Z

An interesting little farce was played out at Monday night's Manorbier Community Council meeting whose main objective seemed to have been a desperate attempt to hamper the working of the Council. One wonders who might be behind this latest effort to obstruct normal council business. Whoever they are, they have now become desperate enough to involve members of the public in their destructive little games.

The only item on the agenda was discussion of the impending court case being brought by ICT Marketing.

Because of the confidential nature of the discussion the Council passed a resolution to exclude members of the public. The reason that the Council voted to exclude the public was to avoid putting any information into the public domain that would be of assistance to ICT in their case against the Council. It seems only sensible not to give your opponent ammunition to use against you and the Council's decision to exclude the public was a perfectly legal one. The Chairman also reported that ICT had obtained information from the website run by Clr Calver that they intended using in the court case.

The only two members of the public present at the meeting were Mr & Mrs Tew.

When the Chairman asked members of the public to leave, Mr Tew left the meeting but Mrs Tew decided she was not going to acceed to the Council's lawful decision and remained seated.

It is worth noting at this stage that Mr Tew left the meeting without bothering to ask his wife why she was staying. This leads us to ask the question, could Mrs Tew's refusal to leave have been pre-arranged attempt to disrupt council business and who, besides Mrs Tew, was involved in planning this little event?

When asked by the Chairman, Mrs Tew declined to give any reason for her refusal to leave.

The Chairman then told Mrs Tew that he had no alternative but to call the police. Mrs Tew still refused to leave.

When the police arrived the Chairman explain the situation. The police officer then requested that the Council adjourn the meeting and councillors leave the hall so that he could talk to Mrs Tew in private.

Councillors reluctantly agreed to leave and as they got up to go grins were exchanged between Mrs Tew and Clr Calver who, incidentally, was the only councillor to refuse the police request and who remained in the hall while the police officer questioned Mrs Tew.

Eventually Mrs Tew agreed to leave and the police officer then explained to members of the Council that Mrs Tew had refused to leave, when the resolution to exclude the public was passed, because she thought it was wrong for the Council to conduct its discussions of the ICT court case in private.

Perhaps I could suggest that she asks her husband if she can borrow his copy of 'Local Council Administration' by Charles Arnold-Baker and look at chapter 7 para E where Arnold-Baker discusses when it is appropriate for councils to exclude the public and press. I quote "As a rule,however, it is desirable to treat the discussions of the following types of business as confidential:- .... (c) preparation of cases in legal proceedings".

I await Mrs Tew's reply, if any, with considerable interest.

The Smoke Filled Room

2006-04-10T16:23:00.000Z

Since my post 'On the Question of Bank Signatories' appeared several new blogs have sprung into existence, two of which take the same general line, namely, that the information contained in the post was in some way confidential or restricted. I'll comment on an extract from one of these new blogs posted by Llamedos (A fan of Dylan Thomas or Terry Pratchett?).

Quote:

"Broadcasting information of a restricted nature in any other organisation is called ‘leaking’.

Does it now mean that no council matter can remain confidential. If information has not been mentioned or discussed in a session open to the public and press then it is confidential and should remain so until it becomes mentioned at an open council meeting."

I'm sorry to have to drag you into the 21st Century, Llamedos, but in these days of 'Open Government' and the Freedom of Information Act very little information in the possession of the Council is either restricted or confidential.

This is a verbatim extract from Dept of Constitutional Affairs website.

"The Freedom of Information Act came into force on 1 January 2005.

Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, anybody may request information from a public authority which has functions in England, Wales and/or Northern Ireland. The Act confers two statutory rights on applicants:

To be told whether or not the public authority holds that information; and if so,
To have that information communicated to them."

Now this is a very simplistic summary of the Act but it means that, with certain very limited exceptions, which the Act defines, no information held by the Council can be deemed either restricted or confidential and thus withheld from the public and press and certainly the Council cannot arbitrarily decide that a piece of information is restricted and it doesn't need to be discussed in open Council before it is released. Even if a particular piece of information is covered by one of the permitted exemptions there is still the requirement to apply a test of 'public interest' which means that if it can be shown to be in the public interest to reveal it then it must be revealed. The days of conducting Council business behind closed doors in smoke filled rooms should be a thing of the past. I would also be interested to know why you think this information should have remained 'confidential'. Don't you think the Community have a right to know? This affair will no doubt cause more than a little embarrassment to individual councillors, the ex-Clerk and indeed, the Council as a whole, but that is no reason to suppress the information.

On the Question of Bank Signatories

2006-04-08T00:00:00.000Z

What do you call a man who signs cheques for Manorbier Community Council without proper authorisation?

The answer is Clr Malcolm Calver.

Every cheque that the Community Council pays out must be approved by a vote of the full Council and must be signed by two properly authorised councillors.

The process of authorising councillors to sign cheques on behalf of the Council is twofold.

Firstly a vote in Council is needed to approve the individuals as cheque signatories.

The second step of the process is that the individual who is approved by the Council to become an authorised signatory must provide proof of identity to the bank and sign a bank mandate. This is a legal requirement on all banks.

We now find out that, for several years, Clr Malcolm Calver has been signing cheques drawn on the Community Council bank account without being properly mandated to do so.

The bank has no record of Clr Calver ever completing the legal requirements necessary for being approved as a signatory by them.

I’m sure that if any of my readers were asked to become cheque signatories for an organisation of which they were members they would make very certain that all the legal requirements were in place before they started signing any cheques.

Apparently Clr Calver doesn’t think such legal niceties are important enough to apply to him.

You will not be surprised when I tell you that, shortly after the news of this very serious financial blunder had become public, the Chairman of Manorbier Community Council, Tony Wales, received a rather hurried email from Clr Calver stating the he no longer wished to be a cheque signatory for the Council. In this email he adopts his usual “It wasn’t me Guv it was three other blokes” approach to apportioning blame by implying that his decision was prompted by actions take by the Chairman. He has also visited the bank to tell them he is withdrawing as a signatory. They, in turn, no doubt told him his trip was unnecessary as he wasn’t a legal signatory anyway.

Surely Clr Calver doesn’t think that opting out at this late stage is going to absolve him from his share of responsibility in this deplorable state of affairs?

At this moment he will, no doubt, be busily compiling a list of all the people who, in his opinion, are responsible for his blunder and you can be certain his name won’t be on the list.

Let us consider who should bear the blame.

It could be argued that the bank has a degree of blame in this affair because they have been accepting these cheques for some years without query, but as anyone who has had a reasonable amount of dealings with banks will realise they don’t check signatures.

Without doubt Clr Calver must shoulder his share of the blame. The Code of Conduct that all Councillors sign requires them to conduct themselves according to the law and not do anything to bring the Council into disrepute.

I’m sure that to any reasonable person this affair would be seen as bringing the Council into disrepute.

Whether signing cheques without proper authorisation is within the law I will leave others to judge.

There is someone else who must also take a share of the blame. Until recently the Council had a Clerk who was also the Responsible Financial Officer. In this role she was required to look after the Council’s financial affairs included in which the proper control of Council banking played an important part. Since it only took two or three telephone conversations between the Chairman and the bank to discover this problem, why in the years she was carrying out the role of Responsible Financial Officer, when she was no doubt speaking to the bank on a weekly basis, did the Clerk never bring the matter to the attention of the Council?

Now perhaps I may be allowed to pose a few questions that I don’t have the answers to.

Were all the cheques sign by Clr Calver legal?

What action might be open to the bank?

What action might be open to the Council?

Will the External Auditor feel obliged to intervene?

Should Clr Calver be reported to the Ombudsman and Monitoring Officer?

What do you think?

National Park Delays MOD Night Firing Decision

2006-04-06T22:57:00.000Z

The National Park Planning Committee have delayed consideration of the MOD Night Firing Application until Wednesday 17th May.
.
The reason for the deferment given by the national park is that, despite requests by the park’s planning office, the MOD did not submit the recent sound-monitoring figures in time for appraisal by the authority’s sound consultant and inclusion in April’s meeting.
.
A spokesman for the National Park said that the MOD figures were received by the Park last Tuesday and passed on to their noise consultant. However, this means the planning officer will not have enough time to compile her report, which is sent out to the Development Management Committee before the meeting.
.
It is understood that the MoD's submission of the necessary information to the authority was delayed because their noise specialist was ill.
.
“The results of the noise monitoring is essential for the report which has to be written some time in advance of the actual Development Management Committee,” said a National Park spokesman.
.
“As the next Development Management Committee meeting takes place on April 19th there will be insufficient time in which to prepare the report to committee and the application will therefore be deferred.”

Caldey Island Monks Join Opposition to Night Firing

2006-03-23T12:11:00.000Z

The campaign against Night Firing on the Manorbier range has gained a new supporter. The Abbot of Caldey has written to the Pembrokeshire Coast National Park opposing the MOD application. See pembrokeshiretv.com for more.

And They Say a Leopard Can't Change His Spots

2006-03-22T18:24:00.000Z

If you look at the Pembrokeshire County Council website and follow the links to your County Councillor's details you will find Clr L M Calver listed under "County Councillors - Independent Non Aligned"

All those electors who voted for Clr Calver in the last County Council Elections thinking they were voting for an "Independent" might be interested in this article from the today's Western Telegraph.
.

(From the Western Telegraph - 22 March 2006)

MANORBIER

THE AGM of the Manorbier and District Conservative Association was held recently. After his election as president, Milton Bradley-Kidd took the chair for the election of officers and thanked everybody for their help throughout the year. The elections were as follows: chairman Clive Mathias, vice chairman Douglas Benham, secretary Jackie Barnett, treasurer Joan Beddoes, press officer Molly Bradley-Kidd, executive members Clive Mathias, Malcolm Calver and Vernon Evans, Constituency Women's Council Molly Baker. During the meeting, considerable disquiet was expressed over the sudden resignation of the candidate selected for the Welsh Assembly Election to be held next year, and that it was hoped that the matter would be fully investigated.

____________________________________________

An aside to Old Grumpy - it seems you may be the only true Independent in County Hall after all!
____________________________________________

Tony Wales answers Old Grumpy here

Community Council Fires Clerk

2006-03-21T13:22:00.000Z

It now emerges that, at their extra-ordinary meeting on Monday 13th March, Manorbier Community Council voted by 7 to 2 in favour of sacking the Clerk. There were several reasons for the dismissal but, I understand, the main one was gross misconduct. The Chairman, Clr Tony Wales, instructed the Clerk to call an extra-ordinary meeting of the Council. This instruction was sent to the Clerk on two occasions by email, both of which she ignored, and on a third occasion the Chairman handed her written instructions in the presence of witnesses. In response to this third instruction the Clerk wrote a letter to the Chairman flatly stating that she would not call the meeting. These refusals to obey a lawful instruction from the Chairman are insubordination amounting to gross misconduct and gave the Council no alternative but to dismiss the Clerk. The decision will now, no doubt, be the subject of an appeal by the Clerk.

An Offer They Can't Refuse?

2006-03-20T00:20:00.000Z

This is Martin Davies' latest comment posted to this blog -

Sorry to disappoint - schmitblog has nothing to do with me. I am quite happy to be open with my comments and criticism - I have no reason to hid behind anonymity. I do however think it such a pity to have someone such as yourself who thinks they are a "political journalist" who likes to use the excuse of writing under a pseudonym in order to churn out this nonsense in the community. Oldgrumpy compared this cowardice to poison-pen letters - spot on.
I am sure you have many friends who would vote for you in the unlikely event that you stand for council....!?
With regard to your comment "he forgot that his blog name is a link to his blog" - that was a purposeful act. Nothing like getting exposure to my Blog than by getting it publicised through yours. People reading your blog will now read mine. Thanks for the publicity. If your quest is for "trying to get at the truth" - you should widen your network. I have knowledge - which I can prove with documentary evidence (which I have lodged with my Lawyer) - that would make you cringe.Perhaps some of it could be useful to you. Personally, I don't believe that to be your aim at all - judging by some of the stuff I have read so far, you do not seem to be interested in fulfilling your own ambitions. We will see....

Sorry Clr Davies I didn't say I was a political journalist, you really should read posts more carefully before commenting.

Oh dear! I've inadvertently given Clr Davies a link to his blog. Well silly me! How could I have fallen into such an obvious trap! It seems I don't have a devious and cunning mind like Clr Davies.

As for giving publicity to his blog he is more than welcome and I would encourage my readers to look at it and make their own judgments.

As for your documentary evidence please lets have it out in the open - if you can prove it to be the truth I will be more that happy to publish it in my blog.

Two points which have emerged from this and previous comments from Martin Davies and schmitblog are that they claim I am talking nonsense or listening to the wrong people with the implication that I am writing lies and don't want to get at the truth.

Well here is a offer to Martin Davies and Malcolm Calver and anyone else who thinks they know the truth: Tell me which parts of my blog are untrue and provide me with your 'documentary evidence' and I will post it in this blog and if the evidence is irrefutable I will even post a full apology.

As a condition of this offer I would, of course, expect Clr Calver to come clean on the question - was he asked by PCNPA to comment on the MOD planning application in his role as County Councillor - or did he just write in with his comments as any member of the public has the right to? And in either case why did he think it wasn't necessary to consult the community he was elected to represent before writing? I'm sure our readers would also like to know why Clr Calver protested to the BBC about Chas Cochrane's campaign page against night firing. I would also expect Clr Davies to tell us the real reason behind his letter to the planning authority opposing a site visit.

A final thought about Clr Davies' alleged evidence, he doesn't say what the nature of this evidence is. If it is against a councillor or councillors regarding breaches of LGA codes, Clr Davies is under a duty to give the evidence to the Monitoring Officer or he himself will be in breach of the Code of Conduct. If it is evidence of a criminal nature then no doubt the police would have something to say about Clr Davies withholding evidence.

Chas Cochrane Answers (or The Dead Hand of Censorship)

2006-03-19T17:38:00.000Z

In my post 'On the Question of Anonymity (2)' I asked who it might be that was 'leaning' on the BBC causing them to suspend the anti-night firing campaign page that Chas Cochrane had posted on their Action Network. Chas has answered on his own blog "Manorbier County Councillor Exposed" with a copy of the email he received from the BBC and as many of us suspected the 'leaner' is County Clr Calver.

Long Weekend

2006-03-17T00:30:00.000Z

Having a long weekend break, back on the web late Sunday. Don't do anything interesting until then, I'd hate to miss out.

On the Question of Anonymity (2)

2006-03-16T19:18:00.000Z

There seems to be a desperate attempt by certain people to find my identity and that of my fellow Manorbier bloggers. I wonder why? Could it be that they think knowing my name will make it easier for them in their efforts to shut down my blog and stifle any opposition to them? Even Old Grumpy aka. Clr Mike Stoddart has weighed in with an article on his website calling us "gutless wonders" and accusing us of sending "poison pen letters". I'm rather puzzled why Clr Stoddart should feel he has to get involved in the present debate and would have thought, as someone who has had a least one website pulled from under him by his political opponents, he would have been a little more understanding of my motives for remaining un-named. It is also worth mentioning at this point that the campaign page set up on the BBC Action Network website by the opponents of the MOD Night Firing application has been suspended "for moderation" which is legal speak for "someone is leaning on us and we are worried about legal action" I wonder who might be doing the leaning? So it seems there are attempts to silence this campaign. Perhaps Chas Cochrane, the author of the campaign page, can enlighten us. Reading oldgrumpy's website in the past I had always thought of him as a true independent who was the thorn in the side of PCC's "Independents" that any majority party needs to keep it on the straight and narrow. I admired him for his valiant efforts to scrutinise certain councillors expense claims. It is unfortunate that he now seems to have aligned himself with some rather dubious friends, I hope I am wrong and if I am I apologise to Clr Stoddart. Finally, since we are talking about anonymity, just a very mild rebuke to Clr Stoddart - a new visitor to your website would not have any obvious indication who the author was. PS I've given you a link (Hows that for being fair?)

On the Question of Anonymity

2006-03-15T00:57:00.000Z

Still waiting to find out what happened at the meeting of the Community Council on Monday 13th. The Agenda had one item "Staffing/personnel issues". The meeting was conducted in private. Have heard a few whispers but nothing definite yet and since I don't publish rumours we will have to await developments.

Manorbier left a comment on my post "A Few Thoughts on Manorbier Council (2)"

I quote:

"You obviously have no understanding of what has gone on.
I suggest you stop listening to the nonsense you are being drip fed by others and wait to see what the truth brings out.
We will then see who's fault it all is.....
Hiding behind anonymity is the cowardly way of spreading rumour.
My name is Martin Davies - never afraid to stand behind anything I have to say.
So, what is your name..?"

I thought it would be useful to bring his comment onto the main page and answer it here.

His main problem seems to be that I write under a blog name. As I am sure he knows this is quite usual in the blogging world. It is also a long tradition in journalism for political comment to be written under a pseudonym. The reason I do so is to try to get at the unvarnished truth, because as long as the people I talk to don't know I write a blog they are more likely to speak openly and honestly but if they do know there is a very real danger they will either not talk at all or feed me information in an attempt to 'spin' my writing to reflect their own views and prejudices. I am trying to get at the truth without being influenced by either side, a concept that Martin Davies seems to have difficulty in understanding. You only have to look at his own blog Manorbier Community to see a vendetta, mainly against Clr Wales, which Martin Davies writes under the blog name of Manorbier. Nowhere on his blog is there any indication that it is written by Martin Davis and what is more he doesn't even allow comments on his blog! So "never afraid to stand behind anything I have to say" begins to sound a little bit hypocritical since the blog also depicts Clr Davis as the lone hero struggling against the forces of prejudice, unreason and self interest. The only reason I know that Martin Davies writes Manorbier Community Blog (apart from the content and the appalling writing style) is that when he posted his rather tetchy comment to me he forgot that his blog name is a link to his blog. He should have used a blog name that doesn't have a blog attached like schmitblog, he/she posted just a little later with this,

"Why do you hide behind a blog title. Some of your comments are so childish your credibility has to be suspect. The implications of your text could generate great ill feelings and our society is divided enough as it is. If you are so good why not stand for the council and bring your knowledge, insight and brain power to the benefit of all the community".

I don't know who this is but his/her comment bears a remarkable similarity to Martin Davies' and arrived a few hours later. I refer schmitblog to my answer above for the reason I use a blog name, as for his comment about standing for the council, unfortunately there are no vacancies at the moment but if Clr Davies or Clr Calver would like to resign I would be happy to put my name forward to the voters of Manorbier.

A Few Thoughts on Manorbier Community Council (2)

2006-03-12T16:46:00.000Z

In my last post on this subject I missed out one of the key players in the saga of Manorbier Community Council, the Clerk. When I say key player I really mean key, for without a professional and competent Clerk a Council can find its self in a real mess (Does that sound familiar to you?). How does the Clerk measure up to the standards one would expect from someone in such a responsible post? From the few occasions I have seen her in actions it quickly became obvious that she has difficulty coping with the taking of accurate minutes - she often calls for a halt while she gets a point written down and this difficulty in recording accurate minutes is reflected in the length of time the Council spends correcting the errors in the minutes she produces when they vote to approve the minutes at subsequent meetings. The second role the Clerk is required to play is financial. I don't have any personal knowledge about her competence in this area so will leave others to comment. The third main role of the Clerk is as legal adviser to the Council. I have witnessed several occasions in Council meetings when she has been ask by the Chairman or Councillors to clarify a point of order or legislation and each time the answer has been "I don't know", so she is obviously not familiar with standing orders or the legislation that governs the conduct of councils, although on one of these occasions she did eventually manage to find the section in standing orders that applied. One must ask the question - would a competent Clerk with a full understanding of the legislation have allowed the Council to get into such a mess over the awarding of the contract for the analysis of the Community Appraisal questionnaires that has led to the Council being sued by ICT? This is a question that the Council needs to answer with some urgency.

Night Firing on pembrokeshiretv.com

2006-03-12T01:41:00.000Z

Some reports on the Night Firing Controversy can be found here

The Manorbier Blogger Explosion

2006-03-09T17:55:00.000Z

What have I done? Since I started the Manorbier Blog I seem to have set of a blogger explosion! they are appearing with ever increasing frequency.

First was Bogshot Blogger with Manorbier the Truth Blog . Then came manorbier-stinger, then manorbierbloodhound with this then manorbiermartin and finally even oldgrumpy aka. Clr Mike Stoddart has put in an appearance (I wonder who alerted him??). Who next I wonder. It seems a lot of residents of the Manorbier area have at last woken up to the power of blogging and have found a way to articulate their long pent up feelings about the conduct of Clrs Calver & Davies. Keep it up folks - as Fox Mulder used to say "The truth is out there" PS just found another two manorbiermalcolm and Darth Calver

A Few Thoughts on Manorbier Community Council (1)

2006-03-08T19:49:00.000Z

What can you say about our community Council? I don't very often attend meetings of the Council. Not because I'm not interested in what goes on but because members of the public aren't allowed to say anything while the meeting is in progress and I couldn't sit through a meeting having to listen to the devious nonsense coming from Clrs Calver & Davies without protesting.

Fortunately I have some reliable sources who attend most meetings so I will be reporting on the Council's goings-on from time to time and hopefully rather more truthfully that Clr Calver's fantasy website.

So how is the Council divided up? First there are the "Obstructionist" Clrs Calver & Davies. They behave as their name suggest, they do everything possible to obstruct the business of the council.

There is one "Cross Bencher" Clr Meyrick. I've not made up my mind about Clr Meyrick yet, he seems to want to do the right thing for the community but gives the impression of someone with divided loyalties.

Finally there are the "Progressives" Clrs Wales, Coleman, Neads, Griffiths, Pellowe, Kidney & John.

This group are trying to make the council more effective for the benefit of the community but at the moment are spending most of their time struggling to sort out the mess left by the previous council.

More thought on the Community Council in later posts.

Powered By Qumana

Last Night's Community Council Meeting

2006-03-08T14:15:00.000Z

Some doubt is emerging about Clr Calver's declaration of interest in the Night Firing debate. It is alleged on Manorbier the Truth Blog that perhaps the National Park planners didn't actually ask for Clr Calver's comments on the planning application. I understand, from my sources, that at last night's meeting of the Community Council, Clr Calver wasn't 100% certain that he had been asked to comment. Come on Clr Calver, either you were asked or you were not! So produce the alleged letter from PCNPA and settle the argument. Even if you were asked to comment, you were not forced to do so. You could have declined on the grounds that it would stop you taking part in Community Council debates. This would have been the more community minded course of action. But Clr Calver has his own agenda and prefers to hide behind a procedural smokescreen rather that come out and say he is in favour of the MOD's application. At least his side-kick, Clr Davis, has had the backbone to openly support the application. But alas Clr Davies doesn't seem able to support the majority view of the Community Council. At their meeting on 10th January the Council voted to ask the National Park to defer a decision on the MOD application and asked for a site visit. The following is the text of a letter that Clr Davies wrote to the National Park seeking to undermine the decision of the Council.

16th January 2006

Ms C Milner
Planning Officer
Pembrokeshire Coast National Park
Llanion Park
Pembroke Dock
SA72 6DY

Re: Manorbier Community Council - Firing During The Hours Of Darkness.

Dear Ms Milner

At the Manorbier Community Council meeting held on Tuesday 10th January, it was resolved by the Council to write to Pembrokeshire Coast National Park and ask that you defer your decision and arrange a site meeting, prior to the Council making representation to you in respect of the Planning Application from the MoD for Firing During The Hours Of Darkness.

At this meeting, the Chairman, Cllr Wales, asked all the Councillors, in turn, for their opinions and comments on this Planning Application. Each Councillor explained their position and declared if they were for or against the application. Of the ten Councillors, eight Councillors were against, one for and one who declared an interest.

The Councillors have in effect made their decisions and have stated their views of this application both to the Council and to members of the public who attended the meeting.

Based on the above information, I am of the opinion that a site meeting would therefore be of no constructive use. Surely the whole point of asking for a site meeting, is to gain further understanding to enable Councillors to make an informed decision. Each and every Councillor has already reached that decision. Whether the Community Council has passed this information to you, is a different matter.

The Council have further asked for more monitoring. Again, taking into account the fact that detailed monitoring has already taken place, I do not think it justified to further expend public funds, to essentially duplicate what has already been done.

I do not feel that protracting this issue is beneficial to any party and organising a site meeting and further noise monitoring for Councillors who have already made their decision, is a pointless exercise.

Please consider these views at your earliest opportunity.

Kind regards.

Cllr Martin Davies
Manorbier Community Council.

The original of the letter is held in the National Park planning file which is open to public view.

This is yet another example of the devious and obstructionist tactics used by Davies and Calver to frustrate the majority of reasonable Councillors.

Powered By Qumana

More Revelations about County Clr Calver

2006-03-07T12:24:00.000Z

Check out this new blog which contains some revelations about our elusive County Clr.

Manorbier the Truth Blog

Planning committee site visit on BBC Website

2006-03-07T00:17:00.000Z

Click here then follow the video link

PCNPA Planning Committee visit Manorbier

2006-03-06T17:18:00.000Z

Members of the PCNPA planning committee visited Manorbier this morning to hear the firing of several missiles at the Manorbier Range. They were greeted by a good turn out of local protesters but the committee emphasised that they would not enter into any discussions with the protesters. This leads one to draw the conclusion that the visit was mainly a PR exercise on the part of the planning committee. Also present were several members of the Community Council but County Councillor Calver was conspicuous by his absence! The committee and protesters assembled outside the Community Centre and waited for the first missile firing. When it finally came we were all left with that feeling of anti-climax you get when a Guy Fawkes rocket fizzles out on a wet November 5th! Was this really one of the High Velocity Missiles the MOD proposes firing after dark? Where was that sharp percussive impulse that is usually heard when the missiles launch? There was much speculation among the onlookers about possible skullduggery by the Army. Were they firing the right missile or not? The general consensus was that the noise was much less than normally occurs. The Committee then went inside the Youth Hostel to hear the noise experienced in one of the bedrooms and subsequently listened to the third missile at Dewing Avenue. The event was filmed by a camera crew from BBC Wales so watch the TV news tonight. On returning to Manorbier village after the visit I told several people where I had been and the general response was "I didn't hear any firing". Watch this space for further developments.

Powered By Qumana

Film Crew at Manorbier

2006-03-05T10:13:00.000Z

(From the Tenby Observer, 03/03/06)

Granada Television film crews have been in the county filming members of The 'No to the Manorbier Missile!' campaign pressure group.

The crews were in Pembrkoeshire last weekend and during the early part of this week shooting footage for a new television series planned for the summer, which will go out nationally on Thursday evenings at 8 pm.

Granada is one of the biggest TV companies in the UK and the series is fronted by top presenter, Dominic Littlewood, who was seen in and around Manorbier over the weekend.

The film is about how the group came together to oppose the planning application by the MOD to fire missiles during the hours of darkness and how a DVD, filmed and produced by one of the members, has helped to sway opinion and make public bodies more aware of the problem of noise nuisance.

The production team were overwhelmed by the beauty of Manorbier and the surrounding area and were sympathetic to the pressure group's concerns, especially the effects that night firing may have on tourism, said a spokesperson.

It is believed the press reports from the Tenby Observer will also be used in the film.

Group members say this has raised the objectors' complaints to a new higher level nationally.

"We just hope that the Pembrokeshire Coast National Park planning committee will take on board the complaints registered and the strength of feeling within the area and give the planning application the thumbs down," said the spokesperson.

Powered By Qumana

Planning Committee to Hold Site Meeting at Manorbier

2006-03-04T14:01:00.000Z

(From the Tenby Observer 24/02/06)

Night-firing plan: National Park to hold site meeting

Members of the Pembrokeshire Coast National Park Authority's development management committee have accepted an invitation from Manorbier Community Council to judge for themselves the noise impact that militarymissile firing; has on the village.

At Wednesday's meeting of the committee, it was agreed to hold a site meeting at the MOD's air defence range.

An application submitted to the Park Authority by the MOD seeks approval for firing during the hours of darkness at Manorbier's artillery range.

In light of the amount of objections raised, the authority has appointed a noise consultant to look into the matter before passing a decision.

"This submission has generated widespread objection and, as a result, I have commissioned an independent noise consultant to review the evidence submitted in respect of the proposal," explained development control officer, Mrs. Cathy Milner, who said that the authority had received a 400-signature petition against the application as well as another 30 individual letters voicing their concerns.

"The two main concerns raised by locals over the application point to the impact the night firing would have on tourism in the area and also the disturbance it would have on the sleeping patterns of children living nearby," explained Mrs. Milner.

"I have consulted with the Ministry of Defence estate's commandant, with Monday, March 6, put forward as a possible date for members to visit the site whilst daytime firing is expected to take place," Mrs. Miner said; adding that the noise consultant would also attend, thus enabling members to get a clearer scientific reading of what they were actually hearing.

"It's important that we make a real effort to attend this site visit, as I personally wouldn't want to vote on something that I couldn't actually say that I'd heard," commented committee member, Mr Elwyn Owen, with county councillor Michael Williams adding: "We should appraise to our best ability the noise impact the firing makes, and make every attempt to make
the right decision, as there is very strong feeling in the area regarding this matter.

It was agreed to hold a site meeting in Manorbier on March 6

Powered By Qumana

Whatever Happened to Campaigning Journalism?

2006-03-03T22:00:00.000Z

At this stage in the exchange of letters the Editor of the Tenby Observer seems to have got cold feet and put a stop to any more letters 'unless there are further developments'

Powered By Qumana

Manorbier Answers Clr. Mike Stoddart

2006-03-03T21:50:00.000Z

(From Letters to the Editor, Tenby Observer 10/02/06)

Sir,

Does Cir. Mike Stoddart really think that the community of Manorbier do not have the intelligence to make their own judgements about the problem of noise emanating from ADR Manorbier, which is, after all, on their own doorstep and does not affect the community of Milford Haven, which Cir. Stoddart represents.

Do people not have the right to complain publicly about the noise nuisance and how it affects them, whether it is a valid planning reason or not! It's called freedom of speech and our right to express that freedom through any media we wish.

The residents in Manorbier are very aware that complaints to the planning authority have to be made on planning grounds and in the many objections that have been sent to the National Park Authority, most are indeed questioning the application on planning grounds, but that does not deny the right of the individual to publicly state their own feelings towards this excessive nuisance.

C. Cochrane,
Dewing Avenue,
Manorbier.

Sir,
I would like to comment on letters written in a recent issue, if that is possible. I have lived in Pembrokeshire for nearly 60 years, nearly 30years of that in Manorbier. In the letter written by the two community councillors, 'Residents concerns should be addressed', it should have read, 'Some residents concerns should be addressed'.

For myself and many of my local friends have no objections to day or night firings at Manorbier Range; they should not assume we all think me same. And the remark, *If it were for our own troops only, but this facility may also be open to the Dutch, Belgians and other European nations' is ridiculous.

Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't we all members of NATO. British troops train in other European countries.

Not one letter has mentioned what good the Army has done for the community since being here in 1937. Everyone has a right to have an opinion I appreciate that, but tell it as it is.

Lastly. I must congratulate Malcolm Carver for his letter in the January 20 issue. It was fair, unbiased and to the point.

Mrs. Gill Rees,
Vicarage Fields,
Manorbier
(ex Army wife)

Sir,

Would you please permit me to comment on the letter from Cir. Mike Stoddart in last week's Observer 'Public opinion alone not enough'.

Cir. Stoddart is well known for his views in extolling the virtues of local democracy.

Surely then he would not want to stifle the views of our local residents who feel that they have a perfect right to air their views through their local newspaper's letters page concerning the proposed planning application for night firing at the MOD Manorbier range, I know these residents feel they most definitely have soundly-based planning grounds for a refusal - the effects on their children and their local amenity, in short, noise pollution.

Tony Wales,
North Norton,
Manorbier.

Dear Sir

Cllr Stoddart, makes some rather obvious points about planning law in his letter, but I would point out to him that planning law is not carved in stone and can be successfully challenged by groups of determined people, for example the Roundhouse in Pembrokeshire and the Yurt in Devon.

Does Cllr Stoddart think that public opinion and protest does not help to formulate and change laws? Or does he just wish that it didn't?

I am saddened by the fact that some Cllrs, elected to represent the people, seem to have difficulty grasping the concept of a 'representative democracy'.

Let me try to explain. Democracy - from the two Greek words 'demos' - the people and 'kratia' - to rule. So 'rule by the people'. Representative democracy ' - rule by the people through elected representatives.

When Cllr Stoddart asks where the benefits lie he has perhaps forgotten that one of the ways the people make their wishes known to their representatives between elections is by vocal protest.

He accuses us of being 'grandstanding politicians' and of 'electioneering on the rates'.

Although I serve on Manorbier Council, I strongly object to being called a politician as I think there is no place for politics at community level.

Brian Coleman

Morfa Terrace

Manorbier

Powered By Qumana

Councillor Calver Answers?

2006-03-03T21:36:00.000Z

We all eagerly opened our copies of the Tenby Observer on Friday 3 Feb to read Clr Calver's answers to the questions posed to him in last week's edition of the paper, but what a disappointment - deathly silence from the member for Manorbier.

Not that we should be too suprised by his silence - a Councillor who could not be bothered to consult his community before making his response to the planning authority is hardly likely to explain his actions.

But wait! What's this! A letter from County Councillor Mike Stoddart, perhaps some answers after all. No, only the same old line that Clr Calver has been plugging all along.

(From Letters to the Editor, Tenby Observer 03/02/06)

Sir,
I have been following with interest the correspondence regarding the planning application for night-firing at Manorbier.
Some of your readers seem to be under the impression that public opinion, alone, may be enough to justify refusal. This is not the case. By law, planning applications have to be determined in accordance with the development plan 'unless material considerations indicate otherwise'. The fact that a lot of people are against the proposal is not a material consideration; there have to be soundly-based planning grounds for refusal. The success of MM02's appeal against the county council's refusal of permission for a Tetra mast at Uzmaston, near Haverfordwest, is a case in point. The residents of Uzmaston, who were unanimously opposed to the plans, were no doubt gratified to hear their local member's impassioned speech to the planning committee which resulted in the application being refused. The upshot is that Uzmaston to have a Tetra mast and the county council is now faced with a large bill for both its own, and MM02's, legal costs. I can't quite see where the benefits lie except to the grandstanding politicians who increase their chances of electoral success. Indeed, come to think about it, is this not a form of electioneering on the rates?

Clr Mike Stoddart,
Milford Haven.

Powered By Qumana

A few questions for Councillor Calver

2006-03-03T21:02:00.000Z

(From Letters to the Editor, Tenby Observer 27/01/06)

Sir,

We would like to clarify some points contained in the letter from Mr. Calver as printed in the Observer on January 20. The MOD'S application is, in theory, as Mr. Calver stated, namely to move 20 day-time firings to after dark, finishing by 11 pm. However, what Mr. Calver's letter did not include was the full text of the application that goes on to state, 'unless operational needs dictate a change of these times and the amount of firing that will take place'. This clause is very often used already by the MoD, to cover the various activities at the base that occur at times outside of those advertised. When enquiries are made as to the time limits for these activities, we are advised by the MoD that they are acting 'within their bylaws of dawn to dusk'.

Major Warburton stated publicly at the meeting on January 5 that, if needed, firing may well take place later than 11 pm and/or may have to take place on extra nights. Similarly, when questioned about the 20 days vacated by firing. Major Warburton stated that he 'could not exclude these training slots being used for other activities, including low flying exercises'!

If this application were to be approved, the MoD, who presently operate from dawn to dusk, will be in a position to carry on 24 hours a day. There are no guarantees that the amount of firing will not increase, and there are no guarantees that other intrusive operations will not increase either. In short, there is every chance that the price to be paid by the local community on behalf of the rest of the UK will be larger rather than smaller. And all of this when there is another suitable UK site that can already accommodate night firing, but apparently the price for the MoD - as opposed to the one to be paid by this community - is too high.

Mr. and Mrs. G. Armstrong,
Slade Farm,
Manorbier.

Sir,
Clr. Calver's lengthy and misleading letter regarding the MoD proposal to introduce firing after dark at the Manorbier range (in your edition of January 20) would be laughable were it not addressing such a serious issue: The balance needs to be redressed as your readers need to be made aware of the following points.

1) The proposal is entirely unacceptable for a number of reasons, including the fact that it will have a very serious effect on the health of the local population, particularly children and the elderly; it will exacerbate the existing noise and other pollution problems; it will adversely affect the local economy, particularly tourism; and it further endangers the declared policy of improving the tourist economy.

2) The background to the existing situation is that in recent years the activity at the range has escalated with the introduction of extremely noisy low-flying aircraft targeted on the range which make life in its environs unbearable. It is noteworthy and perhaps typical that Defence Estates, have changed, surreptitiously, the designation of the range from RAR to Air Defence Range. These developments have taken place without any local consultation or permission being sought from the local authority. The current proposal is the last straw. What next?

3) The concept of allowing firing after dark for an experimental period is nonsensical as we already have vast experience of what the firing is like, on 100 days per year, with the noise levels reaching unacceptable levels. Another problem with a trial period is that once permission is given, it is unlikely to be rescinded.

4) It is clear that while there are other possibilities, the MoD's main reason for using Manorbier is that it is the cheapest option. These operations have been privatised with the defence group QinetiQ responsible for running the firing ranges. According to the business pages, parts of QinetiQ are now up for sale and its directors and backers now stand to make huge profits from its deals with the MoD. The Government will reduce its holding to below 30 per cent and Carlyle, the US private-equity firm, who have a 34 per cent stake in QinetiQ, is looking to make an 800 per cent profit on its original investment. So, of course, to QinetiQ cost is a very important factor. However, the exploitation of the goodwill of loyal citizens by the obfuscation of the commercial nature of the range operation is insulting. Profits will be made at the expense of the peace, health and wellbeing of the Manorbier community.

5) Clr. Calver's support of the Armed Services would have been laudable in 1939, but today it is misguided. Pembrokeshire is not an uninhabited Welsh wilderness, which appears to be the view from Whitehall, but a beautiful landscape peopled with vibrant communities very dependent on the tourist economy. Manorbier is a place where people choose to live, bringing up their families and running businesses, thereby contributing to the wealth and future well-being of the county. Others decide to here retire seeking peace, quiet and safety. These are the people who are now extremely worried by the latest development. They are meeting, talking and raising questions in a combined effort to safeguard their future. The levels of 'pollution' at Pendine and Castlemartin, both at sea and on what was once good agricultural land, are example; to all. Residents here do no want further developments which might turn this area of outstanding natural beauty into a wasteland.

6) It is interesting for locals to note that Clr. Calver wrote to the National Park on November 2005, supporting the proposal without consulting the local community, prior to the public meeting on the matter held on January 5, 2006, and well before the Community Council meeting on January 10. This begs the question, 'on whose behalf did our County Councillor write to the National Part and on whose authority?'.

There are many other reason why the application should be refused, such as its implicit contravention of human rights, but the above will suffice at this stage. My neighbours and I simply wish to live here in peace which surely is not to ask when we reside in a conservation area within a National Park. Or do we?

Pearl and Andrew McCabe
Fernley Lodge,
Manorbier.

Sir,
Having read Mr. Calver's letter printed in your issue dated January 20, it would seem that the prospect of further noise pollution is an issue which continues to raise concerns with the residents of Manorbier community, and so it should continue, for this is an issue that, if given the go ahead, may have a dramatic impact on the lives of many people, not to mention businesses, tourism, wildlife and possible damage to people's health. Surely, until further independent comprehensive monitoring is carried out and all the residents' concerns have been addressed, it would be totally unfair to force this unwanted disturbance upon the good people of Manorbier, Lydstep and Jameston. Given that the people of Jameston and Lydstep were overlooked when the monitor ing was carried out, it is understandable that they now feel hard done by. Such an issue must be given serious consideration, and these people's concerns should be addressed. The Pembrokeshire Coast National Park Authority will soon make a decision on the planning application and, as stated, 'unless a valid reason for rejection of the application is made', then it would seem that the MOD would have the green night to carry out night-time firing. However, there are many members of the community who feel that they do indeed have valid reasons, (which contravene Tan 11) and are hoping that their perception of valid does not differ too greatly to that of the National Parks.
With regard to Mr. Calver's reference of 'doing our bit for our nation and training our service personnel', we are sure the majority would agree with this if it were for our own troops only. However, he failed to mention that this facility may also be open to the Dutch, Belgians and other European nations. To grant the application on a probationary basis would not be welcomed at all by the residents and would be an unfair intrusion to many. With regard to his comments about being saddened by the attitude of the community councillors, one would do well to remember that these community councillors are acting on behalf of the residents of the community and any decisions made should be in the best interests of the community.

Should a county councillor not do the same by his constituents?

The issue of our children's sleep patterns should not be taken lightly, as these youngsters are the nation's future, and it should be in everyone's interest to remember this. They already have to bear the noise of low flying aircraft during schooling hours, which undoubtedly has an affect on their concentration levels. Sleep deprivation will only add to the already hard job our teachers have in capturing the children's much-needed, undivided attention.

To crave further disturbance is not rational and as the night itime firing will bring no advantages with it, then I think the councillors have acted correctly. To seek further advice, reassurance and honest answers to the questions our residents have put forward, and feel so strongly about, can only be a positive step. The council should listen to the concerns of the residents with a sympathetic ear, and show their support to the residents of our community - surely that's what a community council should be doing!

There may well be hope yet for the residents, as the Pembrokeshire National Park, taking a cautious approach, have deferred the planning application until February.

Many wait in hope of a favourable outcome and that common sense and a sympathetic approach will be taken.

Peter Kidney,
Terry John,
Manorbier Community Councillors.

Sir,
Cir. Calver's letter (After dark firing a small price to pay, January 20 issue) infers that all the members of the Manorbier community who object to the proposed night firing, are opposed to the training of British troops. Exactly the opposite is true. Not one person, I and others have contacted about this issue, is opposed to training, and all the individuals and bodies who have sent letters to the Pembrokeshire Coast National Park Authority opposing the application, including members of the campaign group, fully support the training needs of the British soldier.

What Cir. Calver seems to have difficulty accepting, is that Manorbier community has suffered the effects of a 'fearsome noise' emanating from the range in prolonged silence for years.

The MOD have 'put on' the people of this community for far too long without taking any measures to reduce the noise 'nuisances' generated, increas ing the range's use over the last few years to include low-flying aircraft exercises. Now the MOD plan to introduce night firing, stating it will have no impact on the local community; this is just a missile too far and the community are saying enough is enough.

The MOD do have alternative sites available for training, with no restriction on night firing or impact on a local community; they fire missiles all day and night there already. What we, as a community, are saying is: if the MOD want to fire at night, now is the time to go to these alternative sites.

Under the Human Rights Act, all members of the community have the right to peace and quite in their homes. All the monitoring appraisals by the MOD and PCC have shown all noise levels well in excess of the 65db threshold of a noise nuisance - many almost twice this, and well beyond the acceptable levels set by the World Health Organisation.

It is time to refrain from trying to use the tactic of emotional blackmail on members of our community, saying our soldiers need training and Manorbier is the only place. It won't work this time, our community now knows, despite previous denials that there was nowhere else to train, that there are alternative sites both in the UK and abroad.

C.L.Cochrane,
Dewing Avenue
Manorbier

Dear Sir

May I have the opportunity through your columns to correct some of the errors and omissions contained in Councillor Calver's letter concerning the Night Firing Planning Application in last week's Observer?

He says that he was asked by the PCNPA for his comments on the application. One wonders how many members of the community he was elected to serve were consulted before he made his comments?

The Community Council organised a public meeting to hear the Army's case for the application and to gauge the feelings of the community. From this meeting it became clear that there was a substantial majority opposed to night firing.

He states that 'eight out of the nine councillors eligible to vote indicated that they were opposed to the application'. Not so! I, among several councillors, stated that I was not personally opposed to the application but felt that as members of the Community Council it was our duty to reflect the majority views of the community and not make decisions based on our personal feelings or interests. This is surely what democracy means.

A request for a site visit is not at all unusual in planning applications and is a way of gathering more information and making the views of the community known to the Planning Authority.

His assertion that 'councillors have now made a judgement on the application' is not true as the vote in Council has been deferred until after the site visit, so no 'judgement' has yet been made.

Councillor Calver's point about the need for our Armed Forces to have adequate training is valid as far as it goes. As a former member of the Armed Forces who has personally served in difficult and dangerous situations, I completely agree with the need for such training and I am sure that if there were no alternative location for this training then there would be very little opposition in our community to the application. There is, however, an alternative suitable site in the Outer Hebrides but the MOD have ruled this out on the grounds of cost. An argument which is hard to take from an arm of government which sees nothing wrong in spending many millions of pounds of tax payers money on the DARA fast jet servicing facility at RAF St Athans and then moves the business back to England.

A final point on the theme of money - the planning application mentions 'overseas customers' and as anyone who has watched the low flying exercises at Manorbier will be aware, a large proportion of the aircraft using the range are foreign aircraft. Since there are no reciprocal training agreements in place with any of these foreign governments, one assumes that the MOD is selling the facilities at Manorbier and deriving an income from these sales. This poses the question, how long before foreign forces will be involved in night firing at Manorbier?

Brian Coleman

Morfa Terrace
Manorbier

Powered By Qumana

Manorbier Night Firing on BBC Website

2006-03-03T17:54:00.000Z

Click here to see a report on the BBC Website

Powered By Qumana

After dark firing a small price to pay??

2006-03-03T17:15:00.000Z

(From Letters to the Editor, Tenby Observer 21/01/06)

Sir,

I read with interest your front page article regarding the planning application for firing after sunset at the MoD range in Manorbier. I would appreciate the opportunity to comment on the points raised within this article. It was reported that I abstained from the vote held at the meeting on the issue due to a declared interest I have in the matter. The interest I have is not personal, but relates to a request from the Pembrokeshire Coast National Park to forward my comments on the planning application based on land use considerations, by November 30, 2005. The rules governing both Pembrokeshire County Council and Manorbier Community Council state that if you have officially considered an issue, you have no alternative than to withdraw from any further discussions when a decision on the subject is debated by either organisation. Whilst I accept that opinion is divided in the area over this application, the decision taken by Pembrokeshire National Park will be on planning grounds and it was on this basis that I forwarded my reply to the National Park, that if the MoD complies with all the noise regulations, then approval should naturally follow. At the public meeting, many expressed a concern as to what the actual noise of the proposed firing would be. My response to this point, that I expressed at the meeting, was that this could only be determined by actual experience. In order to alleviate this concern, I proposed that a condition should be imposed that the consent should be for a probationary period. Major Warburton was happy at the public meeting to agree to this proposal. I believe that this proposal is the appropriate way to move the proposed planning application forward. I have listened to various comments and suggestions from residents of the area, varying from the MoD have been there a long time before most people moved to this area, that the issue does not affect residents, that some residents have no reservations and therefore do not object at all, to the converse viewpoint that children's sleep patterns will be disturbed to devastating effect to the extent that their life chances will be affected, that tourism will be negatively affected and that the fact that Manorbier is within a National Park conservation area should preclude the activity. The proposal as it stands is to move five firings from normal daylight activity to after dark for 20 days of the year when firing is proposed after sunset until 10 pm in winter and 11 pm in summer. Major Warburton stated publicly that it was the intention of the MoD to complete the firings as soon as was practically possible after sunset.

I am saddened by the attitude taken by individual councillors of Manorbier Community Council as its meeting on January 10, 2006, over this issue. Eight of the nine councillors eligible to vote clearly indicated that they opposed the application, as only Cir. Martin Davies supported the planning application. The subsequent decision to ask the Pembrokeshire Coast National Park to defer the application until after a site inspection is unusual, as the councillors have now made a judgement on the application. It is my impression that the Army has always had a good relationship with the village, with many of the older generation in the village having been provided with work for many years of their life through its presence in the locality. A letter read out at the council meeting from a lady who had been a resident of the Skrinkle estate since 1984 supported the planning application on the grounds that she had never found any problems with the firing, commenting on the fact her children had enjoyed playing on the local beach watching the planes fly overhead, comparing the memory to the situation of the current generation of the children who, having played violent games on their computers, were hardly likely to be affected by the military exercises.

It is my belief that the residents of Manorbier and the surrounding area live in an idyllic location and it would be perfect if there was no disturbance to our lifestyle. However, we as residents have to be realistic in this far from perfect world.

We should do our little bit for the sake of our nation and for those who protect our interests and those of others, both at home and abroad. The Army serves in areas of the world where this and previous national governments have deployed them on dangerous and violent missions, both in the role of peace-keeping and war.

It is not my intention to enter the debate on the issue of the justifications and objections regarding that decision, but it is a reality for which these soldiers must be prepared. We have to train service personnel on any equipment that is provided for their operational use that secures their objective and protects their lives and those of their comrades.

It is my belief that the application to move five shots per day from the normal daytime schedule for 20 days per year to after dark would be a change that most of the residents of the area would consider to be a small price to pay.

The devastating affect projected by some that the proposal would have on the tourism industry, which all tourism operators know is being affected more by the availability and cost of foreign travel, is something that I cannot agree with. It is my belief that the negative publicity that has been generated by suggesting that Manorbier will be akin to a war zone, if the application is successful, will have a more detrimental affect on those who are involved in tourism than any actual after-dark firing.

Malcolm Calver

Note:
Malcolm Calver is the County Councillor for Manorbier as well as a member of the Manorbier Community Council.

MOD Planning application for Night Firing at Manorbier

2006-03-02T17:46:00.000Z

Manorbier is a small coastal village in Pembrokeshire, situated halfway between Tenby and Pemboke. The village is the home to the Manorbier Air Defence Range which is used for the training military personnel in the use of High Velocity Missiles(HVM).

The missile concerned is the Starstreak. The missile consists of a two-stage solid propellant rocket motor, a separation system and three high density darts. A pulse of power from the missile firing unit causes the first-stage motor to ignite, which accelerates the missile. Canted nozzles on the missile cause it to roll. The centrifugal force of the roll causes the fins to unfold for aerodynamic stability in flight. Once clear of the canister, the motor is jettisoned. The second-stage motor ignites and accelerates the missile to a velocity greater than Mach 4. A separation system at the front end of the motor contains three darts.

This missile make a treamendous noise when launched!!

Until now this missile was only used during daylight hours, but recently the MOD have submitted an application to the planning authority to fire after dark (nominally up to 11pm but this could overrun until much later).

This application has provoked a considerable amount of local opposition.

(From the Tenby Observer 13/01/06)

Manorbier Community Council and the campaign group. No! to the Manorbier Missile Campaign! are calling for Pembrokeshire Coast National Park to appoint their own noise monitoring consultant to carry out tests into a proposal by the MOD to allow night firing at the village's artillery range. Prior to a meeting on Tuesday night, councillors listened to representations from members of the public and heard letters of objection and arguments against the proposal by the MOD to commence firing during the hours of darkness. Councillors were then invited to make comments about the proposal before taking a vote on the controversial issue. Eight out of the nine councillors eligible to vote stated they were opposed to the night firing application for various reasons.

"Some councillors commented that they were not personally opposed, but were mindful of the strength of feeling within the community, and were doing their duty in representing the community and not their own personal feelings," said campaigner Chas Cochrane.

He continued: "County councillor Malcolm Calver abstained from the vote, declaring an interest. "Council members then decided on the best way forward and voted to request a deferment and that Pembrokeshire Coast National Park Authority commission its own noise monitoring consultant, as it was claimed the MOD noise appraisal was found to be fundamentally flawed and presented in a manner favouring the MOD, adding the PCNPA must not rely on these figures. "Additionally, councillors requested a site meeting with the PCNPA when the MOD are firing, this meeting to take place outside the range, possibly at the Youth Hostel, Lydstep, and Skrinkle estate locations." Mr. Cochrane added: "It was demonstrated by members of the public that this was an intensification of the range, as missiles have never been fired during the hours of darkness and therefore contravenes Tan 11 and PCNPA policy guidelines. "Prior to the meeting, members of the public and the pressure group reiterated that they fully support training of British troops, but that this must take place at the alternative site available where there is no impact on the local community and no restrictions on firing during the hours of darkness.
"Other members demonstrated that low flying helicopters are a disaster to the bird population, especially skylarks, as stated in the MOD'S own environmental magazine. "Again, this was contrary to what the MOD scoping document and appraisal has stated."

He concluded: "It was also pointed out to the community council that the Pembrokeshire Coast National Park Authority would leave itself open to a legal challenge and a possible judicial review if it did not commission an independent noise assessment.

"Manorbier Community Council and members of the pressure group are now awaiting a response from the National Park Authority's planning officers."

Footnote: Night firing at the artillery range also came under the spotlight at a packed public meeting last Thursday. At that meeting. Range Commandant Major Blaize Warburton insisted that it was essential that troops were trained to use night vision equipment.

However, he gave an assurance that the army's application would not increase the overall number of firings at the range, as it would cut back on daylight exercises. He would be requesting a two-year trial to allow the community to assess the impact. A maximum of five missiles would be fired on any night and exercises would be cut off at 10 pm in the winter
and 11 pm in the summer.

Concern was expressed, however, about the detrimental effect on the county's tourism industry and the sleeping patterns of children in the area.

Pembrokeshire Coast National Park is due to meet on January 25 to discuss the MOD'S application.