The Pembrokeshire Coast National Park Authority has responded to councillors in Tenby who have asked for an explanation on a local development that they believed had deviated from affordable housing policies and other agreements.

Members of the town council recently discussed an updated list of land allocations and large residential sites included in the Local Development Plan (LDP) that came before them at a recent meeting.

At that time, Clr. Mrs. Christine Brown queried why a development at the former Kinloch Court Hotel, overlooking South Beach, where 14 residential apartments are being developed, contained only an agreement of £130,000 towards affordable housing and no mention of a Section 106 agreement contributing to the provision of necessary facilities, for example play areas, parks and greens.

Speaking at Tuesday night’s meeting of the town council the town clerk, Andrew Davies, told members that he had received a response from PCNPA development management team leader, Nicola Gandy, who explained that the affordable housing contribution was based upon a viability appraisal submitted by the applicant and assessed by the National Park.

“On consideration of the appraisal, the authority required the sum of £130,000, which was the cost equivalent of two x two-bedroom properties at the Welsh Government level of 55 per cent Acceptable Cost Guidelines,” she wrote in correspondence to town councillors.

“The developer had offered on-site units to the Housing Association, however, the management of the units was considered problematic to the Housing Association, therefore in this particular instance, an offsite provision was considered a suitable alternative provision.

“In respect of any planning obligations, the applicant may have suggested they were willing to contribute towards public open space/play facilities. However, planning obligations can only be imposed on development in cases where a contribution is required in order to make a development acceptable in planning terms, that would otherwise not be acceptable.

“In this instance, a contribution towards public open space/play facilities was not required as there was not considered to be lack of public open space/play facilities within the proximity of the application site,” she added.