Redevelopment plans: Milford Docks • Picture Ade Owens – Flickr

THE DECISION by the County Council to defer a decision on Milford Haven Port Authority’s ambitious plans has given rise to hope that the Authority will now engage properly with local stakeholders and existing tenants before pressing ahead with its planned redevelopment of the marina and docks area. At the meeting in the Milford Town Hall at the end of September, the Port Authority assured the assembled town councillors and members of the public that, upon demolition of the Old Docks Office there would be an exact replica built. The Authority’s Estates Director, Jeff Teague had stated the same in several public meetings: using the phrase “stone by stone and brick by brick”. Over time, that undertaking changed to “preserving the original part of the building”.

At that meeting, Jeff Teague was tackled about the effect of building a cinema on the site and its effect on the Torch Theatre’s widely-praised cinema facility. It emerged that, contrary to previous statements made on the subject, not only had no agreement been reached with the Torch Theatre, but that the idea floated at the meeting by Mr Teague (that the Torch would somehow run the proposed cinema on the marina) had not even been put to the Theatre. Plans placed before the Council, however, show a markedly different approach to the redevelopment of the Old Docks Office. Instead of a sympathetic rebuild, the proposed new building truncates the original in such a way as to leave, in the words of one local, “a potting shed” in its place.

Billa Schleicher of All Pets Vet Care told us: “Rob Peters from Turley, was at the Planning meeting on December 16 as a representative of MHPA. “After his speech, asking for approval of the application for demolition of the Old Docks Office, he was asked by Councillor Jacob Williams why he had specified a partial and not total rebuild. “Mr Peters replied that the existing building has been extended a number of times and the core part of the building, the oldest part of the building, is only the middle five bays.

“But that is not correct: the original part is ten bays long and, more to the point, it is going to be only some doors and windows that will be retained: hardly “brick by brick” as touted to the Town Council.” Billa continued: “I confronted them about this after the meeting – Jeff Teague then told me that they only did what CADW had asked them to do – it was nothing to do with them! My own enquiries suggest that is being very economical with the truth.”

Touching upon a separate concern regarding traffic, Billa said: “The artist impression that graces the front of the application suggests that the development will be a calm, wonderful public space with people strolling along and sitting there enjoying the peace and quiet. A marked area where they can easily cross the road over to the building on the left of the picture, which presumably is the museum.

“What a shame they did not get the dimensions right. What looks like a single lane on the picture would be a double lane, with cars rushing past and delivery lorries passing by to service the supermarket and the other chain retail outlets scheduled for construction; scarcely conducive to trundling along at 10 miles an hour, while people cross the road in a leisurely fashion to visit the museum. The plans are hopelessly flawed.” Billa concluded: “We have seen plenty of different plays, showing plenty of different layouts and several locations for where the Port wants to re-locate our own business. They have actually instructed an architect to design a building for us in the car park close to the Norrard building. The problem is that with so many different versions of plans and different stories being told to different people at different times, how are we supposed to trust them to stick to their end of any deal?”