PEMBROKESHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL has told The Herald that ‘it continues to support’ the developers behind a controversial scheme to redevelop the site of Narberth’s former school.

The Council’s assertion was made in response to questions from this newspaper which asked for a statement from the Head of Property, Barry Cooke, as to whether the current proposed development meets the criteria set when the preferred developer was selected by the local authority.

We also asked for confirmation from Mr Cooke on whether or not the Council considers the current proposals advanced by the developers were complementary to or in competition with the present town centre retail mix.

We received a statement from a Council spokesperson which said: ‘At its meeting of 12th September, Cabinet noted the recommendation of the Economy Overview and Scrutiny Committee to uphold the decision that it took at the Cabinet meeting of 4th July.

‘This was that the Council continues to support the preferred developer of the mixed retail and residential scheme at the former Narberth school site in bringing the development to fruition.

‘This was on the proviso that this support be withdrawn if the developers fail to secure the tenants and commence the scheme by 31st December.

‘The Council is continuing to support the developers on this basis.’

East Williamston county councillor Jacob Williams has recently provided further background to the Narberth School development in an article on his website jacobwilliams.com.

Councillor Williams report that, despite agreeing a sale price for the former school to Abbeymore Estates and Knox & Wells Ltd, the council failed to finalise the sale price for the former school. All the while, when Sainsburys were being flagged as anchor tenants for the development, it seems that the Council had failed to complete the formality of tying the developer to a price for the premises.

After failing to progress the development for two years, the developers then returned to the Council to ask for a loan and what Jacob Williams describes as ‘a substantial reduction on their previously-agreed sale price’.

In response to that request, Councillor Williams reveals that the County Council’s Cabinet agreed – in secret session – to cut its price for the school by a third the Narberth sale price by a third!

The scheme, which had by now radically changed from the original proposal, was not re-tendered.

In fact, The Herald can reveal that the Council had expressed serious reservations about what the developer was proposing to replace the original scheme.

In a letter to the developers, the Head of Property said: ‘I regret to advise that … the line-up of retail uses has departed too significantly from that envisaged when your companies were appointed as preferred bidder to the point that the Council no longer believes they meet the criteria set’.

Mr Cooke goes on to point out that the plans were to complement the retail mix of the town centre, but that the proposals being advanced by Abbeymore and Knox & Wells would ‘impact on the sustainability of existing businesses’ in the town centre.

The Herald understands that a briefing note prepared by the Head of Property sets out a new proposed anchor tenant for the development, whom we believe – from information received from a local business owner – to be the Co-op.

It is not clear what, if anything, Councillors were told either of the Council’s reservations; or what, if anything, they have been told of the new proposed anchor tenant for the troubled site. However, Cllr Jacob Williams paints a vivid picture of the discussions held in July this year from which the public were excluded.

Cllr Williams writes: ‘Narberth’s local member, Cllr. Wynne Evans, flipped his lid – only after the meeting was in private session, though.

‘Shouting, banging the table and using words that, had I used, would be frowned upon, Cllr. Evans stressed that progress needed to be made without delay.

‘His passionate plea worked, and committee members seemed to come to the view that, as PCC had gone down the path so far with the favoured redevelopment company, there was only one way they could continue – and it involved splashing the cash.

‘But what readers probably don’t know is that during the behind-closed-doors scrutiny call-in of the Narberth deal, after much probing of officers by Cllr. Mike Evans, councillors were told that, amid the media controversy of cabinet’s decision to offer the loan and slash the price – and my call-in of the decision – a separate, unsolicited expression of interest for the site’s redevelopment had been received by the council’.

The deadline for Abbeymore Estates and Knox & Wells Ltd to start the development is December 31.  If the developers are not in a position to start then, there remain questions as to why – when the scope of the scheme and the range of support being offered to prospective developers changed so dramatically and included a significant price reduction and a seven-figure loan – the project was not re-tendered; and how the Council found itself – two years after it had awarded a contract to a preferred bidder – with an undeveloped site in Narberth. It remains to be seen whether the Council will give its ‘preferred bidder’ more time or whether it will then find itself in a worse position with a prospective new developer, well-aware of what has gone wrong this time round.

And finally, if Abbeymore Estates and Knox & Wells Ltd do proceed, what will happen to those businesses in the town centre which the council considers could be affected by the revised scheme? If the scheme advanced is the one that the council thought would affect the sustainability of those businesses, it is likely to find itself embroiled in a lengthy legal fight once final plans are brought forward for consideration.

As things stand, plans to demolish the school are being prepared with an alternative use for the school site as a short-term car park being considered as a contingency plan.