THE DIVISIONS within Neyland Town Council are set to come under further scrutiny at an Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) scheduled for Wednesday (Jan 22) at 7:00pm in Neyland Community Hub. This follows weeks of escalating tensions between councillors and public discontent over the council’s operations.

Petition demands resignation

Central to the conflict is Cllr Mike Harry, who is facing calls for his resignation after a petition, organised by Mrs P Percival-Maxwell, accused him of making inappropriate remarks and creating division within the council. The petition was presented during a recent council meeting on Monday (Jan 13).

Cllr Harry has rejected the allegations, describing the petition as “factually incorrect” and part of a targeted effort to undermine his position. In a previous statement to The Herald, he clarified his use of the term “degenerates” in an email, stating it referred specifically to three councillors—Brian Rothero, David Devauden, and Steve Thomas—who he accuses of bullying the Town Clerk and causing dysfunction within the council.

Agenda highlights serious divisions

The EGM agenda, jointly issued by Cllrs Rothero and Devauden, reflects the extent of the discord. Key points include:

• Addressing public complaints and the petition calling for Cllr Harry’s resignation.
• Allegations of abuse of council social media powers and bringing the council into disrepute.
• Concerns over Neyland CIC’s financial losses, which reportedly total £82,000, and their potential impact on the council.
• A motion to remove the Mayor and Deputy Mayor from office.

The agenda has been described by Cllr Harry as a “list of items designed to rabble-rouse and cause maximum trouble within the council.” He claims the ongoing actions of Cllrs Rothero and Devauden are an attempt to disrupt proceedings for personal agendas, making it difficult for the council to function effectively.

Questions of lawfulness

The lawfulness of the EGM has become a point of contention. According to Cllrs Rothero and Devauden, the meeting was called in strict compliance with the council’s standing orders, including the required three clear days’ notice. However, the agenda also mentions the possibility of a forced change of venue due to challenges in booking the Neyland Community Hub, raising concerns about whether such a change would meet procedural requirements. For the meeting to remain lawful, any venue change must be communicated effectively and within the legal framework governing local council meetings.

Another potential issue lies in the authority to call the meeting. Cllrs Rothero and Devauden assert that their actions align with standing orders, but any procedural irregularities, such as failing to involve the Town Clerk in booking arrangements or properly distributing the agenda, could open the meeting to legal challenges. The involvement of the Monitoring Officer in correspondence suggests an effort to ensure compliance, but whether this will be sufficient remains to be seen.

Cllr Harry, meanwhile, has described the meeting as a “personal agenda” by his opponents, further questioning its legitimacy. If the meeting proceeds and results in significant decisions, such as the removal of the Mayor or Deputy Mayor, any procedural flaws could later be cited to contest these outcomes.

Social media row adds fuel to fire

A recent post on Neyland Town Council’s Facebook page by Cllr Harry has added to the controversy. In his email to fellow councillors, Cllr Harry admitted the post was “possibly questionable” but justified it as a response to years of attacks from certain councillors and their allies. The post has reportedly drawn threats of legal action and complaints to the Monitoring Officer.

Cllrs Rothero and Devauden have accused Cllr Harry of misusing his position and the council’s social media channels to target opponents, further eroding trust within the council.

Community concerns and financial risks

Beyond personal disputes, the financial state of Neyland CIC, a community interest company, has emerged as a pressing issue. With reported losses of £82,000, concerns are mounting about the potential impact on the town council’s budget and its ability to deliver essential services.

A council divided

As the date for the EGM approaches, opinions within Neyland remain divided. Some residents have voiced support for Cllr Harry, citing his nearly 20 years of service and commitment to the community. Others back the petition, viewing his actions as detrimental to the council’s reputation and functionality.

The Herald understands that the outcome of the EGM could mark a turning point for the council, potentially reshaping its leadership and future direction. With accusations and counter-accusations flying, the meeting promises to be a pivotal moment in addressing the dysfunction that has gripped Neyland Town Council.

A STATEMENT has been issued by Cllr Mike Harry in response to a petition calling for his resignation, which was handed in during the Neyland Town Council meeting on Monday (Jan 13). The petition, organised by Mrs P Percival-Maxwell, accuses Cllr Harry of making inappropriate remarks and creating division within the council.

In his detailed statement, Cllr Harry rejected the allegations, describing the petition as “factually incorrect” and part of a targeted effort to discredit him and further destabilise the council.

Cllr Harry explained that his email, which is at the centre of the controversy, was a response to what he described as “insulting and threatening” messages from fellow councillors Brian Rothero, Steve Thomas, and David Devauden. He clarified that the term “degenerates” referred specifically to those individuals, who he accuses of relentless bullying and harassment of the Town Clerk, not Neyland residents.

He also pointed out that the “constituents” referred to in the petition are, in fact, a group of five individuals who attended an unauthorised meeting and whom he alleges are regulars at a local pub owned by Cllr Rothero.

Cllr Harry claimed that the ongoing behaviour of Cllrs Rothero, Thomas, and Devauden has rendered the council dysfunctional and unable to serve the people of Neyland effectively. He described their actions as consistently disruptive, highlighting the negative impact on the Town Clerk and the council’s ability to progress key matters.

“I’d simply had enough and had to finally call it out for what it is,” he stated, noting that his email was directed at a total of eight individuals who, in his view, show no interest in the council’s proper functioning.

Cllr Harry, who has served on Neyland Town Council for nearly 20 years, emphasised his dedication to the community and its residents. “The interests of the residents of Neyland have always been paramount to me,” he said. He expressed frustration over the current tensions within the council, calling the situation “particularly difficult and insulting” and not reflective of why he became a councillor.

The petition has deepened divisions within Neyland, with some residents supporting Cllr Harry’s defence and others standing by the petition’s call for his resignation. The issue highlights broader concerns about the council’s internal dynamics and its ability to address key issues for the community.

PLANS for disability-friendly holiday lodges at a Pembrokeshire deer park attraction which could be a Wales tourism “benchmark” have been backed, but a final decision is likely to rest with full council.

In an application recommended for refusal at the January 14 meeting of Pembrokeshire County council’s planning committee, Mr and Mrs Evans are seeking permission for 15 lodges at Great Wedlock, Gumfreston, near Tenby, the site of a 176-acre deer farm attraction, which includes animals from the late Queen’s estate, and a more recently-granted market traders’ barn.

An earlier application for the lodges was recommended for refusal by officers at last July’s planning meeting, but, at the start of that meeting, members heard the application had been withdrawn at the agent’s behest.

Reasons for refusal given to members included it was outside of an identified settlement boundary in a countryside location, it was considered to have an adverse impact on visual amenity and did not include a Green Infrastructure statement.

The applicants have previously said build costs to complete the development would be circa £2m.

Following the withdrawal, amended proposals have been submitted by the applicants through agent Atriarc Planning, following a consultation recently held with St Florence Community Council.

St Florence Community Council did not support the previous application, but has supported the latest scheme.

Speaking at the January meeting, Alan Jones, on behalf of the community council, said it was now supporting the “much-improved design” which, amongst other concerns, now addressed the issue of a much wider range of disabilities – including the blind and deaf and hard of hearing – rather than just wheelchair use.

Applicant Andrew Evans told the meeting the proposals would support a whole raft of people with varying disabilities, Great Wedlock already taking a “head-on” approach supporting people with disabilities through special vehicles at the deer park, and encouraging people with disabilities to apply for staff vacancies.

“This is not an application for yet another holiday park, it is a well thought out one for those who have a disability, which will make them a majority rather than a minority; it will make us at the forefront for people in Wales to visit with a disability.”

Local member, Cllr Rhys Jordan moved the application be supported in spite of an officer recommendation for refusal, saying it was “an opportunity to address a clear shortage [for disability-friendly accommodation] and a chance for Pembrokeshire to lead the way in accessible tourism,” adding: “Most importantly the lodges will be 100 per cent accessible and set a benchmark, positioning Pembrokeshire as a leader in accessible tourism.”

He finished: “Approve this forward-thinking proposal today.”

Officers have recommended planners refuse the scheme, for similar reasons to previously, saying the material considerations put forward in the agent’s supporting planning statement “are not sufficient to overcome the conflict with relevant Development Plan policies”.

Members voted 11 in favour to two against supporting the scheme.

The committee’s backing of the proposal takes the form of a ‘minded to’ support, meaning the proposal will return to a future meeting as it is against an officer recommendation, and, if supported a second time, will ultimately have to be decided by full council, in this case potentially at the March meeting.

The applicants’ previous scheme for the trading barn took an identical route, being decided by full council after repeatedly being recommended for refusal.