News

Milford Haven: Port Authority denies Lower Priory flood liability

Published

7 years ago

June 12, 2019

A REPORT by civil engineering consultants Atkins concluded that obstruction of trash screens leading from Lower Priory did not materially contribute to the extreme flooding which took place both there and at Haven Head last November.
Over three days of torrential rainfall, fourteen properties were flooded at Lower Priory and there was significant flooding at Haven Head.
The Port Authority continues to deny any liability for damage caused by the flooding.
However, Hakin Councillor Mike Stoddart pointed out that Atkins’ assessment was based on evidence produced by Milford Haven Port Authority.
Councillor Stoddart alleged that Atkins’ finding could not necessarily be relied upon. He noted that the Port Authority had an obvious interest in saying the trash screens were not obstructed in order to support its claim it was not liable for the damage caused by the flood.
Defending the Port Authority’s position, both Andy Jones and Tim Bownes, said the report found that the major factor in the flooding was the large increase in levels of silt in the lakes at Haven Head and Lower Priory combined with high tides and unprecedentedly levels of rainfall.

Emotional moment: Ian Bannister from Lower Priory clearly upset by the damage caused (Pic: Herald)

Under further questioning from Mike Stoddart, Mr Bownes conceded that the electronic flood warning system had been a casualty of the flooding and had stopped recording the water volumes at Lower Priory well before the peak of the inundation.
When one resident produced photographs of a truck tyre in front of a trash screen taken in February which remained in place six months later, he was tersely told that the presence of the tyre did not count as an obstruction of the trash screen.
The resident shook his head in disbelief, while several councillors wondered what did constitute an ‘obstruction’.
Notwithstanding councillors accepting that silt build up contributed to the flooding, a number of members of the Services Overview Committee nevertheless probed the Port Authority’s actions in relation to the lakes.
Cllr Stephen Joseph observed that a large amount of infill had taken place at the lakes. He suggested that this, combined with the development of Haven Head over a former tidal plain contributed to the flooding.
This was a point made by a local resident addressing the Committee earlier in the day. She observed that were it not for the development at Haven Head, no flooding would have taken place.
Cllr Joseph further pressed on the culverting of water towards Haven Head. When he asked what inspections were carried out of the culvert when it was extended to take account of the increased infill of the lakes, he was told by Tim Bownes from the Port Authority that his point could not be addressed. Mr Bownes said, however, he supposed the relevant checks had been done at the time through the normal planning process.
When probed about the level of water drainage into the system, which included run off from the Johnston bypass, Mr Bownes said he believed that Atkins had taken into account the new housing developments and bypass drainage when preparing the report on last November’s flooding.
Cllr Viv Stoddart cited a legal precedent which she said indicated that, whether or not the extent of flooding risk was foreseen or not, a landowner diverting a watercourse or otherwise changing its characteristics was responsible for damage caused by subsequent flooding. She was asked to provide a copy of the precedent to the Port Authority so it could be considered by its lawyers.

Stephen Crabb MP visits flooded resident (Pic: Herald)

When Cllr Tony Wilcox asked about records of the amount of infill that had taken place and whether there was any record of volumes infilled at the lakes since 1991, he was told that the four-year statutory limit for planning for operational reasons had expired and no enforcement action could be taken by the local authority.
One issue arising from the report was the recommendation that the culverts should be increased in size to cope with increased volumes of water run-off. Several councillors asked why, if the current culverts were adequate and fit for purpose, was a recommendation made that the culverts should be increased to handle three times the volume of water they dealt with currently.
The Committee members were told that it was because the design assessment said that the system needed to handle a one in a one-hundred-years storm event.
Cllr Brian Hall noted the recommendations of the report, specifically the one relating the Council seeking its own advice on the issues raised by last November’s catastrophic flooding. He formally moved the recommendations should be adopted by the Committee so that rapid progress could be made to address residents’ concerns.
The Committee agreed that a working group should be established to streamline the reporting process and that the matter should return to the Committee for further scrutiny.

Crime

Lamphey parent fined over child’s school attendance record

Published

8 minutes ago

December 14, 2025

Tom Sinclair

A PARENT from the Lamphey area has been fined after failing to ensure their child attended school regularly, magistrates heard.

The case was dealt with in the defendant’s absence at Haverfordwest Magistrates’ Court on Wednesday (Dec 11) following proceedings brought by Pembrokeshire County Council.

The court heard that between Wednesday (April 30) and Friday (May 23), the parent failed to secure regular school attendance for their child, who was of compulsory school age at the time.

The offence was brought under section 444 of the Education Act 1996, which places a legal duty on parents to ensure their children attend school regularly.

The case was proved in absence, and magistrates imposed a fine of £220. The parent was also ordered to pay an £88 victim services surcharge and £100 in prosecution costs.

A collection order was made, with the total balance of £408 to be paid by Thursday (Jan 9).

Magistrates imposed reporting restrictions under section 45 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999. These prohibit the publication of any information that could identify the child involved, including names, addresses, schools, workplaces or images. The restrictions remain in force until the child reaches the age of eighteen.

Crime

Haverfordwest couple fined over child’s school attendance

Published

17 minutes ago

December 14, 2025

Tom Sinclair

A COUPLE from the Haverfordwest school area have been fined after failing to ensure their child attended school regularly, a magistrates’ court has heard.

The pair were dealt with at Haverfordwest Magistrates’ Court on Wednesday (Dec 11) in separate but linked cases brought by Pembrokeshire County Council.

The court heard that over a period in May, the couple failed to secure regular attendance at school for their child, who was of compulsory school age at the time.

Both cases were brought under section 444 of the Education Act 1996, which places a legal duty on parents to ensure their children attend school regularly.

One parent admitted the offence, with the guilty plea taken into account during sentencing. They were fined £40 and ordered to pay a £16 victim services surcharge and £128 in prosecution costs.

The second parent did not attend court and the case was proved in absence. Magistrates imposed a £60 fine, along with a £24 victim services surcharge and £100 in costs.

Collection orders were made in both cases, with payments set at £24 per month starting in January.

Magistrates imposed strict reporting restrictions under section 45 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999. These prohibit the publication of any information that could identify the child involved, including names, addresses, schools, workplaces or images.

The restrictions remain in place until the child reaches the age of eighteen.

Crime

Trefin dog case ends in forfeiture order after protection notice breach

Published

25 minutes ago

December 14, 2025

Court Reporter

Village protest followed months of complaints about barking

A WOMAN from north Pembrokeshire has been fined £1,000 and ordered to forfeit four dogs after repeatedly breaching a Community Protection Notice issued following complaints and protests in her village.

Julia Goodgame, aged fifty-eight, of Bryn Y Derwydd, Trefin, appeared before Haverfordwest Magistrates’ Court on Wednesday (Dec 11), where she admitted failing to comply with the terms of a notice served by Pembrokeshire County Council.

The court heard that on Friday (June 20) Goodgame failed to secure control of her dogs just three days after a Community Protection Notice was issued on Tuesday (June 17). The notice was served under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.

The case followed months of complaints from residents in Trefin relating to dog noise and control. Earlier this year, the dispute escalated into a public protest in the village, with a number of residents gathering to raise concerns about constant barking and its impact on daily life.

Goodgame had previously denied breaching the notice when she first appeared before magistrates in September. At that hearing, the council alleged multiple breaches across June and July and said enforcement action had been taken only after informal measures failed. A trial was later listed for Monday (Nov 10), with several witnesses expected to give evidence.

However, at the November hearing, Goodgame changed her plea from not guilty to guilty to one offence, with the remaining allegations not proceeded with.

As part of Wednesday’s sentence, magistrates ordered the immediate forfeiture and seizure of four Border Collie dogs, which Goodgame told the court were the only dogs in her possession.

Authorised officers from Pembrokeshire County Council are permitted to seize the dogs, with custody transferred to the council or an approved animal welfare organisation to ensure their humane handling and care. The court granted the council powers to rehome the dogs through reputable animal welfare organisations, or to destroy them if deemed necessary.

Goodgame was also ordered to pay the reasonable costs of seizure, transport, detention and any veterinary treatment required, along with additional enforcement costs.

A Criminal Behaviour Order was imposed until further order of the court. The order prohibits Goodgame from allowing her dogs to create unreasonable noise, leaving dogs outdoors while she is absent from the property, or allowing dog faeces to accumulate at the address. Any waste stored on the premises must be kept in secured bins away from boundary fences.

In addition to the £1,000 fine, she was ordered to pay a £400 victim services surcharge and £1,200 in prosecution costs. A collection order was made, allowing deductions to be taken directly from benefits if necessary.

The forfeiture order was made under section 50 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.