Dear editor I refer to recent press reports and to suggestions that the Pembrokeshire Coast National Park Authority is in some way not defending the Judicial Review process with sufficient vigour.

Nothing could be further from the truth and I consider it very important that the public are made fully aware of the facts.

When the High Court challenge was initiated, the Authority immediately instructed a specialist Queen's Counsel in London to robustly defend the Authority's position. The outcome, after a full three day hearing, was that:

1 The High Court concluded that the Authority's approval of the Bluestone Development was lawful and rejected CNP's application to quash the Bluestone Planning Permission.

2 The Judge who heard the case has refused CNP leave to appeal. So on the two main issues the Authority were unequivocally successful in both.

The only aspect of the whole case that has not gone the Authority's way is the question of an order for costs (it should be noted that the Judge did not order CNP to pay the developers' costs either).

Submissions on costs were made by the respective parties' barristers as is usual practice, although in this case those submissions were made in writing as the judge did not wish to reconvene the hearing in Swansea to hear such submissions.

The judge makes a decision on costs in principle only - it is for the parties to agree detailed costs or, in default of agreement, the matter is determined by a High Court Taxing Master.

CNP argued that theirs was a "public interest" challenge, and so it would not be appropriate to order them to pay the Authority's costs.

The Authority's counter argument was that we are a small Authority with limited resources and responsibilities to the public purse. These costs would be significant in terms of other work and services we would have to forgo.

The judge noted the argument but said he could not give it real weight, as he had no information as to the amount of the costs incurred nor the size of the Authority's resources.

Our Queen's Counsel has commented that:

1. This is a very surprising finding.

2 It is not part of the post-judgement discussion that the local authority is asked to place financial information before the court.

3 In his experience the limited nature of any local authority's resources is self-evident to the court.

4 No request was made for additional information - had further details been sought they would have been provided immediately.

It is clear that the Judge made his decision not to order CNP to pay the Authority's costs because he accepted the claim was brought on a public interest basis.

This he was entitled to do, but it is unfortunate that some have wrongly taken an inference that the Authority in some way lacks commitment to the case, when the reality is that we have mounted a highly successful defence.

Cllr Stephen Watkins Chairman Pembrokeshire Coast National Park Authority