I REFER to the report in the edition of September 17, about the slurry site discussed at the Pembrokeshire Coast National Park Development Committee meeting on September 10, where it was reported Mr Daniel Harries said he had ‘overwhelming support’ for his planning application to expand his herd from 540 to 860 cows and build a new slurry lagoon.

I fear he is grossly mistaken in this assertion as the National Park Officer in charge of the application reports that, whilst there have been 7 letters of support, there have been 56 letters of objection, with more objections received after the closing date.

There has been a petition signed by many local residents, people of the surrounding villages and towns and tourists to the area who believe the natural beauty of The National Park should be preserved.

I would also like to point out, it is not just the site inspection that will determine the outcome of the application, but the verification of the statistics submitted by Mr Harries and his consultants to The National Park and whether the committee members follow the planning officer’s recommendation for refusal. At the end of the report, Councillor Lewis referred to ‘the planning officer’s concern about the slurry pit.’ I have heard a lot of people call it a slurry pit, which is not the correct term, the proposal is for a lagoon. A pit by definition is ‘a deep hole in the ground, or a mine’, whereas a lagoon is ‘a lake’ with a large surface area, in this case, over an acre, completely uncovered, untreated, stinking, raw slurry, open to disease carrying flies and emitting toxic gases that are carried in the air.

I assure you, there is grave concern in the area.

MARILYN WATSON

Preserve Pencaer Group