REPORT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE (NATIONAL PARK OFFICER)

SUBJECT:
LAND AT EAST BLOCKHOUSE

Introduction

Members will be aware from my initial notification, and more recently from press reports, that the former Qinetiq landholding at Angle has been placed on the open market for sale. This report considers the opportunity this presents to the Authority, in accordance with the revised procedure agreed at the meeting on the 2nd April in relation to potential significant land purchase opportunities within the Park. In accordance with this procedure, the opportunity has been given initial consideration by the Property Support Group, and subsequently by the Senior Management Team, before bringing it to Members.

Background

In considering the acquisition of any land or property, in the first instance, the Authority has to have regard to current policy and guidance, which is contained in paragraph 4.5.1 of the "Fit for Purpose" report of the National Park's Review Panel published in March 1991:

"National Park Authorities should normally seek to influence the land management of others rather then owning land themselves, using a range of new and existing incentives or controls. Acquisition is justified when all other powers of influence have failed or are inappropriate. Park Authorities should not retain land if acceptable management can be achieved by other means".

This recommendation was endorsed without comment by the (then) Welsh Office in responding to the Panel Report and represents current government policy.

Amongst the factors which would need to be weighed up in considering the justification of any acquisition are:
i) whether the land or buildings are required for specific operational purposes (i.e. to build a car park, or visitor centre);
ii) whether they are required to resolve a particular difficult management issue or conflict (competing uses, unauthorised access or parking, erosion, etc);
iii) whether they represent such significance to the purposes of the Park and are under imminent threat sufficient to justify protective ownership;
iv) whether any management or policy objectives in relation to the elements of interest of the Authority can be achieved either by existing regulatory functions, or the entering into of agreements with the landowner;
v) whether in the circumstances of the property it will be more appropriate for another agency or key partner to take the lead;
vi) whether, having regard for the above, the anticipated capital and management costs are justified
a) in themselves;
b) in relation to other competing demands/opportunities; and
c) in the context of the overall budgetary position. In this respect the availability or otherwise of financial support and/or grant aid from key partners would be a material consideration.

These were the considerations under which the opportunity was originally considered at the time of disposal by Qinetiq in 2006, and the question is whether or not any of these have changed, or altered sufficiently to justify a different decision.

Assessment

i) Although there had been previous discussion regarding the possibility of establishing a youth hostel within the main buildings, should the site ever become available, this situation has changed with the tightening economic climate affecting operation viability, and the Youth Hostel Association are no longer interested in such a proposal. Access along the Coast of the site exists by virtue of the Coast Path. The structures of historic interest can either be viewed adequately from this vantage point, or are replicated elsewhere in the County (providing more direct alternative educational and interpretive opportunities). No other operational requirements have been identified.

ii) In terms of management issues and/or conflicts, none have been identified of a sufficiently serious or immediate nature, which could not be resolved through regulation, licensing or the negotiation of an appropriate agreement with the landowner(s).

iii) The relevant Park purposes can be sub-divided as follows:
a) Recreation: access and enjoyment of a quiet nature, and on foot: it is considered that the existing Coast Path offers sufficient linear access opportunities, although consideration might be given to subsequently negotiating area access over part of the site to improve enjoyment, allow access to the former gun emplacement, and replicate the de facto access enjoyed by the local community in recent years (note: the land in question was not designated as open access land under the CROW Act but might be so designated if a further right of access to coastal land was introduced by the Assembly).

b) Building Conservation and Archaeology: elements of interest are not currently under imminent threat, or could be managed through existing levels of protection afforded by the relevant legislation (planning, ancient monuments, etc). Existing or new use consents are at present sufficient to enable economic use to ensure future maintenance, and the growing interest in military history and more modern structures affords them greater protection and value. The Authority's role is therefore seen to be an advisory one, supporting any landowner, and outright purchase is not justified.

In terms of the Archaeological interest this is important but probably not unique. Legislative protection makes this less vulnerable than other sites within the National Park, such that purchase on this aspect alone would set a wide precedent. Proactive involvement by the Authority with advice and support to influence the land's future management and retain identified aspects of significance would be the preferred course of action.

c) Nature Conservation: The site is important for its diversity of semi-natural habitats and species, and makes an important contribution to nature conservation in this part of the National Park. There are however a significant number of equivalent or more deserving examples of land in the National Park that require more urgent protection, and the main features of interest enjoy a degree of protection through SSSI designation, or the licensing of specific species such as Greater and Lesser Horseshoe Bats. The appropriate course of action is therefore to continue to advise and help whoever owns the site to optimise conditions for wildlife, but it is not considered that the significant cost of purchase is a justifiable use of our limited resources under this heading.

d) Landscape: The landscape appraisal of this particular sector of the National Park (LCA 7 - Angle Peninsula) identifies the natural and cultural qualities, and the strong coastal feel imparted by the peninsula and views out over the mouth of Milford Haven to St Ann's Head. Taken as a whole the Angle Peninsula exhibits high landscape value in cultural, historic and archaeological terms, and the northern section (around the village and land to the north) is contained within the Milford Haven Waterway Registered Landscape of Outstanding Historical Interest in Wales. The overall landscape context and specific elements of interest within the site are not seen as being under imminent threat, or something which cannot be managed through existing controls, supplemented by support and agreements with the landowner where appropriate (such as the grazing regime which we actively supported). It is no longer considered appropriate to demolish/remove the "unsightly buildings" on landscape grounds, given the increasing historical importance attached to them, as marked up by the Planning Inspector in determining the recent planning application. There would appear to be no overwhelming reason therefore to consider purchase under this heading.

iv) This factor under the initial list of criteria has been dealt with under the succeeding point, and the overall conclusion remains that control through existing regulatory and licence functions supplemented by support and agreements with any subsequent landowner remains the most appropriate way forward.

v) Given the analysis of this opportunity from the standpoint of the Authority as a public body, acting under existing guidance relating to the acquisition of land and property, and given the weight of interest within each factor, if acquisition on the grounds of long term protective public ownership is still to be considered, then the appropriate course of action would seem to be to support any expressions of interest from our key partners, and to both advise and support that interest with potential funding bodies and regulatory partners.

vi) Cost: the previous assessment concluded that a significant 6 figure sum to acquire the property was not justified through an assessment of the criteria (see above); and there were unlikely to be any significant funding or grant aid opportunities open to the Authority. Even if any funding opportunities, e.g. structural funds, were available, it would still leave the Authority with a significant balance to find. There were also considered to be more important actual or potential opportunities and demands on the Authority's budget. The position has been reviewed (even given the fact that the asking price has increased) and it is considered that financially the position has not changed. Indeed the Authority, like all public services, is now facing an indeterminate period of increased financial constraint and needs to retain its current level of reserves and avoid any non-essential expenditure of a significant nature.

Conclusion

An assessment of this opportunity concludes as previously that there is insufficient justification for the Authority to consider purchasing this property, although it should work with any key partner or agency who expresses an interest within their own particular context. Equally, as elsewhere, early contact should be established with any subsequent owner to discuss the overall vision and management of the site, and to offer advice and support on those elements of particular interest (see iii) above). This support could extend to concluding appropriate management agreements, or contributing to appropriate works of management which would enhance the public interest and access to the site.