Developer's Proposal on Joe’s River Access Sparks Dispute Among St Joseph Residents

However, Lewis, 67, reiterated that the proposal was not acceptable and contained safety factors.

“Mr Marshall met with us. He really had his concerns relative to the safety of individuals travelling towards the Joe’s River Gully. The proposals that were made were totally counter to what he’s against. So I don’t think that, in my opinion, looking at all the proposals that were made thus far, it doesn’t appear as though Mr Marshall has any say as to what will be done and what will not be done.”

Lewis added: “So looking at it on its face value, it looks as if they are offering the public a number of things that would kind of solve the issue. Now, there’s a lot of matters there that [are] of concern.”

He questioned who owned the land associated with the train line and said if Government previously owned the land, who gave them the right to sell what was part of a historical park.

In terms of the access to Teacup and Saucer, Lewis said the proposed access could pose a danger to the public.

“That, technically speaking, is an insult to Bajans asking us to accept teacup and saucer from the area below that we know is a very dangerous area. The water comes straight up to the bank . . . .”.

In terms of his fall-out with Nicholls, Lewis said he invited the lawyer to the area to see the flaws in the proposal, but he never turned up.

When contacted, Nicholls said the matter was still being negotiated.

“I am still engaged in this matter representing the public interest through the clients who came to me in relation to the construction of these walls at the end of the footbridge at Tenby which will restrict access to the river basin, Joe’s River and to the installation called Teacup and Saucer. As far as it stands, I can confirm that we have been in receipt of an offer of settlement.

“I am not sure why the other side is making this public. We are in discussions in relation to the matter and those settlement discussions are without prejudice. My clients have to accept the terms of the settlement and the owner has to accept any counters that my clients have put in relation to that matter.”

He said the defendant (Ullswater Ltd) had since applied to the court to strike out the entire claim of the claimants because the witness statements were not filed on time and the matter was set to be heard on Thursday.

“So, while they are purporting that they want to be magnanimous and settle, they are still at the same time going to the court to ask the court to strike out the claim and that behaviour is not consistent with anybody who wants to generally settle and resolve the matter.”

In terms of his relationship with Lewis, the attorney stated: “I have written to Mr Victor Lewis in connection with an issue that we have had. I have not heard from him since I have written to him in April. As far as I am aware, Mr Lewis is still involved in the matter but he indicated that I had a challenge with something that has occurred. I wrote to him about that challenge.

“I am not at liberty to speak about the specifics about it because you don’t get into your client’s business in a public forum, but I am prepared for court.”