NO ACTION is likely to be taken by the national park over an "apparent breach" of a section 106 agreement which resulted in "an unexpected windfall profit" to the owner of Newport Links golf club.

A report by Pembrokeshire Coast National Park Authority's monitoring officer, to be considered by the National Park Authority at its meeting on Wednesday, says a subtle change of wording to the section 106 agreement meant that money made from the sale of property at the golf club didn't have to be ploughed back into the business.

A section 106 agreement is an agreement between a planning authority and a developer and outlines measures the developer must take to reduce their impact on the community.

In 2012 Chris Noot, director of the golf club, applied to Pembrokeshire Coast National Park Authority for permission to dispose of/sell Flats 1, 3 and 4 Dormy House at the golf club. A previous planning condition restricted the use of the 13 guest accommodation units for holiday use only and not as permanent accommodation.

Despite an informal request being turned down in August 2011, officer's recommendations to refuse the application on two separate occasions and a one month cooling down period, the application was approved by the authority's development management committee in December 2012.

Members approved the proposal eight to five with the condition that the original Section 106 obligation should be amended, requiring the capital raised by disposing of the accommodation to be re-invested into the golf club.

The authority and the applicant's solicitors then worked together to draft a section 106 agreement which included the reinvestment clause. The section 106 was signed and modified in April 2013.

More than six years later a national park planning officer noticed a further change had been made to the draft S106 agreement by the applicant's solicitor which was not listed in a covering e-mail detailing other modifications.

This change was the removal of two words "other than" from a relevant clause in the S106 agreement.

A report by the authority's monitoring officer states:

"The removal of these two words from the clause has resulted in the ability of the landowner to dispose of ten of the properties without having to re-invest the monies in the golf course/club, as per members' instructions.

"The circumstances of the execution of the document has awarded an unexpected windfall profit to the owner."

The monitoring officer suggests four possible causes of action in the light of this but dismissed all four as not practicable or without merit as the authority has not suffered financial loss.

"The situation is very unusual in that there is no evidence of any impropriety or error on the part of the authority itself," states the report.

"Consequently, I cannot see that there are any steps that can be taken or procedures or policies that could be introduced that would reduce or eliminate the risk of a repetition."