Minutes September 2007
Birdham Parish Council
Minutes of the Meeting held on Monday 17th September 2007 at 7pm in Birdham Village Hall.
Present: Cllr Tilbury; Cllr Howat; Cllr Mrs Parks; Cllr Ms Huskisson; Cllr Churchill
In attendance: The Clerk; District Cllr Montyn; District Cllr Jones and four members of the public
38-07cl. Apologies were received from Cllr Ms Leach, Cllr Mrs Cobbold and Cllr Meynell
39-07cl. Declaration of Interests Cllr Mrs Parks declared an interest in planning item BI/07/04010/ELD.
40-07cl. Approve and sign the Minutes of the Meeting held on 16th July 2007
It was proposed by Cllr Ms Huskisson and seconded by Cllr Howat RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting held on 16th July 2007 be approved as a true record and be signed by the chairman.
41-07cl. Matters arising from the Minutes dated 16th July 2007
i) Min 31-07cl i) Hedge cutting – the Clerk is still awaiting information as to who now owns this hedge. Need to contact WSCC about this.
ii) Min 32-07cl v) Governor, Birdham School – the Clerk has received a copy of a letter appointing Cllr Mrs Parks to this post.
iii) Min 32-07cl xii) Chichester Canal AGM. Cllr Ms Leach attended and sent a brief report – WSCC are aiming for the canal to be navigable to the sea by 2010. Southern Gate Forum is on the pipeline for development and plans are being drawn up at present for the Hunston to Donnington section. The Clerk added that she had asked County Cllr Christina Freeman who chaired the Canal Management Advisory Group why it had not met for a long time. It has been disbanded and a much smaller group now provides that function. However, Parish Councils are welcome to write to Ms Freeman with any of their concerns, and the Clerk had suggested to her that it might be helpful to hold a meeting once a year just for PCs. It seems unlikely that this will happen. It was agreed to write to encourage this to happen and that it was discourteous not to have let the members of the group know or to ask their advice as to how to proceed. This was unacceptable.
42-07cl. Clerk’s report including:
a) WSCC reports, highways matters and correspondence
i) The Council has been sent a letter about the Minerals and Waste Development Framework. The core strategy will no longer be able to be submitted in January 2008, it will probably be in 2009. This was noted.
ii) Steve Hodd has replied to the Council’s letter about Japanese knotweed. There is no funding to remove it, but contractors who have been used by WSCC in the past are Millstone Landscapes of West Stoke. It was decided to contact Steve Johnson to say that it has now spread to the verge in Hundredsteddle Lane, and the Parish Council has no funding to do this work. He could consult Ann Griffiths or Graham Roberts – in the environment department and they might also advise on right time to do the work.
iii) The Council has been sent information about a Local Action Group called “Three Harbours and a Coastal Plain” which is interested in the challenge of climate change. They will be holding an information evening and workshop at the Assembly Rooms in North Street, Chichester on Thursday 20th September 2007 with a buffet tea from 5.45 and workshops from 6.30 to 9pm. It was agreed to ask Cllr Mrs Cobbold to attend for the Council if she was available.
iv) The Council has received a consultation document on two options for the distribution of Gypsy and Traveller caravan sites in West Sussex. Comments are required by 28th September at the latest. Cllr Mrs Parks agreed to look at this for the Council.
v) 20 mph limit in Birdham – The chairman explained that now that criteria for speed limits have changed the Council would like to have a 20mph limit north of Birdham Straight.
b) CDC reports including correspondence
i) The Council has been sent booklets about the West Sussex Food and Drink Festival 2007. The booklets have been placed in the correspondence for councillors to help themselves. This was noted.
ii) The Annual Meeting with the Parishes will be held on Monday 29th October 2007 from 7pm, preceded by workshops on the Role of the Parish Council in the Planning System and Planning Enforcement from 4 to 5pm and 5.15 to 6.15pm at East Pallant House. Cllrs Tilbury and Howat agreed to attend.
iii) CDC have invited one member of the Council to attend a special meeting of the Policy Committee on Wednesday 26th September at 9.30am at East Pallant House at which John Wilderspin will take questions from members of the Committee, other Council members and the public. Cllr Howat agreed to attend.
iv) The Council has received a letter about the review of polling districts and polling stations and there are no changes which will affect Birdham. This was noted.
v) CDC has sent details of their “Make a Difference” conference to be held on 11th October from 5.30pm for members of the business community. This was noted.
vi) Chichester District Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership (CRDP) will be statutorily required next April to produce a Crime and Disorder Plan. The Council has been asked to complete and return a questionnaire by 1st December 2007. Cllr agreed to complete this for the Council. There is also information about a public meeting in Petworth on 13th October between 10 and 2 where local police will be available to discuss problems etc. This was noted.
c) other related matters
i) Defra has written to say that the closing date for comments on the proposed South Downs National Park has been put back to 24th September. This was noted.
ii) West Sussex Primary Care Trust has sent a copy of the consultation document – Creating an NHS Fit for the Future. The closing date for comments is 30th October. Cllr Howat agreed to look at this for the Council.
iii) Local Works has sent an update on its Campaign for Sustainable Communities Bill. This was noted.
iv) Principal who service the photocopier have sent a letter to say they are now charging 1.855p per copy for their service. This was noted.
v) Operation Crackdown has sent lots of leaflets about how to report bad driving etc. This was noted.
vi) South East Planning Aid has sent leaflets about how they can help individuals and communities. This was noted.
vii) Citizens Advice Bureau has invited the Council to the Annual meeting to be held on Monday 1st October at 6pm at Edes House. Cllr Churchill agreed to attend for the Council.
viii) Sarah Hughes (Wildlife Project Officer) has asked if she could speak to the Council, and after consultation with the Chairman, she has been invited for 7.15 at the 15 October meeting.
ix) Emma Baillieu has contacted the clerk to ask if anything can be done about the dog mess on Westlands Lane. Could there be a bin there, or a sign reminding people to clean up after their dogs. The Clerk suggested she contact the dog wardens at CDC. Cllr Howat offered to look at the situation and decide where would be appropriate to place a bin.
x) An email has been received from Manhood Cycle Network to say that the proposed opening of the Bill Way on 15th September has been cancelled, too late for this meeting to be notified. However, the Council may wish to ask a member to attend their meetings as was done under the previous Council. After discussion it was decided that Cllr Churchill would receive the information for the Council.
xi) The Saturday Venture Association has written to encourage the Council to support the provision of a footpath in Church Lane. The chairman explained what the situation was at the present time. It was agreed to talk to Peter Johnson again and to look at possible solutions. To be an item on the next agenda.
xii) The local Council for Voluntary Services has sent information on a funding fair at Oving Village Hall 10-2 on 3rd October, and an event to promote World Mental Health Day on 10th October 10 – 3 at the Assembly Rooms. These were noted.
43-07cl. Planning matters including CDC decisions
A paper detailing planning matters had been circulated to all councillors:
Plans to be considered at the Meeting:
BI/07/03838/TCA – Richard Wheeler, 23 Long Meadow Gardens, Birdham PO20 7HP – Re-reducing poplar and crown lifting 2 larches to five metres – the Council wishes to OBJECT to this application because there is insufficient information and contradictions such as the fact that one page refers to crown lifting two larches and the other to felling one of them. The Council wishes for more information before making a decision.
BI/07/03799/FUL – George Haines (Itchenor) Ltd, Haines Boatyard, Itchenor PO20 7AN – development of a boat storage facility. It was agreed to wait until Itchenor’s Planning Committee had met before making a decision on this application.
BI/07/04495/DOM – Mr and Mrs J Hammond, Windward, Westlands, Birdham PO20 7HJ – two storey and single storey side extensions and relocation of garage – it was decided to make a site vist before deciding on this application.
BI/07/03759/DOM – Mrs Watson, Bye Harbour, Westland Estate, Birdham PO20 7HT – conservatory to rear of property – it was proposed by Cllr Howat and seconded by Cllr Ms Huskisson RESOLVED NO OBJECTION.
Plans considered since the last meeting to be ratified:
BI/07/04056/DOM and BI/07/04058/LBC – Mr and Mrs Glynn, The Thatched Cottage, Shipton Green Lane, Itchenor – Construction of new three bay single storey garage and new entrance to Itchenor Road, existing parking area changed to garden with new fence screen to adjacent service road.
We have visited the site and would make the following observations.
The Thatched Cottage is a listed building standing adjacent to the track entrance to barns attached to Holt Place. A recent planning decision has allowed use of one of the barns for storage and this has greatly increased the traffic on the shared access. The Thatched Cottage has no garage at present and the gravelled hard standing is adjacent to the track. The object of this plan is to enclose the curtilage of The Thatched Cottage, to provide a separate entrance onto Itchenor Road, to construct a new garage next to the Cottage and to convert the gravelled area to garden to compensate for that lost by the new entrance and garage.
The new entrance will be close to the junction of the B2179 and Itchenor Road, the site of a recent fatal accident. We feel that the proposed new entrance will be safer than the present one as it is further away from the junction. We understand that WSCC Highways share this view. It is intended to re-align the hedgerow to provide a visibility splay. We would like to see a condition that any new planting should be of indigenous species. The new entrance will involve culverting the ditch fronting Itchenor Road. We ask for particular care to be taken that the culvert is large enough for the volume of water; otherwise there will be flooding of the land attached to The Thatched Cottage and others on Itchenor Road.
In enclosing the curtilage of the Cottage we note that there will be new screen fencing onto the access track to Holt Place barns. We understand that this will be post and rail fencing with hedge planting on the inside. We would be opposed to solid or lapped fencing at this point and ask for attention to be given to an environmental plan for this area and that the hedging should be of indigenous species rather than ornamental.
There is always special concern about building close to a listed building. We have considered carefully the plans to build a timber-framed garage with reclaimed plain clay tiles and are satisfied that this will not detract from the Cottage. We also consider the height to be proportionate to the existing building.
With the caveats mentioned above the Council raises NO OBJECTION to this application.
Premier Business Park, Birdham Road, Birdham
The Council wishes to continue to OBJECT to this application as only one of our previous objections appears to have been addressed. As we said, the latest proposal, by its articulation, makes some attempt to minimise the impression of bulk but the two blocks appear to be 6.8 metres and 5.4 metres high respectively. The larger block is right next to the main road and replaces a modest, single-storey, flint and brick double garage with a low pitch. Because of the new building’s proximity to the road when approaching from the south, there will be a much greater intrusion into the visual landscape at this point, which lies outside the SPA and within the Chichester Harbour AONB. It also lies directly to the south west of the neighbouring property and will be of almost exactly the same height. This will deprive the neighbours of their right to light in their house and garden during the afternoon and evening. We note that the windows of the rear elevation of the first floor have been deleted from the substitute plans but still feel that the development is unneighbourly. The side elevation facing the road is an unrelieved slab and will lend itself to some form of advertising/lettering which will increase the intrusion of this site into the rural landscape at a gateway site for Birdham. We would like to see a condition preventing this. We have sought to minimise such intrusion on applications on this site and are constantly lobbied by residents to complain about what they see as crude commercialism. We accept that the office building may be redeveloped but would ideally prefer a single storey building and a retreat to the building line of Birdham Farm. A two storey building is overpowering at this point. We also note that the two work units facing this site are as yet unused and we doubt whether the amount of parking space shown on the office application will in fact be available when the units are let.
BI/07/03985/DOM – Mr A and Mrs J Goodhew, Kinderhook, Court Barn Road, Birdham – double garage to existing property. Amendment to planning permission BI/04/02058/DOM
The Council raises NO OBJECTION to this application.
Miklegard, Martins Lane, Birdham
The Council wishes to OBJECT to this application.
The subject of this application lies on the border of the Birdham Settlement Policy Area and within the Chichester Harbour AONB.
In terms of overall design, we are disappointed to see the boringly repetitive style of these two houses. This lane consists of individual houses and we would like to see some diversity.
What is planned is to replace a bungalow with a two one-and-a-half storey houses. While it appears true that the footprint is the same as for the existing house, the effect of the increase in height, reaching tight to the site boundaries, will be much more massive for the neighbours to the south west. The current bungalow with its flat roof additions lies behind the building line of the adjacent houses and therefore any increase in height will be more marked. Although it is a Building Regulations matter we would comment that the foundations of the extensions to this property should be examined to see if they are sufficient for the proposed development. There have also been problems from the roots of the Macrocarpa and the Poplar on the northern boundary of the site.
The plans stress the existence of dense evergreen hedges which are to be retained. The hedging to the south-west is actually on the neighbours’ property but the window of the Living Room on the south-west elevation, right against the fence/hedge, seems to have no purpose but to deprive the neighbours of their privacy if they do not maintain the hedge. The gable end of this elevation will also mean the inevitable and radical pruning back of a mature oak tree in the neighbours’ garden. The height of all of this block (even if mitigated by the pitch of the roof for the back section) may well deprive the neighbours of morning light, especially in winter, and the gable end to a height of more than 6.3 metres will impose itself on their garden. As we have said above, if the construction were on the front building line, this could be avoided. As they stand, the effect of these features of the development seem to us to be unnecessarily unneighbourly.
No details are given of materials for the new roofs but we would expect them to be of plain clay tiles.
We note that a separate access from the road is given for each of the proposed new houses. Martins Lane is an extension of Footpath 39 and of Footpath 41. It is also part of the Salterns Way Cycle and Wheelchair Path from Chichester to West Wittering. For all of these reasons it is increasingly heavily used by people on foot, families on bikes and by wheelchair-users. An extra access provides an extra hazard. We would prefer a single access, as at present. This has been accomplished with success a little further to the west at Beechside and Beechway which were built on the site of one previous bungalow. The more northerly access on the application would involve the removal of an oak tree which has a preservation order (TPO11/BI), which we find unacceptable.
We therefore OBJECT to this application on grounds of design, unneighbourliness and loss of amenity, road safety and the removal of a tree with a preservation order.
BI/07/03950/COU – Units 3 and 4, Premier Business Park, Birdham Road
The Council is unable to come to a decision on this application because of a lack of clear information. It is perhaps significant that the major plan is dated to 2005 and includes the adjacent premises which were originally Units 1 and 2 of this development. The only elevation we have is labelled Unit 2 but appears to be what was originally Unit 3 and we are left to anticipate that the other half of the development (originally Unit 4) will mirror the elevation we have. The present shell of the original Unit 3 appears to match the elevation but is unlabelled. We assume from the plan that the right-hand space must be a window. The centre space could be a window or a rolling door; the plan is not clear on this. On our visit we were told by someone working on the site that the door and window frames would match the other units already in use; there is nothing to indicate this on the elevation. Neither is there any indication as to signage.
It is perhaps symptomatic of this application that Part 2 of the application is headed Arun District Council. On the plan dated 2005 a mezzanine floor plan is shown but it is not clear if this refers to Premier Motor Homes in the adjacent units or to the present application. If it is to the present application there is a mismatch in the plan which shows the stairs up to the mezzanine floor entering directly into the offices on one plan but entering onto what appears to be a balcony on the other.
There are references in the correspondence to parking places and the Planning Officer had obviously had some concerns about these. So have we. There is an as yet unresolved planning application to develop the offices on the east side of this site where much the same parking spaces are shown. Are we to understand that the same parking spaces are to serve both developments, if approved? The anticipated figures for per day parking seem to us to be little better than guesswork.
We frequently receive comments about the development of this site from local residents, and the existing development has attracted the interest of the Enforcement Officers. We are not prepared to give an opinion about its extension on the basis of the information we have been given and therefore register a technical OBJECTION.
BI/07/03767/TPA – J Dew/M Cook, Magherymore, Claytons Corner, Birdham PO20 7HQ – Crown reduce by 20% and thin by 15% 1 no sycamore (T1), 2 no horse chestnuts (T2 and T5) and 1 no silver birch (T3). Also reduce and reshape by 50% 1 no weeping willow. All five trees are subject to TPO 32/BI
This response reflects also the opinion of our Tree Warden.
T1. Sycamore. The proposal is to reduce the crown by 20% and thin by 15% because the tree is close to the house and blocking light. The tree is to the north-west of the house, a new building which is not yet complete. It was there before the building started, is on the wrong side to block light and appears to be perfectly healthy. We are opposed to the proposal.
T2 Horse Chestnut. This tree is nearer to the new house but the same arguments apply. The tree shows signs of recent damage, possibly by contractors’ lorries, and there are some dead limbs, but minimal management will restore it. We believe the tree to be healthy although the bark is cracked on the main trunk. The browning of the leaves is probably because of lack of water to the roots during the building operations. Minimal attention from a qualified tree surgeon appears to be all that is necessary and not the fairly radical thinning referred to above. A Planning Inspector has referred to the site as being a sensitive one.
T3 Silver Birch. The application states that this tree is too near the house and is oversized. The words “damp” and “neighbours” also appear without explanation. Neither the applicants nor the neighbours were at home at the time of our visit so we cannot know what these words mean. The tree seems to be in perfectly good order and not particularly near the house. We do not see that a case has been made.
T4 Weeping willow. This is a very large tree and the applicant claims that it is damaged though we could see no sign of this. But it is a very large tree and probably needs some management.
T5 Horse Chestnut. The application is again to reduce the crown by 20% and thin by 15%. It is also said to be close to the house. It is in fact the furthest away. We could see no reason to interfere with this tree.
With protected trees our assumption is always that they should be left alone unless there are compelling reasons to interfere. Building next to them is not a compelling reason. We thin that T2 and T4 need minimal attention but we will otherwise rely on the opinion of the District Council’s Tree Officer who will, we hope, have our comments very much in mind.
BI/07/03298/DOM – Mrs Willson, Pentricola, Westlands Lane – detached garage
The Council raises NO OBJECTION to this application.
BI/07/03486/FUL – Mr Noon and Mr Cobley, Tate House, Main Road – Retention of Tate House and Widdicombe and the erection of 4 no. one and a half storey dwellings.
The Council’s objections to the previous application were based on concerns about access, parking, design, drainage, overdevelopment of the site, loss of the transition between the rural AONB landscape and the residential area of the village and loss of amenity to the neighbouring properties in Burlow Close and Main Road.
We have remaining concerns about access to this fourth branch of the roundabout but we note that much thought has gone in to widening the entrance to accommodate refuse collection and emergency vehicles. Conversely we are now concerned that pedestrians may find the entrance rather too wide and should perhaps be guided towards the dropped crossing points further in to the access.
We also have concerns about surface drainage since most of it will be via soakaways. We stated previously our concerns about the drainage ditch to the rear of the site and the danger of flooding at Chaffinches Farm if this ditch were overloaded.
The buffer strip on the north and west sides of the site meet our concerns about visual impact and are, in our view, sufficient to satisfy the concerns of the neighbours. Similarly we are glad to see that the site has now retreated from the roadside and the two gatehouses have been abandoned. The reduction from 43 dph to 36 is also welcome and we note that the properties are of a size needed in this area.
We note the provision of a parking place for visitors. Doubts must remain as to whether this will suffice in this location.
We believe that the developer has come a long way to meet the objections to the previous plan and on balance the Council raises NO OBJECTION to this application.
BI/07/03325/DOM – Gary Bell, Forge Cottage, Martins Lane – rear extension with room in roof and new double garage
The architect of this development is a member of Birdham Parish Council and has therefore been excluded at all points in the consideration of this application.
We have considered carefully the plans for the extension of this significant building within the Parish and two councillors have visited the site and spoken to the neighbours. We were originally concerned at the size of the increase in the footprint of this building but, having visited the site, are fully satisfied that it is proportionate to the existing building and a vast improvement on the existing extension. We have considered the fact that the extension will be higher than the existing front block of the building but are satisfied that this will have negligible visual impact from the road.
We note that, in the past, the brickwork on the front of the building has been painted white, along with the flintwork. We hope that the opportunity will be taken to return the brickwork to its natural, contrasting colour.
Our main concern was with the new double garage. We note that consideration has been given to the right to light of the neighbours at the rear of the garage but suggest that their visual amenity could be further safeguarded by moving the garage to the west so that half of it overlaps the neighbours’ garage, which will then read as an L shape with their garage when viewed from their house. Access to the new garage in this position would not be a problem, although the plan does not show the extent of the gravel drive in front of it.
We are unhappy about the space marked as guest parking 2 on the plan. Martins Lane is lined by grass verges for the whole of its length and we would not want to see the beginnings of the degradation of this vergescape. It seems to us that there will be ample parking on the gravel area to the east of the building, in front of the new garage.
On the assumption that due weight and attention will be given by the planning authority to these remarks, the Council raises NO OBJECTION to this application.
BI/07/04227/FUL – Mr and Mrs C Rasborn, Miklegard, Martins Lane PO20 7AU – subdivision of existing bungalow into two dwellings – The Council responded to this application and since then two sets of substitute plans have been submitted. The Council considers that its objections have been seriously considered and in most cases met. The design has been improved, access to the site has been made safer, the oak tree is now to be retained, and the loss of amenity has been mitigated to the satisfaction of the neighbours. We understand that the applicants have agreed to conditions on the height of the rear extension to the south-west and to a condition on future building at the front of the development. On this understanding the Council withdraws its Objection and has NO OBJECTION to the application in its revised form.
BI/07/04010/ELD – Mr and Mrs M Parks, Ellscott Park, Sidlesham Lane PO20 7QL – occupation of the dwelling house in breach of Condition no. 2 of planning permission BI/109/72 relating to agricultural occupancy –
Mrs Parks is a Parish Councillor in Birdham and has therefore taken no part in the consideration of this application.
The essence of this application is to determine whether the occupation of the house at Ellscott Park for more than ten years in breach of a planning condition of 1972 restricting it to agricultural occupancy is proved and that a Certificate of Lawfulness may be issued. The Council has reviewed the documents presented to it and can see no reason why the Certificate should not be issued but is content to rely on the legal judgement of those qualified to make it at the District Council.
Farne House, Court Barn Lane, Birdham – This is an application to renew an unimplemented permission of 2002. The Council did not object to the original permission and considers that circumstances have not changed since that time. It has NO OBJECTION to this application.
BI/07/01689/DOM – Mr and Mrs J O’Brien, Cross Lanes, Batchmere Road PO20 7LJ – Construction of new first single storey extension to form master bedroom. Enlarged lounge, bathroom and bedroom 2. Construction of new conservatory – PERMIT
BI/07/02062/ELD – Mr K and Mrs S Leach, Houseboat Infinity, Chichester Marina PO20 7EJ – Permanent mooring for a houseboat used residentially – PERMIT
BI/07/01456/COU – Mr D Pick, Holt Place Farm, Shipton Green Lane, Itchenor PO20 7BZ – Change of use from agricultural to B2 general use – REFUSE
BI/07/02912/FUL – Mr AJ Payne, White Water, Lock Lane, PO20 7BA – Replacement dwelling and garage, new access drive – PERMIT
BI/07/02840/DOM – Mr and Mrs Imhoff, Acorns, Lock Lane PO20 7BA – New dormer window on south elevation – PERMIT
BI/07/02294/DOM – Mr RV Treagust, Garden Cottage, Bell Lane, PO20 7HX – Erection of a garage for high vehicles – PERMIT
BI/07/02913/DOM – Ms R Shrub, 1 and 2 Holts cottages, Shipton Green Lane, Itchenor PO20 7BZ – Two storey rear extension to No 1, first floor rear extension to No 2 – PERMIT
Land at Russells Garden Centre, Main Road, Birdham – creation without planning permission of an earth bund containing hardcore and green waste. Notice issued 17th August 2007.
It was proposed by Cllr Churchill and seconded by Cllr Howat RESOLVED to ratify the decisions taken since the last meeting.
Correspondence to be circulated includes:
The Local Column August and September
CDC Initiatives autumn 2007
CPRE Sussex Review Summer 2007
CDC Standards Committee minutes 6 July 2007
Chichester Harbour Conservancy Management Plan Progress Report 2006-7
CDC Annual Performance Plan 2007-2008
Partnership News July 2007
Play Today July 2007
Action in Rural Sussex Action July 2007
WSCC Forward Plan of Key Decisions August-November 2007, September-December 2007, October 2007-January 2008
LCR September 2008
Clerks and Councils Direct September 2007
i) Village Hall – the Chairman reported the grants committee of CDC want to visit the hall on 1st October and he will show them round.
ii) Play Area and Playing Field – Cllr Churchill reported equipment is fine. Games wall has been installed but not much used. Grass cutting – chairman met with Justin Jones who agreed to pick up the grass in the playground in future. Also they would spray the nettles in the play area. The rest of the field has been better cut.
iii) Village Green and Pond – problems with drainage in June, water not draining properly into Birdham Pool. Parrot weed has not been so bad this year.
iv) Neighbourhood Watch – the Clerk reported that Wendy Pitty has no incidents to report. She and her husband will be attending the local AGM on 29th September and will be happy to raise anything the Council wishes to forward to her. This was noted.
v) Tree Wardens – work has started on trees on LongMeadow site backing onto Walden Close. Dead trees in field have been removed.
A Financial Situation Report had been circulated to all Councillors.
Payments made since the last meeting to be ratified:
Clerk’s salary, July 530.33
CDC grass including 29.80 VAT 200.08
A. Dover, grass July 88.00
Public Works Loan Board (Village Hall loan) 8591.04
Principal 1 Ltd, photocopier service contract, inc 9.74 VAT 65.39
Knight Fencing Ltd, games wall, includes 172.90 VAT 1160.90
Mrs Geary, litter, August 65.00
Adrian Dover, grass June and August 199.50
CDC, grass, twice, includes 59.60 VAT 400.16
CPRE subscription 27.00
Clerk’s salary, August 530.33
Payments to be considered:
Mrs Geary, litter, September 65.00
Mrs S Heasman, clerk’s expenses includes 6.95 VAT 86.87
Ann Marcer, bark for trees in field 14.00
CDC grass cutting includes 14.90 VAT 100.04
During the last two months the Clerk has transferred a total of £2000 from the deposit to the current account to ensure the Council will not be overdrawn, and £8591.04 from the Village Hall account to the current account to pay the PWLB payment. The audit was returned because a number of mistakes were found by the external auditors, but these have now been corrected and it was sent back. A corrected copy is available for councillors as are corrected copies of the balances for May, June and July. The second half of the precept is expected shortly and most of it will be transferred to the deposit account and the Village Hall account as soon as it arrives.
It was proposed by Cllr Mrs Parks and seconded by Cllr Tilbury RESOLVED to approve the Financial Situation Report.
47-07cl. Reports of meeting attended by councillors
i) Chichester Association of Local Councils – Cllr Tilbury reported that Richard Meynell was elected to the Harbour Conservancy Advisory Board
ii) Peninsula Community Forum – Cllr Tilbury reported that there were presentations on how to run a web-site, light pollution and the Careline service.
48-07cl. Public Session Nothing was raised.
There being no further business, the meeting closed at 9.26pm