Parish Historical Recorder
1-0607/5 - Welcome and Apologies.
The Chairman welcomed Councillors and visitors to the meeting and advised that there were no apologies for absence.
The Chairman adjourned the meeting to allow PC Upson to introduce himself to the Council as indicated in the attached notes.
The Chairman then reconvened the meeting.
Apologies for the absence of PS from the meeting of 09 August 2006 were accepted. He had been unable to give these earlier since the meeting was called at short notice and he had been away at the time.
2-0607/5 - Declarations of Interest
ST declared interest in agenda item 8(i)
3-0607/5 - Previous Minutes
The minutes of the meeting of 09 August 2006 were approved and signed as a true record
4-0607/5 - Matters arising from previous minutes.
(i) Drainage in The Street (previous minute 4-0607/3 (i))
The Clerk confirmed that he had advised SCC that the outlet to the new drainage pipe at the northwest extreme of the recreation ground was not to an approved design.
(ii) Parking in The Street (previous minute 4-0607/3 (ii))
The Clerk confirmed that he had written to SCC, Highways on 03 August 2006, as instructed and received reply repeating SCC’s unwillingness to provide white-lining opposite the village hall entrance whilst they are aware of objections from adjacent residents. The Council agreed that they had now done all that they reasonably could on this matter – they could do no more in the face of parishioner’s objections.
(iii) Speeding in The Street (previous minute 4-0607/3 (iii)
Clerk advised that he had written to the police requesting that “SID” be
The Chairman adjourned the meeting to allow PC Upson to offer further advice regarding “SID” detection equipment as indicated in the attached notes.
The Chairman then reconvened the meeting.
The Clerk was instructed to write to SCC, Highways requesting deployment of their “SID” detection equipment in Brandeston.
The Clerk also advised that he had written to SCC, Highways on 04 August 2006 asking (i) if there is any noise level data for rumble strips (of the type at the western end of The Street)? (ii) whether rumble strips would be permitted at 10 metres before the commencement of the 30 mph limit? and (iii) the cost of 30 mph roundels painted on the highway? Reply had been received indicating that (i) SCC, Highways had no details of any noise data but that their noise specialist, Penny Moys, maybe able to provide general noise data on rumble strips. The Clerk was instructed to contact Ms Moys. (ii) rumble strips could be laid on derestricted roads but that a risk assessment might inform that claims could be forthcoming if a motorcyclist or cyclist could legally ride over them at high speed in darkness. However, it was indicated that a tolerance of 10 metres would appear satisfactory if the 30 mph signs were clearly visible upon the approach (iii) 30 mph roundels need to be laid adjacent to existing 30 mph traffic signs. Costs were £102.23 for 7.5m long roundels at the beginning of a speed restriction and smaller 4.3m repeater roundels cost £61.34
The Council agreed to continue to review the effectiveness or otherwise of the recently painted white-lining before considering further action on this subject.
(iv) Local Development Framework (previous minute 6-0607/3)
PS confirmed that Parish Plans were a developing process and that SCDC were intending to complete 60% of these by March 2008 and 100% by September 2008. PS agreed to attend the SCDC workshop on this subject (preferably) on 19 October 2006.
The Chairman adjourned the meeting to allow Cty Cllr Bellfield to offer advice to the Council as indicated in the attached notes.
The Chairman then reconvened the meeting.
(v) Electoral Roll (previous minute 10-0607/3)
Clerk confirmed that he had advised SCDC of the error on the current roll in
respect of the name of
5-0607/5 - Planning
(i) Application C06/1690/FUL – Construction of Headmaster’s House (Brandeston Hall) was tabled. The Chairman advised he had been invited to meet the Master at the School on Friday, 06 October 2006 at 9.00 am to discuss this application. HS agreed to join him.
PS stated that planning policy was that replacement buildings should be of similar size and scale and that was not the case with this application. He also strongly urged that if the application were approved, a legal (Section 106) agreement that its use be ancillary to Brandeston Hall be imposed. He suggested that the applicant be asked to explain the justification for the proposed domestic curtilage to include the area to the north of the new dwelling, which is currently an exit from the school. He urged that strong emphasis be made of this point – why isn’t the curtilage just around the house?
Several members expressed concern at the scale of the proposed development, particularly the height of the roof, and stated that the external finishes and roof tiles should be appropriate to the original surrounding buildings and the setting to minimise the impact. In addition, concern was expressed about light pollution from the school and the Council were anxious that this should not be added to by the proposed new development.
The Chairman undertook to raise all these points at the meeting on 06 October.
(ii) The Clerk advised that notification had been received of application C06/1612/LBC (Removal of render and re-rendering – 37 The Street). This is in identical terms to the previously approved application C06/0923/LBC (Removal of render and re-rendering – 38 The Street), upon which the Council had made no submission.
(iii) The Clerk also advised that application C06/1331/FUL (Bramley House – Erection of Single Storey Extension) had received approval with conditions. It was noted that there was no reference (as had been requested by the Council) to safety measures when unloading construction materials.
The Clerk advised of receipt of a questionnaire in respect of the above, which included details of the old village hut. He had replied indicating that he would bring this to the attention of the Council at its next meeting AND to the attention of the village hall committee. He had advised that he would be unable to meet the “deadline” of early September for submission of complete response. The Clerk then advised the Council of the response prepared by the village hall committee and it was agreed that they forward this to the planning unit.
7-0607/5 - Financial Report by RFO (The Clerk)
The Clerk advised of receipt of recycling credit of £15.67 and of the second precept payment from SCDC of £1,000 and then circulated the current cashbook position for both Council accounts. The main account has a current balance of £1,893.79 and the 100+ account a balance of £146.18 (both after allowing accruals for cheques raised and for latest receipts). The Clerk pointed out that, of course, there were future liabilities that would reduce these balances. However, the Clerk confirmed the satisfactory status of the Council’s finances.
8-0607/5 – Financial Matters
The Council approved payment as follows :-
(i) £8.00 to Brandeston VH&RG for room hire for the next Council meeting on 06 December 2006. ST withdrew from the meeting for this item.
(ii) £243.20 to Suffolk ACRE for renewal of the Council’s insurances. The Clerk advised that he had agreed with the village hall committee for them to insure the Council’s assets of chairs, plaques, cinema equipment and kitchen equipment since these were all retained at the village hall. As a consequence, the Council’s premium was less than that for 2005-06.
9-0607/5 - Variation to the agenda business
There were no items to discuss under this heading.
Date of Next Meeting
Date of next meetings were confirmed as 06 December 2006 and 21 February 2007 at 8.00 pm.
The meeting closed at 10.00 pm
NOTES OF PC UPSON’S STATEMENT OF INTRODUCTION
PC Upson introduced himself to the Council as the temporary (pending forthcoming reorganisation) Community Police Officer for Brandeston and confirmed that he would do all in his power to support the community.
NOTES OF PC UPSON’S ADVICE REF. “SID” DETECTION EQUIPMENT
PC Upson advised that SCC, Highways also possessed “SID” monitors and suggested that the Council could write asking for deployment at Brandeston.
NOTES OF CTY CLLR BELLFIELD’S ADVICE REF. PARISH PLANS
Cty Cllr Bellfield advised that Parish Plans should be agreed and presented by the village and that they provide the opportunity for the village to say “what it would like” However, it would still be possible to do this by direct reference to SCDC.