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)
The
Clerk advised that he had written to the police requesting that “SID” be
brought to
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)
The
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.
6-0607/5 –
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.