Members of the Public: 12

Apologies: LB

Attendees: DR/RP/IJ/GN/RB/JW

Members of the Public: 12

Open Forum:

Safer for the village as whole moved to the school, due to parking problems, security, busy main road – cross twice a week

BA Objection – presumption –community part of proposal inadequate for the community. Not for the pre-school but the community project.

Sue Mumford - Community part of building – as many will be aware – convert the scout hut, raise funds for brand new monies (difficulty) meet the needs of the pre-school have to gone down a different route due to funding implications, I believe that the needs of the community will be met. Will not meet everyone’s needs.

Car parking on site, congestion school lane, congestion at cross roads

Jenny Brace – there is a need now, we cannot wait any longer, no other premises available

Sue Mumford - Surveys being conducted the needs of the village – would Mr Ancliff elaborate

Brian Ancliff – Parish Plan

Samantha Farrington – preschool 9 years ago, son attended preschool, application working hard, numbers increased, school has good reputation from members of the public outside the parish. He curriculum states that every child matters, under 5 very important. Tap into the resources of the school, which is very difficult at present. A lot of time spent over the years.

Belinda Roberts – ideal location, same curriculum that the pre-school has the opportunity

SM 8 bay structure – 2 phases due to funding, 3 units allocated to community project. Cost point of view as cheap to get 8 than 5 bay building, kitting out, resources. Build 5 bays initially then further 3 at a later date.

2 end modules – small corridor, otherwise take the end of and insert modules. Evaluate due to funding constraints.

Ian Draycott

Meeting into full session at 7.46pm

Apologies:LB

Roger Brace – Pre-school

Glen Nicholas – Scout Hut

Ian Jones – Picton

DR / RB – Minutes approved

09/11984/FUL

Comments:

RB – condition of structure report – March 2009 (signature on back of document December 2009). Proposal to refurbish structure was highly critised, deemed not feasible. Access to the building going downhill fast. Hence planning application to demolish.

JW – date of last visit – RB unknown

DR – planning committee, position of planning application. Logic a pre-school next to the school, school rated very highly in the county, success greater demand. Qualify for primary school, going to pre-school. Safety is an issue, main road, re-current nightmare. Rate very important, the youngsters are the future of the community. The best opportunity in life, compelling arguments of approving the application.

RP – one or two points on the application, response no to protected species. Nature walks, does this have any relevance to the application. Trees/Hedges – some mature – overgrown hedges (these will be tidied, footprint is exactly the same as scout hut.

RP - Pavement front boundary re-instated – very untidy site due to years of neglect.

Employees – permanent teaching staff – care-taking staff and cleaners

GN – entrance sufficient

DR – site lines

JW – nothing to add

Proposal DR/IJ

Vote 4

Abstained -RB / GN

Recommend that the proposal is approved

09/11976/FUL

Pear Tree Cottage

GN – single storey extension to rear – toilet – change aspect of roof and section on the back. No overlooking aspects.

DR – not objections by neighbours

All in favour

10/10068/outline

Warrington Road

RP – neglected site (infill), 2 areas of trees, area at back copse, plan to situate the house to retain trees and management of the remainder.

DR – previous application by company who went into administration, applicant employee of the company

DR – if the neighbours have no objection

Cllr Ancliff – comments, neighbour objects, local plan washed over green-belt and should not be permitted.

Look at the concerns of local residents of this application, in-fill permissible

Cllr Ancliff – no infill sites left

RP – taking the view Parish Plan/VDS resist any application that goes against green-belt restrictions

RB – security of the location

DR – proposal section 5 – planning policy par2 (infill plot)

Proposal

Oppose on the grounds that the land is not in-fill and there is no justification regarding building on green belt land and planning is contrary to the Parish Plan and not in the interest of the neighbours; which have not been met in this application.

Outline planning application – inroad to a small development

10/10182/FUL

Propose – standard comment if neighbours do not object

Meeting adjorned 8.25

Date & Time of Next Meeting 01/03/2010 at 7.30pm

Apologies -