Parish Council contents page . Members . Site A-Z . Home

2005 Minutes: Jan . Feb . March . April . May . June . July . August . Sept . Oct . Nov . Dec

GREAT YELDHAM PARISH COUNCIL. MINUTES OF THE PARISH COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON THURSDAY 3RD MARCH 2005. Present were: Mr C. Cumaranatunge. (Chairman), Mr D. Gray, Mr M. Wood, Mr B. Sargeant, Mr R. Francis, Mrs P Slimming, Mrs B. McNeill. In attendance:- Mr R. Liming. Clerk to the Parish Council, Mr D, Finch. County Councillor. Mr N. McCrea. District Councillor. Nine members of the public. Before commencement of the meeting, letters from Mr Eschborn and Mr Bickers of Whitlock Drive, Great Yeldham, objecting to matters related to the proposed Doctors Surgery, were distributed to members of the Parish Council. Mr Bicker s accused the Chairman, Mr Cumaranatunge, of misleading members of the public by writing in the Parish Magazine that the intended Village hall had the benefit of Outline Planning Permission and requested an apology. It was explained to Mr Bickers that the 106 agreement prepared by Braintree District Council and dated 10th June 1997 clearly gives permission for a Village Hall and it was therefore referred as Outline Permission, because in Planning Terminology, Full Permission includes structural details. Four written questions from Mr Bickers to the Parish Council were answered as follows:- 1. When was it resolved by the Parish Council to take ownership of the land at Whitlock Drive?, Answer:- Refer minutes of 13.06.1996 288(11) 11.07.1096.. 302. 12.09.1996. 308. b(1) 09. 01. 1997. 354. 2. When were the Parish Councillors notified that the land at Whitlock Drive, previously owned by the Trustees of the reading Rooms, was now owned by the Parish Council? Answer:- 05.06.2003. 3. When was the parish Council first aware that there would need to be modifications to the 106 agreement to enable a Surgery to be built? Answer:- The Parish Council was advised in Mid January 2005 that the Development Services were seeking legal advice to see if a formal application under the provisions of Section 106A to modify or discharge the obligation would be required from the developer. Page Two March 2005 Minutes 4, When were the Parish councillors first notified that the 106 agreement would need to be modified. Answer:- When the planning Application was received from B.D.C. (Mid February). Members who could be contacted by telephone were advised of the revised application and that the application would be considered at the March 2005 meeting. 902. Apologies for absence were received from Miss S, Smith and Mr T. Ellis. 903. The minutes of the meeting held on Thursday 3rd February 2005 were confirmed as a correct record. 904. No declarations of interest for any agenda items were received from members. 905. Planning applications received from B,D.C. for consultation. Application No 05/0025/FUL. Two Storey Extension. 11 Whitlock Drive. No objections from members. Application No 05/00187/FUL. Conservatory. 'Newcombes' Poole Street/ Great Yeldham. No objections from members. Application No 05/00186/FUL. Removal of restriction to use public open space/ Village Hall. Use Class D1/D2 to use for the provision of medical health service Use Class D1.. Land adjacent to 2-10 Whitlock Drive. Great Yeldham. The Clerk reminded members that the Parish Council had already resolved to support application No 04/04028/FUL, (Doctors Surgery to be located on the Section 106 agreed site for a Village Hall) This application had received approximately 600 signatures of support from local residents, together with letters of support from, Toppesfield Parish Council, Stambourne Parish Couincil Tilbury-Juxta-Clare and Ovington Parish Council, all of whom had sent further letters of support for the revised application. Councillor Mrs McNeill, without the authority of the Chairman, then interrupted the meeting by stating that the Parish Council was now in a mess and that they should have been warned about the alleged irregularities and that she now felt disappointed, appalled and disgusted at the position the Parish Council was in. Mrs McNeill was requested by the Chairman to remain silent but replied, 'I will not'. She then continued to accuse both the Clerk and the Chairman of misleading the Parish Council about the legality of the first and second application. After repeated requests to remain silent to Mrs McNeill, the Clerk reminded her that both she and the Parish Council had been advised of the meeting between Page Three, March 2005 minutes. the Braintree District Council Head of Planning, Mr Cumaranatunge, and the Clerk to the Parish Council, Mr R. Liming. The section 106 agreement had been discussed in depth and the opinion of the Planning Department had been in favour of the intention to make the application because of it being such a obvious community asset, The second application had, as explained to all Parish Council Members, been requested by the Legal Department of B.D.C, (who had written the original 106 agreement) in order that the Planning Committee would be able to consider the merits, or not, of the request for the removal of restriction to use from public open space/village hall. Use D//D2 to use for the provision of health services (Use classD1) The Chairman then called for a vote to decide the intention of the Parish Council. Members voted as follows:- In favour of supporting Application No 05/00186/FUL:- Mr C Cumaranatunge. Mr D. Gray. Mr M. Wood. Mr R. Francis. Mr B. Sargeant. Against:- Mrs B. McNeill. Abstained:- Mrs P. Slimming The vote being in favour of the application, it was resolved that the Clerk write To B.D.C. informing them that the parish Council supports the application. 906. B.D.C. Emergency. The Clerk informed members the 2005 Braintree District Council emergency plan was now operational and suggested to members that the County Council land, used for parking and car sales opposite the post office, might be considered as an assembly site in an emergency. Members thought that the best approach to the County Council would be through County Councillor David Finch, Clerk to contact. 907. Correspondence addressed to the parish Council was read to the meeting and where appropriate referred for filing. 908. Accounts for payment were considered by members and agreed for payment. The meeting closed at 2145hrs.

Copied and pasted from the original file, though the font and some line breaks may differ.