* SUB-/COMMITTEE

Document Sample
* SUB-/COMMITTEE Powered By Docstoc
					                    EASTERN AREA PLANNING SUB-COMMITTEE
                           MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON
                        WEDNESDAY 18 AUGUST 2004
               AT THE DENEFIELD SCHOLL, LONG LANE, TILEHURST
Councillors: Joe Mooney (Chairman) (P), Peter Argyle (AP), Brian Bedwell (AP), Keith Chopping (P),
John Farrin (P), Andy Kilgour (AP), Keith Lock (P), Alan Macro (P), Tim Metcalfe (Vice-Chairman (P),
Laszlo Zverko (P)
Substitutes: John Chapman, Manohar Gopal (P), Mrs Sandra Harding, Mrs Susie Kemp (P), Tony Linden (P),
Dr Royce Longton (P)
Also present: Tim Slaney, Dave Pearson, Rebecca Tripp, Jim O’ Connell, Ashley Heath, Gareth Dowding,
Moira Fraser, Linda Pye
PART I
31.    APOLOGIES.
       Apologies for the inability to attend the meeting were received on behalf of Councillors Peter Argyle,
       Brian Bedwell and Andy Kilgour.
       Councillor Gopal substituted for Councillor Bedwell.
       Councillor Kemp substituted for Councillor Kilgour.
       Councillor Linden substituted for Councillor Argyle.
32.    MINUTES.
       The Minutes of the meeting held on 07 July 2004 were approved as a true and correct record and
       signed by the Chairman.
33.    DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST.
       There were no declarations of interest declared.
34.    APPLICATION NO. 04/00109/FUL – WORKSHOP AT 14 STATION ROAD,
       PANGBOURNE, READING.
       The report (Agenda Item 4(3)) concerning Planning Application 04/00109/FUL relating to the change
       of use to a MOT testing station was withdrawn from the agenda subsequent to its publication.
35.    APPLICATION NO. 04/01325/FUL – LAND TO THE NORTH OF PANGBOURNE
       HILL, PANGBOURNE.
       The Sub-Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application
       04/012325/FUL relating to the change of use to a private gypsy caravan site (16 pitches) and the
       provision of an access road and internal drive together with hardstanding for each of the pitches.
       In accordance with the Council’s Constitution Mrs Pamela Bale, Parish Representative, Mr Simon
       Dimmick and Mr Martin Kelmanson representing the Pangbourne Village Residents’ Association and
       Mr Allan, objector addressed the Sub-Committee on the following application.
       Mrs Bale in addressing the Sub-Committee raised the following points:
          The Parish Council was concerned about the impact the unauthorised use of the site was having
           on the previously tranquil, well maintained rural cemetery.
          EASTERN AREA PLANNING SUB-COMMITTEE – 18.08.04 – MINUTES
   They were concerned about the retrospective nature of the application.
   The Parish Council was of the opinion that the change of use from arable agricultural land to a
    private gypsy caravan site was contrary to the West Berkshire District Local Plan (WBDLP).
   The proposal was outside the settlement boundary of Pangbourne and it was therefore contrary to
    HSG 1 and HSG 2.
   The proposal did not satisfy the criteria set out in ENV.18 to be considered as an exceptional case
    and the proposed development would take place in the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding
    National Beauty (AONB).
   The caravan site would damage the landscape and was therefore contrary to ENV.1
   The Parish Council felt that the applicants had failed to demonstrate an exceptional need for the
    development and the proposal was therefore contrary to Policy HSG17A which related specifically
    to permanent gypsy sites.
   The Pangbourne Village Plan, which had been adopted as Supplementary Planning Guidance,
    had expressed the view of residents that they wished to retain a well defined green gap between
    Pangbourne and Upper Basildon.
   The access at the junction with Pangbourne Hill was dangerous and was not suitable for large
    vehicles. In addition the lack of pavements meant that pedestrians were vulnerable.
   The original vehicular access had been resurfaced with inappropriate materials.
   Foul sewerage in the area had already reached capacity.
   The Parish Council supported Officer’s recommendation to refuse planning permission and the
    volume of letters of objection and signatures on the petition demonstrated the level of local
    concern associated with the application.
Messrs Dimmick and Kelmanson in addressing the Sub-Committee raised the following points:
   Pangbourne Village Residents’ Association objected to the application as they felt that the
    proposal was wholly contrary to policy.
   The applicants had not provided any supplementary information to justify the application or
    demonstrated a particular need for the site as outlined in Policy HSG 17A. The application failed
    to meet at least 4 of the 7 criteria set out in the policy that would demonstrate a need for the
    development.
   The site fell within the AONB and was previously peaceful farmland in a tranquil part of the
    countryside.
Mr Allan in addressing the Sub-Committee raised the following points:
   He was concerned about the foul language and loud music emanating from the site that was
    disturbing and intimidating visitors to the cemetery.
   He was also concerned about possible environmental hazards that could arise from poor sanitary
    facilities on the site.
In discussing the application Members emphasised the importance of preserving the character and the
peace and tranquillity of this beautiful part of the AONB. The Sub-Committee acknowledged that
applications relating to travellers were often contentious but felt that this particular site was not
suitable for residential development of any nature. Members noted their disappointment that the
application was retrospective and no prior consultation had taken place despite invitations by the
Council to do so as Circular 1/94 encouraged gypsies to consult with authorities before buying land on
which they intended to camp. They noted that the applicants had not demonstrated particular need
and had failed to meet the majority of criteria set out in HSG 17A which related specifically to
                EASTERN AREA PLANNING SUB-COMMITTEE – 18.08.04 – MINUTES
      permanent gypsy sites. The Sub-Committee felt that the application contravened a number of policies
      as set out in the Officer’s report.
      Legal Officers explained that the Council’s Environmental Health Officers would deal with any waste
      hazards arising from the use of the site.
      RESOLVED that the Head of Planning and Transport Strategy be authorised to refuse planning
      permission for the following reasons:
      1.      The site lies in a rural setting characterised by open downland interspersed with hedging and
              copse close to but outside the settlement of Pangbourne. This countryside is designated as
              AONB, where there is a presumption that development should conserve or enhance the
              natural beauty of the area. The development by virtue of the imposition of a loose scattering
              of caravans and associated domestic elements in such an undisturbed rural landscape will
              appear as an incongruous alien feature in the locality and from some views further afield. No
              identified or particular need has been provided to justify the location of the development in this
              particularly sensitive site. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies OVS1, OVS 2, ENV 1,
              ENV2, ENV18, HSG1, HSG2 and HSG17A of the West Berkshire District Local Plan; Policies
              C 5, C7, C 9 and LD 3 of The Berkshire Structure Plan 1991 – 2006; and Policies DP 1, DP 6,
              EN 1, H3 and H8 of the emerging Berkshire Structure Plan 2001 – 2016, in that it represents
              inappropriate development outside the defined settlement boundary, in an area of high
              landscape character and in an area designated as being within the North Wessex Downs Area
              of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
      2.      The site lies adjacent to a rural cemetery and a scattering of dwellings within the countryside.
              The development by virtue of its scale and uses associated with such a level of development
              will create comings and goings and a degree of disturbance that will unduly adversely affect
              the level of amenity that can reasonably be expected in this locality, by residents and visitors
              to the cemetery seeking quiet contemplation. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy
              OVS2 and HSG17 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan, Policy OS1 and C1 of the
              Berkshire Structure Plan 1991 – 2006 and Policy H8 of the emerging Berkshire Structure Plan
              2001 – 2006.
      3.      Visibility at the proposed access would be sub standard and this would be a hazard to road
              users, contrary to Policy OVS 2 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan1991-2006 and
              Policies LD 5 and T7 of the Berkshire Structure Plan 1991 – 2006.
      4.      The proposed access road and junction onto Pangbourne Hill is unsuitable, due to its
              substandard construction and layout to accommodate the traffic which would be generated by
              the proposed development, contrary to Policy OVS 2 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan
              1991-2006 and Policies LD 5 and T7 of the Berkshire Structure Plan 1991 – 2006.
36.   APPLICATION NO. 04/00741/AGRIC – LAND BEHIND CEMETERY, PANGBOURNE
      HILL, PANGBOURNE, READING.
      The Sub-Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application
      04/00741/AGRIC relating to a barn for storage of feed and equipment.
      In accordance with the Council’s Constitution Mr John Higgs, Parish Representative, Mr Martin
      Kelmanson, objector, and Mr Bagnell applicant addressed the Sub-Committee on the following
      application.
      Mr Higgs in addressing the Sub-Committee raised the following points:
          The Parish Council had received a number of complaints relating to the proposed barn
          The barn would be situated in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and consideration
           should therefore be afforded to PPG 7.
          EASTERN AREA PLANNING SUB-COMMITTEE – 18.08.04 – MINUTES
   The Parish Council queried whether the barn was of an appropriate size for the smallholding.
   They felt that the barn was not a permitted development under the General Permitted
    Development Order (GPDO) of 1995.
   They felt that the design of the barn was impractical and that at least two entrances to the barn
    should be provided.
Mr Kelmanson in addressing the Sub-Committee raised the following points:
   The Pangbourne Village Residents’ Association was concerned about the size of the proposed
    barn in the AONB.
   They asked Members to note the conclusions of the agricultural consultants, Dreweatt and Neate,
    that they had employed that were summarised on the update sheet. The consultants felt that the
    barn was too big in view of the scale of agricultural enterprise the small holding could sustain.
   They requested that the Sub-Committee defer the application to give the applicant the opportunity
    to submit a proposal for a barn that was of an appropriate size.
Mr Bagnell in addressing the Sub-Committee raised the following points:
   Although his application was sited close to the cemetery it was in no way related to the application
    for the gypsy caravan site although he did have a legal obligation to allow a shared access with
    that site as well as shared utilities.
   He had consulted with Planning Officers and two site visits had been undertaken and he had
    amended his application to address objections raised.
   The orange notice had been displayed on the site until 26 May 2004 and no objections were
    received during this period. All the objections were raised after the 28 June 2004 which
    corresponded with the gypsies’ occupation of the nearby land.
   He was of the opinion that the report received from Dreweatt and Neate in relation to the output
    capabilities of the small holding was inaccurate and he asked the Sub-Committee to note that the
    consultants had not visited the site to measure it. The farm was 5.6 hectares in total.
   He was not able to recess the barn into the ground as had been suggested by some of the
    objectors due to the ground surface water that would enter the barn and saturate the contents that
    he would wish to keep dry.
   Objectors had also requested that the height of the barn be reduced but he had calculated that the
    proposed height was the minimum height he required to store his tallest machinery.
   He felt that any shooting that took place on the site was lawful and an integral part of life in the
    countryside that residents should accept in view of the location of their properties.
   He explained that the proposal would not generate any additional traffic movements.
   The barn represented a 50% increase in size when compared to the shelter currently on the site.
    The shelter was not enclosed on the sides and was therefore not capable of keeping the contents
    dry.
   The barn would be used to house most of the machinery currently scattered about the site as well
    as feed for the livestock.
Planning and Legal Officers explained that the Sub-Committee could only consider the external
appearance and siting of the barn as the application fell within the permitted development rights as set
out in the GPDO of 1995. Officers felt that the revised size of the barn was acceptable within the
AONB.
                EASTERN AREA PLANNING SUB-COMMITTEE – 18.08.04 – MINUTES
      The Ward Member requested that the item be deferred to give Members the opportunity to seek clarity
      from experts regarding the size of barn the applicant would require. Members voted to reject this
      proposal.
      Tim Slaney explained that it was only the external appearance and siting of the barn that could be
      considered. The size of the barn was acceptable as it had already been established that it was
      permitted development.
      In discussing the application Members thanked the applicant for allowing the site visits to take place
      and for amending the application to take cognisance of comments made by both Officers and
      Members. The Sub-Committee acknowledged the specific permitted development rights afforded to
      agricultural holdings. They noted that the size of barn required would be dictated by the size of the plot
      as well as the intensity at which the land would be farmed. Members felt that the proposed building
      would represent an improvement on the buildings currently on the site.
      RESOLVED that the Council has considered the external appearance, siting and materials of the
      proposal as described in this Notification and indicated on the submitted plans. The Council hereby
      grants approval for the submitted details, comprising an amended plan received on 6 th August 2004,
      drawing number 03/3820 Rev A received on 13th April 2004 and landscaping information detailed
      within covering letters dated 30th June 2004 and 22nd June 2004.
37.   APPLICATION NO. 03/02461/FUL – GRAVELPIT FARM, LAND WEST OF GRANGE
      LAND, BEENHAM.
      The Sub-Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(4)) concerning Planning Application
      03/02461/FUL relating to the winning and working of sand and gravel and associated works including
      construction of temporary site office, wheelcleaner and weighbridge with progressive reclamation to
      agriculture and nature conservation using imported inert materials. .
      In accordance with the Council’s Constitution Mr Dick Russell and Mr Tony Renouf, Parish
      Representatives, Mrs Bridle, Mrs Sue Graham and Mr Sergeant, objectors, Mr Lester Hunt and Mr
      Chaplow , supporters and Mr Hannon and Mr Brian Butcher applicants addressed the Sub-Committee
      on the following application.
      Mr Russell in addressing the Sub-Committee raised the following points:
         The Officer’s report accurately reflected the objections and concerns of the Parish Council.
         The report identified 5 properties that would be adversely affected by the noise emanating from
          the site but the Parish Council felt that that many more properties would be affected.
         They were concerned about the negative impact the extraction would have on this attractive
          stretch of countryside in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).
         This was prime agricultural land and the Parish Council was doubtful that the applicants would be
          able to restore the site to the same quality when consideration was given to what they would be
          extracting.
         They were concerned that inert materials would not be readily available to restore the site as had
          happened at the Midgham Quarry.
         They felt that the land was being restored at a lower level to reduce the amount of infill required
          and this would result in large amounts of standing water thereby creating a site that was
          permanently wet and devaluing the property.
      Mr Renouf in addressing the Sub-Committee raised the following points:
         The report made no mention of the 7 houses to the south of the site.
         The site fell within the AONB.
          EASTERN AREA PLANNING SUB-COMMITTEE – 18.08.04 – MINUTES
   The applicant claimed that they would enhance the environmental quality of the site when it was
    restored to a wetland but failed to mention that only 75% of the site would be restored.
   PPG 7 allowed commercial development in the AONB but only if this was in the national interest
    or if alternative sites were not available. The Parish Council felt that these sites did not have to be
    local.
   They recognised that 83% of the workforce was local and did not want to jeopardise their
    livelihoods but felt that should the application be refused other enterprises could be created on
    this brownfield site.
   They noted that Midgham Quarry had not been fully restored due to the lack of inert material
    available.
   They asked the Sub-Committee to consider the negative impact the development would have on
    the residential amenities of the adjoining properties and the extent to which their properties would
    be devalued.
Mr Sargeant, Mrs Graham and Mrs Bridle in addressing the Sub-Committee raised the following
points:
   The site was situated on a floodplain and was therefore susceptible to flooding. The development
    would affect the watercourses in the area which could in turn affect the foundations of the
    surrounding properties.
   There had recently been two fatalities along the stretch of road where the proposed access to the
    site would be situated.
   The site was located within the North Wessex Downs AONB and was not a preferred area in the
    Council’s Minerals Local Plan.
   Marley had failed to prove that there was a national need for this gravel. Berkshire currently had
    2.4 years of gravel over and above the 7 year requirement. This view was endorsed by the
    inspector’s decision at the Wasing/Lafarge Public Enquiry.
   It would be iniquitous if Openfield Nursery were forced to close should parents be unwilling to
    leave their children in an environment where the countryside had been lost.
   Approving the application would set a precedent for the escalation of industrial development in the
    AONB
   Substandard infilling on former agricultural sites had resulted in the death of livestock. The Sub-
    Committee was reminded that farming was also a local industry and had the right to be protected
    too.
Messrs Hunt and Chaplow in addressing the Sub-Committee raised the following points:
   They lived locally and were employed on the site. Refusing the application could result in the
    employees on the Beenham site being laid off and would also impact on other companies that
    were associated with the plant.
   Three quarters of the workforce had been employed for longer than ten years and a third of
    employees had been employed in excess of twenty five years.
   Employment opportunities in the manufacturing sector in West Berkshire were scarce.
Messrs Hannon and Butcher in addressing the Sub-Committee raised the following points:
   Marley was the last substantial tile manufacturer in the South of England.
   They had received numerous local and national awards for their good environmental practice.
          EASTERN AREA PLANNING SUB-COMMITTEE – 18.08.04 – MINUTES
   They have been unable to source raw materials locally and would be willing to withdraw the
    application if an alternative site could be identified.
   This was their final option and if this application was to fail they would have to close their
    manufacturing plant which would result in the loss of about 200 jobs. Their manufacturing plant
    would be moved to Burton on Trent and the current site would be used for distribution purposes
    only.
   The distribution plant would be serviced primarily at night and the additional HGV movements
    would disturb residents during the evenings. They currently distributed one hundred million tiles
    from the Beenham plant.
   The proposal was for phased implementation and restoration would therefore take place on an
    ongoing basis. The comprehensive restoration programme had taken cognisance of landscaping
    policies that encouraged the creation of diverse landscapes such as the proposed wetland area.
    Marley was prepared to amend this scheme if Members felt it inappropriate. A work programme
    working from West to East on the site would allow for improved restitution of the site.
   An existing Interim Development Order (IDO) permitted them to extract minerals on parts of the
    site. For economic reasons they would need to extract minerals from these areas even if the Sub-
    Committee was minded to refuse this application.
   A long term supply of sand and gravel would allow the applicant to invest in machinery that would
    allow them to manufacture tiles out of recycled materials which would in turn reduce the need for
    extraction sites.
   The application would result in fewer lorry movements.
   The applicant was actively discussing alternative sources of materials with local suppliers.
   The applicants rejected the notion that infill material was difficult to come by.
   They had identified 83 sites that were in a radius in excess of 50 miles from the plant.
Planning Officers explained that IDO extant planning permission conditions for restoration still had to
be decided and it was likely that an environmental statement would be required and a mitigation
method would have to be put forward. They also explained that the landscaping scheme proposed by
the applicant was a matter of interpretation of policy by the applicant. The Landscape Consultant was
concerned whether sufficient inert fill material was available to ensure that restoration was not
delayed. They pointed out that the ‘special nature’ afforded to Marley was a matter of interpretation
and Marley had no specific exemption in relation to extraction.
In discussing this application Members sympathised with the business case put forward by the
applicant. They noted that the Environment Agency, DEFRA and English Nature had withdrawn their
objections to the application. The Sub-Committee also noted residents’ concerns relating to noise and
dust pollution that the site would create but felt that these issues could be mitigated by the erection of
a bund as was the case at the Midgham site. Members felt that the reduction in lorry movements on
public roads due to onsite extraction needed to be offset against the lorry movements that would be
generated by the importation of inert material for land filling. Although the site was in an AONB
Members had to heed PPG7 that had regard for the economic wellbeing of the area. Members were
concerned about the effect the excavation would have on some of the trees that were not protected by
Tree Preservation Orders. The Sub-Committee felt that the current proposal for the restoration of the
site would not reinstate the countryside to its present state and should therefore be revisited. Members
sympathised with the plight of Marley employees and were reluctant to lose about 180 jobs in the
manufacturing sector in West Berkshire. They were however concerned that they were being held to
ransom over the possibility of large numbers of redundancies. They therefore suggested that the
application be deferred in order to allow further negotiations between the applicant and residents to
overcome residents’ concerns where possible.
                 EASTERN AREA PLANNING SUB-COMMITTEE – 18.08.04 – MINUTES
      Planning Officers were concerned that if Members were minded to defer the application the applicants
      were less likely to pursue all available options than if Members were minded to refuse the application.
      RESOLVED that the Head of Planning and Transport Strategy be authorised to defer the application
      for further negotiations with the applicant in respect of the restoration element of the application and to
      allow further opportunity for discussions between the applicant and the residents.
38.   APPLICATION NO. 04/00192/HOUSE – ABBEY CROFT, THE STREET, MORTIMER,
      READING, RG7 3PE.
      The Sub-Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(5)) concerning Planning Application
      04/00192/HOUSE relating to the construction of a 3 car garage, staff accommodation and pool
      changing rooms, plant room and sauna.
      In accordance with the Council’s Constitution John Morden, Parish Representative and Mr Tony
      Butcher applicant addressed the Sub-Committee on the following application.
      Mr Morden in addressing the Sub-Committee raised the following points:
          The Parish Council supported this application for the renovation of a neglected Grade II Listed
           Building.
          They felt that a house and grounds of this size required staff for its upkeep and in order to recruit
           and retain staff, accommodation was needed.
          They stated that policy should only be used for guidance and that Members should use their
           discretion in determining this application.
      Mr Butcher in addressing the Sub-Committee raised the following points:
          He had spent a significant amount of money restoring the property.
          He was willing to have a S106 agreement attached to the application which would prevent
           separate disposal of the servants quarters.
          A suggestion to convert the stables into the plant room and garage was not practical.
          He needed the staff quarters to house 2 members of staff who would oversee the running of the
           household and 27 acres of land.
          The site was well screened.
      Planning Officers explained that applicants could appeal against a condition attached to an application
      within 3 months of the application being approved whereas a S106 agreement lasted 5 years before it
      could be challenged. They also warned that if the annexes were occupied in an unlawful way the
      occupiers could appeal for a certificate of lawfulness if the annexes were occupied for the necessary
      period of time. Officers explained that new dwellings could be erected in the countryside provided that
      it was deemed to be essential. Officers therefore concluded that as staff could be accommodated off
      site the annexes were deemed to be desirable and not essential.
      In discussing this application Members felt that on a 27 acre estate it was not unreasonable to expect
      staff accommodation. They noted that 3 outbuildings had been demolished and only 2 would be
      erected. The application would be set down which would help to reduce the visible impact of the
      development. Members felt that the policy was open to interpretation and on balance they were
      minded to approve it. They also noted that the Parish Council supported the application.
      RESOLVED that the Head of Planning and Transport Strategy be authorised to approve the
      application subject to the following conditions:
      1.       Details of materials
      2.       Details of drainage
                     EASTERN AREA PLANNING SUB-COMMITTEE – 18.08.04 – MINUTES
        3.       Levels condition
        4.       S106 occupancy and tied to the house
39.     APPLICATION NO.04/01108/HOUSE – NORTH LODGE, BURGHFIELD, READING,
        RG30 3RT.
        The Sub-Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(6)) concerning Planning Application
        04/01108/HOUSE relating to a double garage and two storey extension.
        In accordance with the Council’s Constitution Mr and Mrs Hackett, applicants, in addressing the Sub-
        Committee raised the following points:
            They currently had 3 dilapidated sheds in their garden for storage that the proposed garage would
             replace.
            The extension would only be visible from the access road which was only used by a farmer and
             themselves as the site was very isolated.
            They currently had to park their cars on the access road and they were forced to move their
             vehicles whenever the farmer needed to use the road.
            They had reduced the bulk of the application but could not reduce it further as they wanted to use
             the space for a double garage.
            The garage would also provide secure storage, as they had been the victims of several attempted
             burglaries since they had occupied the property.
            The dwelling was fully screened and their neighbours had not objected to the application.
        In discussing this application Members noted that the site was at the end of a private lane and was
        well screened. They noted that the neighbour had not objected to the application and the Parish
        Council supported the application. The Sub-Committee accepted that if the garage was sited a further
        1.5m from the current position it would not be included as a percentile increase on the size of the
        original dwelling.
        Legal Officers reminded Members that if they were minded to approve the application it would be
        contrary to policy and would therefore have to be referenced up to the next Planning and Development
        meeting which would take place on the 01 September 2004.
        Planning Officers explained that approving the application would result in an increase in excess of
        200% which was clearly in breach of current policy. They suggested that if Members were unhappy
        with the policy they should ensure that it was amended.
        Councillor Alan Macro, who was a Member of the Planning and development Committee, elected not
        to vote on this item and he informed the Sub-Committee that he would consider the application on the
        facts placed before him at the next Planning and Development Meeting.
        RESOLVED that the Head of Planning and Transport Strategy be authorised to approve the
        application.
        Conditions were not discussed.
        RESOLVED that as the recommendation was contrary to policy the application be referenced up to
        the Planning and Development Committee. The next meeting was due to be held on the 01
        September 2004.
(The meeting commenced at 6.30pm and closed at 9.50pm)


CHAIRMAN                  ……………………………………………
Date of Signature:        ……………………………………………

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:4
posted:12/14/2011
language:
pages:9