Agenda item 2

Unconfirmed minutes – to be agreed at the July meeting of the Advisory Board

Pagham Harbour Local Nature Reserve (LNR) Advisory Board

10th March 2009 – At a meeting of the Board held at The Church Farm Holiday Village

Present: Mr W Acraman (Chairman) - County Council Mr Burchett (Vice Chairman) - Pagham Parish Council Mr Chaplin - West Sussex County Council Mr Coleman - West Sussex County Council Mr Curson - Natural England Ms Evans - Council Mr Gadd - Friends of Mr Glover - RSPB Mr Hammond - Environment Agency Mr Hawes - British Association for Shooting & Conservation Mr Huntley - Pagham Beach Residents’ Association Mr N Jones - Selsey Town Council Mr P Jones - West Sussex County Council Mr Parfrement - Pagham & West Sussex Wildfowling and Conservation Association Mr Pope - Bourne Leisure Mr Power - Sussex Wildlife Trust Mrs Smart - Sidlesham Parish Council Dr Watson - Sussex Ornithological Society

Also in attendance: Craig Bowdery - Democratic Services, WSCC Rob Carver - Reserve Manager, WSCC Lisa Creaye-Griffin - Group Manager Rural Strategy, WSCC Samantha Tate - Visitor Centre Project Officer, WSCC

Apologies

Apologies were received from Mrs Bower ( Council), Mr Dapling (Sussex Sea Fisheries), Mr Higham (Pagham Beach (Holdings)) and Mr Spiby (National Farmers Union).

Declarations of interests

61. There were none.

Minutes of the previous meetings

62. The Chairman explained to the Board that the minutes of the meeting in July 2008, which were confirmed at the November 2008 meeting, were still incorrect and that he had agreed on this occasion to review the confirmed minutes. The Vice Chairman proposed the following alteration to minute 15, to which the Board agreed: Mr Wright, a local resident, highlighted his trouble communicating with WSCC on the right of navigation. He stated that had he been given a straight answer at the beginning, the council could have saved a lot of

Unconfirmed minutes – to be agreed at the July meeting of the Advisory Board

time effort and money in dealing with his enquiries. The Chairman explained that the Advisory Board had been discussing the new byelaws since its creation and that it was an ongoing process, and reiterated that there was a right of navigation in and out of the Harbour as long as you didn’t land. If Mr Wright or anyone else had further comments to make, they should contact DEFRA as they were now responsible for making the final decision.

63. Resolved – That the confirmed minutes of 15th July 2008 be altered to reflect the above alteration to minute 15, that they be approved as a correct record and that they be signed by the Chairman.

64. The Vice Chairman also proposed a correction to minute 39 of the minutes of the meeting on 11th November 2008, to correct the reference to a Pagham resident to an Oving resident. Mrs Smart requested that her comments reported from the fifth line of minute 46 be altered to the following: The complaint of the appearance of the catamaran in the Harbour seemed to lack impact, due to the dates reported of 19/04/2003 and 31/08/2003, and that it was now 2008. Sidlesham Parish Council had long wished to have a greater participation in the Harbour welfare. Perhaps if this matter had been referred to SPC action could have been taken. Dr Watson proposed correcting minute 45 and the reference to Hilsea Island, which should be Pilsey Island.

65. Resolved – That subject to the alterations to minutes 39, 46 and 45 shown above, the minutes of the meeting held 11th November 2008 be approved as a correct record and that they be signed by the Chairman.

Matters arising from the previous meeting

66. The Chairman informed the Board that Sidlesham Parish Council had submitted a formal proposal for how they would like to see boat permits handled in the future, and that a meeting was in the process of being arranged. The meeting would be between the relevant WSCC officers, the Chairman and Sidlesham Parish Council. Following this meeting, the issue would then be discussed at the July meeting of the Board to listen to other members’ views. It was also confirmed that the three local County Councillors would be invited to attend the meeting with Sidlesham Parish Council.

Urgent matters

67. Craig Bowdery gave an update on the Pagham Coastal Defence Study, and reported that he had been told by Arun District Council that the production of the report from Royal Haskoning had been delayed until June/July at the earliest. This meant that it was not yet known what would be proposed following concerns over the flood defences on Pagham beach, and the possible implications of the developing spit at the mouth of the Harbour. The report had been delayed as it had been decided that a higher level Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was necessary, when only a medium level EIA had been carried out. It was hoped that the report would be ready to be submitted to the July meeting of the Environment Agency’s Project Appraisals Board, where any necessary funding for any recommended work would be sought. The Royal Haskoning report was only

Unconfirmed minutes – to be agreed at the July meeting of the Advisory Board intended to recommend actions that would affect coastal protection in the short term. The Environment Agency was then planning to carry out a longer-term study of the Harbour to look at other solutions.

68. Mike Coleman expressed his disappointment at the news of the delay in the production of the report, especially as it was originally expected to be ready by Christmas 2008. Richard Hammond explained that Arun District Council was leading on this project and that they were therefore responsible for the delay. He also explained that work could begin by August or September, when it was expected that shingle from the end of the spit would be deposited onto Pagham beach. Members of the Board voiced their disappointment at the delay, and asked why the medium level EIA was not sufficient, whether the higher level EIA would delay securing funding, and whether work in August or September would clash with the birds’ nesting season. Mr Hammond explained that these were all questions that should be directed to Arun District Council as it was their responsibility and that as such he could not answer on their behalf. The Chairman agreed that the Arun District Council representative should attend the Board meetings with greater regularity, and noted that the report should be published by the Board’s July meeting. If the report was ready, relevant and applicable to the work of the Harbour, it would be discussed as part of the July agenda.

Public participation

69. The Chairman opened public participation and invited questions from members of the public present. The Chairman also outlined that individuals could speak once in order to allow for everyone to have an opportunity to have their say, and that the minutes would be a summary of the discussion and not a verbatim record. Questions relating to issues that would be covered later in the agenda would be answered at the appropriate stage.

70. A member of the public thanked the Board for their criticism of Arun District Council for the delay in the production of the Pagham Coastal Defence Study, and also for clarifying the current situation. The gentleman also expressed his deep concern at Arun District Council and their representative’s continued absence from Board meetings, and asked why the wrong EIA was carried out. Jon Curson explained that whilst he couldn’t speak on behalf of Arun District Council, Natural England had made them aware of the nature of the site and what they felt would be needed.

71. A local resident voiced her concerns regarding the proposals for the new Visitor Centre in the Reserve. She was dismayed at the millions of pounds that would need to be spent and lamented that the plans to improve the current centre to bring it to an acceptable standard had been abandoned. She also commented that the existing road (the B2145) that accessed the centre would not be able to sustain increased visitor numbers, and that the project could never be financially self-sufficient.

72. A member of the public outlined how he felt that public money was being wasted on the proposed new Visitor Centre. He explained that £50,000 of WSCC money had been spent already, along with a quarter of a million pounds of public money from other sources. He argued that the planning of the Centre and the spending of these funds was being based upon the findings of a survey that only 182 people had responded to, and that as such the local community had not

Unconfirmed minutes – to be agreed at the July meeting of the Advisory Board been adequately consulted on the allocation of large sums of public money. He also drew attention to the absence of locally elected representatives on the Project Board and highlighted what he perceived as a failure of the democratic process, and argued that local County Councillors needed to be involved in the process.

73. A member of the public also criticised the involvement of the RSPB in the Pagham Harbour Coastal Visitor Centre project. She argued the RSPB was attempting to replicate the visitor centre at the RSPB’s Rainham Marshes Reserve with the intention of commercialising wildlife. It was suggested that the RSPB had a track record of using public funds to promote green tourism for financial gain. She also argued that the WSCC consultation in 2004/05 sought support for adopting a policy of green tourism. This survey resulted in 1,303 responses to the 3,000 questionnaires sent out, with those opposed to green tourism the clear majority. A subsequent WSCC survey in 2008 received just 182 responses from 10,000 questionnaires. The member of the public had coordinated a petition on the issue of the Visitor Centre, which indicated that the 2008 survey had not adequately reflected the views of Pagham residents. She also argued that there had been two versions of the Management Plan produced. One version was signed off by Louise Goldsmith (when she was Cabinet Member for Environment and Economy), which didn’t support tourism as it would be detrimental to the wildlife of the Reserve. There was also the current version which had been circulated to members at the meeting, which included a new paragraph on the Coastal Centre and had other sections removed. The member of the public argued that the Board’s terms of reference, and the Cabinet Member report from 2007 that approved the Management Plan, required that any changes to the Management Plan needed a formal review which included the Board and the relevant Cabinet Member. She believed that there was a hidden agenda to promote green tourism in the Reserve and argued that the Reserve staff should be better consulted on what they believed was required, and that the possibility of extending the life of the current visitor centre needed to be fully explored.

Public participation ended at 7.05pm

Review of disabled access in the Reserve

74. The Board received a report (copy appended to the signed minutes) from Rob Carver on the extent of disabled access in the Reserve. It was agreed that the Reserve was well served with good wheelchair access and it was noted that there were plans to improve and extend provision where possible, and if funding could be secured. Members also noted that the work to improve the approach to the eastern end of the North Wall and the modification of the kissing gate by Salt House would be completed soon, with the Environment Agency due on site the following day to carry out health and safety checks with work due to start the following week.

75. Members noted that stiles were difficult to navigate for people with limited mobility, and were informed that the Reserve were looking to replace stiles with kissing gates. The Chairman also informed the Board that it was the County Council’s policy across West Sussex to replace stiles with kissing gates whenever a stile needed maintenance.

76. Members asked for further details on the planned future provision. It was noted that any further work to make the paths more accessible would require

Unconfirmed minutes – to be agreed at the July meeting of the Advisory Board external funding, and it was asked who would be approached for funding and how much was required. Rob Carver explained that he would initially approach the Reserve’s partner agencies and that there were limited funds available in the Reserve’s operational budget. It was suggested and agreed that it would be useful for members of the Board to have a ‘wish list’ of potential new paths with the approximate costs and priority levels for each one. Rob Carver undertook to produce such a list and provide it to members.

Reserve Manager’s Report

77. Rob Carver presented the Reserve Manager’s report (copy appended to the signed minutes) to update the Board on the work being undertaken on the Reserve. Updates were provided on the following subjects:  Staffing  Habitat and estate management  Biological recording and monitoring  Wildlife highlights  Research  Technical Panel  Events and education  Volunteers  Looking ahead

78. Members noted that the salinity of Pagham Lagoon had not changed, and were informed that the Environment Agency had asked for additional sampling of the water for further investigation. It was asked whether the water quality of the rifes was acceptable or if the sewage outfalls were still affecting the quality. Richard Hammond explained that the outfall from the sewage plants at Sidlesham and Pagham had improved and that the rifes’ water quality was acceptable. It was however highlighted that rifes were generally prone to acquiring pollution from surface water run-off.

79. Jon Curson thanked Rob Carver, Ivan Lang and the Reserve’s volunteers for all of their hard work, in particular for the shingle restoration on the islands. The Chairman asked who was responsible for directing the volunteers and for deciding what they should work on, and Rob confirmed that this was one of his responsibilities. A member of the Board asked whether mink were still absent from the Reserve, and Rob confirmed that this was still the case but that staff continued to monitor for any signs of mink. Rob also explained that the new format for the 2009/10 events programme was developed mainly to improve its visual impact, but that they were also looking at how to allocate resources in the most efficient way.

The Pagham Harbour Local Nature Reserve Management Plan

80. Rob Carver presented the Management Plan for the Reserve, which covered the period 2007-2012. The principle aim of the Plan was to provide an overview and outline of the management of the Reserve, and it built upon previous plans to ensure a consistent approach in the future. It was proposed that the Plan would be reviewed annually and five-yearly, but as much of the content of the Plan would remain unchanged, it was likely to extend beyond the initial five years. The ring binder format of the Plan allowed for it to be updated with pages removed and inserted as necessary. The Plan was not intended to cover absolutely everything and there were a number of more detailed

Unconfirmed minutes – to be agreed at the July meeting of the Advisory Board supporting documents. These included the Environmental Stewardship Plan 2008-2018, the Biological Recording and Monitoring Strategy 2007-2011 and the wildlife records database, which included over 176,000 records. The progress and success of the Plan would be monitored by a range of performance indicators. For example compliance with the SSSI condition requirements (95% of the Reserve was currently in a favourable condition), SPA/Ramsar designations and Environmental Stewardship.

81. Rob also explained that although the Management Plan was fundamentally the same as the document circulated to the Board previously, there had been a number of improvements. These included:  Section 3: Site Description – updated to include the latest information on species and survey data  Section 7: Site Features – further detail on Habitat and Species Management  Section 8: Visitor Services/Information and Learning – updated to reflect developments in this area

82. Mike Coleman commented that the Management Plan was produced to an excellent quality and the content matched this, but he was disappointed that it was only circulated at the meeting. Prior to the meeting, members had only been able to view it on the website, but this was broken down into separate files and did not allow printing. To this end, he could not understand why it had been brought before the Board as any comments that members may have had were now redundant as it had already been printed. Mr Coleman felt that the Board had therefore been disenfranchised. He also drew attention to the fact that the visitor centre is referred to under multiple different names and in section 8.1 it is described as a ‘focal point’. Mr Coleman felt that the choice of words in this section was inappropriate and that such poor wording would not help to reassure members of the public that the County Council was not planning a much larger visitor centre.

83. Lisa Creaye-Griffin informed members that the Management Plan had a timetable for review on a yearly and five-yearly basis. Any comments or proposed alterations that members had could therefore be addressed and incorporated into the Plan as necessary, especially as the ring binder format allowed for changes without re-printing the whole Plan. It was also accepted that members had not been consulted on some of the changes since the Board approved the Plan in 2007, and it was agreed that the Management Plan would be discussed at the next meeting of the Board to allow members to comment on its content. One member requested that a yearly statement on the financial state of the Reserve be included, and Lisa agreed that this could be provided. It was also agreed that the Annual Reports (the progress reports referred to in the Management Plan’s introduction) would be presented to the Board. It was suggested that the Plan was too big and would benefit from being slimmed down to three parts: site description, maintenance and projects. Rob Carver explained that there were standard requirements involved in the production of any Management Plan for a SSSI, SPA or LNR, and that staff had worked to these when drawing up the Pagham Harbour Management Plan. It was also noted that the format of the Plan had not changed since 2007 when it was agreed by the Board.

84. Peter Jones asked for a response to the questions asked during the public participation, and Lisa Creaye-Griffin explained that the changes made to the

Unconfirmed minutes – to be agreed at the July meeting of the Advisory Board

Plan were considered relatively minor and that as they had not significantly altered the content of the Plan, they had not sought re-approval. Lisa apologised to members if they felt that they had not been sufficiently involved in the process. It was also explained that the intent of the staff involved was to produce the best Management Plan possible, and that changes were only made to improve the overall quality of the Plan. Mr Jones accepted this explanation but requested that any future revisions should only be carried out following consultation with the Board.

A member of the public began to disrupt the meeting and was asked to leave.

85. A member of the Board asked about the documents that would support the Plan, and asked why they were not provided. Rob explained that compiling and printing these documents would be expensive and time-consuming for officers due to their large size (for example the wildlife records database included over 176,000 records). If, however, a member of the Board was interested in any particular document, they should contact Rob with their request and he would provide as much information as he could. The Chairman asked how much the Management Plan had cost to print in its glossy, ring binder format, and Rob undertook to find out and report back.

86. Jon Curson explained that from his and Natural England’s perspective, he found the Management Plan to be extremely useful and fully supported both the format and content of the Plan. For example, every activity within the Reserve required the consent of Natural England. By listing the activities in the Management Plan, the Reserve was able to get consent for them all at the same time, rather than making a large number of separate requests for consent. Jon also noted that the Pagham Harbour Management Plan followed the standard format for management plans for other nature reserves.

87. The Board also queried why the Management Plan was only available on the website in multiple separate file downloads. It was felt that that this made it much harder to read and navigate. Lisa Creaye-Griffin explained that the Plan was divided into sections in this way in an attempt to make it easier to read. As people were actually finding it harder, she would request that the Plan be posted onto the website in one single document. Since the meeting, the Management Plan has been made available on the website in a single document download, as well as in separate sections.

Pagham Harbour Coastal Visitor Centre

88. Lisa Creaye-Griffin gave an update on the project to build a new Pagham Harbour Coastal Visitor Centre. She explained that several years ago it had become apparent that the existing Centre was approaching the end of its useful life and had inadequate facilities, and that it therefore needed replacing. As a result staff began to think about how to fund the project, and as the landowner, the Environment Agency was invited to be a partner in the project. The RSPB was also invited to be a project partner as they had valuable experience in developing and building visitor centres. The earliest plans for the Centre were just to replace it with similar facilities and provision as currently exists; however the 2020 Vision was developed with the aim of providing enhanced facilities in a sustainable visitor centre by the year 2020. Lisa explained that beyond this, there had been nothing else decided upon or predetermined. The expenditure from the County Council had so far been £50,000, which had funded visitor

Unconfirmed minutes – to be agreed at the July meeting of the Advisory Board counters and the appointment of a dedicated Project Officer, Sam Tate. All of the work and expenditure so far had been to assess the land surrounding the current Visitor Centre to ascertain whether the former landfill site could be used for the new centre. Investigations had suggested that this would be the most suitable location for any new centre as it would have the least impact on the wildlife of the Reserve, with the additional benefit of restoring the land contaminated by the landfill. There had also been a range of consultation exercises, including workshops with the public and with staff, to look at what facilities people felt would be needed in a new visitor centre. However at this stage there were no plans and no proposals as there was still a lot of work to be done before these could be developed. Lisa also offered to meet and discuss the issue with individuals or groups who were concerned or interested in the project.

89. With reference to comments about the RSPB’s involvement made during public participation, Jim Glover explained that they were invited by the Environment Agency and the County Council to be a partner as it was felt that the RSPB could contribute to the project with its experience and expertise. The project for the new Visitor Centre had so far only progressed to a feasibility study for the Centre’s proposed location, and there was still work to do before even this was completed. Jim also explained that he had spoken to a large number of local people about the project and that they had all so far been broadly supportive of the direction of the project, and suggested that the critical comments made during public participation did not seem to be representative of his conversations and experiences with other members of the public.

90. Jim also explained that a fourth partner had been invited to participate in the project and that SEEDA (South East England Development Agency) would be joining soon. The four partners had worked together to secure funding to complete the feasibility study. Once this had been completed, it would be clearer what the options for the new Centre were, and recommendations would then be made. Jim highlighted that the process and early ideas were very similar to other projects at comparable sites both nationally and internationally. Noting the comparison made during public participation, Jim informed the Board that the RSPB’s reserve at Rainham Marshes was a totally different type of site to Pagham Harbour. As such he agreed that the design of the visitor centre at Rainham Marshes would not be appropriate for Pagham, but he noted that the building had in fact won multiple design awards and was recognised as improving the area by local residents, and also that a building of Rainham’s design would not and had not been considered for Pagham. Picking up the point that the RSPB was promoting a hidden agenda for green or eco-tourism with underlying commercialism, Jim strongly refuted this suggestion and stated that projects such as reintroducing species were driven by conservationist motivations and a desire to improve the natural environment for people to enjoy and appreciate.

91. Sam Tate reported to the Board and informed them of the public consultation that had taken place so far. Sam explained that she had attended a wide range of public events over the summer of 2008 to speak with members of the public informally. In addition to this, 9,400 questionnaires outlining initial proposals and ideas were distributed to local residents. Only 182 responses were received, which was a response rate of just under 2%. Whilst the response rate was disappointing, it compared favourably to other public consultations. For example 2005’s consultation on the draft South East Plan was 1.64%, while even 2008’s more controversial Draft Pagham to East Head Coastal Defence Strategy questionnaire received a response rate of just over 5%. Sam explained that of

Unconfirmed minutes – to be agreed at the July meeting of the Advisory Board the 182 responses received; just over half of them came from local postcodes (PO19, PO20, PO21 and PO22) with the most coming from the PO21 postcode on the Pagham/Bognor Regis side of the Harbour.

92. Sam continued to explain that the questionnaires received suggested the following:  That the majority of respondents approved or strongly approved of the proposed location of the Visitor Centre (91%)  Over 90% supported the proposed functions of education, reception and orientation and office space for staff for the new Visitor Centre  Over 85% approved of the function to demonstrate sustainability throughout the design, build and operation of the Centre  Over 90% approved or strongly approved of the proposed facilities of toilets, reception area, exhibition area, classroom and cycle racks, car parks and bus stops  There was also approval for other facilities, with each of the following receiving at least 80% support: office, workshop and storage space; a flexible indoor space; café/restaurant/shop  Over 76% supported a covered outside area  The least popular suggestion was for an outside play area for children, with only 57% supporting and 17% disapproving or strongly disapproving  57% of respondents were aged 60 or over and 30% were aged 30- 59. There were no respondents under the age of 16. Over 80% of respondents were monthly or annual visitors to the Reserve  To address the lack of responses from users under the age of 16, sessions were held with year 6 pupils from a number of local primary schools, with over 180 children taking part.  The children rated the following facilities as the most important: toilets, reception area, disabled access, outdoor play area, outdoor events space, observation lounge, gift shop and café/restaurant

93. Sam also explained that the staff at the Harbour have continued to speak widely about proposals with members of the public, receiving a highly supportive response. For example, Sam recently gave a talk to members of the Chichester Stroke Group who were excited at the possibility of visiting a new Visitor Centre where they could view the wildlife from the comfort of a building that had facilities for those with different levels of mobility. Sam did however reiterate that these activities were not the end of the public consultation and that residents would continue to be able to contribute to the process.

94. Following comments made during public participation that millions of pounds of public money had been allocated to the project, Sam outlined the costs so far. The initial stages of the project saw West Sussex County Council contributing £50,000, the Environment Agency £45,000 and SEEDA £100,000. Most of this money went towards the first phase of ground investigations on the disused landfill site. SEEDA had recently joined the project as a full partner and had contributed a further £50,000 for more detailed ground investigations for the landfill site. The Environment Agency had also provided a further £75,000 towards this work, which had made it possible to proceed with the additional investigations. A full report on the ground conditions and an outline plan for the safe remediation of the 11 hectares of disused landfill was due in the autumn of 2009. There would also be other surveys and assessments, such as on visitor numbers, traffic counts and flood risk assessments in due course.

Unconfirmed minutes – to be agreed at the July meeting of the Advisory Board

95. The Chairman thanked Lisa, Jim and Sam for their updates, and accepted the criticisms of some members of the Board who argued that the project had not been explained or communicated clearly enough to the local community. He asked for members’ views on how the project should now progress. Members discussed the project and noted that funding in the current economic climate could be difficult to secure, although some members felt that the economic conditions would improve over the coming years. Concerns were also raised at the prospect of visitor numbers increasing and the harmful effect that this would have on the Reserve. Members highlighted their disappointment that poor communication from staff working on the project had led to many members of the public believing that the Reserve was spending £10million on the new Centre. Jim Glover responded by explaining that it had never been suggested that £10million would be spent on the Pagham Harbour Coastal Visitor Centre. The figure had arisen as Jim had stated that if the new centre had every facility that people had suggested, then it might cost this much. £10million was never the budget for the project, but Jim accepted that the wording in the minutes of the Project Board was perhaps naïve and misleading.

96. A key concern of members of the Board was that there appeared to be an absence of local involvement, particularly in the Project Board and steering group. The Chairman agreed and explained that the Project Board was completely separate from the Pagham Harbour LNR Advisory Board, but that he believed that the local County Councillors needed to be more involved in the project. The Board supported this view and agreed that there needed to be local County Councillors appointed to the Project Board for the new centre.

97. Resolved – i) That the Board strongly recommends the appointment of at least two local West Sussex County Councillors to the Pagham Harbour Coastal Visitor Centre Project Board ii) That an effort should be made to correct any public misconceptions of the project (for example via press releases etc) iii) That the current feasibility study be completed iv) That the current condition of the Visitor Centre be addressed to ensure that it is fit for purpose for the forthcoming years

Agenda items for the next meeting of the Advisory Board

98. It was agreed that a financial report on the Reserve would be provided if it was available in time. The Pagham Coastal Defence Study would also be discussed if it had been published in time and was applicable to the work of the Nature Reserve. The outcome of the meeting with Sidlesham Parish Council and the issue of boat permits would also be discussed.

Date of next meeting

99. Members agreed that the next meeting of the Advisory Board would take place on Tuesday 14th July 2009 in North Mundham Village Hall at 6.30pm. Members were also informed that Rob Carver would be hosting a short walk for members around the Harbour prior to the meeting. Full details would be provided prior to the meeting. Andy Pope also informed members that David Bellamy would be visiting the Church Farm Holiday Village for the day on 22nd June, and

Unconfirmed minutes – to be agreed at the July meeting of the Advisory Board that members of the Board were invited to join him for a range of wildlife and conservation activities.

100. Further meeting dates were agreed as follows:  24th November 2009  9th March 2010

The meeting closed at 9.05pm.

The Chairman