Cisco Wireless :: 1941w Configuration On NAT Network?

can assist with a Cisco 1941w configuration problem.I have just installed a 1941W onto our network.  It handles the routing of our block of IPs onto the internet through our ISP using 2 x ADSL2+ interfaces.  his all works.  For the sake of privacy, lets say that our block is 100.101.102.128/25.I am now trying to get the 1941Ws Wireless AP working.I have set up the management VLAN on a private range (192.168.1.0/24), the AP on 192.168.1.2 and can now access the AP interface on 192,168.1.2 from anywhere on our LAN.This tells me that the cisco is routing everything to and from the AP on the management network (192.168.1.0/24).
 
I have set up VLAN 2 on the AP, configured it to use WPA, set the key, created an SSID and assigned it to VLAN 2.  I am having some trouble assigning both 2.4 and 5GHz radios to the SSD.  For some reason after setting up everything using the express setup I could not save Beacon Mode unless I disabled Radio1-802.11N5GHz and now I cannot re-enable because the web interface claims that this interface is not enabled for the VLAN... but that's another question.When I try to access the AP, I am authenticated but never get an IP address.  My best guess is that DHCP on the router is not responding perhaps because VLAN 2 is not routing to the main network.
 
The VLan2 interface on the router side is definitely enabled and set to 192.168.2.1.  I have set up a DHCP pool on 192.168.2.1 that is assigned to Vlan2 (I did manually because CCP claimed there was an overlapping region.. even though there wasn't).  I can ping 192.168.2.1 (or any other internal address) from the AP.  VLAN 1 and VLAN 2 are set up the same way (no ACLs, both in in-zone, both with NAT off)So... why isn't the router giving the wireless client an IP address?  Is there a way to simplify the AP so that VLAN 2 routes directly onto my main IP range?
 
As an aside... between CCP not wanting to add a DHCP range (claiming an overlapping region but manual entry worked), the AP web interface's complete lack of responsiveness (it's horribly slow) and the AP interfaces inability to provide a useful error message... this has been THE most frustrating thing I have ever had to configure..  With the rest of he industry making everything easier to use, Cisco seems to be moving in exactly the opposite direction.