Cookham Discussion Board
December 14, 2018, 02:05:31 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
10 December 2018 - The Media Hub - Tim Brooke-Taylor OBE

11 December 2018 - Cookham Surgery Closed for Training 12.30pm onwards

13 December 2018 -  WilldCookham Christmas Catch Up - FREE

13 December 2018 - Cookham Book Club

TO REGISTER TO POST ON THIS DISCUSSION BOARD email the Webmaster@cookham.com with a User name you would like. This is due to spammers.
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6]
  Print  
Author Topic: Chickens Again (Will this never go away?)  (Read 30776 times)
James Hatch
Golden Hatch
******
Posts: 2333


« Reply #75 on: June 07, 2016, 02:45:20 PM »

My thoughts Paris is that we can't have any land including the Lightlands Pasture and that area west of Whiteladyes Lane, that Copas wants to build on. These areas could be used to graze yearling beef cattle from late April until the end of October. That way the pasture is kept short and the flood problem does not occur.
I have no idea who the Hayward is looking after the common land these days. But recent photos of Widbrook, the weeds make it look an utter disgrace. Poor old George Allan and Arthur Jakes, must be turning over in their graves.
Logged
Birdman
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 380


« Reply #76 on: June 07, 2016, 06:16:53 PM »

Sorry James - I can't agree on that one (Widbrook weeds) It's SUPPOSED to be weeds. We have enough mown grass all along our roads and gardens. Wildlife need some rough grassland to survive. Currently we have nesting Skylarks, feeding Yellowhammers, masses of Buttercups and a host of insects feeding on grass seed and minute flowers there, with scarce Variable Damselflies along the stream. We would have none of that if there were no 'weeds'.

Back to the main topic, one of my concerns has been what the attitude of our itinerant fowl man will be to our local Kites. If there was any suspicion he will want to start culling them because of his roaming chicks, there will be a whole raft of additional objections coming forth!
Logged
monty
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 706


« Reply #77 on: June 07, 2016, 06:38:32 PM »

He better not touch our kites,but I would not put anything past him.
Logged
James Hatch
Golden Hatch
******
Posts: 2333


« Reply #78 on: June 07, 2016, 07:36:58 PM »

Sorry Birdman, Widbrook during the summer months it was always well stocked with cattle with my uncles milking herd night grazing on Widbrook East. We also had plenty of nesting birds, to name a few: Redshank, Greenshank, Snipe, Plovers, Coots, Moorhens, Kestrels,Dabchicks. The hawthorns were home to Goldfinch, Linnets, just to name a few. For several years my cousin John Field and spent Batfouling at night to ring birds for the BTO, and the grass was kept short by the cattle and the thistles and nettles were cut down by the Hayward. What use to be can still be, if only there were local farmers with stock to graze the common lands, which were the hard one rights from Queen Elizabeth the first by the villagers of Cookham. Yes remember, Cookham was once a Royal Manor.
Logged
Paris
Guest
« Reply #79 on: June 08, 2016, 01:41:04 PM »

Birdman - I quite agree with you.  In days of old when James was a mere youngster farming wasn't so intensive as it is now and the flora and fauna were not under such threat from chemicals, overstocking with livestock (not that Widbrook is overstocked now) and the efficiency of farm machinery was much less; therefore wildlife did co-exist more happily with farming needs.  Nowadays it is a different matter, and managing Widbrook for wildlife is far more important than perhaps it has ever been before.  As to the subject of it flooding, ahem James - you have contradicted comments on another thread where you included the threat from groundwater in your argument; not only that but the underground works needed for the Maidenhead Flood Bund has raised the water table bringing with it the knock on effect that the area flooded almost to 1947 levels in 2014.  Not helped there either by the bund itself making the area almost a 'holding pond' for what of a better description until the water could be dispersed without adding to the woes of villages and towns further downstream.

But back to the matter at hand - the chicken farm, I see from the Advertiser online that the recommendation is likely to be refusal for the massive moveable shed Mr Driver wishes to install.  I can only hope that their information is correct and that hopefully Mr Driver will now see sense and look for an alternative site rather than causing any more antagonism, worry, fear and stress for all those who have no desire to live next to a smelly, noisy chicken farm with every likelihood of having to watch an animal welfare disaster happen in front of their very eyes the next time a flood inundates the area.
Logged
monty
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 706


« Reply #80 on: June 08, 2016, 01:44:46 PM »

I did send a letter and email about this latest problem and had form back on Friday to say 'recommended refusal'
Logged
wannabe
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 539


« Reply #81 on: June 08, 2016, 07:26:38 PM »

The application for a certificate of lawfulness has been rejected at the council planning meeting.
Logged
Paris
Guest
« Reply #82 on: June 09, 2016, 10:53:24 AM »

Excellent news!

I couldn't make the meeting - did they give reasons?

Wonder what he'll try next?  Unfortunately I don't see this going away quietly, unless whoever is putting up the money says enough is enough.
Logged
Thomas Lee
Administrator
Full Member
***
Posts: 186


WWW
« Reply #83 on: June 09, 2016, 12:11:20 PM »

Excellent news!

I couldn't make the meeting - did they give reasons?

Wonder what he'll try next?  Unfortunately I don't see this going away quietly, unless whoever is putting up the money says enough is enough.

The application was REJECTED!  The panel gave due weight to the evidence presented, from residents, Cookham Society and the Cookham Parish Council. There was ZERO support expressed, either from the council's panel, or from the audience. It seemed to me to be a straightforward NO! reasons included the proximity to houses (Chicken farms need to be a certain distance away from habitation). The idea that this would somehow be 'portable' was somewhat ridiculed too.

I was glad to see our councillors doing their job and representing the people over some wannabe chicken farmer.

Having said that
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!