Agenda and minutes
PDF 410 KBVenue: Parkside Suite - Parkside. View directions
Contact: Pauline Ross
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
To receive apologies for absence and notification of substitutes Minutes: There were no apologies for absence. |
|
|
Declarations of Interest To invite Councillors to declare any Disclosable Pecuniary Interests or Other Disclosable Interests they may have in items on the agenda, and to confirm the nature of those interests. Minutes: Councillor A. B. L. English declared in relation to Agenda Item No.5 - (Planning Application – 22/00801/FUL – Seafield Farm, Seafield Lane, Portway, Redditch, Worcestershire, B98 9DB in that she would be addressing the Committee for this item as Ward Councillor under the Council’s public speaking rules. Following the conclusion of public speaking, Councillor A. B. L. English left the meeting room. |
|
|
Minutes: The minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 5th September were received.
That the minutes be amended at Minute No. 17/22, paragraph 7, page 3 and paragraph 10, page 4 - Planning Application 8 Forest Close, Lickey End, Bromsgrove, B60 1JU, as follows:-
That the word subordinate be changed to read insubordinate.
RESOLVED that, subject to the amendment as detailed in the preamble, that the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 5th September 2022, be approved as a correct record. |
|
|
Minutes: The Chairman announced that a Committee Update had been circulated to all Planning Committee Members and asked all Members if they had received and read the Committee Update.
All Members agreed that they had received and read the Committee Update. |
|
|
Additional documents: Minutes: Officers drew Members’ attention to the Committee Update, which detailed an amended Recommendation, Revised Condition 3, an additional Condition 8 and new Informatives. Copies of which Members had been given the opportunity to read and copies of which were provided to Members and published on the Council’s website prior to the commencement of the meeting.
Officers presented the report and in doing so drew Members’ attention to the presentation slides, as detailed on pages 20 to 26 of the main agenda report.
The application sought for the demolition of 2No. existing poultry building and the erection of clear span portal frame building to form additional seasonal livestock area.
The application site formed part of Seafield Farm operated by Seafield Pedigrees Ltd; and was located to the west of Seafield Lane. It was currently occupied by 2 former poultry sheds, and these had been more recently used for lambing. Due to age and storm damage, the buildings were in a dilapidated state.
The application originally proposed the ‘Demolition of 2No. existing poultry building and erection of clear span portal frame building to form additional seasonal livestock area and secure farm storage, with internal area for hay and straw storage’. Following concerns, this was amended so that the farm storage, hay and straw storage elements were withdrawn from the application.
The brochure for the farm park refers to a ‘lambing barn.’ This building lay adjacent to the derelict poultry sheds. It was a re-purposed former poultry building and ventilation was limited. The Agricultural Consultant had advised that it was not well-suited to lambing.
The existing cattle building was extended in 2020 under an agricultural notification. The applicant did advise that this had enabled a creeper area for calves following professional advice regarding improvements to animal welfare. The Agricultural Consultant had advised that the existing cattle building was well-suited to livestock.
The existing cattle shed cannot accommodate all the cows for over-wintering. Throughout the application process, the farmer had stressed the need for over-wintering accommodation for his livestock. The existing cattle shed could accommodate 68-81 cows. The proposed cattle shed would accommodate 45-54 cattle. Although at the upper end of the space allowance, the Agricultural Consultant had advised that the herd size of approximately 120 suckler cows was considered to justify the additional space.
With regard to sheep, the Agricultural Consultant had advised that the proposed sheep pens would be capable of housing of the order of 200 ewes if housed in groups, or less if divided into individual lambing pens. The buildings would, therefore, house the larger flock of sheep, which would be housed from December to circa February / March.
The application form stated that storm water would drain to soakaways. North Worcestershire Water Management (NWWM) had advised that due to the clay soils this would be unlikely to be feasible. A Condition was recommended regarding this matter. The agent had subsequently explained that there would be no increase in runoff from the site compared to the pre-development situation. No ... view the full minutes text for item 23/22 |
|
|
Additional documents: Minutes: This application was withdrawn from the Agenda. |