ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO PLANNING COMMITTEE

2nd April 2013

AGENDA ITEM 6 12/01592/FUL – THE WHEATSHEAF, MAIN ROAD, COMMON

Representations

The Council records all representations received in an electronic system which counts the number of people that have made representations. This information is also displayed on the Council online system. The online system shows the overall figure of comments received rather than the number of people who have made comments. Therefore if some people have submitted a letter in writing and a second comment using the online system, the figure will be greater than the number of people that have made comments. In order to get a good indication for the level of support and objection for the proposal the report includes the number of people that are either in support or object. A summary of the issues raised from all comments is then included in the report.

The report also includes the number of petitions which have been submitted. Originally there were seven separate petitions showing on the Council’s file, however, three of these relate to separate pages of the same petition and have now been combined together. The number of signatures remains the same.

Following queries from the general public the representations have now been recounted and clarified. Care has been taken to ensure that petitions have not been counted twice and have been separated out from individual representations.

The overall breakdown of representations is therefore:

188 separately recorded individuals 5 represent the first name of 5 separate petitions of support

155 individuals are in support 74 – Live in Rettendon, Rettendon Common and Chalk Street 66 – Live elsewhere 15 – Did not state where they live

28 individuals are objecting 26 – Live in Rettendon, Rettendon Common and Chalk Street 2 – Did not state where they live.

1 Taking this methodology into account, the report should be amended to more clearly state that the tally discussed in paragraph 7.10 refers to the number of people who have commented and not the number of representations . Paragraph 7.10 should read:

“The Council has received a total of 188 representations to this application; this includes letters from 183 individuals and 5 petitions of support. Of the individuals that made representations 155 were in support and 28 were against. Of those that have written in support of the application, 74 live in Rettendon, Rettendon Common or Chalk Street, 66 live further afield in other parts of and and 15 did not state their address. Of those that objected, 26 were from people who live in Rettendon, Rettendon Common and Chalk Street and two did not state their address.”

RECOMMENDATION

Additional Planning Condition

Condition 15 No part of the equestrian centre may be used until i) the refurbishment and extensions to the public house building have been undertaken and the building is available for use for the approved purposes and, ii) the car park to serve the refurbished and extended public house as shown on drawing 09/DSK/23 has been constructed and is available for use and, iii) the toilet block has been constructed in accordance with drawing no 09/DSK/27 and is available for use and, iv) the refuse store has been constructed in accordance with drawing no 09/DSK/22 and is available for use.

Reason 15 In order to achieve a satisfactory development of the site.

AGENDA ITEM 7 12/01277/FUL – RACECOURSE HALL LANE

REPORT

Paragraph 3.1 to be amended as follows:

3.1 The application seeks permission for the floodlights that appear in situ. The floodlight columns total 74 in number and are a combination of champagne flute stanchions, straight stanchions and smaller columns in the centre of the site.

CONSULTATIONS

Great & Little Leighs Parish Council

The Parish Council have made additional comments, as follows: Whilst the Great Leigh's Parish Council support the development of the racecourse site we would like to see conditions for the floodlighting be set. All the lighting columns must

2 be fitted with the cowls to protect the surrounding area from light pollution and the times the lighting is permitted to be on must be limited where possible.

Comments

Noted. Conditions included on recommendation to cover timings. All cowls are currently fitted.

Neighbour Representations

6 further representations received, 3 of which from new objectors. Most comments are already categorised under the headings within the existing officer report. New points raised are summarised as follows:

1. Night sky previously affected in Nounsley near Hatfield Peverel. 2. Height of lighting made pinpoints visible to north of Hatfield Peverel. 3. Permanent blot on Essex skyline. 4. Unnecessary use of electricity. 5. Permission should be restricted to race events. 6. Impact on star gazing events. 7. Comments and suggestions at previous meeting with owners have not been actioned – race times, power output, change in surfaces. 8. Query over enforceability of 50% power down option. 9. Proposed mitigation is inadequate. Cricket screens would be ineffective. 10. Comment on previous late night testing.

Comments

1. Impact has been noted in officer report. 2. Impact has been noted in officer report. 3. The floodlight columns are noted to be permanent features. 4. The floodlights require a power source. Their use will be restricted by condition. 5. The condition proposed (condition 2) would effectively restrict use. No previous condition has restricted use to race events over training events for example. 6. This impact should be balanced against the number of nights permitted. 7. The proposed race time are seen by the applicant to be necessary to support their business case. Power down to less than 50% is not technically feasible. The reflection ratios of the surfaces within the site are to some degree set by the racetrack and grassed areas. 8. Condition 2 seeks for a schedule to be agreed, the timings of which would be enforceable. 9. Condition 3 will seek to secure details of boundary treatments. The cricket screens were a suggestion by the applicant. 10. Condition 4 will seek to agree a schedule of testing.

3 AGENDA ITEM 8 13/00092/FUL – 95 FALMOUTH ROAD, CHELMSFORD

REPORT

Paragraph 3.2: Amendment to first sentence:

The proposed rear extension would measure approximately 9.9m wide (with 8.4m of this width being two storey) and 5.5m deep and would have a dual pitched roof to the rear elevation.

4