Limited support for Tamworth
We do not currently provide detailed weekly summaries for Tamworth Council. Running the service is expensive, and we need to cover our costs.
You can still subscribe!
If you're a professional subscriber and need support for this council, get in touch with us at community@opencouncil.network and we can enable it for you.
If you're a resident, subscribe below and we'll start sending you updates when they're available. We're enabling councils rapidly across the UK in order of demand, so the more people who subscribe to your council, the sooner we'll be able to support it.
If you represent this council and would like to have it supported, please contact us at community@opencouncil.network.
Planning Committee - Wednesday, 5th June, 2024 6.00 pm
June 5, 2024 View on council website Watch video of meeting Read transcript (Professional subscription required)Summary
The meeting began with a welcome and safety announcement. Apologies were received from Councillor Claymore. The main topics discussed included the appointment of a vice-chair, approval of previous meeting minutes, declarations of interest, and two significant planning applications.
Appointment of Vice Chair
Dave Foster was nominated and appointed as the vice-chair. Councillor Smith seconded the nomination, and there were no other nominations. The vote was unanimous in favor of Councillor Foster.
Approval of Previous Meeting Minutes
The minutes from the previous meeting held on April 23, 2024, were approved. Councillor Adams moved, and Councillor Sommers seconded the approval.
Declarations of Interest
Councillor Kingston declared an interest in the South Staffordshire College application (367/023) and stated he would retire from the meeting during its discussion. Councillor Turner declared an interest in item number two as the applicant was his local news agent.
South Staffordshire College Demolition Application
The first major application discussed was for the demolition of existing buildings at South Staffordshire College. Glen Baker presented the application, emphasizing that it was a precursor to the main development application. The demolition was necessary for site preparation, including playing pitch mitigation required by Sports England. A construction management plan would be submitted to ensure minimal disruption to nearby residents.
Brendan Dale from Homes England spoke in favor of the application, highlighting the benefits of repurposing brownfield land and the alignment with local and national planning policies. He assured that measures would be taken to minimize disruption, including dust suppression and limiting operational hours.
Councillors raised several concerns:
- Councillor Foster asked about the demolition duration, which was estimated to last up to six months.
- Councillor Clark inquired about the demolition method and its impact on residents.
- Councillor Coats questioned the type of trucks to be used and their impact on traffic.
- Councillor Smith expressed concerns about dust, debris, and the proximity to a railway line, citing Network Rail's asset protection document.
- Councillor Turner raised concerns about the timing of demolition relative to planned road resurfacing on Gungate.
The application was recommended for approval with conditions, but Councillor Smith moved to defer the decision, citing inadequate consideration of highway safety and resident concerns. The motion to defer was seconded and passed.
Retrospective Application for Land off More Lane, Bowl Hall
The second major application was a retrospective application for the installation of a stoned access track, a timber restroom, and solar panels at More Lane, Bowl Hall. Andrew Davis presented the report, noting that the application was part retrospective and part proposed. The site had been cleared of vegetation, including veteran trees, which had raised significant concerns among residents.
Councillors Dean and Daniels spoke against the application, citing the impact on the amenity of neighbors, the surrounding area, and the character of the area. They also highlighted the lack of an ecology report and flood risk assessment.
Councillors raised several points:
- Councillor Smith questioned why policy EN1 was not included in the reasons for refusal.
- Councillor Kingston expressed frustration over the lack of an ecology report from Staffordshire County Council.
- Councillor Clark emphasized the safety risks and the negative impact on the character of the area.
The application was recommended for refusal based on its non-compliance with local plan policies and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Councillor Summers moved to refuse the application, including the lack of an ecology report as a reason. Councillor Smith seconded the motion. The motion to refuse was passed.
Updates from Planning Officers
There were no updates from the planning officers.
The meeting concluded with thanks to the public and those watching online.
Attendees
Topics
No topics have been identified for this meeting yet.