This week in Telford and Wrekin:

• The Cabinet met on Thursday 07 November 2024 to approve a number of strategies and reports, including the All Age Carers Strategy 2024-2029, the Telford & Wrekin Digital Strategy 2024, and the Ofsted Action Plan.
• The Children & Young People Scrutiny Committee meeting scheduled for Thursday 07 November 2024 was due to receive a report on the July 2024 Ofsted inspection of Children's Services, and review its proposed work programme for the 2024/25 Municipal Year.
  

Cabinet - Thursday 07 November 2024

The Cabinet met on Thursday 07 November 2024 to discuss and approve a number of reports and strategies. These included:

• All Age Carers Strategy 2024-2029
• Telford & Wrekin Digital Strategy 2024
• Ofsted Action Plan
• Telford & Wrekin Council Plan
• Vision 2032
• Telford & Wrekin Becoming Carbon Neutral
• Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Strategy
• 2024/25 Financial Monitoring Report
• Elections Review Working Group

Children & Young People Scrutiny Committee - Thursday 07 November 2024

The Children & Young People Scrutiny Committee was scheduled to meet on 07 November 2024. The meeting was due to include discussion of a draft work programme for the 2024/25 Municipal Year, a report on the findings of the July 2024 Ofsted inspection of Children's Services, and a verbal report on school attendance and absenteeism for the preceding academic year.

This week in Telford and Wrekin:

• The Licensing Committee met on Wednesday 23 October 2024 to discuss the adoption of a new gambling policy for the borough.
• The Planning Committee met on Wednesday 23 October 2024 and voted to defer a decision on an application for residential development on land to the north east of Greenways Farm Shop off Church Street in St George's.

Licensing Committee - Wednesday 23 October 2024

The Licensing Committee met on Wednesday 23 October 2024. The meeting was scheduled to consider the adoption of a new gambling policy for the borough, and to confirm the minutes of the meeting that took place on 29 July 2024.

The Licensing Committee is responsible for a wide range of licensing functions, including the licensing of pubs, clubs, and restaurants, as well as the registration of taxi drivers. The committee is also responsible for issuing gambling licences.

Review of Statement of Gambling Policy

The Review of Statement of Gambling Licensing Policy 2024 Report asked the committee to endorse a new Statement of Gambling Licensing Principles for the borough.

The report notes that Councils are required to have a gambling policy that sets out how they will approach their licensing duties under the Gambling Act 2005.¹ The policy also needed to be reviewed to take into account new guidance from the Gambling Commission,² which was published in 2019.

It states that no changes of substance were proposed to the previous policy, aside from updating the number of licences issued for each kind of gambling premises. The policy describes how the council aims to work within the Gambling Act 2005 by keeping crime out of gambling, and protecting children and vulnerable people.

The Licensing Authority recognises the wide variety of premises which require a licence or a permit. These include casinos, betting shops, tracks, bingo halls, pubs, clubs and amusement arcades.

The policy outlines in detail how the council will approach applications for each type of gambling licence, and how it will work with its partners, such as the Gambling Commission and West Mercia Police³ to enforce the terms of the licences it issues.

Minutes of the Previous Meeting

The committee was asked to approve the minutes of the meeting that took place on 29 July 2024.

The minutes describe a number of decisions that were scheduled to be made at the previous meeting, including:

• The approval of the minutes of the meeting on 13 March 2024
• The approval of the committee's terms of reference.
• The approval of a report on the activities of the Licensing Team. This included the approval of new fees for pavement licences.⁴

Planning Committee - Wednesday 23 October 2024

The Planning Committee of Telford and Wrekin Council met on Wednesday 23 October 2024. The committee considered three applications, one of which was deferred.

Readers will recall that the Planning Committee is responsible for making decisions on planning applications. The committee is made up of elected councillors, who are advised by planning officers. The committee must follow the council's Local Plan when making its decisions, as well as national planning policy.

Land North East of Greenways Farm Shop, St George's, Telford.

The committee considered an application for outline planning permission for the erection of up to 45 dwellings.

After taking legal advice, the committee voted to defer the application on the grounds of density. The committee asked that the applicant come back with a proposal that is more acceptable to local people and which addresses the other issues that have been raised. Speaking about the application, Councillor Peter Scott said:

after quite a lot of good legal advice what we are going what what I'm proposing we do is defer this particular application particularly on the density of the application to see if the applicant could come forward with something that will be more acceptable to local people and at the same time all the other added issues within the application

The application had been opposed by Councillor Peter Scott. Giving his reasons for objecting to the proposal, Councillor Scott said that there is a great deal of housing already in the Telford and Wrekin Local Plan, and that:

it's not being put forward for the interests of the Telford and Wrekin residents it's put forward for the interests of the owner

Brefny House, Farm Lane, Horsehay, Telford

The committee considered an application for full planning permission for the change of use from a residential dwelling to a residential care home for four young people between the ages of 7 and 17.

The committee voted unanimously to grant planning permission. The application had been supported by the council's specialist housing team and Ofsted. The applicant, Lawrence O'Dwyer, is the director of Positive Outcomes, a company which already runs a number of children's homes. In his submission to the committee, Mr O'Dwyer said:

we have built an excellent reputation as a valued employer in the areas we are based with an obvious economic benefits

Councillor Arnold England said that he was:

totally in favour of children needing care being supported in the community.

Councillor Janice Jones welcomed the proposal wholeheartedly.

Councillor Steve Bentley said that:

as a corporate parent we have a responsibility to ensure that all children have opportunity and the best potential start that they can get in life

The councillors were all agreed that the care home would provide a valuable service to the community.

34 Avon Close, Little Dawley

The committee considered an application for full planning permission for the change of use from a dwelling house to a residential institution for two children between the ages of 7 and 17.

The committee voted unanimously to grant planning permission for a temporary two-year period. The application had been supported by the council's specialist housing team.

Councillor Steve Bentley proposed that the application be granted. He said that he understood the concerns about parking and noise, but that he believed that the council's safeguarding teams would be able to deal with any issues that arose. He said:

there's not to say if this hadn't remained a residential development or a residential property, none of this wouldn't have occurred anyhow

Councillor Arnold England seconded the proposal, but asked for clarification on whether the property was semi-detached or detached. He said that he had concerns about the potential for noise and disturbance from the property, given that the children would be damaged children needing therapeutic care. He asked:

will there be additional insulation between the two properties to reduce the effects of any noise and disturbance?

Councillor Jones also raised concerns about parking, noting that there would be three members of staff on site at any one time. She asked whether the staff would be using their own cars or company cars.

In response to the councillors' questions, the applicant's agent confirmed that the property was semi-detached and that the staff would be using their own cars. They also confirmed that there would be a maximum of three members of staff on site at any one time, and that the staff handover would be staggered to minimise disruption.

Councillor Scott asked for clarification on a point raised by a member of the public, who had said that the deeds of the property stated that it could not be used for business purposes. The committee's legal advisor confirmed that the deeds were a private matter between the homeowners and were not a material planning consideration.

The committee voted unanimously to grant planning permission for a temporary two-year period, subject to a condition requiring the applicant to install noise mitigation measures.

This week in Telford and Wrekin:

• The Health & Wellbeing Board met on Wednesday 18 September 2024.
• The Cabinet met on Thursday 19 September 2024 to discuss a range of issues including updates on the council's climate change action plan, a review of the Vision 2032 plan, and progress on equality, diversity and inclusion.

Health & Wellbeing Board - Wednesday 18 September 2024

No transcript was available for this meeting.

Cabinet - Thursday 19 September 2024

The Cabinet was scheduled to receive updates on a range of topics, including the council's climate change action plan, a review of the Vision 2032 plan for the borough, and progress on equality, diversity and inclusion.

Telford & Wrekin Becoming Carbon Neutral - update report

The Cabinet was scheduled to receive an update report on the council's progress towards its target of becoming carbon neutral by 2030. This target has been a recurring topic in previous Cabinet meetings and in the council's manifesto.

The report pack notes that the council has already made significant progress, with its carbon emissions having been reduced by 61% from a 2018/19 baseline. The council claims that this reduction is due in part to its investment in energy efficiency measures such as solar panels and LED lighting. For example, the report pack highlights the installation of solar photovoltaic (PV) panels, electric vehicle (EV) charging points and battery storage at Horsehay Village Golf Course.

Vision 2032 - Annual Review

The Cabinet was scheduled to receive an annual review of the council's delivery of the ten-year borough plan ‘Vision 2032’.

The Vision 2032 plan, adopted in 2014, sets out the council's long-term ambitions for the borough. It covers a wide range of areas, including the economy, housing, transport, and the environment. The council uses the annual review to track its progress against the plan's targets and to identify any areas where further action is needed.

Progress on the Council's Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Strategy and Action Plan

The Cabinet was scheduled to discuss the council's progress against its four-year Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) Strategy and Action Plan, and its Equality Objectives as per its duties under the Public Sector Equality Duty.

As we have seen in previous emails, the Equality Act 2010 Public Sector Equality Duty requires public bodies to have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between different groups. The council's EDI Strategy and Action Plan sets out how it intends to meet these requirements.

Representation on Outside Bodies

The Cabinet was scheduled to discuss a proposal to delegate authority to the Monitoring Officer to approve nominations to outside bodies, in consultation with Councillor Zona Hannington, Cabinet Member for Finance, Governance and Customer Services.

Outside bodies are organisations that are not part of the council but which carry out functions that are relevant to the council's work. They can include things like school governing bodies, NHS trusts, and charitable organisations. Councils often nominate councillors to sit on the boards of these organisations in order to represent the council's interests.

The report pack included in the agenda for the meeting contains a list of all of the outside bodies to which the council may nominate councillors. For example, the report pack notes that the council can nominate one councillor to the Ironbridge Gorge World Heritage Site Steering Group, which meets twice a year.

This week in Telford and Wrekin:

• The Communities Scrutiny Committee met to review its work programme for 2024/25, discuss the council's response to fly-tipping, and examine its Terms of Reference.

Communities Scrutiny Committee - Thursday 12 September 2024

The Communities Scrutiny Committee meeting on Thursday 12 September 2024 was scheduled to include a review of the committee's draft work programme for the 2024/25 municipal year, and a report on fly-tipping in the Borough. The committee's proposed Terms of Reference for 2024/25 were also on the agenda for review.

Communities Scrutiny Committee - Terms of Reference

The Committee was scheduled to review its Terms of Reference for 2024/25. The report that accompanies the Terms of Reference describes how at the Annual Meeting of the Council on 23 May 2024, Full Council delegated authority to each Committee to review its own Terms of Reference. This is a common occurrence. As we saw in a previous email, the Licensing Committee also recently reviewed its terms of reference, on 29 July 2024. The report accompanying the Communities Scrutiny Committee's Terms of Reference explains that:

The Terms of Reference forms part of the Consitution and approved by Full Council in that context on 3 March 2022.

The document that contains the draft Terms of Reference lists the membership, functions and meeting administration and proceedings of the Communities Scrutiny Committee. It explains that the Committee:

will be the main mechanism by which Scrutiny members will scrutinise and monitor issues relating to the following key areas:

It then lists a number of those areas. These include:

• Customer Experience
• Voluntary sector and community groups
• Community engagement and development
• Library services and archives
• Heritage Services
• Preventing and reducing crime
• Tackling domestic abuse
• Public Protection
• Road safety
• Benefits and welfare reform
• Sport, leisure, entertainment and culture facilities
• Housing – including affordable housing, HMOs¹, homelessness and housing needs

Building Safer & Stronger Communities through tackling fly-tipping

A report was scheduled to be received that provided an update on fly-tipping in the Borough. This update follows a presentation given to the committee on June 28 2023 about the Council’s efforts on tackling fly-tipping in the Borough. This is a topic that we have seen raised in previous meetings. As readers of this email will recall, the Scrutiny Management Board, at its meeting on 03 September 2024, proposed that tackling fly-tipping should be included on the Communities Scrutiny Committee's work programme for 2024/25.

The report describes how since the last meeting, the work of the team had been focused on data led intelligence to identify instances of fly-tipping across the Borough. One of the ways this data was being gathered was through the 'Telford and Wrekin Watch' communications campaign. This campaign uses a variety of communication methods, such as social media, for members of the public to inform the Council on instances of fly tipping. The report describes how this, along with evidence obtained from CCTV cameras, is supporting the efforts of the Council’s Enforcement Team to tackle fly tipping across the Borough.

The report concludes by describing how further work was underway on the draft information leaflet and the draft action plan following comments received from Members, and that a further update would be presented to the Committee at a later date.

Communities Scrutiny Committee Work Programme 2024/25

The committee was scheduled to review and agree its draft work programme for 2024/25. The work programme is described in the report as a two year work programme that allows for more in-depth work to be undertaken. It notes that some items would follow onto the next municipal year, including an update on fly tipping and domestic violence funding and support.

The report lists all of the topics that are scheduled to be discussed by the committee over the coming year, starting with the meeting on 12 September 2024. The report describes how a period of consultation had taken place in the months running up to a new municipal year in which the public, key stakeholders, and Council officers are asked to put forward scrutiny suggestions for inclusion on the coming year’s work programme. Readers will recall that the Scrutiny Management Board discussed the contents of the work programme at its meeting on 03 September 2024.

This week in Telford and Wrekin:

• The Planning Committee deferred a decision on a new industrial development in Hadley, approved a battery energy storage facility near Buildwas Bank, Coalbrookdale, and approved a new sports pitch opposite Blackbird Close in Overdale.
• The Scrutiny Management Board reviewed the Council’s draft budget proposals for 2024/25.
• The Boundary Review Committee discussed the findings of a recent public consultation on the Community Governance Review (CGR).

Planning Committee - Wednesday 04 September 2024

The Planning Committee met on Wednesday 04 September 2024 and considered three applications. One application, for five industrial units at the former Hadleigh Castle Works site, was deferred. A second application, for a battery storage facility at Jiggers Bank in Coalbrookdale, called in by Councillor Gareth Thomas, was refused. The final application, which was for new sports facilities at Blackbird Close in Overdale, was approved.

Land off Hadleigh Castle Works, Hadley

The Committee considered an application for full planning permission for the construction of 5 industrial units at Hadleigh Castle Works in Hadley.

Councillor Gemma Offland objected to the application on behalf of local residents, arguing that the proposed development had raised a number of concerns, including the layout of the loading bays facing onto residential properties, highway congestion along the A442, noise and pollution that would emanate from the site, and the impact on local heritage assets like the Hadley Park Locks. She further noted that there had been 276 objections to the application and a further 41 letters at the amended plans stage. Councillor Offland asked the committee to defer the application and to further look at the considerations with the residents that we serve.

Councillor Phil Millward, speaking on behalf of Hadley and Legomery Parish Council, echoed the concerns of Councillor Offland, claiming that residents were fearful of the development, especially noise pollution, which would be present 24/7, and highlighting the potential detrimental impact of the development on the local environment. Like Councillor Offland, he called on the Committee to defer the application to allow for further consultation.

Mr David Sellwood, an environmental consultant, made a number of technical points about the application, taking issue with the noise and visual assessments undertaken as part of it and arguing that they were not in accordance with the requirements of local planning policy. For example, referring to the Council's own policy on noise pollution, Policy BE1¹, which requires developers to demonstrate that there will be no significant adverse impact on noise on nearby properties, he stated: >A lack of significant adverse impacts on noise has not been demonstrated. The application cannot therefore be determined.

Mr Samuel Clark, the Chief Executive of Mercia Real Estate, speaking in favour of the application, outlined the economic benefits of the proposal, arguing that it would bring modern industrial facilities to the area, create approximately 2,000 jobs, enhance the local environment, and generate £150 million for the local economy.

A Planning Officer then summarised the application for the Committee, arguing that, in principle, the application was acceptable on a number of grounds, including its proposed use, design, scale, and layout. He then addressed a number of the key concerns that had been raised, arguing that the proposed development would not have a significant detrimental impact on the amenity of local residents.

The Committee subsequently debated the application. Councillors generally accepted that the site had been designated as a strategic employment area for this type of development and that the application was likely to be approved eventually. However, they were concerned about a number of outstanding issues with the application, including the orientation of the buildings, noise pollution, and the impact of the development on traffic on the A442.

Ultimately, the Committee voted unanimously to defer the application to allow the applicant to address the concerns that had been raised by Councillors.

Land off Buildwas Bank

The Committee considered an application for full planning permission for a battery energy storage system (BESS), sometimes called a battery storage farm, at Jiggers Bank in Coalbrookdale.

Councillor Gareth Thomas called the application in because of his concerns about a number of aspects of the proposed development, particularly its safety. His central concern was the fact that the site had only one proposed point of access, meaning that if there was a fire, the emergency services would be unable to access the site. This problem, he argued, was exacerbated by the difficulties associated with putting out battery storage fires and the fact that the site was in close proximity to both an SSSI, the Lyperdingle SSSI, and the Ironbridge Gorge. He urged the Committee to reject the application.

Councillor David Cooper, speaking on behalf of Little Wenlock Parish Council, also objected to the application, arguing that the site was unsuitable for a number of reasons, including its location. Like Councillor Thomas, he was concerned about the fire safety of the proposed development, and he noted that the applicant had not followed the advice on best practice set out by the National Fire Chiefs Council. Councillor Cooper concluded by referring to a comment made at the Energy Storage Summit in 2021: >If we know some things could fail catastrophically or it could have these effects, it's going to be a difficult day if one of us is standing there in court saying we knew about it but we didn't do anything.

Mr Nigel Cusson, speaking on behalf of the applicant, argued that the application should be approved, highlighting the climate change agenda and the need for renewable energy infrastructure. He outlined a number of the technical reasons why the site was considered appropriate, noting that it had a confirmed grid connection, would not result in the loss of high-grade agricultural land, and would deliver a considerable biodiversity net gain. Addressing the safety concerns that had been raised, he pointed out that the proposed development would include the most up-to-date fire safety design and fire suppression measures.

A Planning Officer then summarised the application for the Committee. He outlined the key policies in the Local Plan that were relevant to the application, namely Policies SP3², which relates to development in the rural area, SP4, which relates to sustainable development, and ER1, which relates to renewable energy. The Officer noted that the proposal failed to meet all of the criteria of these policies, but he argued that this did not automatically mean that the application should be refused. Rather, Members needed to weigh any adverse impacts against the benefits of the scheme, particularly its contribution to low-carbon technology and the storage of energy. He concluded that, on balance, the application should be approved, subject to a number of conditions.

During the subsequent debate, Councillors expressed a number of concerns about the application, including the site's land stability, the fact that it only had one access point, and its proximity to the Ironbridge Gorge World Heritage Site. The Council's officers attempted to address these concerns, but many Councillors remained unconvinced. A number of Councillors also expressed concern about the fact that the application was recommended for approval even though it failed to meet the criteria of a number of key policies in the Local Plan. For example, Councillor Nigel Dugmore, drawing attention to the planning officer's conclusion that the proposed development failed to comply with a number of Local Plan policies, asked: >So, I mean, it doesn't comply with most of the policies. So I really don't understand why it's been put forward as for approval.

After a lengthy discussion about the reasons for refusal, the Committee voted, by a majority, to refuse the application on the basis of the site's land instability.

Land Opposite Blackbird Close

The Committee considered an application by Telford and Wrekin Council for full planning permission for a sports pavilion, 3G artificial pitch, 9v9 grass pitch, new access road, and associated works at Blackbird Close in Overdale.

Councillor Mark Boylan spoke in support of the application, but he highlighted a number of concerns that had been raised by local residents, including traffic, the environmental impact of the development, and the potential impact on the amenity of local residents.

A planning officer provided a summary of the application, outlining the key policies that were relevant to the application and explaining why the application was recommended for approval. Addressing the concerns that had been raised by Councillor Boylan, the officer noted that a number of conditions would be imposed to mitigate against the impact of the proposed development, for example on noise and light pollution, and that a community use agreement would be put in place to ensure that the facility would be available for use by local groups.

Councillors broadly welcomed the application, although there was some concern about road safety on Waterloo Road, which would provide access to the site. For example, Councillor Peter Scott, echoing the comments of a number of residents, stated: >The only real problem I've got with this is Waterloo Road itself. Because there's a dirty great long straight there and we watch today and a lot of traffic has no problem with those speed bumps whatsoever. They whip straight over it. It's a 30 mile an hour zone but a lot of them weren't doing 30.

The Committee voted unanimously to approve the application.

Scrutiny Management Board - Tuesday 03 September 2024

The meeting of Telford and Wrekin Council's Scrutiny Management Board on Tuesday 03 September 2024 was scheduled to consider a range of topics, including the adoption of a report on the performance of the Scrutiny function, an update to the Scrutiny Work Programme, and the findings of an independent review of Scrutiny Arrangements.

Scrutiny Work Programme 2023/24 - 2024/25

The Board was scheduled to review an updated Draft Scrutiny Work Programme for SMB 03.09.24 for the 2024/25 Municipal Year. The proposed work programme covers two years, to allow for in-depth work, and includes the suggestions made by officers, Councillors, partners and the public, as well as statutory duties, such as the setting of the budget.

Business and Finance Scrutiny Committee

The Committee was scheduled to consider eight items.

Medium Term Financial Strategy (Budget)

Councillors were scheduled to be consulted on the draft budget and policy framework proposals.

Consultation on draft budget & policy framework proposals published by the Leader and any alternative proposals developed by opposition groups.

Telford Land Deal

Councillors were scheduled to receive a regular update on the Telford Land Deal.

Housing Investment Programme - Annual Update (Nuplace)

The Committee was scheduled to review and consider proposals for the Housing Investment Programme, including an update on the delivery of the programme.

Pride in Your High Street

Councillors were scheduled to receive a report on the impact of the post-covid recovery on the high street, including a review of the impact of the Pride in Our High Street scheme.

Corporate Grants

The Committee was scheduled to consider a report on the performance of the Council's Corporate Grants programme.

Consider the Council’s corporate grants, does every pound the Council invests go to the front line.

Commercial Contract Update

The Committee was scheduled to receive its annual update on the Council's commercial contracts.

Financial Monitoring

The Committee was scheduled to receive a report on the Council's financial monitoring position for 2024/25.

Communities Scrutiny Committee

Six items were scheduled for consideration by the Communities Scrutiny Committee.

Fly Tipping

The Committee was scheduled to consider a report on fly-tipping in the Borough.

Assess the fly tipping situation in the Borough, including measures taken to combat the issue, public feedback, and reporting.

Customer Service Strategy Refresh

Councillors were scheduled to review the current Customer Service Strategy.

Social Value in Contracts

The Committee was scheduled to consider the Social Value in Contracts scheme, and whether a social value impact fund would be beneficial.

Domestic Abuse Grant

The Committee was scheduled to review the Council's funding for domestic abuse schemes.

Road Safety

Councillors were scheduled to receive an update on road safety across the Borough.

Affordable Warmth

The Committee was scheduled to receive an update on the impact of the Council's Affordable Warmth Strategy.

Children & Young People Scrutiny Committee

The Committee was scheduled to consider six items.

SEND

The Committee was scheduled to receive an update on the Council's provision for pupils with Special Educational Needs or Disabilities (SEND).

School Admissions and Placements

The Committee was scheduled to review the Council's school admissions process.

School Attendance

The Committee was scheduled to receive an update on school attendance during the previous academic year.

Education Attainment and Outcomes

Councillors were scheduled to receive the annual report on education attainment and outcomes.

Annual Safeguarding Partnership Report

The Committee was scheduled to review the Annual Safeguarding Partnership Report.

Environment Scrutiny Committee

Councillors were scheduled to consider six items.

Shropshire Good Food – 12-month review

The Committee was scheduled to receive a 12-month progress report on the Shropshire Good Food project.

Local Nature Recovery Strategy

The Committee was scheduled to receive an update on the Telford & Wrekin Local Nature Recovery Strategy.

Climate Change and Plastic Free Telford & Wrekin

The Committee was scheduled to receive an update on the Council's climate change agenda.

Climate Change Adaptation

Councillors were scheduled to receive a report on the Council's Climate Change Adaptation Plan.

Biodiversity Duty

The Committee was scheduled to receive an update on the Council's Biodiversity Duty.

Health & Adult Social Care Scrutiny Committee

The Committee was scheduled to consider three items.

Primary Care Access

Councillors were scheduled to receive an update on the work of the Primary Care Access Task and Finish Group.

Review into how patients access primary care across the Borough.

Mental Health

The Committee was scheduled to receive a report on provisions for Mental Health support in the Borough.

Review into provisions for mental health support for adults, children and young people across the Borough.

Hospital Discharge and Intermediate Care

The Committee was scheduled to receive an update on Hospital discharge rates.

Biennial Scrutiny Report 2022 - 2024

The Board was scheduled to review the Biennial Scrutiny Report 2022 - 2024.

Review of Scrutiny Arrangements

The Board was scheduled to consider a verbal report on the findings of an independent review of the Scrutiny function. This follows a referral from a meeting of Full Council on 29 February 2024.

Boundary Review Committee - Thursday 05 September 2024

The Boundary Review Committee met on 05 September 2024 to receive an update on the Community Governance Review (CGR). The meeting included a summary of the responses received to a consultation on the proposed changes, and a recommendation from the council officers that the CGR be concluded, with no changes made.

Community Governance Review

The Boundary Review Committee were asked to note the outcome of a public consultation on the Community Governance Review.

This consultation was the second such consultation. In the first consultation, which ran until 18 December 2023, 79 submissions were received from the public. These submissions contained a variety of suggestions, ranging from no changes, to have three Town/Parish Councils covering the entire Borough.

Based on these initial responses, the council officers proposed that, in the second round of consultation, no changes should be made to the current electoral arrangements for Town and Parish Councils.

At the time of writing, the second round of consultation had seen 11 submissions received, with the majority coming from parish and town councils:

Submitter	Number of Submissions
Resident	3
Parish/Town Councils	7
Elected member	1

The consultation responses themselves covered the following parish areas:

Parish	Submissions
Chetwynd Aston & Woodcote	1
Church Aston	1
Donnington & Muxton	2
Hollinswood & Randlay	1
Lilleshall	1
Little Wenlock	1
Newport	1
Priorslee	1
Stirchley & Brookside	1
Waters Upton	1

A summary of the submissions received was included in the report pack. This summary is reproduced in full below.

Proposal to make no changes to current arrangements

Chetwynd Aston & Woodcote Parish The Parish Council made a submission which set out:-  A desire to maintain the boundaries as they were at the 2023 elections;  That investment has been made by the Parish Council to cover the Parish as it is and residents will benefit from that investment;  That the Station Road development should not form part of Newport Town Council with a high precept whilst residents of the development do not access many of those services funded by that precept.

Church Aston Parish Church Aston Parish Council’s representations were:-  To agree to the “no change” proposal put forward at the last meeting of the Boundary Review Committee – this was unanimously supported;  That they felt merging Church Aston with Lilleshall and Muxton created unnecessary upset and confusion;  That an autonomous parish was essential for preserving community identity, effective representation and providing high-quality services to residents;  That they would like to put forward proposals on how any future review should be undertaken.

Donnington & Muxton Parish The Parish Council’s submission which:-  Stated that it was supportive of the proposal to make no changes to the current arrangements for the Parish;  Set out that the proposals presented to the last meeting of the Boundary Review Committee were not in line with government guidelines; and  Putting forward suggestions for the conduct of any future review.

A resident made a submission which:-  Strongly agreed with the decision of the Boundary Review Committee to make no changes to the present boundaries of Town and Parish Councils for the time being;  Set out that there is no reason to make any changes in the future;  Raised the fact that there had only been 76 representations made in the first round of consultation which ran until 18 December 2023 but that this was probably due to a lack of awareness of the scale of changes that could be made;  Expressed the view that consultation responses were ignored;  Expressed concern about how much awareness there was of the CGR;  Stated that financial impacts of any changes must be considered;  Raised the fact that budget setting for 2027 will need to take place by January 2027 at the latest;  Raised questions on how the merging / dissolution of Town / Parish Councils is dealt with e.g the splitting of assets and reserves etc;  Suggested a need to consider the impact of changes on Neighbourhood Development Plans; and  Set out expectations for consultation in any future CGR.

Hollinswood & Randlay Parish The Parish Council made a submission which:-  Supported the Committee’s recommendation to make no changed to the present Parish & Town Council boundaries for the time being;  Expressed the view that more information could have been shared with Town and Parish Councils; and  Raised suggestions for how a future consultation should be conducted.

Lilleshall Parish The Parish Council submitted representations which raised a number of points, summarised as follows:-  The Council unanimously agreed to support the proposal of no change to the existing arrangements;  Raising concerns that they felt there had been a lack of consultation;  That the original proposal was not supported and merging with Church Aston and Muxton would lead to upset and confusion;  Maintaining autonomy is crucial for the community’s identity, effective representation and providing high quality services to residents;  Setting out that merging with others would erode Lilleshall’s unique historical and cultural identity and lead to a loss of local character;  Merging with other Councils would dilute representation for residents and impact the sense of community in Lilleshall;  A merger would result in increased bureaucracy and administrative complexity;  Raising issues around the financial implications for the Parish and how resources would be allocated; and  Making suggestions on how any future review should be conducted.

Little Wenlock Parish The Parish Council made a submission which:-  Welcomed the proposal of the Boundary Review Committee to maintain the status quo;  Highlighted the distinct identity of the village of Little Wenlock and surrounding hamlets;  Repeated a request for seven councillors and hope that this is accommodated in any future review; and  Stated that any changes need to take into account the strong sense held by rural communities of belonging in their parish.

Newport Town An individual made representations summarised as follows:- That 800 Novaportians signed a petition in 2016 for the boundary to be moved to the A518 to bring it in line with the “voting boundary”; That there are a number of dwellings being built in the area of Hutchison Way which are being advertised as being in Newport when they are not – although they should be; The residents of those properties, and some previously built, have the advantages of living in Newport but do not contribute to the precept, for example, attending Newport schools, attending events in Newport, using the library – all services which are paid for by Newport residents; and That there should be a cohesive Newport community that is not divided by an invisible line.

Priorslee Parish An individual made a submission which covered a number of areas:-  Priorslee;  Muxton;  Worckwardine Wood & Trench;  Oakengates

In essence, this submission set out the following:-  That the Borough has done a good job, overall, in the initial proposals presented to the Boundary Review Committee;  That the area of Redhill in which they live has no affinity with Muxton or Priorslee but should form part of a revised “Central Parish” (with a different name);  That polling districts TPs, TSG, TSP, TSE and TSW should be merged with WMM, WMH, WDG, WDE, WDO and part of TWR to form a new “Central Parish” with the remainder of TWR and TWW joining Oakengates Town Council;  That both Muxton and Priorslee parishes should be represented by their own Parish Councils with Lilleshall merging with Church Aston and Chetwynd Aston.

Stirchley & Brookside Parish A Parish Councillor submitted a response, summarised below:-  Thanking the Committee for proposing no changes to the current boundaries;  Setting out that the initial proposal put before the committee did not consider the impact on communities and setting out that the process had been unfair; and  Setting out that it is not acceptable to change any boundaries.

Waters Upton Parish The Parish Council made contact to confirm that it supported the proposal for there to be no changes.

The report noted that, because a Community Governance Review must be completed within 12 months of being started, this meeting would be the final opportunity for the council to make changes to the arrangements for Town and Parish Councils until the next review.

Given the responses received, the Boundary Review Committee were asked to conclude the Community Governance Review and retain the existing electoral arrangements for Town and Parish Councils. The Committee was also asked to delegate responsibility for publishing the outcome of the review to the Director: Policy & Governance, Anthea Lowe.

The Joint Health Overview & Scrutiny Committee met on Wednesday 07 August 2024 to discuss the Care Quality Commission's recent report into the Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital Trust, and to receive an update from the committee co-chair. The Business and Finance Scrutiny Committee also met this week, on Thursday 08 August 2024.

Joint Health Overview & Scrutiny Committee - Wednesday 07 August 2024

This meeting was scheduled to include a discussion about the findings of the Care Quality Commission (CQC) in their recent report into the Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital Trust. The committee was also scheduled to receive an update from the committee co-chair.

Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital Trust (SaTH)

The Joint Health Overview & Scrutiny Committee was scheduled to scrutinise the Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust's latest Care Quality Commission report¹, published 15 May 2024. This included consideration of the outcomes of the Committee's previous work on this subject, and the Channel 4 Dispatches programme which aired on 24 June 2024.

The following people were scheduled to be in attendance to answer questions from the committee:

• Louise Barnett, Chief Executive - SaTH
• Hayley Flavell, Director of Nursing - SaTH
• Vanessa Whatley, Chief Nursing Officer - Shropshire and Telford & Wrekin Integrated Care Board

Co-Chair's update

Councillor Geoff Elner, in his role as co-chair, was scheduled to give an update to the committee.

Business and Finance Scrutiny Committee - Thursday 08 August 2024

No meeting information was provided.

The Licensing Committee met on Monday 29 July 2024 to discuss pavement licence fees, licensing activity in the borough, and the committee's terms of reference.

Licensing Committee - Monday 29 July 2024

The Licensing Committee meeting on the 29th of July 2024 included discussion of several important topics, including the Committee's budget, the rules by which it operates, and a review of licensing activity in the borough. The meeting also included a report on the fees that businesses will be asked to pay for licenses to place tables and chairs on the pavement.

Pavement Licence Fees

The committee was scheduled to review and approve fees for pavement licences, which allow businesses to place furniture, such as tables and chairs, on the pavement outside their premises.

The report noted that the Business and Planning Act 2020 set a cap of £100 on the cost of a pavement license, but that this had been revised to £500 for new applications and £350 for renewals by the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023. The report proposed that pavement licences should cost £400 for new applications and £250 for renewals.

Fees charged must be reasonable in relation to costs incurred in the issue, administration and enforcement of licences covering the costs associated with the licensing process but not generate a profit.

The meeting was asked to approve these new fees, which would come into effect from 1 August 2024.

This is similar to the situation with the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) that we discussed in a previous email, where the council has some discretion over how much to charge developers, but must be able to demonstrate that the fees are reasonable and proportionate.

Annual Licensing Report – 2023/24

The committee was scheduled to receive a report on the council's licensing activity in 2023-24. The report included information about the number of licenses issued, the number of complaints received, and the outcomes of enforcement action.

The report noted that there has been an increase in both the number of licenses issued and the number of service requests related to licensing. The number of taxi driver licenses issued by the council increased by 15% in 2023-24, to a total of 392 driver licenses. The report also noted an increase in the number of private hire operators licensed by the council.

The number of Temporary Event Notices granted by the council increased by 40% in 2023-24, with the majority of applications being made for community events.

The meeting also considered the council's Licensing Safety and Vulnerability initiative (LSAVI), which aims to improve safety in the night-time economy, particularly for women and girls. 70 businesses in the borough are now LSAVI accredited, an increase from the previous year.

Terms of Reference 2024 / 2025

Councillors were also scheduled to review and agree the terms of reference under which the committee operates. The report explained that these would form part of the council's constitution.

The Constitution requires that Full Council should agree at its Annual Meeting the Terms of Reference for each of its Committees to enable the Council to efficiently conduct its business.

The only proposed change was to the process for appointing the Vice-Chair of the committee.

There is one minor change suggested to the Terms of Reference (shown in red on Appendix A) to provide clarity around the process for appointment of a Chair for the Committee. It notes that the Chair is appointed by Full Council (in line with the Constitution) but sets out that a Vice-Chair may be appointed by a majority decision of the Committee.

If the committee agreed to the new terms of reference, they would be added to the council's constitution.

The Telford and Wrekin Council held one meeting this week: the Planning Committee met on Wednesday 24 July 2024.

Planning Committee - Wednesday 24 July 2024

The Planning Committee meeting considered two planning applications, one for a new care home in Wellington and the other for new houses in Oakengates. The committee also considered the proposed renewal of its Terms of Reference for 2024/25.

Kensington, 69 New Church Road, Wellington - TWC/2024/0265

The first application (TWC/2024/0265) sought to change the use of a four-bedroom house at 69 New Church Road, Wellington to a Use Class C2 residential care home for up to three young people.

The application was referred to the committee by the local ward Councillor, Councillor Lee Carter, due to concerns about the impact of the development. Concerns were raised about increased traffic, the proximity of the property to Shortwood Primary School, a perceived increase in anti-social behaviour, and a perceived lack of parking.

The Local Highway Authority raised no objections to the application, subject to conditions. This is a common occurrence in planning applications, as the Local Highway Authority is responsible for ensuring that the local road network can accommodate the increase in traffic generated by new developments.

Wellington Town Council also objected to the application on the grounds that there was not enough parking provision for the development. When a planning application is submitted, the Local Planning Authority - in this case, Telford and Wrekin Council - is obligated to consult with the local Town or Parish Council as part of their statutory consultation duties.

Ultimately the application was approved by the committee.

Site of Coronation Bungalow, Station Fields, Oakengates - TWC/2024/0334

The second application (TWC/2024/0334) sought outline planning permission for the erection of two self-build dwellings in Oakengates, following the demolition of the existing buildings on the site.

Outline planning permission is a way of getting permission for the principle of development on a site, without having to provide detailed plans. This is useful for developers who want to get a sense of whether their development is likely to be approved before they invest too much time and money in drawing up detailed plans.

The application was referred to the committee by the local ward Councillor, Councillor Steven Reynolds, who objected to the application. Councillor Reynolds was concerned about the impact of the development on the unadopted Station Fields lane, which would be used to access the site. An unadopted road is a road that is not maintained by the local highway authority. Unadopted roads are often found in older developments, and they can be a source of dispute between residents and developers.

Oakengates Town Council also objected to the application on the grounds that Station Fields was in a poor state of repair and could not support increased traffic.

The Coal Authority also initially objected to the application, as the site is located in an area that has been subject to coal mining in the past. The Coal Authority is a government body that is responsible for managing the risks associated with past coal mining. One of the Coal Authority's roles is to advise local planning authorities on planning applications that are located in areas that may be affected by coal mining. The Coal Authority withdrew their objection after an amended application and a Coal Mining Risk Assessment Report were provided.

The application was approved by the committee.

Terms of Reference 2024 / 2025

Finally, the committee were scheduled to consider the adoption of the draft Terms of Reference 2024/25.

The Terms of Reference for a council committee set out the committee's purpose, powers and responsibilities. They are a vital part of ensuring that the committee operates effectively and within the law. The committee's Terms of Reference are reviewed and updated periodically to ensure that they are still fit for purpose.

The proposed changes were minor, but the report pack was difficult to interpret, as the suggested changes were not clearly marked. This is not uncommon, as council reports can often be quite technical and difficult to understand for members of the public. However, it is important to remember that these reports are publicly available, and anyone can request a copy from the council.

This week, Telford and Wrekin Council held 5 meetings: the Licensing Committee and the Licensing Sub-Committee both met on Monday 15 July 2024, the Audit Committee met on Wednesday 17 July 2024, the Full Council met on Thursday 18 July 2024 and the Boundary Review Committee met on Friday 19 July 2024.

Boundary Review Committee - Friday 19 July 2024

The Boundary Review Committee met to agree on the draft recommendations of the Community Governance Review (CGR), discuss its Terms of Reference, and confirm the minutes of the previous meeting.

Community Governance Review

The committee considered a report that proposes changes to the boundaries of town and parish councils in Telford and Wrekin. The proposals are the result of an initial consultation that ran from September 8th 2023 to December 18th 2023. The report notes that

The Parishes in Telford & Wrekin have not been reviewed in their entirety for many years.

This echoes a pattern observed in previous emails, where long-standing arrangements are reviewed and updated to reflect changing demographics and needs.

The proposals are summarised in Appendix A to the report. A map of the proposed changes is provided in Appendix B.

The committee agreed to put the draft proposals out to a final consultation, which must take place between July 19th 2024 and August 16th 2024. The final recommendations will then be considered at a later meeting.

Terms of Reference

The committee also discussed its Terms of Reference and agreed to a minor amendment to clarify the process for appointing a Chair and Vice-Chair.

Minutes of the Previous Meeting

Finally, the committee confirmed the minutes of its meeting on Thursday, February 8th 2024. This is standard practice for council committees, ensuring transparency and accountability by formally documenting decisions made.

Full Council - Thursday 18 July 2024

The most significant outcome of the meeting was the election of Councillor Lee Carter as the new Leader of the Council. Councillor Carter was nominated by Councillor Raj Mehta and seconded by Councillor Carolyn Healy. This follows the recent election of Councillor Shaun Davies as the new MP for Telford. Councillor Davies will be stepping down from the council, necessitating the election of a new leader. Councillor Carter was elected unanimously, reflecting cross-party support for his leadership. In his speech, he outlined his vision for the council and highlighted several key priorities.

Child Sexual Exploitation Inquiry

The council considered and noted the report by Tom Crowther KC, the independent chair of the Child Sexual Exploitation (CSE) inquiry. The council voted to endorse the recommendations contained within the report. As readers of this email will recall, the CSE Inquiry was commissioned by the council to investigate the authority’s response to child sexual exploitation in the borough. The final report of the inquiry was published on Tuesday 16 July 2024, and found that, while significant progress had been made, there were still areas where improvements could be made. The report makes a number of recommendations for the council, the police and other agencies. The council has committed to implementing all of the report’s recommendations.

Cabinet Decisions

The council noted a report on the decisions made by the Cabinet at its meetings on 16 May and 10 July 2024.

2024/25 Financial Monitoring Report

The council voted to approve changes to the capital programme and associated changes to the Medium Term Financial Strategy. The 2024/25 Financial Monitoring Report provides an update on the council's financial position and performance for the first quarter of the financial year, as well as the projected outturn position for the year as a whole. This report is an example of how the council ensures transparency and accountability in its financial management.

2023/24 Financial Outturn Report

The council voted to approve a number of virements to balance the final budget for 2023/24 and requested approval for a number of transfers to reserves. The 2023/24 Financial Outturn provides a summary of the council's financial performance for the previous financial year. The report shows that the council delivered a balanced budget for 2023/24 and details how the council has managed its finances throughout the year, highlighting both successes and areas for improvement.

Audit Committee - Wednesday 17 July 2024

The Audit Committee met to consider a number of reports, including the Internal Audit Progress Report for Quarter 1 of 2024/25, the Customer Feedback Report for 2023/24, and the Treasury Management Annual Report for 2023/24.

This demonstrates the council's commitment to continuous improvement. By regularly reviewing its performance and seeking feedback from residents, the council aims to ensure that it is delivering high-quality services that meet the needs of the community.

Licensing Committee and Licensing Sub-Committee - Monday 15 July 2024

The Licensing Committee considered and approved a number of applications for licences and permits, including applications for premises licences, personal licences, and street trading consents. The Licensing Sub-Committee considered an application for the renewal of a private hire vehicle licence, opting to exclude the press and public for that item to avoid the disclosure of exempt information.

These committees play an essential role in regulating various activities within the borough, ensuring public safety and well-being. The decisions made by these committees directly impact local businesses and residents, reflecting the council’s responsibility to balance competing interests and uphold legal requirements.

The Telford and Wrekin Council's Cabinet met on Wednesday 10 July 2024. The Cabinet voted to approve updated proposals for the Telford Land Deal.

Telford Land Deal

The Telford Land Deal is a partnership between the council and Homes England to provide land for 19,000 new homes in the borough.

The proposed extension would enable the continued successful delivery of the ambitions set out in the Deal, including delivery of new homes (including affordable homes), employment land and associated infrastructure. — Officer

The Cabinet voted unanimously to approve the updated proposal.

Residents' Survey Results

The Cabinet discussed the results of the latest Telford and Wrekin Residents' Survey, which showed a decline in resident satisfaction with how the council listens to the views of local people.

It’s really positive that so many people took the time to fill in our survey and tell us what they think – I’d like to thank them for doing so. — Councillor Shaun Davies, Leader of the Council

...looking very closely at what residents have told us in this survey about how we can continue to improve, particularly when it comes to listening to our residents, so we can ensure we are providing the best possible services for our communities. — Councillor Shaun Davies, Leader of the Council

The council also scheduled a meeting of the Boundary Review Committee on Thursday 11 July 2024. However, this meeting was postponed.

This week, the Telford and Wrekin Council held two meetings: the Planning Committee on Wednesday, 22 May 2024, and the Full Council on Thursday, 23 May 2024. The Planning Committee meeting was particularly impactful, so we will focus on that.

Planning Committee Meeting Highlights

Leaton Quarry Extension

The most significant topic discussed was the application for the extension of Leaton Quarry. The proposal involves consolidating existing quarry operations with a northern extension, ensuring the continued employment of nearly 100 staff and additional indirect jobs. The site has been operational for decades, providing a nationally important mineral deposit with minimal impact on local residents.

The applicant, Breeden Group, emphasized the environmental management measures in place, including stringent monitoring of noise, dust, blasting, and water quality. The proposal also includes a restoration scheme aimed at improving biodiversity and creating public amenities such as footpaths and picnic areas.

The proposal seeks to secure the continued employment of almost 100 staff on site and those employed as a direct result of the quarrying operations. — Breeden Group Representative

This decision has significant implications for local employment and environmental management, reflecting the council's ongoing efforts to balance economic development with environmental sustainability.

Environmental and Community Concerns

Several councillors raised concerns about the environmental and community impacts of the quarry extension. Issues such as noise, dust, and the potential for increased traffic were discussed in detail. The council's heritage service acknowledged some less than substantial harm to nearby conservation areas but concluded that the public benefits outweighed these concerns.

Noise again is a one-off. It occurs with the blast. Vibration goes through the ground as a kind of ground vibration. — Planning Officer

The council's proactive stance on addressing these concerns through stringent conditions and community liaison mechanisms underscores its commitment to mitigating the environmental impact while supporting local industry.

Highway and Traffic Management

Highway concerns were a significant part of the discussion. The proposal includes stopping up Leaton Lane and creating new footpaths and bridleways. The council's highway officer detailed the mitigation measures, including the formalization of existing passing places and the resurfacing of the B5061 road.

The condition that's been put on is for their quarry to undertake those works within three years of them commencing the consent that they get from the application. — Highway Officer

These measures aim to ensure that the increased traffic from the quarry operations does not adversely affect local residents, reflecting the council's focus on maintaining road safety and infrastructure quality.

Full Council Meeting Highlights

The Full Council meeting was primarily ceremonial, featuring the Annual General Mayor and Mayor Making Ceremony. Councillor Ian Priest was elected as the new Mayor, and Councillor Arnold England was appointed as the Speaker. The meeting also included the election of the Deputy Mayor and Deputy Speaker.

Having the opportunity to be the mayor of the borough of Telford and Reakin is an honour. — Councillor Ian Priest

The ceremonial aspects of the Full Council meeting highlight the council's commitment to democratic processes and community representation.

Conclusion

The decisions made this week, particularly regarding the Leaton Quarry extension, will have lasting impacts on the community. The council's approach to balancing economic development with environmental and community concerns is evident in the stringent conditions and proactive measures discussed. The ceremonial aspects of the Full Council meeting also underscore the importance of democratic representation and community engagement in local governance.

This week, the Telford and Wrekin Council held two meetings: the Cabinet on Thursday, 16 May 2024, and the Joint Health Overview & Scrutiny Committee on the same day. The latter's video broadcast is unavailable, so our focus will be on the Cabinet meeting.

Cabinet Meeting Highlights

Telford and Wrekin Climate Change Adaptation Plan

The most significant topic was the discussion on the Telford and Wrekin Climate Change Adaptation Plan. Councillor Carolyn Healy presented the plan, emphasizing the urgent need to adapt council services to the realities of climate change. The plan adopts a risk management approach to build resilience against issues like increased flooding, high temperatures, water shortages, risks to ecosystems, food production, and new pests and diseases.

Councillor Healy stressed the council's commitment to reducing carbon emissions and collaborating with external agencies such as the Environment Agency and Severn Trent Water to address drainage and flooding issues. Councillor Tim Nelson and Councillor Bill Thomason supported the plan but highlighted the need for better infrastructure and resources to manage these challenges.

Climate change is already happening, and we need to adapt our services to meet these new challenges. — Councillor Carolyn Healy

This plan's implications are far-reaching, affecting everything from urban planning to public health. The council's proactive stance on climate adaptation is a theme we've discussed before, particularly in relation to sustainable development and environmental resilience.

Governance Reports and External Audits

Another critical topic was the governance reports and external audits. Councillor Nelson questioned the timeline for signing off historical audits. The leader explained that the local government sector faces significant delays, with some councils experiencing backlogs of six to seven years. The government is working to increase audit sector capacity to address these issues.

Councillor Bill Thomason noted that the council received a clean bill of health for the 2022-2023 audits, despite previous delays. This highlights the council's relative success in maintaining good governance practices.

The council is comparatively doing well against other councils in this area. — The Leader

The delays in audit sign-offs and the council's clean bill of health underscore ongoing challenges and successes in local governance, a recurring theme in our discussions about transparency and accountability.

New Complaint Handling Code

Councillor Richard Overton introduced a new complaint handling code and combined complaint policy. The changes aim to shorten response times and combine existing policies into one streamlined process. The council plans to acknowledge complaints within two working days and respond within ten working days, faster than the new code's requirements. The council has also volunteered to pilot the new code before it becomes mandatory in 2026.

Councillors Kelly Middleton and Eileen Callear welcomed these changes, emphasizing the importance of a robust complaints policy and improved response times.

The main changes include shortening the timescales for responding to complaints and combining existing complaint policies into one. — Councillor Richard Overton

The new complaint handling code's introduction reflects the council's commitment to improving public service and accountability, themes we've explored in previous emails.

Conclusion

The Cabinet meeting concluded with unanimous support for the discussed topics and a reminder of the council's commitment to addressing climate change and improving governance and complaint handling processes. The decisions made this week will have lasting impacts on the community, from environmental resilience to public trust in local governance.

This week, the Telford and Wrekin Council held two key meetings: the Planning Committee on Wednesday, 24 April 2024, and the Health Scrutiny Committee on Thursday, 25 April 2024. The latter's notes are yet to be summarized, so our focus will be on the Planning Committee meeting.

The Planning Committee's session was particularly impactful, dealing with several significant development proposals. Here are the main points:

1. Redevelopment of the former Argue site in Coalbrookdale: This was a major topic. The site's redevelopment plan includes constructing new dwellings and preserving historical buildings. Despite concerns about potential harm to the World Heritage Site status and impacts on local traffic and ecology, the committee leaned towards approval. The decision was backed by support from statutory consultees and the perceived public benefits, such as improved housing and preservation of heritage assets. The committee's inclination to approve, despite the concerns, underscores a recurring theme in council decisions: the balancing act between development and conservation.

2. Residential development at the site of Haven Boarding Kennels and Cattery: This proposal was approved, following the demolition of existing structures to make way for new dwellings. Although there were concerns about road safety and local traffic impacts, the development was deemed manageable and aligned with local planning guidelines. This decision reflects the council's ongoing efforts to increase housing supply within Telford's built-up areas, a theme we've touched on in discussions about urban development and housing policy.

3. Conversion of garages at 60 Spring Meadow: In contrast to the other applications, this proposal was refused. The committee cited concerns about inadequate living space, loss of parking, and potential noise disturbances. The refusal to convert garages into a dwelling highlights the council's sensitivity to community concerns and maintaining the visual integrity of neighborhoods. This decision is a clear example of the council prioritizing the quality of residential environments over the mere addition of housing units.

The robust discussions and the decisions made during this meeting provide a clear picture of the council's priorities and the challenges they face in balancing development with community and environmental concerns. Each decision not only shapes the immediate landscape but also sets precedents for future planning and development within the region.