Planning Control Committee – 15th October 2025
Sometimes ten minutes of straight talk from a demolition expert achieves more public reassurance than a twenty-page planning officer’s report. This Planning Control Committee meeting was that moment.
The application before councillors was technically straightforward: permission to demolish the Forum Shopping Centre. But when your planning application’s “red line boundary” includes a theatre that the council recently voted to close, that is currently trying to be saved, and that sits at the heart of a community campaign – well, straightforward becomes complicated rather quickly.
The Red Line That Raised Red Flags
Let’s start with the technical stuff.
Planning applications require something called a “red line boundary” – essentially, you draw a line around everything you need to touch to do the work. For the Forum demolition, this included the theatre building. Not because anyone was planning to demolish it (we’re told), but because the demolition contractor needs access to a concrete ramp that runs behind the theatre to properly separate the two structures.
In normal circumstances, this would be unremarkable planning procedure. These are not normal circumstances.
The Prince of Wales Theatre features prominently in Cannock’s recent history of contentious council decisions. It was slated for closure in February’s budget. A community campaign launched to save it. The council’s handling of that situation has been… let’s diplomatically call it “politically sensitive.”
So when residents and councillors saw the theatre sitting inside that red line, alarm bells rang. Loudly.
When Planning Speak Meets Public Trust
Planning Officer David O’Connor faced a difficult task: explaining why the theatre appears in the application boundary without actually being subject to demolition. His presentation was thorough and technically competent. He emphasised repeatedly that “the extent of demolition is confined to the Forum only” and that conditions would secure compliance with the submitted demolition method statement.
But here’s where technical precision collides with eroded trust. O’Connor skirted around guaranteeing no damage would occur to the theatre during demolition. Technically accurate – no one can guarantee zero risk in construction work. Politically disastrous when your audience suspects you might be looking for loopholes.
Councillor questions revealed the core anxiety. What if someone on site considers the theatre an “associated structure” mentioned in the application description? What if there’s “accidental” damage that makes demolition “necessary for safety”? What about that historic chimney that got demolished early one morning when it was supposed to be retained?
Enter the Professional
Then Mike Kehoe, Managing Director of C&D Engineering Consultants, took the floor.
Kehoe is a demolition consultant with forty-two years’ experience, brought in by the council specifically to provide assurance on this project. And in ten minutes of clear, jargon-free explanation, he did something remarkable: he actually reassured people.
Key points from Kehoe’s presentation:
On structural separation: The theatre and Forum are completely independent buildings with a two-inch mastic expansion joint between them. No shared steelwork. No shared brickwork. No lateral support dependency. They can be separated cleanly.
On the separation method: The connecting ramp and adjacent sections will be removed by hand, not by machine. Scaffolding will surround the work area. The process is deliberately slower and more expensive precisely to protect the theatre.
On monitoring: Kehoe or a member of his team will be on site weekly throughout the demolition. Independent party wall engineers have surveyed the structures. Structural engineers have reviewed both buildings.
On risk management: The demolition contractor scores 43 out of 45 on safety assessments. They’ve successfully completed the multi-storey car park demolition with seven HSE inspections, all clear. Ninety-eight percent of materials diverted from landfill on that project.
On accountability: Once separation is complete, the theatre’s exposed wall will be waterproofed. Unauthorised work would mean the contractor doesn’t get paid. There’s £10 million of insurance that Kehoe really doesn’t want to invoke.
This wasn’t spin. It was competence, clearly communicated. Councillors who’d been pressing for site visits withdrew their requests. Concerns about structural integrity were satisfied.
Democracy Actually Working
But here’s where credit is genuinely due to the committee.
Councillor Val Jones asked the critical question: if this application doesn’t include the theatre, and the documentation doesn’t mention the theatre, why can’t we put a condition on the permission that explicitly excludes it?
The planning officer’s initial response was classic risk-averse bureaucracy: “We didn’t think it was necessary because it’s not in the description.” Translation: we’d rather not add more conditions than required.
Jones pushed back. Other councillors supported. And the officer, to their credit, agreed to draft an additional condition on the spot.
The resulting condition explicitly states: “The demolition of the building permitted shall be limited to the Forum Shopping Centre and associated access ramps and no other structure within the red line boundary without first obtaining future planning consent. For the avoidance of doubt, the demolition of the theatre is excluded by this planning permission.”
The committee voted unanimously to add it before approving the application.
This is how planning committees are supposed to work. Councillors identified a gap between technical compliance and public reassurance. They used their authority to close it. The officer adapted. The condition was added. Democracy functioned.
What the Condition Actually Achieves
Let’s understand what this condition does and doesn’t do.
What it does: It makes crystal clear that this permission does not authorise demolition of the theatre. Any contractor attempting to demolish it under this permission would be in immediate breach, subject to enforcement action and potential criminal liability for unauthorised works.
What it doesn’t do: It doesn’t prevent a future planning application to demolish the theatre. The planning system can’t work that way – every application must be judged on its merits. If the council wanted to demolish the theatre, they’d need to submit a separate application, go through another public consultation, face another committee vote.
Councillor Jones explicitly acknowledged this limitation. But she also recognised that requiring an express planning consent – a public process with consultation and scrutiny – is significantly better protection than hoping technical documentation is interpreted correctly on a building site.
The Details That Matter
Beyond the theatre drama, the application itself raises some interesting points worth noting.
Traffic management: Church Street will partially close, converting the northern section to temporary two-way traffic. Seven disabled parking bays will be temporarily lost, with five relocated further south. This is actually thoughtful planning – many demolitions would simply remove the spaces entirely.
Environmental consideration: The works will pause during weddings and funerals at St. Luke’s Church. Scaffolding and dust screens will minimise impact on the church and nearby shops. Noise and vibration monitoring throughout, with automated trigger warnings.
Sustainability: Twenty thousand tons of concrete and rubble will be crushed on-site to 6F2 standard, then stockpiled for use in future development phases. This avoids lorry movements, reduces carbon footprint, and creates material available for the next phase without bringing in quarry stone.
Archaeological consideration: County archaeologists will be brought in once demolition reaches ground level, given the high archaeological potential of the town centre location.
These aren’t revolutionary measures, but they demonstrate someone thinking through the practical implications beyond just “knock it down and clear it away.”
What About the Theatre Access?
Councillor Adrienne Fitzgerald raised concerns about access to the rear of the theatre for scenery and equipment delivery. The planning officer couldn’t definitively answer whether this would be affected.
This is frustrating because it’s exactly the sort of detail that should be in a demolition method statement. The theatre – whether operational or not – is a building with specific access requirements. If those are being temporarily compromised by demolition works, that needs to be stated clearly, not left to vague assurances.
It’s another example of the gap between technical planning compliance and practical reality. The application ticks all the regulatory boxes, but struggles to answer straightforward questions about day-to-day impacts.
The Chimney Precedent
Councillors referenced a previous demolition where a chimney that was supposed to be retained for historical purposes was demolished early one morning. It happened. It was within a red line boundary.
This is the context that turns technical planning discussions into trust exercises. People aren’t being paranoid when they worry about “accidental” demolition. They’re learning from experience.
The planning officer’s response – that conditions secure compliance and breaches are enforceable – is legally correct. But enforcement is reactive. Once something’s demolished, it’s demolished. You can prosecute the breach, but you can’t undemolish the building.
That’s why the additional condition matters. It removes any interpretation question about whether the theatre is somehow included. It states explicitly that it isn’t.
Compliments Where Due
It would be easy to write this up as another chapter in council dysfunction. But that would miss what actually happened.
The planning officer gave a comprehensive, technically accurate presentation. When challenged on the need for an additional condition, he adapted and drafted one that satisfied councillors’ concerns.
The demolition consultant provided exactly the kind of clear, confident, detailed explanation that builds public confidence. His forty-two years of experience showed, and his willingness to stand on site weekly and put £10 million of insurance on the line carried weight.
The councillors asked probing questions, identified a gap in protection, and used their authority to close it. They didn’t just rubber-stamp what was put in front of them.
The committee chair, Councillor Paul Fisher, kept proceedings moving efficiently while ensuring everyone got their questions answered.
This is what competent local government looks like. It’s not perfect – there are gaps in communication, questions left partially answered, vulnerabilities in the system. But people showed up, did their jobs properly, and reached a reasonable outcome through democratic process.
The Road Ahead
The Forum demolition will proceed with explicit exclusion for the theatre. Work should take six to eight months, clearing the site and creating material for future development phases.
The Levelling Up Fund project continues, promising to “enhance appearance, accessibility, parking and servicing within the town centre.” Whether it delivers on that promise remains to be seen.
The Prince of Wales Theatre remains in limbo – not demolished, not saved, not operating, not quite abandoned. The community campaign continues. The council has yet to provide a clear path forward.
This planning application resolved a narrow, technical question: can the Forum be demolished safely? The answer is yes, with appropriate safeguards and clear limitations on scope.
The broader questions remain unanswered. What happens to the theatre? What comes after demolition? How does the community rebuild trust that’s been eroded by recent controversies?
Those questions won’t be resolved in planning committees. They require political will, transparent decision-making, and genuine community engagement.
But for one afternoon, the planning system worked as intended. Councillors scrutinised. Officers adapted. Concerns were addressed. Protections were added.
It’s not everything. But it’s something.
And in local democracy, sometimes you take the wins where you find them.
Watch the full meeting recording at the start of this article once it’s available.
If you spot any errors in our reporting, please let us know at hello@projectdaylight.co.uk
Project Daylight is an independent journalism project focused on transparency and accountability in Cannock Chase District Council.
Leave a Reply