Berkswich Parish Council 2 September 2025

BERKSWICH PARISH COUNCIL

Minutes of the Berkswich Parish Council Meeting held on

Tuesday 2 September 2025 at 7.00 pm at Walton Village Hall

Present:       Cllr Alan Taylor (Chair), Cllr Malcolm Millichap, Cllr Ann Millichap, Cllr Michael Norris, Cllr Beverley Hughes, Cllr Tim Luker and Cllr Vicky Campbell.

In attendance:   Rob Horton, Station Manager from Staffordshire Fire and Rescue Service, Stuart Wells, Director from Evolve Planning and Design, Sue Fullwood, Clerk/RFO and 42 members of the public.

Cllr Taylor welcomed everyone to the meeting.

25/96        Cannock Chase Fire Risk – Rob Horton gave a presentation on the use of drones to protect Cannock Chase.  The Staffordshire Fire and Rescue Service had started looking at using drones in 2018 and then purchased 2 for £23k in 2023.  Rob found that they worked really well, and they were also used in collaboration with Staffordshire Police in certain instances.  The drones had capability for thermal imaging, wide angle images and a phenomenal zoom with tracking capabilities.  The controllers were like tablets and operators used MS Teams to communicate with people at other locations.

Top uses were tall building fires; hazard materials; wildfires; flooding; water rescue; and waste fires.  Drones could be used to spot places to put in breaks.  The Service had an issue with pilots, only the two Station Managers were currently trained, and they were both due to retire in 2026.  The Service had asked for volunteers and around 10 people had come forward, but the training method had been e-learning and no-one had completed the course.

Cllr M Millichap said that Cllr A Millichap had had an idea that to save crews keeping watch over the Chase it would be more economical to use drones.  The suggestion was that Berkswich could invite other parish councils to come together to fund another drone.  Rob responded that the Civil Contingencies Unit had access to drones but not necessarily the fire subject matter experts.  Cllr Taylor asked if it would be premature to offer to do this and Rob responded that the problem was getting the trained pilots to be able to operate the drones.

Cllr Taylor thanked Rob for attending and Rob left the meeting at 7.30 pm.

25/97        Public Session

1. Cllr Taylor introduced Stuart Wells and explained that no one from Touch Developments was in attendance, but Stuart was speaking on their behalf. Stuart thanked the Council for allowing him to present to them.  He said that Touch Developments were a land promotion-based business and there was no named house builder involved to do the work after planning had been agreed.  There had been two previous planning applications for the site in 2022 and 2023 both of which were for 100% affordable housing, and both were refused.  Touch Developments had subsequently reviewed the scheme and the reasons for refusal and were currently formatting a new scheme.  Stuart passed paper copies of the plans to councillors and said that they were available at touchdevelopments.co.uk and they hoped to submit a full planning application over the coming months.

The latest scheme had 40 dwellings with 25% affordable housing as per SBC’s policy which equated to 12 properties, a more balanced mix than the 100% affordable housing in previous applications.

Person 1 said that he had a problem understanding why they kept coming back to the same site when two applications had been turned down.  Stuart responded that SBC couldn’t demonstrate that they had a 5-year supply of land for housing following the government increasing the housing requirement in August 2024.  He added that in line with the National Planning Policy Framework projects on greenfield sites like this could be delivered more favourably than they previously were.  Touch Developments thought it was a sustainable location and suitable for the scale of the proposed development.

The new scheme had a mix of 1, 2, 3 and 4-bedroom properties and some of the 1, 2 and 3-bedroom properties would be affordable, and some would be bungalows.  No properties were proposed to be taller than 2 storeys high and the style would reflect local design cues.  There would be a public open space at the southern end of the site.

Cllr Taylor asked if anyone had any questions for Stuart. Person 1 asked if there was a financial gain for Touch Developments from the project, they wouldn’t have started if there wasn’t.  Stuart replied that yes, the scheme would have to be profitable.

Person 2 asked if Touch Developments owned the site.  Stuart responded that no, they didn’t.  Person 3 asked who owned the site and the surname of a local landowner was given by person 2.

Person 4 said that for the previous planning application traffic monitoring had been done during school holidays when traffic was less and the traffic monitoring in 2025 had again been done in the school holidays.  Stuart replied that any data put forward by the applicant would be considered by Highways and they would raise it with the applicant if there were any issues.

Person 5 said that the previous two applications had also been turned down as the site was not sustainable.  Stuart said that Walton on the Hill had a local bus service and many members of the public said there wasn’t. He added that Touch Developments were liaising with Highways regarding extending the footpath from where it currently ended and potentially widening Old Croft Road by removing the verges on both sides of the road next to the site.  Person 6 said that Touch Developments would not be able to get away from the fact that Old Croft Road was pretty much a one-way street near the junction with Oakridge Way.  Person 7 added that a car had crashed into one of the houses on that junction in 2024.

Person 8 asked if Touch Developments had consulted the football teams using the field on the opposite field.  They also said that Old Croft Road had originally been a cart track and the substrata would not stand up to heavy use, and Severn Trent Water had stated that the existing pipework would not take any more sewage.  Stuart responded that there were transport consultants in discussion with SCC as the Highways Agency and Severn Trent Water would be consulted regarding capacity of the sewage network.  Person 8 added that the whole road would have to be rebuilt.  Person 9 asked if there would be a Section 278 scheme to demonstrate and it would change the whole look of the village.  Stuart responded that there would be.

Person 10 said that Burleighfields had just been completed which was a massive estate, there were proposals for housing in the fields near Wildwood.  They added that there were lots of derelict areas that could be used, but he felt that Walton on the Hill had been selected as it was seen as a ‘nice’ area and it was all about money.  They added that they couldn’t believe that there were not enough houses being built in Stafford. Cllr Taylor said that it was the government saying that and it was across the whole country – the government set the housing targets and developers were scrambling to take those opportunities.

Person 11 asked if they were correct in thinking that the site was listed at site BER02 in the SBC’s Strategic Housing and Employment Land Availability Assessment (SHELAA) and that her understanding was that part of it was being scrapped as SBC were reviewing it along with two other sites.  Stuart said that Touch Developments only controlled this one site and couldn’t say what the wider plans were.

Person 12 asked if the development would be covered by a Section 106 agreement.  Stuart responded that it would be under an S106 with SBC.

Person 13 asked if Touch Developments could demonstrate a need for affordable housing in the area.  Stuart replied that SBC had identified a need for 25% affordable housing across the board.

Person 14 asked what Stuart would be doing with the comments received at the meeting as he had had a lot of feedback.  Stuart replied that Touch Developments continued to invite comments from residents, but they were not going to change the scheme.  They would submit a statement of community engagement when the planning application was submitted and then SBC would consult on the proposals again.  Person 15 asked if Stuart would go back and advise Touch Developments of the strength of feeling in the community.  Stuart advised people to email siteinfo@touchdevelopments.co.uk and there would be the opportunity for people to comment on the planning application once it was submitted to SBC.

Person 15 asked if Touch Developments had looked at other sites, for example Stafford Town Centre needed regeneration – it was the public transport hub and affordable housing was needed there and they would be helping to improve Stafford.  This question received a spontaneous round of applause from the members of the public.  Person 16 responded that Touch Developments didn’t own the middle of Stafford.

Person 17 said that they had looked at the Touch Developments webpage and it said consultation for the scheme ended on 4 August 2025.  Stuart reiterated that comments would be taken on board.  Person 17 asked how Stuart was recording the comments.  He responded that he wasn’t recording the comments but people could comment by email or through the website.

Person 18 asked if Stuart knew the commercial value of the property.  Stuart replied that he didn’t.

Person 19 asked that if the land had never flooded why had a sump been included.  Stuart replied that it was about capturing surface water which was a requirement of Stafford Borough Council so that it did not enter the sewers.

Several people were talking at the same time and Cllr Taylor asked for questions to be posed one at a time.

Person 20 asked about biodiversity net gain and said the trees had been there for hundreds of years and asked how that could be improved.  Stuart responded that there would be a net increase in the overall number of trees.

Person 21 said that 40 houses would mean 80 cars, 80 adults, 80 children and said that local school and GP surgeries were already full, and the traffic at the top of Radford Bank was chaotic.  Stuart replied that the Local Education Authority and the Health Board would be consulted.  Person 21 asked what the responses were last time permission was applied for.  Stuart responded that developers could provide contributions to increase education and health, that was part of the process and was not led by Touch Developments.

Person 22 said that they liked local children to be able to have exercise in the football field opposite the site.  They asked how Touch Developments justified taking that away because Old Croft Road would become an overflow for the cars that wouldn’t fit on people’s driveways on the site so their parents wouldn’t be able to park.  Person 22 wanted to have the same opportunities as they previously had and the only place they can go for that is the football field.  They said that the community was passionate about children’s football being available in the area.  Stuart responded that the playing fields would not be touched, that they were considering taking away the verges to widen the road.  Person 22 added that Touch Developments were only considering that as overflow parking for the development.  Stuart added that parking numbers were based on SCC requirements for the size of the properties, but SCC may conclude that there were not enough spaces as part of the process.

Cllr Taylor clarified that responses to the online consultation should be formalised and sent by email, despite the website stating that consultation ended on 4 August.  Stuart agreed that the website did say the deadline was 4 August, but Touch Developments were still working on the plans and would log comments received, in some cases they would be verbatim, and they would be submitted to SBC as part of the application.  At that point people would be able to comment on the planning application itself on the planning portal.  Cllr Taylor added that Berkswich Parish Council would not take a view until the application had been submitted.

Person 23 said that it was at least a mile to the nearest shop and asked how that was sustainable.  Stuart replied that SBC had an assessment hierarchy which ranked every development.  Walton on the Hill was considered to be a sustainable village that could accommodate growth so in their view it was a suitable site.

Person 24 said that Old Croft Road was a single lane at some points and other access routes were narrow – how did Touch Developments anticipate the construction site traffic getting to the site?  Stuart said that that had not been discussed but would be part of the consultation when plans were submitted to the council – it had to be approved by SBC, it was controlled by them.

Person 25 asked if Touch Developments had considered the bats in the area.

Person 26 suggested that when the planning application had been submitted, a resident’s group could go to SBC to show the strength of feeling.

Cllr Taylor summed up discussions that 1) people were encouraged to contact Touch Developments with their comments on the consultation; 2) The Parish Council would look out for the planning application and would share details on their website and social media when consultation began; 3) The Parish Council would consider its response; and 4) if there were serious concerns consideration should be given to the community employing a planning consultant and the Parish Council could be invited to join with them.

Person 21 asked if there would be another meeting once the planning application was in.  Cllr Taylor confirmed that the application would be considered at a meeting which would be publicised through the usual channels.  Person 21 said that the Parish Council were supposed to represent the views of the community.  Cllr M Millichap responded that the Parish Council did not want to be accused of predetermination if an appeal were to go to the Planning Inspectorate.  He added that what was said at the meeting was important as it gave the community a chance to share their concerns.

1. Flower Beds on Milford Road – Person 21 asked if the flower beds on Milford Road would be planted now that there had been some rain. Cllr Taylor responded that the matter was in the hands of the grounds maintenance company and that the Clerk would liaise with them on the issue.  Action: Clerk

Stuart Wells and 41 members of the public left the meeting at 8.45 pm.

1. Nettles – Person 21 asked what the parish Council was doing about stinging nettles overhanging the pavement near the Village Hall. Cllr Taylor said the maintenance contractor would address this issue in due course.

1. Mileposts – Person 21 asked if work was due to commence on the mileposts in the parish. Cllr Taylor said that there was a project looking at milestones across Staffordshire and Berkswich were part of that.

25/98        Apologies – received from Cllr Caroline Pearson (Vice Chair) as she was away, Cllr Sue Francis as she was at another event and Cllr Bob Gilson as he was unwell.  Apologies were also received from County and Borough Cllrs Ann and Peter Edgeller.

25/99        Minutes of the meeting held on 8 July 2025 – Resolved: It was agreed that the minutes were accurate and should be signed by the Chair.

25/100       Declarations of Interest regarding items on the agenda.  None.

25/101      Clerk’s Report for June 2025

Resolved: the report was accepted unanimously.  Cllr Taylor noted that the SID had been installed on Brocton Lane and was up and running.

25/102      Electric Bikes and Road Safety

                 Cllr Norris had seen PCSOs around Bluebell Hollow, so the issue was on their radar.  Cllr Luker commented that he had seen e-bikes around the parish too.

25/103      Potential to Adopt Bluebell Hollow Playground

Taylor Wimpey had contacted the Clerk about Bluebell Hollow Playground, asking if it had been adopted by the parish council.  The Clerk had responded that the council would consider adopting the play area if an endowment was offered for maintenance and renewal of the equipment in the future.  Cllr Campbell asked if Bluebell Hollow residents wanted the playground and Cllr Norris replied that it was used quite extensively.  Resolved: It was unanimously agreed that the project was worth investigating and the Clerk should find out the likely annual running costs including maintenance of the surrounding hedge and fence, and costs for replacing the play equipment.  A public consultation would also be needed with local residents.  Action: Clerk

25/104      Flood Resilience for Berkswich Parish

                 It was pointed out that the bottom of The Rise and bottom of School Lane both flooded in heavy rain.  Resolved: Clerk to ask Highways to clean the gullies.  Action: Clerk Cllr Norris said the drains flowed a bit too well along Bluebell Hollow and the rain all ended up at the bottom.  Resolved: Clerk to raise with flood team at SCC.  Action: Clerk

25/105      Policies

Resolved: Council approved the following policies unanimously:

1. Emergency Dependents Leave Policy;

• Expenses Policy;

1. IT Policy; and
2. Pensions Discretions Policy.

Clerk to update the policies on the Council website.  Action: Clerk  The Dignity at Work Policy had not been shared with councillors and approval was deferred to the next meeting.

25/106      Financial Matters

1. Bank reconciliation and expenditure for July 2025 – Resolved: Approved unanimously.

1. Budget report for July 2025 – Resolved: Approved unanimously.

• Finance Working Group’s Recommendations for Short Term Investment Accounts

Resolved: Council agreed all the recommendations in the report: to open a Hampshire Trust Bank Charity Easy Access SME Saver Account and transfer the majority of funds from the Teachers BS to the new account; to open a Unity Trust Bank Instant Access Savings Account and transfer the majority of funds from the current account to it; and change the account at The Stafford Building Society to a Notice-90 account.  Action: Clerk

1. Potential Projects for 2026/27

Bluebell Hollow Playground was agreed as a potential project.  A discussion took place around whether a drone for Staffordshire Fire and Rescue Service would be a project and whether one would be used.  It was agreed to continue the dialogue with Rob Horton about the future of the project.  Cllr Taylor asked for suggestions for further projects to be brought to the October meeting.  Action: all

25/107      Reports from other meetings

• Environment Group

Cllr Luker and Cllr Taylor had met a resident at Walton Coppice who was an ecologist and discussed bird and owl boxes and the possibility of taking out more trees at the far end.  The original hedge that was planted 25 years ago had grown into trees in some places and they needed cutting to hedge level to allow them to spread in width.  Cllr Taylor was due to meet the tree surgeon on site on 3 September to get a quote.

1. Approve maintenance costs for the Coppices – deferred to the next meeting

• Village Hall Management Committee

Cllr Pearson had sent a report in her absence that there was nothing affecting the council, but she had volunteered to clean the Village Hall while the cleaner was away for one week.

25/108      Items for the Agenda for the Annual Parish Council Meeting scheduled for Tuesday 2 September 2025

Items agreed were: white stones on verges, Bluebell Hollow park.

Resolved: The public were excluded from the meeting for the next item of business which involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in the paragraphs of Part 1 of Schedule 12A (as amended) of the Local Government Act 1972 so that the Council could consider confidential business in private.

25/109      Clerk’s Appraisal and Salary Review

Resolved: Council agreed with the recommendations from the staffing committee to increase the grade of the Clerk’s role.  Action: Clerk  Council also agreed to keep provision of pastoral support and assistance to the Clerk under review.

Meeting closed at 9.45 pm.