Berkswich Parish Council 4 November 2025 at 7.00 pm

BERKSWICH PARISH COUNCIL

Minutes of the Berkswich Parish Council Meeting held on

Tuesday 4 November 2025 at 7.00 pm at Walton Village Hall

Present:       Cllr Alan Taylor (Chair), Cllr Caroline Pearson, Cllr Tim Luker, Cllr Vicky Campbell, Cllr Ann Millichap, Cllr Malcolm Millichap, Cllr Bob Gilson, Cllr Beverley Hughes, Cllr Sue Francis and Cllr Michael Norris.

In attendance:   Sue Fullwood, Clerk/RFO and approximately 70 members of the public.

Cllr Taylor welcomed everyone to the meeting.

25/127      Public Session

1. Outline Planning Application 25/41179/OUT for 360 Dwellings at Land to The North of Milford Road

Cllr Taylor explained that the public session had been extended from the usual 10 minutes to an hour for a public discussion on this planning application.  There had been a lively discussion on the subject at the Council’s October meeting.  The Parish Council had been consulted by Stafford Borough Council (SBC) on the application and resolved to object to the application.  The Parish Council’s response had been submitted in October and was available on both the Council’s website and SBC’s planning portal.  Cllr Taylor confirmed that SBC had extended the consultation period for the application and they would be accepting comments until the revised deadline of 19 November.  Cllr Taylor strongly encouraged people to comment to SBC as soon as possible.

Cllr Taylor asked that if anyone at the meeting had planning expertise to let him or the Clerk have their contact details.  He said he hoped that SBC would refuse the application, but he suspected that the developers would instantly go to appeal.  He confirmed that Berkswich Parish Council had reserves to fight an appeal, but people with experience in the area would be very helpful.

Cllr Taylor explained that SCC and SBC Cllr Ann Edgeller and SBC Cllr Peter Edgeller were not able to attend the meeting, but they had given statements to the Clerk which the public were welcome to take a copy of.

Person 1 said that SBC’s planning portal stated that 257 people had been consulted on the application, they had received 199 responses of which 195 were objections.

Cllr Taylor read the 8 headings from the Parish Council’s objection letter to the public and circulated hard copies of the 5-page letter.

Cllr M Millichap said that for transparency reasons he would like to share that the letter had been prepared by Cllr Taylor and thanked him for this.  Cllr M Millichap thanked the Clerk for preparing the leaflet and also all the volunteers who delivered the leaflets around the parish including two members of the public.

Person 2 asked why SBC had extended the deadline for comments.  Cllr Taylor responded that it was likely to be because of the number of responses they were receiving to the application and because the application had been “called in” by Cllr P Edgeller.  It would take longer for SBC to assimilate the responses and also there had not been a Highways response published so far.

Person 3 said that there was a previous application for the site 40 years ago and asked if the Parish Council were investigating the reasons that application had been thrown out in case they could be useful this time.  Cllr M Millichap said that policies would have changed a lot over 40 years, but the application from 2014 for Walton Garden Village had been considered.  Cllr Taylor added that there was no mention of an application before 2014 on the planning portal.

Person 3 asked if the Parish Council could object to the recent planning application for 9 houses.  Cllr Taylor responded yes, the land at the bottom of School Lane was unallocated, but the updated SHELAA in 2024 had included that site with the potential for 158 houses from Milford Road to Brocton Lane.  The application for 9 houses all had extraordinarily large gardens and was felt to be a “Trojan horse”.  The Parish Council had objected to the application.

Person 4 said that lots of planning applications had been granted permission in the area and building was being done throughout Stafford.  Stafford had contributed hugely to government targets and they felt that developers were sitting on planning permission and not using it.  Why were they encouraging development on green land when developers were not building on land that already had planning permission?  Cllr Taylor responded that CPRE had calculated that hundreds of thousands, perhaps even 1m homes nationally had planning permission but building had not been brought forward and there had been talk of the government being asked to look at it.  The government were fixated on their 1.5m homes target and the lack of infrastructure was being forgotten about.  They needed powers to make developers build on land with planning permission first, but unfortunately currently that was entirely voluntary.

Person 5 raised an issue about the proposed emergency exit onto Falmouth Avenue, they said that residents parked their cars along there and an ambulance would find it difficult to get through.

Person 6 asked if the Parish Council had national statistics that showed, if you built 360 houses, what the impact would be on local hospitals.  They said statistics would be necessary to support or negate the development.  Cllr Taylor responded that in a rational world SBC would have a local plan in place and would consider infrastructure using a complicated formula, but Stafford’s Local Plan was now out of date.  SBC had a plan for 500 new houses per year, but the government had increased the target to 765 houses per year which meant that the draft Stafford Local Plan had been scrapped.  The government’s edict was that if councils didn’t meet their target their plan was out of date.  The developers were putting themselves forward as saviours in this case, it was the same in Eccleshall where there was an application for 1500 houses.

Person 6 replied that surely SCC had demanded numbers.  Stafford had lost various hospital services, but Stoke couldn’t cope with the demand.  Stafford hospital had started doing surgery again because Stoke were overwhelmed.  Person 6 didn’t think that the data analysis had been done.  Cllr Taylor responded that it hadn’t and that in a rational world local authorities would have to do that and get a new local plan.  The Parish Council had expressed that concern in their objection letter.

Person 1 said that if there was no local plan it could be argued that there was no target.  Cllr Taylor said that the target was that the government had said that SBC must deliver 765 houses per year.

Person 7 said that they had heard primary school children would be bussed to St Leonard’s school or other further away schools.  Cllr Taylor replied that he hadn’t seen anything about bussing children, but the developers had submitted an Educational Needs Assessment which has said that all the local schools were at or above capacity.  They had looked at vacancies in Stafford and a new primary school was due to be built at Castlefields and St Leonards still had places – the report said children could walk three miles to school.  The School Organisation Team at SCC had responded to the consultation and their response was on the planning portal.  It said that £4m was the required contribution from the developers for school places which would be a chunk out of the developers’ profits.  It was worrying that elsewhere in the Borough developers had been asked for a contribution and agreed, but then said that their profit margins were too low and SBC hadn’t enforced the Section 106 agreement.  In London developers had a target of 40% affordable housing, but said that was not profitable so the government had relaxed the target to 20%, the danger was that the government wouldn’t back up any locally agreed target.

Person 7 asked what the process would be if the application was rejected and it went to appeal in Cllr Taylor’s experience.  Cllr Taylor replied that if it went to appeal a nominally independent Inspector would consider it, but unfortunately they were civil servants and so worked for the government and a minister could overrule the decision.  There was pressure on all the way down from Ministers to SBC staff to increase the number of houses being built.  Cllr Taylor had seen a case in Gloucester not long ago where developers had gone to appeal and the Inspector was against the development.

Person 8 asked if there was anything that could be done to protect a village environment and that you didn’t see development in the Cotswolds.  Cllr Taylor responded that the Cotswolds were different as they were a National Landscape, where Walton on the Hill were just outside the Cannock Chase National Landscape unfortunately.

Cllr M Millichap said that when he had been an SBC councillor over 10 years ago, he had been on the Planning Committee and had been involved in the discussions over the planning application for Saxonfields.  The developers had said that education was nothing to do with them, they were home builders.  The Secretary of State at the time told them that were responsible and a considerable amount of money was given to local schools.  Cllr M Millichap reminded attendees that the decision rested with SBC, the Parish Council could only make recommendations.

Person 9 commented that developers in the Cotswolds were trying to increase the number of houses by 50%.  They also said that if it was thought that there was a flaw in the process there could be a Judicial Review and the amount of expense was capped at a reasonable amount.  Cllr Taylor responded that the Parish Council had objected to the development of Bluebell Hollow in the 1990s and taken it to a Judicial Review but lost.  He said that a Judicial Review didn’t say if a decision was wrong, just if the way the decision was reached was wrong.

Person 1 said that if the development was likely to go ahead the councillors on the SBC Planning Committee would need to make sure contributions were covered under Section 106.  Cllr Taylor replied that Section 106 had to be enforced in any case.  Person 1 said that Stafford were renowned for not enforcing Section 106 agreements.  Cllr M Millichap added that if developers were not making sufficient profit a Section 106 couldn’t be enforced.  Person 1 said that enforcing was reliant on reports from the developer and an independent valuer, the council had to accept the lower value or nothing.  Developers could also just wind up their business and start a new one.

Person 10 that there wasn’t a plan for supporting people further away from the development, for example there could be people further away from Walton High School who would have been in catchment but would not be if the development went ahead and they may have to travel to school miles away.

Person 1 said that one reason the application for 216 houses on the same site in 2014 was refused was the traffic impact at the double roundabout at Weeping Cross.  Now they were proposing an additional 140 houses and the plans say that mitigation would be required yet there was no suggestion of what that could be.

From a personal perspective person 1 said that some of the land was only 6m above Bluebell Hollow gardens, the boundary was very open and you could see the feet of people walking along so they were very concerned about privacy and the applicant had not addressed that.

Person 11 said that the skyline would be affected, the slope of the land could cause an issue with drainage, the proposed development could cause water pressure problems for the rest of Walton on the Hill, they had heard stories of sewage coming back into properties and it was the lower properties which would suffer.  Cllr Taylor responded that the Parish Council had raised it in their objection letter.  He added that there had been no response from Severn Trent on the SBC website.

Person 12 asked if there was any way that the message could be spread further when the application was due to appear before SBC Planning Committee.  Cllr Taylor confirmed that it would be shared on the Parish Council’s Facebook page.  Person 1 added that a Walton on the Hill Planning Watch group had been set up on Facebook and they could post the information on there and share it on local group pages.

Person 13 asked if SBC had given 21 days’ notice to all consultees about the extended deadline for consultation responses.  Cllr Taylor replied that SBC had discharged their legal responsibilities with the original advertisement: there was no need to readvertise.  One objector could make a three minute oral representation to the Planning Committee, but it would be helpful if as many people as possible would attend to show their opposition to the development.

Person 14 asked if there was another Parish Council meeting in December that residents could attend.  Cllr Taylor replied that he doubted that the Planning Officer would have prepared his report by then, but the next Parish Council meeting was on Tuesday 2 December.

70 members of the public left the meeting at 8.00 pm.

25/128      Apologies – apologies were received from County and Borough Cllrs Ann and Peter Edgeller and County Cllr Andrew Mynors.

25/129      Minutes of the meeting held on 7 October 2025 – agreed unanimously, the Clerk was thanked for the good minutes.

25/130       Declarations of Interest regarding items on the agenda.  None.

25/131      Clerk’s Report for October 2025

Resolved: the report was accepted unanimously.

25/132      Potential to Adopt Bluebell Hollow Playground

The Clerk had shared the response from Taylor Wimpey that they were interested in transferring the playground to Berkswich Parish Council.  The Clerk had prepared approximate costs if the Parish Council were to take the playground on.  It was suggested that a small group should be set up to look at the issue and Cllr Norris and Cllr Francis agreed to be part of such a group.  Resolved: Wait to hear proposals from Taylor Wimpey in the first instance.

A member of the public (referred to as Person 15) entered the meeting at 8.20 pm and asked if they could stay for item 25/138 ii as that was regarding their property.  Cllr Taylor confirmed that they could and brought item 25/138 ii up the agenda.

25/138  ii  Planning Application 25/41094/LBC at Congreve House

Cllr Taylor said that the Parish Council had submitted their response to the consultation on this application. While supportive in principle the Council had queried how the current proposals related to planning application 25/40176/HOU as they were not for the same work.  The letter also pointed out that the Structural Engineer had mentioned strengthening of the defective roof timbers in their report, but the applicants’ architect hadn’t specified how it would be achieved.  Person 15 replied that the reason the applications were separated was because there was so much detail to be resolved.  They were very concerned that without roof insulation their family would spend another winter with the heating going straight out through the roof.  They continued that the house had become listed since their purchase and felt that no-one was listening to them.  The costs for repairing the house had spiralled and they were finding the whole system difficult to navigate now the property was listed.   Cllr Taylor thanked Person 15 for attending and explained that the Parish Council were only a consultee, it was up to SBC if they followed the comments.  Cllr Taylor advised Person 15 to have discussions with the Conservation Officer at SBC and their architect.

Person 15 left the meeting at 8.30 pm.

Resolved: The response to the consultation was agreed.

25/133      Plans to Rotate the SID on Brocton Lane

The Clerk had received a quote to rotate the SID for £650 +VAT per occasion.  This was felt to be unreasonably high. Clerk to investigate how other councils rotated their SIDs.  Action: Clerk

25/134      Potential Purchase of Village Gateway Signs

Discussions took place on whether they were necessary and how many would be required.  Resolved: deferred to the next meeting after discussions on the parish boundary.  Action: Clerk

25/135      Process for Confidential Items

Cllr Taylor and the Clerk had discussed ways of minuting confidential items and the Clerk had asked SPCA for advice.  SPCA had advised that a special committee was unnecessary.  Resolved: confidential issues would be recorded in committee minutes, for example HR issues in Staffing Committee minutes.

25/136      Amended Financial Regulations

The Clerk had amended the Financial Regulations to reflect the new banking arrangements and that withdrawals for the Hampshire Trust Bank could be authorised by one person but could only be made into the Council’s current account.  Resolved: Agreed unanimously.  Clerk to update the policy on the Council website.  Action: Clerk 

25/137      Financial Matters

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

Budget report for October 2025 – Resolved: Approved unanimously.

• Draft Budget for 2026/27

The Finance Working Group had met on 22 October to discuss the draft budget for 2026/27 and agreed to recommend a small increase in the precept to full council in line with inflation which was currently 3.8%.  Resolved: The draft budget for 2026/27 was agreed unanimously.  Clerk to update the draft document when confirmation is received of the 2026/27 tax base from SBC.  Final budget and precept to be agreed at the December meeting.  Action: Clerk

25/138      Planning Matters

i  Outline Planning Application 25/41179/OUT Land to the North of Milford Road – Resolved – Council noted the content of the objection letter sent on 23 October 2025.

ii  Response to planning application 25/41094/LBC at Congreve House – see page 5 for discussion. Resolved: agreed unanimously.  Action: Clerk

25/139      Reports from other meetings

1. TVCG – Robert Pritchard from SPCA had attended the meeting and given more detail about the complexity of sharing assets as part of Local Government Reorganisation. Housing developments on unallocated sites had also been discussed and it was common across the Borough.  Cllr A Edgeller had kindly arranged a meeting with the planning department on 19 November regarding the cumulative effects of not having a Stafford Local Plan.
2. Environment Group

The Clerk had been trying to get quotes for the proposed work at Walton and Hollybush Coppices.  Cllr Taylor was meeting with Keysor’s at Walton Coppice on 6 November to discuss a quote.

• Village Hall Management Committee

Cllr Pearson reported that everything was ok.  Cllr Pearson, Cllr Taylor and the Clerk had cleared out the loft on 15 October with just some finance and insurance papers remaining.  Two boxes of papers were in the process of being transferred to the Local Records Office

25/140      Items for the Agenda for the Parish Council Meeting scheduled for Tuesday 2 December 2025

Items agreed were: final budget and precept for 26/27; village gateway signs; Bluebell Hollow playground (if Taylor Wimpey responded); review of parish boundaries; housing developments on unallocated sites; and dog waste.

Cllr M Millichap thanked the Chair for his management of the meeting and said that the atmosphere had been more positive than recent meetings with public attendance.  Cllr Pearson thanked the Clerk for organising the distribution of leaflets.

Meeting closed at 8.50 pm.