Extraordinary Parish Council Meeting 6 January 2026

BERKSWICH PARISH COUNCIL

Minutes of the Extraordinary Berkswich Parish Council Meeting held on

Tuesday 6 January 2026 at 8.00 pm at Walton Village Hall

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

In attendance:   SCC and SBC Cllr Ann Edgeller, SBC Cllr Peter Edgeller, Mrs Sue Fullwood, Clerk/RFO and 17 members of the public.

E26/1          Public Session

1. Planning Application 25/41305/FUL for 40 Dwellings at Land Off Old Croft Road

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and explained that the extraordinary meeting had been called as an opportunity for residents to be able to express their views on the proposed development off Old Croft Road.   He also explained that Borough Cllrs Ann and Peter Edgeller would not be able to express an opinion on the proposals until SBC’s Planning Committee meeting but they would help with regards to process, etc.  Berkswich Parish Council would discuss and agree their response following the public session – they had not yet taken a view and were receptive to hearing the public comments.

Person 1 said that at the September Parish Council meeting when a representative of Touch Developments had attended, four times the number of residents had been in attendance and they felt that people had expressed their views extremely well about the prospect of that field being developed.  Person 1 asked how the continuous stream of applications would be viewed at SBC and if the number of people attending Parish Council would represent residents’ views strongly enough.  Cllr Taylor responded that there was a thread running through the applications for this site, they had the same promoter in Touch Developments, although he didn’t think they would be involved in the building of the dwellings if approved.  Residents had been vociferously in opposition to all three proposed schemes.  Each scheme had to be assessed separately and it was hoped that residents would again submit comments on the planning portal.  Person 1 asked if there was a valid objection would it need 50 people to make the same objection or if it could just be one.  Cllr Taylor responded that SBC would take each application on its own merit, the site was not in the local plan so that was valid to put as an objection.  The planners would look at all the reasons for objections.

Person 2 asked if there would be value in putting together a petition containing all the points already raised.  Cllr Taylor responded that in his view petitions did not add weight to objections, but he could see Person 2’s point.  Cllr Taylor was always suspicious of petitions as signatures were often not real people, e.g. M Mouse or D Duck.  There was also a risk that people outside the area could sign it.  It would not be possible for a petition to be collected before the 9 January deadline therefore the Parish Council strongly encouraged individuals to comment on the SBC website.

Person 3 said that the application didn’t seem to have the detail one would expect to find in a full planning application.  They had looked at the documents and the one showing elevations seemed to show a tall building on the corner nearest to Cannock Chase National Landscape which was worth looking at.  Cllr Taylor said that there was a lot of information, not the floor plans for the dwellings, but street scenes, layouts, the information was spread between various documents on the planning portal.

Person 4 then asked why which type of house should be built was being debated when there should be no houses there.  They felt that the repeated applications were designed to wear people down and asked if there should be a minimum time before applications could be resubmitted for the same site.  Cllr Taylor replied that there wasn’t a minimum time, there had been an idea of introducing one years ago, but whichever government it had been at the time had rejected the idea.

Person 5 said that they imagined the application would be called in to committee and asked if it would really matter if objections were material planning objections, if the application didn’t comply with policies the development shouldn’t be going ahead.  Cllr Taylor responded that it was the same for planning authorities across the country.  The government had increased the housing target to 1.5m houses by 2030 and said if there was no local plan in place they should be in favour of developments.  The previous SBC 5-year target was 500 houses and it had been increased to over 700.  There were now awkward decisions that officers and councillors would have to make, would they refuse permission because it was not appropriate in this locality?  If the application went to appeal the Inspector could be encouraged to overturn the decision.  Cllr Taylor added that if residents were opposed to something they should not give up.

Person 6 asked about social housing and said that they understood developments were legally required to have a percentage of social housing.  Cllr Taylor confirmed that the figure was 30%. The plans for this proposed development had changed from the entire development being social housing to one which now just met the national standard.

Person 1 said that the make up of the site was so out of character for Walton on the Hill and would create traffic problems along Oldcroft Road.   At the September meeting the representative of Touch Developments had talked about moving the hedge to improve the road, but the developer couldn’t do anything about that as they didn’t own that land.  The latest plans showed hammerheads to the right and the back of the site, conveniently where the site owners owned other sites suggesting a possible intention to expand the development in the future.

Person 7 said that the attempt to audit traffic had not been done during school time and therefore had an unrealistic result and had not been adjusted.  Cllr Taylor said that the second survey had been done when schools were open although person 7 said that the wiring had been disconnected after 24 hours.  Person 7 said that the transport document stated that there would be 40 car movements per day, but if each house had 2 vehicles, that would be 80 movements plus deliveries, etc.  Cllr Taylor said that the developers had submitted slightly different plans so arguments needed to be amended.

Person 8 said that a lot of vehicles parked along the road at weekends to use the football field, so adding another 80 vehicles would be completely unsafe.  Person 8 was happy for the parents to park there for their children to play football and get exercise but adding more traffic would be dangerous.  Person 8 asked if the second road survey was adequate.  Cllr Taylor replied that the Parish Council would need to raise that with Staffordshire Highways separately and the formation of highways would definitely need to be looked at.  Cllr Taylor added that the developers’ suggested improvements to the carriageway were to narrow it further as a traffic calming measure.

Person 2 said that the application was proposing a 2m footway opposite the far end to Oakridge Way and they felt that the red line boundaries were wrong.  Cllr Taylor said that he would revisit the plans.  Action: Cllr Taylor

Person 9 said that they had been reading some of Gavin Williamson MP’s posts on social media and asked if it would be possible to get him onside to help.  Person 9 added that what the MP said must count for something.  Cllr Taylor said that party politics could be an issue and he was not sure how much weight MPs had at SBC level.

Cllr Ann Edgeller went through the process, if a planning application was called into committee the number of residents who attended could have an impact on the outcome.  There would be a nominated speaker, possibly the Parish Council Chair, but as many people as possible should attend to show the strength of feeling towards the application.  The committee would then vote, Highways got the last application on this site thrown out.  Cllr Ann Edgeller added that the application for the care home at Wildwood had been refused by SBC, but had been overturned by the Inspector so the Borough Council’s decision was not necessarily the final word.

Person 10 asked why Touch Developments had sent a representative in September and asked if it was it just a fishing exercise.  Cllr Taylor said that it was so they could tick the box to say they had done public consultation.

Person 11 asked if SBC had a record of planning applications that had been approved, but the sites had never been developed?  Were there big development sites that were not as attractive as villages, would SBC have a list of anything like that?  Cllr Taylor said that the honest answer was that he didn’t know.  There were probably a number of sources that covered that information.  SBC will keep tabs on developments that have taken place, they have to submit a return to the government.  The local plan process would cover this.  Person 11 suggested that perhaps people could submit Freedom of Information requests to get the information and they felt a better approach was necessary.  Cllr Taylor said that for reasons of time it wouldn’t help with the current application, but could be useful if it went to appeal.  Cllr Ann Edgeller added that SBC’s Forward Planning team would probably have that information.  Cllr Taylor said there would be thousands of sites across the country that had not been developed and developers would sit on sites until the value increased.  Even if the statistics were available it wouldn’t necessarily make any difference.  Cllr Taylor added that with any planning enquiry you had a 50/50 chance.

Person 12 said it would be interesting to get a report from SBC regarding whether S106 contributions had been collected from developers.  Cllr Taylor replied that S106 contributions were not being enforced.  Person 12 said that for example it would be interesting to see if contributions had been made following the S106 agreement for St Mary’s Gate.  Person 12 was aware that for another authority £100ks had not been paid.

Person 1 said that if the development was approved the development of a site that size could take two years and construction traffic would struggle to get through the narrow sections of Old Croft Road near Oakridge Way and would have to travel up The Rise past two school entrances which would be very dangerous for pupils.  Cllr Taylor responded that would be a valid objection.

Person 13 said that when residents had previously commented they had had Highways and the Parish Council’s response to look at, but this time they had not seen anything.  Cllr Taylor said it would be helpful for residents to get comments in before the 9 January deadline, but it would be unlikely that the planning officer would be completing their report in the next couple of weeks.  Cllr Taylor suggested keeping an eye on the SBC site and looking out for responses from other parties and residents could always submit supplementary comments afterwards.

Person 13 said that the report from the road safety audit said that they had visited the site on 5 August from 8.30 am – 9.15 am and the report said that they were “concerned vehicle movements were limited”.  Cllr Taylor said that if they felt that was unreasonable to include it in their comments.

Person 12 asked if reminders could be put on social media to remind people to comment and if an email could be sent to the subscribers to the Parish Council Newsletter, which was agreed.  Action: Clerk  Cllr Ann Edgeller said that she would ask the planning department to extend the deadline for comments due to the Christmas period.  If the deadline was extended Cllr Ann Edgeller would let Cllr Taylor and the Clerk know.  Action: Cllr Ann Edgeller

Person 14 said that the Cannock Chase National Landscape team had objected to the last two applications and suggested that the Parish Council ensured that they had been consulted about this application.  Action: Cllr Taylor  Person 14 added that bats and the loss of habitat for losing the hedgerow had not been included in the biodiversity net gain.

Cllr Taylor thanked everyone for attending and reiterated the importance of residents submitting their comments on the SBC planning portal.

The 17 members of the public left the meeting at 9.00 pm.

E26/2          Apologies – apologies were received from Cllr Caroline Pearson due to illness in the family and Cllrs Ann and Malcolm Millichap due to adverse weather conditions.

The Chair changed the order of the agenda to continue discussions on planning application 25/41305/FUL.

E26/4          Planning Matters

1. Council’s Response to Planning Application 25/41305/FUL for 40 dwellings on Land Off Old Croft Road – Resolved: Council agreed unanimously to object to the application. Action: Clerk

E26/3          Review of Parish Boundaries

Cllr M Millichap had circulated a report to council and was anxious that as a parish Berkswich were involved in meetings to share their point of view.  Cllr Taylor felt that history was repeating itself and said that he did not like the idea of amalgamating with Stafford Town Council if it was established.  Berkswich should be rural rather than urban.  Cllr Norris added that as a parish council Berkswich were very economical and Cllr M Millichap was particularly keen to keep the War Memorial as part of Berkswich.  Cllr Taylor asked for volunteers to attend meetings on behalf of the council.  Resolved:  Cllr M Millichap to be asked to represent the council with Cllr Norris.

E26/5          Items for the Agenda for the Parish Council Meeting scheduled for Tuesday 3 February 2026

Items already agreed were: Parish Boundaries; Village Gateway signs.  Election of Vice-Chair to be added.

Meeting closed at 9.15 pm.