Approved SPC Meeting Minutes – 09.09.25

Serving Little Aston, Shenstone, Stonnall, Shenstone Wood End, Lynn, Parish Council Office 25C Main Street Shenstone WS14 OLZ
Tel: 01543 481 947
e-mail: <admin@shenstonepc.pcwpreview.co.uk >
web: www.shenstone-staffs.gov.uk

54 Register of members in attendance

Cllr Simon Fisher- Acting Chair. Cllrs David Thompson, Lesley Edgley, Gail Nicholls, Louise Hawes, Phil Whitehouse, Dino D’Ambrosio, Martin McQueen, David Smith. Cllr Chris Callow arrived late after sending apologies earlier.

County Cllr Alex Farrell. Shirley O’Mara (Parish Clerk).

52 residents of Little Aston.

55 Acceptance of apologies.

Cllr Alan Pugh. Cllr David Salter. Cllr Mick Cox. Cllr Stuart Harrison. Cllr Chris Jones. Mr Rob Daniels, Mr & Mrs Gerry McLaughlin- residents of Little Aston.

Public Participation.

Members of the public are invited to address Council for a maximum of 15 minutes.

Cllr Fisher brought forward item 60 for the benefit of all the public in attendance having established that they were in all there to discuss this issue. A printed copy of a statement from Cllr David Thompson, Chair of Neighbourhood Planning & Property Committee, had been shared with residents as an agenda supporting document prior to the meeting (attached)

A resident’s representative, Laura Towers, gave the following address:
Thank you for allowing me to speak on behalf of residents. Many are here, as you can see, this evening, I’m speaking in relation to agenda item 60, the cluster neighbourhood plan, we’ve read both the agenda, key issues and the neighbourhood rerun report carefully.

56 First, I want to acknowledge the council’s admission of error and its formal apology. Hundreds of households were excluded from a statutory consultation, a serious breach of fairness and process. We appreciate that this mistake has been recognised, and we welcome the corrective steps now on the table as we understand it. These are two in person, consultation events, reinstatement of the Green Belt section and restoring the original 2029 date for Claverdon Park potential inclusion in the conservation area. On behalf of residents, I thank the Council for responding on these points and for their time looking into these issues and reaching such a sensible conclusion.

But an apology alone does not restore confidence. This is about trust. If residents are to believe in this plan and in this council, we need absolute assurance that the renewable rerun will be open, inclusive and meaningful. The neighbourhood plan shapes development until 2040 it’s our main line of defence against governments. The government’s move to reclassify Green Belt land and challenge speculative planning applications, such as the four to five hundred homes that had proposal being advanced by Roman national developments. Against this backdrop, residents cannot afford to feel sidelined or silenced. Our message is simple; residents must be actively involved in all decisions that shape their area. This isn’t optional. So today, we’re asking for five clear assurances.

Number one, fairness. Can you confirm that every household will now receive direct notification, so no one is excluded again, and what safeguards will be put in place to guarantee this in the future?

Number Two scope, can you confirm that residence input is not to the green belt and conservation area, but that all issues, traffic, drainage, healthcare, school, capacity, infrastructure can be considered. Will new wording be proposed by residents be given equal weight to those already written?

Number three, transparency. How will you show that our voices have been heard. Will you be able to publish a summary of responses from the new consultations to how each point has been addressed, and will residents see a revised draft before it goes to the independent inspector this time? Residents are also keen to better understand who is ultimately responsible for making decisions and the process being followed.

Oversight. Number four, to restore confidence in this process being fair. Will you commit today to independent monitoring of the consultation by either the district planning office or another independent body?

Number five, accessibility. Can you confirm the two public meetings will be held at accessible venues at times suitable for both working families and older residents, and that plain English summaries will be provided so every resident can contribute meaningfully?

In short, residents welcome the RE run and the corrections already agreed, but we will only accept this process as legitimate if it delivers fairness, scope and transparency, and if it actively involves residents at every stage. We have strong feelings because the stakes are so high. The prospect of four to five hundred houses on rebuilt land threatens the very character of Little Aston and the neighbourhood plan is the community shield against such proposals. It must be built with residents not imposed upon them. So, I’ll leave you with this message, every household must be included, every issue must be in scope, every commitment must make a difference, and only then will residents in our area feel that this consultation belongs to them.

Cllr Fisher thanked Ms Towers for her comprehensive speech and asked if residents wished to add anything. Mr Paul McElroy said that he was in full agreement with everything stated.

Cllr Fisher asked Cllr David Thompson to respond.

Cllr Thompson began by highlighting the eight points which Council will be considering, and which had been shared prior to the meeting:

1. The Parish Council formally requests Lichfield District Council to defer the completion of their Regulation 16 consultation until a re-run of the Regulation 14 document has been completed.

2. The Full Council records its sincere apologies to all households omitted from the Little Aston Neighbourhood Plan Revisions Regulation 14 consultation. This apology should also be attached to the initial Little Aston Regulation 14 re-run document.

3. The Parish Council commits to the Regulation 14 re-run of six weeks being commenced with two public meetings, one day time meeting and one evening meeting in a central position for the excluded neighbourhoods.

4. The Parish Council will provide every household with a summary of the proposed revisions recommended to date with a request to comment on the revisions or add to the revisions.

5. That subject to consideration of any other revision proposals received at those meetings and by postal or digital return the Full Parish Council accepts in principle the addition of the two specific revisions concerning the Green Belt and the Conservation Area extension.

6. Full Council notes that following the Regulation 14 consultation re–run, the draft document will be subject to further scrutiny by an Independent Inspector and a further six-week Regulation 16 consultation period run by the District Council and supported by the Parish Council.

7. The Parish Council will review lessons learnt from the omission of Little Aston households at the Finance, Legal and Health and Safety Committee and the Planning and Property Committee and bring back any relevant proposals to the Full Council. In particular, the Committees will bring back proposals for all future forms of Parish Council communication to the affected neighbourhoods.

8. The budget resources for the consultation re-run will come from the Little Aston Neighbourhood Plan projects budget allocated to Little Aston as part of the CIL budget

Cllr Thompson reiterated that Council’s sincere apology underlies everything before going on to address each of Ms Towers five points in turn confirming that by going back to Regulation 14 everything begins again and that residents will all receive consultation documentation and be notified of two public meetings at convenient locations and times and all feedback added to that already received by residents from other areas of Little Aston. Modifications and/or additions can be made. Residents input will not be limited to the green belt and conservation area but include traffic, drainage, healthcare and infrastructure. The Clerk confirmed that she logs all consultation responses as well as forwards to Lichfield District Council.

The independent inspector and Lichfield District Council will scrutinise and monitor the whole process, and it was confirmed that Ms Towers is able to engage directly with the planning consultant employed by Council, Chris Bowden of Land Use Consultants. There was a long discussion about the time frame of six weeks which is a minimum, but it was felt that time is of the essence and that proceeding quickly with the plan would be most beneficial as a defence against any planned developments. Ms Towers was also invited to join the steering group.

Cllr Thompson then passed over to County Cllr Alex Farrell:

Cllr Farrell thanked Cllr Thompson for a very comprehensive explanation and for Council’s apology. He also thanked Ms Towers, Mr McElroy and everyone else who has made contact on this issue which has highlighted awareness of what’s a really important issue stating “ Neighbourhood Plans are a really complicated thing, and the neighbourhood plan that hopefully we’ll all put together in a really excellent way is the first line of defence against what we don’t want to happen. But without neighbourhood plans, without local plans, there is always a chance that things can slip through the net. So, it’s really important that we put this together with the right consultation, and I think we will now, because there’s a lot of excellent community minded people in this room and a lot of talent”. Cllr Farrell said he would look to some expert resource from Lichfield District Council to help going forward

Cllr Farrell took some direct questions from residents who he invited to contact him separately to try to resolve their issues.

Cllr David Smith then asked to speak introducing himself as a new Parish Councillor but with 34 years’ experience and knowledge. He compared what has gone wrong with the Little Aston consultation with the Stonnall Neighbourhood plan consultation which was conducted closely and comprehensively with its residents. He stressed the importance of the green belt being included, how plans are going to be funded going forward and that Council rectify and apologise to Little Aston residents for its failure to fulfil responsibilities or hand over the responsibility to some one else who can.

Cllr Fisher said he believed the matter had been discussed thoroughly with Council clearly already apologising and hoping that residents would leave knowing that reassured of a plan to move forward. He then moved members to vote on the eight points presented.

RESOLUTION: Council voted in the majority to support and action all eight points.

Cllr Whitehouse abstained though stated that he only did so as he did not support item 8 as he did not think Little Aston residents should be put at a disadvantage paying for the additional costs out of its CIL funding and funds should be found elsewhere. Other than that, he was fully in agreement with all points.

After further thanks to all, all bar one resident left the meeting.

57 Declarations of interest.

Members should consider whether they should partake in any discussion or vote on matters on the agenda unless they have a dispensation: None.

58 To accept and confirm minutes of the last Full Council meeting on Tuesday July 8^th, 2025

Cllr Smith pointed out that the July minutes in item 48 do not include reference to “that the liability on flooding falls with the adjoining landowners. And so, when we start looking at the funding of dealing with that, they should be looking at us and sharing it with us” As Cllr Smith was in attendance as a member of the public at that time his comments are noted but the minutes were unanimously approved by all Councillors.

59 Clerk’s update on outstanding issues from last meeting:

• Trees right of way Millbrook Drive/Pinfold Hill. Council considered quotes received and Cllrs Edgley, Hawes and McQueen all spoke to say in their view the canopy of trees do not require work, would be an unnecessary expense and the walkway is a principle point of beauty in the village.

RESOLUTION: Majority vote to reject proposed work.

• Tree overhanging residents garden Shenstone Playing Field

RESOLUTION: Passed to Shenstone Playing Field Committee.

• Christmas Market Shenstone

The Clerk informed Council that following a request from the previous organisers for volunteers to take over the running of the event, which was published in the last newsletter, there have been no volunteers at all. Cllr Nicholls raised the point that the organisers hold grant funding that they were charged with rolling over as set up costs from one year to the next so that funding should be returned to Council if nothing goes ahead. The Clerk will investigate & report back.

60 Little Aston Neighbourhood Plan including:

• LITTLE ASTON NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN REVIEW 2025

PROPOSAL TO RE- RUN REGULATION 14 CONSULTATION submitted by Cllr  David Thompson

• consideration of the following three key issues raised in relation to the consultation submitted by Little Aston resident

1. Procedural fairness – many households were not notified of the consultation, contrary to Regulation 14 and the fairness principles in R (Moseley) v Haringey [2014] UKSC 56.

2.  Green Belt protections – the draft Plan has removed the explicit Green Belt policy (GB1 in the 2015–2029 Plan). Without such a policy, Little Aston is left exposed to speculative development, especially given current national debates around “Greybelt” release. The NP should reinstate a clear, enforceable Green Belt protection policy, consistent with NPPF para 138.

 3. Claverdon Park Conservation Area – the 2015–2029 NP recorded a 2029 commitment; the current draft defers this to 2040. While designation rests with Lichfield DC under the 1990 Act, the NP should retain the 2029 timing to reflect community support and protect character in the interim.

COVERED UNDER PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.

61 To receive reports from District and County Councillors.

District Councillor Whitehouse briefed on:

• Local Government Reorganisation announcement earlier that day with an East & West Staffordshire split. If the proposal goes ahead, it will mean that Stoke on Trent east, Staffordshire, Lichfield and Tamworth would be in the east, and that has big implications for what happens locally. Stoke is not in a great position financially but would be the centre of decision making. Planning and decisions regarding anything development wise in this area would be dealt with by a planning committee in Stoke on Trent with Cllr Whitehouse deeming this pretty disastrous.

• very much business as usual at Lichfield, entering the budget setting process. Great deal of work behind the scenes to make all of that happen and balance the books.

County Cllr Farrell briefed on:

• replacement of 30MPH sign on Lynn Lane

• Placement of SID’s. A meeting is planned at the end of September, early October, with the county and representatives from the parish to agree locations.

• Meeting with Cllr Whitehouse scheduled to discuss Stonnall issues. Cllr Nicholls asked what the Stonnall issues are with Cllr Farrell responding big bushes, overhanging trees, parking, flooding,

• Carriageway repairs scheduled in Shenstone. And the gullies at the end of Richard Cooper Road

• Traffic Consultation No ‘264’ Bus Infrastructure serving Lichfield South Business Park:

Response required re the introduction of a reduced 40mph speed limit on A5127 Birmingham Road in the vicinity of Lichfield South Business Park. The reduced speed limit is required as part of a wider highway scheme to provide new bus stops on A5127 for public transport services routing in both a south and northbound direction.

• Public consultation on proposed parking charges at Sutton Park

Cllr Smith expressed concern re the proposal by Walsall to build 350 houses on Stonnall Lane and put traffic lights in. This is concerning because if you put traffic lights on Gravelly Lane, you put pressure onto Main Street, where you’ve got three junctions onto the Chester Road,

62 Finance.

Current financial position & transactions for approval as of Sept 9^th, 2025.

Link to September to-date Financial Transactions spreadsheet 
Link to August 2025 financial transactions spreadsheet

Nat West Current Account £904.30. Nat West Business Reserve £38,754.42

Nat West Liquidity Account Ring fenced funds for ear marked projects £85,198.84.

Unity Account £95838.69.

Cllr Edgley queried two payments for insurance to Little Aston Recreation Ground with the Clerk confirming that the two payments relate to one invoice total.

Receive and approve recommendations from Finance, Legal, Health & Safety Committee meeting Tues July 27^th, 2025,

RECOMMENDATION: Unanimous recommendation that the committee of Little Aston Village Hall consider becoming a Charity Incorporated Organisation (C.I.O)

Cllr Whitehouse explained that this would give the Trustees better personal protection. It is a change of status that would mean the charity as a whole and not individuals are liable. RESOLUTION: Mr Richard Paxton, Chair of Little Aston Village Hall Trustees to consider.

RECOMMENDATION Cllr Thompson raised the issue of sharing salary details specifically attributed to individuals e.g. Clerk, Lengthsman, and requested legal advice on whether these can all be disaggregated and reported as bundles i.e. “all salaries”. The recommendation was unanimous for the Clerk to investigate.

RESOLUTION: All salary information will henceforth be shared in bundles as “employment costs” which is common practice across Parish Councils. Cllr Edgley highlighted the fact that specific details are actually included on the agenda with the Clerk explaining that this was a mistake already pointed out by Cllr Thompson.

Review and recommendations of the following policies:

• Standing Orders

RECOMMENDATIONS: in red attached

• Financial Regulations: RECOMMENDATIONS: in red attached

• Financial Risk Register: RECOMMENDATIONS: in red attached. Also, Clerk to check implications of increasing Officials Indemnity from £10,000 to £20,000.

• Risk Management: Cllrs Pugh & Fisher to review & make recommendations to Sept Finance Committee.

• Risk Assessment: RECOMMENDATIONS: in red attached

ALL POLICES UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED.

• Publication Scheme: awaiting legal advice.

• Grant policy: Cllr Pugh revising & make recommendations to Sept Finance Committee.

• Co-Option policy & procedures: Cllr Pugh revising & make recommendations to Sept Finance Committee.

Cllr Whitehouse expressed his personal thanks as well as those of Council to Cllr Alan Pugh for his hard work on the policies.

62 Consideration of Local Government Pay Award for Scale 32 from £41,511 to £42,839.00. RECOMMENDATION: In line with statutory guidance from NALC the instruction to change Scale 32 from £41,511 to £42,839.00 was accepted. RESOLUTION: Unanimously approved.

Next meeting of Finance, Legal, Health & Safety Committee Tues Sept 23^rd at 5.30pm Parish Office. Cllr Fisher stated that all members of Council are welcome to attend the meeting and there are current spaces should anyone wish to join. A chair of the committee will be elected at the meeting.

63 Planning.

Approve planning applications received in last month and update on any objections/ developments. Link to September’s planning applications spreadsheet

Cllr Thompson said that everything is business as usual with the main application waiting a decision is for Shenstone Business Park.

Next meeting of the Neighbourhood, Planning & Property Committee Meeting: Tues Oct 28^th, 2025, at 5.30pm Parish Office.

64 Renewable Heating Project: update. Cllr Thompson said

The project is concluding soon.

Three points to outline:

1. the aquifer heat network will not be viable for existing homes, as the infrastructure to existing homes will be too expensive.

2. The aquifer heat network for new homes may be viable, particularly for the Shenstone new build potential, which is designated in the local plan.

3. Thirdly, an outcome that is being discussed with Lichfield District Council is to request new home developers, particularly in large new settlements over the sandstone aquifer, to test the action of a heat network fed by the aquifer, and senior officers as are saying that that will.

65 Bleed kits: update: Cllr Hawes.

Cllr Hawes briefed council on her research of costs of bleed kits & there was general support for the initiative. Cllr Smith was interested in a bleed box being demonstrated & Cllr Nicholls suggested that the bleed box at Stonnall Community Centre would be ideal and that Cllr Cox could assist with the code. RECOMMENDATION: Carry forward to October Full Council where costs can be approved.

66 Speeding & road safety: Cllr McQueen

Cllr McQueen expressed keen interest in being involved in all traffic initiatives combining his role on Council with that of lead of “Shenstone against Speeding”. He is repeatedly asked if there is a strategy and stressed how important it is to have one, to know who makes decisions, when they are being made, costs, next steps?

Cllr Thompson explained how important this is in the neighbourhood plan and Cllr Whitehouse talked about a subgroup of Council members which used to meet but has not done so for some time. But should be resurrected. He pointed out that Cllr Farrell had suggested a meeting with a Highways Officer to look at SID locations & Cllr McQueen is keen to be involved.

Cllr Nicholls referred to an article from the Staffs Parish Council Association where Abbots Bromley PC are asking for feedback on SIDs.

67 St Peters School grant application: consideration of grant request for £900 to enhance peace garden.

Cllr D’Ambrosio. Cllr D’Ambrosio thanked Members for looking at this grant application outside the normal time frame for applications explaining that the peace garden initiative at St. Peters School has had positive progress and now they are looking for funds towards expanding planting for the new term. Cllr Edgley pointed out that the financial breakdown did not tally with the amount requested and the costs quoted for some items seemed excessive. Cllr Smith asked what match funding there was, what maintenance is going to be but with reasonable assurances was happy to go ahead.

Cllr Thompson said there was no detail of a contribution from the school, there were items that were future proofing but not needed now despite it being submitted as an emergency grant.

Cllr Fisher summarised by saying that the grant application should be resubmitted as a Councillor led project and presented with more detail & cost analysis to the September Finance meeting later this month. RESOLUTION: All in favour of resubmission.

68 Neighbourhood plan reviews Shenstone & Stonnall: update & next steps. Cllrs Thompson & Whitehouse.

Cllr Thompson was delighted at the news shared by Cllr Farrell earlier that the Shenstone Neighbourhood Plan has been approved today by Lichfield District Council.

Cllr Whitehouse said that the Stonnall plan has gone to regulation 16 but due to an email issue at Lichfield District Council they have not consulted correctly with the statutory bodies so have requested an extension to 1^st October.

69 Local Government Reorganisation in Staffordshire: update & next steps

Cllr Thompson pointed out that a webinar shared by LDC was attended by Cllrs Whitehouse, Salter & himself and was very insightful but highlights many unknowns and the importance of a cohesive unit of local authorities that are speaking with one voice about statistics that line up.

70 Update on Shenstone Playing Fields Management Committee AGM. Cllrs Thompson & Fisher

Cllr Thompson said that the AGM was excellent with five new volunteers elected to the committee.

71 Next meeting of Full Council at Shenstone Community Library Oct 14^th, 2025, at 7.15pm.