Up to 72 homes at Land Between Trent Canal And Old Road, Barlaston

What was proposed

Outline permission was sought for up to 72 homes, with access from Old Road and a pedestrian link to the canal towpath.

“25/40885/OUT - 2 1.3 The site is in an area classified as being ‘low risk’ by The Mining Remediation Authority and within a green impact risk zone for great crested newts. The site is also within the impact risk zone of the Kings and Hargreaves Woods SSSI (site of special scientific interest). The Trent and Mersey Canal Conservation Area encompasses the canal and associated towpaths to the east.”

“The footway along Old Road would be widened to 2m between the proposed access and Brookhouse Drive to the south. A single pedestrian access is proposed to the east to link to the Trent and Mersey Canal towpath.”

Officer report

The site and its setting

The 3.85-hectare site lies outside Barlaston’s settlement boundary, within the North Staffordshire Green Belt, beside the canal and agricultural land.

“REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE This application has been called in by Councillor E G Jones (Ward Member for Barlaston) for the following reasons:- - Development outside of the Barlaston Plan - Development in the Green Belt. CONTEXT 1.0 Site and surroundings 1.1 The application site comprises a parcel of land measuring approximately 3.85ha. The site is immediately north of Brookhouse Drive and to the east of Old Road. To the west of the site is the Trent and Mersey Canal.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

An earlier application for 42 affordable homes was refused in July 2022, while officers said housing policy and supply circumstances had since changed.

“25/40885/OUT - 3 • Landscape visual appraisal 3.0 Background 3.1 An earlier application, reference 21/33687/FUL, for 42 affordable dwellings was refused in July 2022, however national and local planning policy has changed significantly since that time with the introduction of ‘grey belt’ and changes to the way housing land supply is calculated resulting Stafford Borough Council no longer being able to demonstrate such provision.”

Officer report

Why officers supported it

Officers considered the site grey belt and sustainable, with housing benefits outweighing likely heritage harm and other concerns subject to conditions and a legal agreement.

“25/40885/OUT - 6 GB7 (i) - (Grey belt and GB2 purpose (d)) 5.11 The application site does not adjoin a historic town and, furthermore, Planning Practice Guidance is clear that this applies to towns and not other locations (i.e. villages). The site, therefore, does not make a strong contribution to the preservation of the setting and special character of any historic town.”

“The proposed development is for up to 72 dwellings and, therefore, any approval should be subject to a s106 agreement to secure that 50% of dwellings (up to 36 dwellings) are affordable. With regard to policy GB8 (1)(b), it is considered that there are necessary improvements to local infrastructure with regard to the highway network, public transport provision, open space, sports provision, and healthcare provision.”

Officer report

What residents and councils said

Residents, parish councils and elected representatives objected over green belt loss, flooding, traffic, character, ecology, facilities and housing need.

“25/40885/OUT - 36 Barlaston Parish Council: (Comments dated 8 October 2025): Objection. - Inappropriate development in the green belt. - The site is not previously developed land and there are not very special circumstances in which development should be allowed. - Precedent for further inappropriate development in the green belt. - Challenge the viability of vacant allocated housing sites within Barlaston.”

“25/40885/OUT - 37 - Previously developed land should be given priority. - The site is not grey belt land - development would undermine the continuity of green belt between Stone and Stoke-on-Trent. - There is no evidence to demonstrable unmet need for housing in the area cannot be met by utilising non-green belt sites. - The development would be harmful to the green belt and there are no very special circumstances.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A public speaker supported the application, and the Ward Member’s prepared statement was read aloud by Councillor M G Dodson.

The committee vote

Councillors voted to refuse the application after a refusal motion was proposed and seconded.

“The Ward Member, Councillor E G R Jones, was unable to attend the meeting but had prepared a statement, read aloud by Councillor M G Dodson. Councillor S N Spencer proposed that the application be refused as the application site makes a strong contribution to the purposes of the green belt in checking the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas (Policy GB2 of the NPPF) and therefore can not be considered a grey belt site. This was seconded by Councillor R A James.”

Minutes