Up to 5 homes at Land West Of Old Road, Barlaston

What was proposed

Permission in Principle was sought for residential development of up to five dwellings, with detailed design and technical matters left for a later application.

“REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE The application has been called in by Councillor G Jones, Ward Member for Barlaston, for the following reason: “Development on green field designated land.” Site and Surroundings 1.1 The application site forms an irregular shaped parcel of land to the west and rear of 9-19 Old Road in Barlaston. The site is accessed from Old Road via an existing lane that includes a Public Right of Way between 19-21 Old Road.”

“25/40919/PIP - 2 2.2 The applicant is not required or expected at permission in principle stage to supply any detailed plans in regard to proposal. However, the planning statement has advised that the proposed dwellings would be bungalows, utilising a design and materials which would be compatible with the character and appearance of the surrounding area, but reserved to the Technical Details Consent stage.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Earlier proposals for detached homes on the site were refused or had appeals dismissed in 1987, 1996, 2005 and 2016.

“25/40919/PIP - 26 8.3 Neighbours (104 consulted): 68 responses received raising the following objections: - Barlaston is a village and no new homes are needed. - Traffic on Old Road is already bad. - Impact on infrastructure such as water, electricity, school places, doctors, dentists, etc. - Brownfield land should be prioritised. - Should not develop Green Belt land. - Encroach into open countryside, harming the openness and character of the area.”

“25/40919/PIP - 27 96/33207/OUT - Erection Of One Detached Dwelling - Appeal dismissed 23 December 1996 04/03056/FUL - Erection of a detached one and a half storey dwelling and detached garage with ancillary access and garden space.”

Officer report

Objections to the proposal

The parish council, neighbours and a county councillor objected over Green Belt development, settlement boundaries, traffic, infrastructure, flooding, wildlife and housing need.

“25/40919/PIP - 23 8.0 Consultations 8.1 Barlaston Parish Council Response received 26 August 2025 Objection on the following grounds The proposed development lies on agricultural land within the Green Belt and outside the settlement boundary as defined in the current, made Barlaston Neighbourhood Plan (2019–2031). The Neighbourhood Plan remains valid and is presently under review, with consultation due to commence shortly.”

“25/40919/PIP - 25 o Does not strongly contribute to Green Belt purposes: ▪ Checking sprawl of large built up areas (Barlaston is a village, not a town) ▪ Preventing towns from merging ▪ Preserving the setting of historic towns - Development would not fundamentally undermine the wider purposes of the Green Belt. - NPPF paragraph 155 tests (a) Grey belt: Site meets the definition. (b) Demonstrable need: Lack of a 5 year housing land supply demonstrates unmet housing need.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A member of the public spoke against the proposal after further objections were reported and an additional plan was displayed.

What members discussed

Members discussed how the land should be classified and the siting of an attenuation pond before proposing refusal.

“The Committee subsequently discussed the application and raised a number of points, including:- • Classification of the land in question • Siting of attenuation pond Councillor R A James subsequently moved and Councillor A J Sandiford seconded that the application be refused on the basis of its location, as ‘The proposed development site lies within the North Staffordshire Green Belt.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee refused the application because it found the site did not meet the grey belt criteria, making the proposal inappropriate Green Belt development without very special circumstances.

“No very special circumstances have been demonstrated that would clearly outweigh the harm identified. The proposal is therefore contrary to the provisions of the NPPF in relation to the protection of the Green Belt, and is unacceptable in principle’. On being put to the vote the proposal to approve the application was declared to be carried. RESOLVED:- that planning application No 25/40919/PIP be refused for the reason as set out above.”

Minutes