Residents vow to fight green belt plans

News imageLDRS A man stands in front of a packed room of people all sat on chairs, watching him speak into a microphone while holding a piece of paper.LDRS
Residents packed out a meeting to discuss the planning proposal which would see 3,000 homes built on green belt land

Residents have vowed to continue fighting plans to earmark green belt land for 3,000 homes.

The 113 hectare site in Lightwood, Stoke-on-Trent, called site BL1, is now the single largest housing allocation in the city council's draft local plan.

Thousands of residents objected to the site's inclusion during a consultation last year, raising concerns over the loss of green belt land and the impact on wildlife and local roads, but the city council has kept the site allocation unchanged in the latest version of the draft plan.

Lightwood Community Group organised a public meeting to discuss the local plan on Wednesday night, with residents' opposition remaining undimmed.

Community group leaders urged residents to respond to the new consultation.

Group chair David Evans told the meeting: "We probably put in close to 2,500 objections during the first consultation. But the council have not listened and they haven't reduced the allocation by a single house.

"So what we're saying now is we've got to fight, we've got to be fact-based, we have to put arguments forward that people will listen to."

Cocknage resident Lorraine Zutshi said that a development of 3,000 homes would generate more than 7,000 car trips a day, create demand for 1,140 school places and 47,000 extra GP appointments.

Zutshi added: "One of the reasons I moved here was because I really valued the green space and the nature around us.

"We understand that more homes are needed, but when you look around Stoke-on-Trent, it baffles me why we can't build on more brownfield sites, and build up not out."

News imageLDRS A green field with lots of trees as pictured from behind a fence.LDRS
There are plans to build 3,000 homes on the 113 hectare site in Lightwood, Stoke-on-Trent

Sadaqat Maqsoom, councillor for Lightwood North and Normacot, said: "If this site remains in the plan it will fundamentally change our community.

"The plan talks about protecting the environment, and yet it proposes building on green belt.

"It talks about sustainable development, and yet residents continue to raise concerns about infrastructure, traffic and local services. These are the issues we must ask the planning inspector to examine carefully."

Stoke-on-Trent South MP Allison Gardner has previously called for the council to draw up a masterplan for the Lightwood site, as it has done for Packmoor.

The local plan, once adopted, will guide all development in Stoke-on-Trent up to 2040, showing where about 19,000 homes will be built.

News imageA close-up of a woman with shoulder-length silver hair, wearing a black jacket, white shirt and dark-rimmed glasses.
Stoke-on-Trent South MP Allison Gardner has raised the development in Parliament

Council leaders say the plan aims to strike a balance between providing enough homes for Stoke-on-Trent's needs and protecting the city's green spaces.

A council spokesperson said: "Unfortunately, due to the high housing demands in Stoke-on-Trent, and the government's desire to deliver 1.5m new homes, options such as BL1 – as well as the large number of brownfield sites identified – need to remain in the draft plan.

"While we understand the call for a council-led masterplan for Lightwood, at this early stage in the process we do not believe it a reasonable use of taxpayer's money to fund and draft a highly detailed masterplan for land that is mostly privately owned.

"However, this does not mean infrastructure will be left to chance. The emerging local plan already places strict policies on the Lightwood allocation."

The council will launch a second round of consultation on 3 August, with a planning inspector set to carry out a public inquiry into the local plan next year.

Follow BBC Stoke & Staffordshire on BBC Sounds, Facebook, X and Instagram.