Staffordshire Councillors refuse plans for 170 homes - here's where

Gleeson Regeneration wanted to build the homes, including 43 affordable properties, on a mostly brownfield site off Slacken Lane, on the edge of Kidsgrove.

Planning officers at Newcastle Borough Council said that while the development was acceptable in principle, there were a number of problems that prevented it from being recommended for approval. Members of the planning committee voted unanimously to refuse the application at their meeting on Tuesday.

Part of the 5.9-hectare site was previously developed but it has not been used in decades and is now overgrown with trees and scrub. Officers said the applicant had failed to demonstrate how safe access to the development could be achieved via the narrow and unadopted Slacken Lane.

They also raised concerns over the density of the proposed scheme, the loss of mature trees, drainage of the site, and the noise impact on existing houses. Talke and Butt Lane councillor Sylvia Diamond spoke against the plans at the meeting and reiterated these issues.

She said: “Highway safety is a paramount concern. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that a safe and suitable means of access to the site can be achieved. The proposed access route via Slacken lane is inadequate, with varying widths and poor conditions, lacking segregated footways and lighting.

“Secondly, the proposed development does not meet the standards of high quality residential design. The high density of the development combined with parking-dominated layouts and excessive hardstanding results in an overly urban character which is out of place within the surrounding suburban area.”

Slacken Lane resident Frank Lafferty raised similar concerns. He told the committee that as a former police motorcyclist, he had first-hand experience of access to Slacken Lane being completely blocked due to major traffic incidents or abnormal load movements on Congleton Road.

Liam O’Sullivan, speaking on behalf of the applicants, requested that the committee defer making a decision, saying that it would be possible to resolve the reasons for refusal through further discussions with officers.

Mr O’Sullivan said: “Gleeson Homes focuses on bringing forward brownfield and technically challenging sites, enabling the provision of homes that are affordable to local people. This site was once comprised of colliery spoil and is within the urban area, surrounded by a built environment. It contains mineshafts and contamination which if left undeveloped will present unresolved public health issues, continued fly-tipping and anti-social behaviour. Our proposal would decontaminate the site and provide 170 homes for local people.”

But officers said the issues with the development were ‘fundamental’ which could not be resolved through further information, and that deferral would only ‘delay the inevitable’.

Councillor Andrew Fear proposed following the officer recommendation to refuse permission, but said it was ‘with a heavy heart’. He said: “On the face of it this is an ideal site for development. The council has tried very hard to develop on brownfield whenever possible, but as our officer has outlined, with this proposal there seems to be some insurmountable problems.

“There are not problems that can be fixed, given where we are. I was in particular concerned about the highways issues. Here we have a road which is clearly sub-standard for the size of development that we’re looking at.”