Council leaders in Stoke-on-Trent have backed controversial plans to build up to 816 homes on greenfield land – despite continuing opposition from residents.

The Packmoor masterplan earmarks 24 hectares of council-owned farmland outside the village for residential development.

Cabinet members at Stoke-on-Trent City Council voted to proceed with the masterplan at their meeting on Tuesday, rejecting an alternative 'do nothing' option.

The decision comes after several rounds of consultation with residents in Packmoor and Great Chell, who overwhelmingly opposed any development.

Cabinet members said that while they had listened to the public, building homes on the land will be better for the city as a whole.

Before making the decision, the cabinet was told that a complaint received in relation to the Packmoor consultation is currently being considered by the council, with the complainant requesting for the decision to be deferred until the matter has been dealt with.

But monitoring officer Jame Doble said that there was 'no legal impediment' to prevent the cabinet making a decision.

The authority will now look to sign up a 'master developer' to draw up detailed plans for the site – no development will take place until planning applications are approved, which will mean further public consultation.

Councillor Finlay Gordon-McCusker, cabinet member for regeneration, insisted that the masterplan included proposals to address concerns raised by residents, including investment in local roads and improved access to green spaces, with 70 per cent of the whole site being left undeveloped.

But he told the cabinet meeting that Stoke-on-Trent needed more homes, and that would mean building on some greenfield sites.

Cllr Gordon-McCusker said: "The city is not building enough homes. Over the last few years we've been building fewer than 500 homes a year, which isn't what our city needs. That's just a simple statement of truth. There are 3,500 people on our housing register. There are people who are not able to buy a home close to where they grew up.

"Brownfield first is and always has been the policy of this administration. But even if we everything we can to develop brownfield sites, that won't be enough to meet our housing needs and so we have to look at some greenfield sites as well.

"Choosing the 'do nothing' option for Packmoor won't remove that need for housing. It would just mean we'd have to find land somewhere else, either greenfield sites or Green Belt sites.

"I don't bring this to you as the popular choice, I bring it to you as the right one."

Cabinet members voted unanimously in favour of the the development option.

Councillor Sarah Hill, cabinet member for finance, said: "We have listened to what residents have said. We've discussed it in our meetings, worried about it and wondered what we could do. But we have to take into account the needs of the whole city. We're not building enough houses."

Following the latest round of consultation earlier this year, officers recommended discarding other options that would have involved building on historic 'ridge and furrow' land and football pitches currently used by Kidsgrove Athletic.

The authority is in talks with Kidsgrove Athletic about a potential relocation, but council leaders insist that the club will never be forced off the land.

The homes at Packmoor is set to include 25 per cent affordable housing, with 'green buffers' separating the development from neighbouring communities. The council also says there will be an £11 million investment in local roads, funded by developers.

Great Chell and Packmoor councillor Dave Mountford, who has backed residents in their opposition to the masterplan, believes the cabinet should not have made a decision while a complaint is still being processed.

He said: "This just vindicates the residents' view that the council was always going to do what it wanted, regardless of any consultation. They've effectively made a decision while the consultation is still ongoing. If the complaint is upheld, that could leave the council in legal trouble.

"I think the cabinet were always going to vote for the masterplan – the 'do nothing' option was just left there to appease residents. They basically said they that they listened to residents objections, but they're going to go ahead anyway, because they know better. It's just top-down politics."