Controversial plans to develop farmland next to a village have sparked a 'crisis of confidence' in a council, campaigners say.

Stoke-on-Trent City Council is drawing up a masterplan for Packmoor, which could see up to 800 homes built on council-owned greenfield land to the west of the village.

The site has also been earmarked for housing in the council's draft local plan. A total of 1,334 people signed a petition calling on the city council to abandon the plans, which they say will harm the environment, place extra pressure on local road and services, and erode Packmoor's village identity.

Council leaders insist Stoke-on-Trent desperately needs new homes and say the masterplan will be an opportunity to make Packmoor a better place to live.

But lead petitioner Darren Bamford told scrutiny committee members that the council had so far failed to listen to local residents' concerns.

Speaking to the housing, regeneration and operations scrutiny committee, Mr Bamford said the community's lived experience was one of 'disengagement, unanswered correspondence and declined requests for meetings'.

He said: "Local residents and neighbouring communities stand united against the proposed masterplan. The strength of feeling is so profound that ward councillor David Mountford felt compelled to resign from the Labour Party to stand with his residents.

"This is no longer just a planning debate, it's a crisis of confidence in how the city is governed.

"There is a widespread, persistent perception that planning decisions are being driven by national party priorities with insufficient challenge to central government, despite the detrimental effects it will have on established communities like Packmoor."

Mr Bamford said campaigners had compiled a 'substantial body of evidence' against the Packmoor masterplan, including a 2019 housing land assessment which classed the site as not deliverable, with more than 150 brownfield sites available elsewhere in the city.

He posed a series of questions relating to the Packmoor masterplan, and suggested the council is targeting the village because of its previous failure to develop enough brownfield land.

Mr Bamford added: "Most troubling is the repeated assertion that the council is listening, and at the same time saying doing nothing is not an option – a position that strongly suggests that the outcome has already been pre-determined.

"The cabinet report clearly sets out three option, including doing nothing. If doing nothing was not a valid option, it would not appear in the report. It therefore remains a live option today."

Finlay Gordon-McCusker, cabinet member for regeneration, said that doing nothing was 'technically an option', but claimed this would lead to 'stagnation and decline'.

But he insisted that the council is listening to residents, and that the masterplan approach would mean new housing will have sufficient infrastructure.

Cllr Gordon-McCusker said: "I welcome the strength of feeling on this from residents and that's why throughout this whole process we've tried to ensure that consultation is embedded and we get as much feedback from the community as possible.

"I am clear, as the cabinet member, that the city needs homes. There's a housing crisis in this city. I'm trying to ensure that development is done properly, but not pretend that it can be avoided.

"I've been very clear that we can't just build thousands of houses without the necessary infratructure. I think in the past development has taken place without proper infrastructure, and we've seen the consequences of that.

"That's why I believe a masterplanning exercise is far preferable to just giving carte blanche to developers."

Cllr Gordon-McCusker also said it is 'unfair' to claim the council is not developing brownfield sites, giving the examples of Booth Street in Stoke and Pyenest Street in Shelton.

He told the committee that the petition and the evidence provided by the campaigners would be considered, but he said the masterplan was still considered the best way forward.

Committee members voted to refer Mr Bamford's presentation to cabinet for review and asked for his questions to be answered in writing.