Council chiefs have unveiled an updated planning blueprint for 19,000 homes – with less development now proposed for Green Belt sites.

Stoke-on-Trent City Council has published the latest version of its local plan, which includes several changes following public consultation on the original draft plan last year.

Once adopted, the local plan will guide all development in Stoke-on-Trent up to the year 2040, earmarking sites for housing, employment and other uses.

The original draft plan controversially allocated 10,499 homes to 11 'broad locations' in the Green Belt, which resulted in thousands of objections from the public.

Under the revised plan, the council is still proposing to remove 11 sites from the Green Belt, but the number of homes allocated to them has been reduced to 7,917.

A number of additional brownfield sites have also been added to the plan, including the former Mitchell High School site in Bucknall – earmarked for 234 homes.

The new plan will be subject to a further round of consultation in the summer, before it is submitted to the government for examination.

Councillor Finlay Gordon-McCusker, cabinet member for growth, regeneration and transport, said: "This plan is about making growth work for the people who live here.

"That means putting infrastructure first – the roads, transport and community facilities that make new homes an asset to a neighbourhood, not a burden on it.

"Thousands of residents took the time to have their say, and their feedback has genuinely changed this plan: more brownfield sites, less Green Belt release, and local green spaces protected for good. That is exactly how it should work.

"When the next consultation opens this summer, I would encourage everyone to take part – because in this city, your voice shapes the plan."

Council leader Jane Ashworth said: "The proposed Local Plan is our blueprint for delivering economic growth, jobs, regeneration and renewal. Complemented by improved public transport, infrastructure and community amenities, it has enormous potential to unlock the vast potential we know this city has to offer."

The council received more than 6,347 comments on the draft local plan during last year's consultation, with most of these objecting to the proposed development in the Green Belt.

Two Green Belt sites to the north and south of Norton Green were originally earmarked for more than 3,000 homes in the draft local plan. Under the revised plan, this allocation has been reduced to 520 across the two sites.

Dave Evans, Conservative councillor for Baddeley, Milton and Norton, believes this are still too many homes for the area.

He said: "Norton Green is a rural hamlet. There are only 500 homes there at the moment, so it will be completely swamped by another 500 homes, and it has no shops or services.

"And the Norton Green North site is made up of fields that separate Norton Green from Norton and Ball Green – if you build homes there they won't be three different communities any more.

"I always thought that 3,000 homes was a very optimistic target, even for the city council. I have a suspicion that they used that figure just so that they could tell residents that they listened, when they haven't really."

Cllr Evans also feels the council is not providing residents with enough information about the 'broad locations' in the Green Belt, such as where exactly homes could be built.

Another controversial Green Belt site at Lightwood has still been earmarked for 3,000 homes – the single biggest allocation.

Baddeley Edge, which had been allocated 60 homes, has now been removed from the plan, while a new 'broad location' off Stone Road has been allocated 72 homes.

New brownfield site allocations include Stonehaven Grove in Hanley (45 homes), and the Minton Hollins site in Stoke (195 homes). A new greenfield site off Magdalen Road in Blurton has been earmarked for 122 homes.

Next Tuesday cabinet members will be asked to approve the latest plan for a public consultation, to be carried out in August and September. This so-called regulation 19 consultation will be limited to comments on the 'soundness' of the plan's policies.