Protected green space status leads to refusal of Downing Gardens housing plan

Stafford Borough Council has refused an application to build three houses on protected green space between Downing Gardens and Friars Avenue in Walton.

The application (25/40223/OUT), submitted by JRJ Homes, sought outline permission for three detached homes with off-road parking. The plans involved the removal of four mature trees covered by a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) and would have resulted in the near-total loss of a long-standing area of open space at the centre of the estate.

The proposal faced strong public opposition and was officially refused by planning officers on 19th May 2025.

Protected status key to refusal

Planning officers concluded that the land forms part of both the Local Green Infrastructure (LGI 05) and Local Green Space (LGS 09) designations within the Stone Neighbourhood Plan. These protections carry significant weight and were central to the refusal.

The council’s report stated that the proposal was “unacceptable in principle” and that the applicant had not demonstrated any justification for building on the protected space. It also found that the development would conflict with national and local policies, including:

• Policy C7 of the Plan for Stafford Borough (open space protection)
• Policies CAF2, CAF4 and CAF5 of the Stone Neighbourhood Plan (green space and infrastructure)
• Paragraph 104 of the National Planning Policy Framework

The decision notice outlined five separate reasons for refusal, including harm to community amenity, loss of protected trees, and failure to demonstrate the legally required 10% biodiversity net gain. The application’s biodiversity report showed a projected 23.1% loss.

What is a “call-in” and what happened here?

The application was initially subject to a call-in request by Councillor Jill Hood, Ward Member for Walton. In planning terms, a “call-in” allows a local councillor to ask for an application to be decided by the Planning Committee, rather than being handled by council officers under delegated powers. This is often used when there are significant concerns or public interest.

However, after planning officers confirmed that their recommendation would be to refuse the application, Cllr Hood withdrew the call-in. In her email to planning officers, she wrote:

“As the application recommendation is refusal, I withdraw my call in.”

This meant the application was refused directly by officers without going to committee.

Community and expert objections

The application received 94 public objections, many raising concerns about the loss of a valuable community space, increased traffic, and damage to local biodiversity. The land has been described in planning reports as a “central focal point” of the estate, with residents highlighting its importance for wellbeing, recreation, and local wildlife.

Stone Town Council also submitted a formal objection, referencing the land’s protected status and stating the development would be “contrary to national policy on promoting healthy and safe communities”

Additional objections were lodged by:

• The Tree Officer, who stated the removal of TPO-protected trees was “unacceptable” and that the remaining tree would be under pressure for removal due to overshadowing and root damage
• The Biodiversity Officer, who found that the applicant failed to submit an adequate ecological appraisal
• The Highways Authority, which raised concerns about driveway widths, parking provision, and the lack of visibility splays in the indicative layout

A clear outcome

Although the borough currently lacks a five-year housing land supply, planning officers emphasised that this does not override the protections afforded to the site under the Neighbourhood Plan and national planning guidance.

In their final report, officers concluded:

“The development site is located within a sustainable location. However, developing the local green space and local green infrastructure for market housing would eliminate a social asset without demonstrating sufficient justification.”

The application was refused on five policy-based grounds, and no appeal has yet been lodged.