A bid for 25 homes and a new school car park in a Kent village has been set back as villagers fear “becoming yet another ugly urban sprawl”.

The plans for a housing block in School Lane, Newington, were rejected by Swale council’s planning committee last year, with the committee saying it “would represent unjustified and unnecessary residential development within the countryside”.

This time round, council planning officers recommended the scheme be approved, arguing “the proposed development would provide additional housing, both market and affordable”.

But councillors have now decided they want to visit the site before making a decision.

Developers Fernham Homes had launched an appeal against the initial refusal, which was to be heard last month, and argued that council's lack of a five-year housing supply meant the authority needed to change its approach to the plans.

On October 19 last year, the local authority voted to delay consultation on its Local Plan until the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill receives Royal Assent, which the interim head of planning told members could result in a delay of up to 18 months in identifying sites and delivering housing.

Fernham Homes argued in planning paperwork lodged with the council that this “weighs in favour of granting planning permission for the development.”

Referring to the latest application, council officers also wrote: “The size of the scheme is useful in terms of the Five Year Housing Land Supply, as the 25 units would likely take no more than 18 months to two years to complete – resulting in an almost immediate positive impact on supply.

“Getting the borough back above five years would be a major achievement; placing it back in control over schemes not complying with the local plan.”

Of the 25 homes, 10 would be affordable, and 15 at market rate, with nine detached houses, 10 semi-detached, and six terraced.

As well as the 25 homes, a new car park is also proposed for staff and parents at Newington C of E Primary School, boasting 40 spaces – 20 for staff and 20 for pick-ups and drop-offs.

In documents lodged with the council, the developers say: “The parking / drop-off area is needed because the existing school grounds are constrained and do not provide sufficient car parking for staff, nor allow a safe zone for parents to drop off their children.”

Regarding the houses themselves, Fernham Homes describe their plans for a “low density and high quality 25 unit residential scheme with locally reflective building materials.”

The development has proved controversial, with 55 people writing to the local authority to object.

They included Irene Layer, who wrote to the Swale council’s planning department, saying: “There are enough houses in this corner of the village without more cars causing havoc.

“The school is already full and villagers have to drive further away.”

“The school is already full and villagers have to drive further away.”

Resident Jill Sidders wrote: “Local people neither want nor need further developments in our village.

“Houses are frequently for sale in the village, so there is no need for yet more development.

“There have been too many developments already, greatly to the detriment of the character of the village.

“Newington is already in severe danger of becoming yet another ugly urban sprawl, of benefit to nobody but avaricious developers.”

Elizabeth Fagg-Shuttlewood wrote to the committee about her fears that this would be the first step to even more development.

She said: “Developers are getting round large developments being stopped by instead applying for them in smaller drips.

“Twenty-five first gets through, then another 30 next to it and so on, but the overall accumulative effect is the same as a big development being built.”

Peter Woolley echoed these concerns, arguing in a letter: “Once those houses are approved, the floodgates are opened for a push to develop the whole field, and others nearby.”

He also expressed fears about environmental damage from the development, adding: “The beneficial effects of nature on mental health stand in contrast to the detrimental (mental health) effects caused by the destruction of nature, our suffocation brick by brick, and the non-consensual blighting of our community.”

At the meeting of the council's planning committee on Thursday, March 9, councillors voted to defer the application pending a visit to the site.

Members want to better assess the impact of the development on the landscape before making a final decision.