Residents have launched a petition to try and bring a halt to a "back garden" development.

Those living in Second Avenue, Gillingham, have spent the last five years campaigning against development of the former Avenue Tennis club site.

The plans put forward by the Jarvis family, who own the land and the Avenue Tennis club in Featherby Road, have been refused four times.

Central to councillors' rejection of the plans were what they called a "cramped" over development, and the possible detrimental impact it would have on neighbours in terms of overlooking and pressure on street parking.

The last time proposals for six homes were considered was in August, and there are currently two appeals under way.

The plans have been controversial, with residents wanting to protect the open space; in 2019, they took to the streets to stage a protest.

The Upper Gillingham Residents' Association has launched a petition to designate the site as an Asset Community of Community Value (ACV).

Under the Localism Act 2011, communities can nominate land or buildings as ACVs if they believe they further social wellbeing.

The designation means the site gets registered with the council and if it comes up for sale, the interested party will be given a fair chance to bid for it.

They can choose to use the Community Right to Bid, which gives them six months to see if they can raise enough funds to make the purchase.

Ward councillors Chrissy Stamp (Lab), who is backing the campaign, said: "Residents really do want it as an ACV.

"It's building three houses and four car parking spaces in a back garden and a lot of the time it's unacceptable to have one house built in a back garden.

"The community has been fantastic, they have all pulled together to object to this and they are determined that it's not going to be built on.

"If you look at the whole planning application from the start to where we are now, they're [the applicant] is just going to all lengths to build in a back garden and it's totally unacceptable."

Louise Fish, whose property would back on to the development, said: "I think it's quite stressful because we bought this house as we had a lovely view out the back and we were not overlooked.

Having lived in the road for four years, she fears how further development would impact her ability to sell the house.

She added: "The light that comes into this house isn't amazing and if there's going to be houses built on the tennis courts, it's going to be like living in a goldfish bowl.

"In a residential street, you like to have a bit of privacy and not be overlooked and now if it goes ahead it's going to be awful.

The Jarvis family were approached for comment.

Rehman Chishti MP – clarification

In recent stories about the ongoing application to build homes on land owned by Jarvis Residential (Medway) Ltd in Gillingham we stated that MP Rehman Chishti had apologised for breaking parliamentary rules regarding a “conflict of interest” on the matter.

This was incorrect. Mr Chishti was, in fact, cleared of this by the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner who found that his representations were “made after a consideration of the public interest and was objectively in line the public interest”.

The full relevant paragraph from the publicly available Commissioner’s report can be read below: “Taking into account all of this information, I am satisfied that your support for Jarvis Residential Ltd’s planning application was made after a consideration of the public interest and was objectively in line the public interest.

"I am also satisfied that there is no information available to support the suggestion that your support for the application was due to a private interest.

"Accordingly, I do not find a breach of paragraph 11 of the Code.” On a separate point, regarding the adequacy of Mr Chishti’s declaration, Mr Chishti had made a declaration in his representations which he felt was appropriate at the time in line with the rules of the Parliamentary Code of Conduct.

The Parliamentary Standards Commissioner accepted that Mr Chishti had made a declaration, however, the Commissioner found that the declaration needed to be clearer.

The Commissioner accepted this explanation and remedial action was taken.

KentOnline is happy to clarify this matter and apologises for any distress caused.