Controversial plans for a sewage treatment plant to serve almost 6,000 new homes will now be ruled on by a government planning inspector.

Developers behind the sprawling Chilmington Green housing project have appealed a council’s decision to reject the scheme as part of the estate in Shadoxhurst, near Ashford.

Ashford Borough Council (ABC) refused the proposals by Hodson Developments in May because it feared the facility would leave neighbours dealing with “intolerable odours”.

An appeal has now been lodged with the Planning Inspectorate by the housebuilders, who previously said a solution to treating wastewater was a vital part of their proposed garden village.

Problems relating to the impact of wastewater on the Stodmarsh Nature Reserve near Canterbury prevented the new estate from using the existing Southern Water facility.

The protected beauty spot has been affected by wastewater run-off from developments across east Kent causing high levels of harmful nitrate and phosphate nutrients.

As a result, Natural England rules insist developers must ensure all schemes in the River Stour catchment area - stretching between Ashford, Canterbury and Hawkinge - are “nutrient neutral”.

This means developers must either install an on-site water treatment facility or offset the impact by providing mitigation measures elsewhere, such as wetlands.

Originally, the latest phase of the Chilmington scheme faced mass objections from locals, with almost 300 registering their views with ABC.

However, planning officers had recommended the scheme be approved.

With the appeal now looming, borough councillor Ray McGeever (Ash Ind, Kingsnorth and Bridgefield) believes a new plan is needed to address wastewater treatment across Ashford as the town continues to expand.

Speaking to KentOnline, he said: “I think we need to look at all the available evidence, see who is impacted in the long run, and determine whether this is going to be a short-term solution to a very long-term problem.

“It has quite a significant impact on everyone downstream, so the effect is not just in planning terms but also in ecological terms.

“There are statutory bodies that have to ensure the developers get this right and that conditions are met.

“This is a test case for many other things, and it needs a solid and robust plan.

“We as a council need to look at the bigger picture because the idea that we are going to have a series of mobile treatment plants doesn’t sound right.”

Cllr McGeever also added he felt an environmental impact assessment was required to increase understanding of the proposed treatment plant's effect on the area.

ABC rejected the proposal on the grounds of pollution, additional noise and odour and visual harm.

However, Hodson Developments believes the local authority lacked sufficient evidence to reinforce its reasons for refusal.

In its appellant letter to the Planning Inspectorate submitted in July, the London-based firm stated: “Regarding the asserted visual harm, the officer’s report explains how screening will help assimilate the proposal into the landscape setting.

“The reality is that the council’s decision is to prevent the development of the Chilmington Green Action Area.

“A detailed explanation of why the proposed tanks would not give rise to harm from odour was set out in the officer’s report, and the impact could be covered by a condition.

“It is clear that with respect to both odour and noise, the generalised and inaccurate assertions of noise and odour impacts are not supported by any objective analysis.

“In the absence of other technical evidence to contradict that which led to the conclusions in the officer’s report, the decision to refuse was clearly unreasonable.”

The council rejected Hodson’s plan to use a seasonal stream in the River Beult as a run-off for the development once wastewater had been treated in the on-site tanks.

But this raised eyebrows amid concerns there is a lack of flowing water in the watercourse to carry the effluent throughout the year.

Concerns were also raised over the lack of work on upgrades to Chart Road – a Section 106 requirement of the original 5,750-home application.

The project is supposed to provide vital improvements to the section of the A28 between the Matalan and “Tank” roundabouts in Ashford.

However, Hodson previously submitted an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate that seeks to vary or delete a significant number of its current requirements in its Section 106 agreement.

Money for the highway changes is supposed to be available when 400 homes have residents, which is on the horizon as currently 300 are occupied.

When the project to relieve the heavily congested route was first announced, it was set to cost £26.2 million, but “inflationary pressures” have now raised this to £30m.

Find out about planning applications that affect you by visiting the Public Notice Portal.

ABC also raised concerns earlier about the lack of work on the bypass, expressing a loss of confidence in the developers after work was supposed to begin in 2018 and scores of trees were felled along the stretch in preparation.

A decision on Hodson’s appeal over the water treatment scheme is expected by the Planning Inspectorate later this year.

ABC said it would not comment on the appeal until the outcome of the appeal had been published.

Hodson has been approached for comment.