Controversial plans for a 2,000-home “rural settlement” on the outskirts of Canterbury have been branded a “dog’s breakfast” by concerned villagers.

Land owned by cash-strapped University of Kent to the north of its city campus has been earmarked for a huge development in the district’s new draft Local Plan.

In the document - which covers housebuilding up to 2040 - Canterbury City Council (CCC) proposes building the sprawling estate on a site between the villages of Tyler Hill, Blean and Rough Common

The 2,000 homes make up more than a fifth of the 9,346 included in the latest version of the draft Local Plan, which has been put out for public consultation by the Labour-Lib Dem administration.

The previous version - published under the Conservatives in 2022 - earmarked plots for 13,496 homes up to 2045, but the university-owned site was not among them.

Its inclusion in the new plan has sparked a fierce backlash, with many villagers joining a fiery gathering on Thursday night to debate the divisive vision.

About 60 residents packed into the Hackington Parish Council meeting at the Tyler Hill Memorial Hall.

Parish council chair Ania Bobrowicz told them: “As many of you know, the University of Kent owns a lot of land around here. It is also in very serious financial difficulties.

“To say that we are dismayed by these plans is probably an understatement.”

The land was put forward for potential development by the university, which recently announced cuts to courses and jobs.

The site has now been considered viable by CCC for a “highly sustainable, freestanding settlement” of about 2,000 homes, including a new primary school and a replacement for the existing Blean Primary School.

The authority says it wants to create a “complete, compact and well-connected neighbourhood, where everyday needs can be met within a 15-minute walk or short cycle”.

Villager John Reilly, who has lived in Tyler Hill for more than 50 years, told the meeting London-based property firms have already been in touch with local parishes intending to “soften up local opposition”.

Cllr Bobrowicz confirmed representatives of global real estate advisor Avison Young - which is acting as a planning consultant for the university - have emailed offering presentations to locals on the possibilities for the new development.

But city councillor for the area Alex Ricketts (Lib Dem) attended the meeting, telling residents: “It doesn’t mean a thing will or won’t happen just because it’s in the Local Plan.

“The University of Kent was always probably going to submit land.”

However, he did stress that the council is subject to government targets for housebuilding: “These targets have always been advisory, but try to not meet them and they will be imposed on you,” he said.

County councillor for the area Cllr Rob Thomas (Con) added: “If you don’t have a Local Plan it is kind of bedlam.”

When local councils do not build enough houses to hit government targets or fail to produce a Local Plan, central government can force them to accept more housing in places that would ordinarily be refused.

Cllr John Lovery told the attendees he went to a Blean Parish Council meeting earlier in the week to discuss the plans, saying: “Quite simply put, it’s a dog’s breakfast. People took the view it was a complete mess.”

He then asked the room “is there anyone here who thinks it’s a good idea?” and was met with silence, despite one local urging someone to speak up “if you’re brave enough”.

The council says its vision for the site will provide “important opportunities to create large new areas of open spaces, creating significant separation from Blean and Tyler Hill”.

But John Reilly says he is not convinced the proposed new settlement will not significantly impact the surrounding villages.

“I’m very distressed by it,” he told KentOnline after the meeting.

“The impact of such a large community alongside two quite small villages will be quite damaging to the environment.”

He was also unconvinced by arguments about housing targets, saying: “The targets are bogus.

“I think that here, whatever they say, Canterbury can’t actually sustain the sheer volume and numbers of all the development.

“It’s going to be an urban settlement, not a rural settlement.”

Susan Sullivan, who has lived in Tyler Hill for 34 years, told the LDRS it feels like developers “are not really interested in what the future will be for the people who live here, they’re just looking at money”.

Official government targets are for 300,000 houses to be built across the country every year.

Ms Sullivan continued: “We need houses but I think it’s out of proportion with the area.

“Evolution is better than revolution and this is a revolution of a type.”

Villager and local yoga instructor June King added: “I know housing is a problem, I know people have to live somewhere, but you want to feel that you’re being listened to and I think sometimes you feel you’re not.

“They don’t care; they just want to build houses, and they’re not really that worried about the people that live in these places.”

The draft Local Plan was published on March 1 and put out to public consultation by the council’s cabinet committee 10 days later.

It will run until June 3, with residents able to give their views online and by post.

Once the consultation ends, the council will revisit some of the proposals in light of the feedback, then put it out for consultation again before presenting it to the government’s Planning Inspectorate by June 30, 2025.

The Inspectorate has the final say on the plan, and could send CCC back to the drawing board if it does not meet key criteria such as housing targets - though the council’s proposals do satisfy the numbers asked for.

A spokesman for the University of Kent said: “We’re pleased to be supporting development of a new freestanding settlement for around 2,000 homes on unused land to the north of our campus.

“Canterbury has a critical need for more housing stock and this allocation would help the city council to address this, freeing up land on our estate to the wider benefit of the local community, while enabling the university to generate funding for further investment in its core educational offer.

“We are keen to hear from local stakeholders on this and will be proactively engaging with key groups in areas affected by the plans to get as full an understanding as possible of their interests.”