A developer’s plans to build 180 homes on the cusp of a town have been thrown out following protests outside a council building.

New Land & Homes’ proposals for “high quality” houses at Abbey Fields, Faversham, were met with 190 objections before going before planning chiefs on Wednesday.

After protestors amassed outside Swale Borough Council’s offices – equipped with ‘stop the plan-demic’ placards - councillors scrapped the scheme.

Committee members stressed the proposed estate would encroach into the countryside and create loss of agricultural land.

Wendy Clarke, of anti-housing campaign group Farm, Fields & Fresh Air, said before the meeting: “It is the Garden of England which they are concreting over more and more.

“We don’t need these houses, we’ve got enough,” she told the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS).

Speaking outside the SBC building in East Street, fellow protestor Sheenagh Landin-Hunt added: “I work for the NHS, and the NHS in east Kent cannot take any more residents without having bigger hospitals and more staff.”

Inside the council chamber Cllr Julian Saunders (Lab), of Faversham Town Council, spoke against the proposals to applause in the public gallery.

“Councillors, I appreciate you’re under pressure to meet housing targets and avoid planning appeals, but if you support this application you’ll be pushing open the door to similar speculative applications,” he said.

Harold Goodwin, chair of the Faversham Society, also attended to object, saying “This application is being pushed through.

“If you approve this application tonight you will further erode people’s faith in democracy.”

Land just outside Faversham at Abbey Fields has been earmarked for development since 1996, when outline planning permission was granted for 100 homes.

However, a new bid for up to 180 homes also on Abbey Fields was lodged by New Land & Homes in January 2020.

In plans, the developer said: “The development will create up to 180 new dwellings providing a range of high quality homes where people will live and take pride in their environment.”

The goal of the scheme is “to create a sustainable, attractively landscaped neighbourhood extension to the north eastern side of Faversham,” they add.

Of the 180 homes, 72 were slated to be marketed as affordable, including discounted homes for first time buyers.

Swale Borough Council (SBC) planning officers recommended councillors vote for the plans, arguing “The proposed development would provide additional housing both market and 40% affordable adjacent to the settlement boundary of Faversham.”

Prior to the meeting, 190 letters of objection were sent in to SBC’s planning department.

A protest of about 25 people bearing signs saying “stop the plan-demic” and “stop mass housing” gathered outside the SBC offices on June 28 to oppose the bid.

Because SBC does not have a local plan and cannot prove it has five years’ worth of land for housing, the authority has to look more favourably on developments which would usually violate policy.

Cllr James Hunt (Con) was the only councillor on the committee to vocally back the bid, citing the council’s lack of a land supply for housing.

“There is a failure of leadership to bring forward a local plan,” he said.

“We don’t have a local plan, we haven't got a five year supply, and we really need to be approving some housing to get anywhere near that.

“We need to start taking some ownership now and start approving housing.”

Cllr Mike Baldock (Swale Independent), chair of the committee and former leader of the council, hit back, asking “where would you put 11,000 houses that we need?”

Cllr Tony Winckless (Lab) told members that if they voted it down “this would go to appeal, no doubt.”

After almost an hour of deliberations a motion was proposed to refuse the proposals due to its encroachment into the countryside and the loss of agricultural land.

A council planning officer said if the developers challenged SBC’s decision “the prospects of winning the appeal are low.”

SBC’s planning committee voted to refuse the application, with 13 votes in favour, one abstention, and none against.