A controversial plan to move a village's allotments to make way for the expansion of its tennis club has finally been put to rest.

The scheme known as Project A and put forward by the parish council had split Bearsted village down the middle ever since it was first proposed in June 2021.

Since then, the initial scheme had been heavily revised, there have been two changes of council chairman and numerous resignations of councillors.

But at its last meeting, the council unanimously voted to drop the project.

The proposal to call a halt came from newly co-opted member, Clive English.

The decision leaves the parish council with the conundrum of what to do with a gift of land donated by local philanthropist Richard Ashness.

The gift had been conditional on the land being used to transfer the allotments, so that the tennis courts could be expanded on the existing allotment land.

Parish council chairman David Hall said: "I have been in touch with Mr Ashness and I am meeting him in person shortly.

"We have always had a very good relationship with him and I'm hopeful that he will be flexible and consider some alternative community use for the gifted land."

Tony Grieve has been an allotment holder for 10 years and was fiercely opposed to the proposed move. He said: "I am pleased that the matter is settled, but I don't feel victorious.

"This has been a tremendous waste of time, money and energy all round, for something that was clearly never going to happen."

Meanwhile, the council has been strengthened by the co-option of three new councillors to fill vacancies left by recent resignations. They are Val Springett, who is already a borough councillor for the village, and Christopher Waters and Sean Turner.

Mr Waters is a former Ashford borough councillor with extensive planning experience. He is also expected to be the Conservative party candidate contesting Boxley Ward in the May elections, hoping to replace the existing councillor Nick De Wiggondene-Shepherd, who has moved out of the area.

Mr Turner is businessman in Bearsted.

The parish council still has one vacancy but Mr Hall said it would not be looking for any further co-options.

He said: "We are all up for election in May in any case. The earliest any appointment could be made would be at our meeting in two weeks' time, which would hardly give anyone the chance to get their feet under the table before they were up for election again."

However, the council has made one significant adjustment, which it hopes will encourage people to put themselves forward as candidates at the May elections.

The council has voted to pay its members an attendance allowance of £24 for every meeting – up to a maximum of 20 meetings a year.

Mr Hall said: "It was my suggestion, but unanimously supported.

"I want to make it possible for younger people to stand for the council. At the moment it is very difficult if they have children and perhaps have to pay for childcare.

"The allowance will help make it possible for them to stand. It is not compulsory and councillors will not be obliged to draw the allowance if they don't want to.

"Most parish councils pay their members an allowance and certainly borough and county councillors receive significant sums."

Bearsted Parish Council has paid its members an allowance in the past but it was discontinued last year.

With the potential of 15 members each claiming for 20 meetings, the allowance could cost Bearsted villagers £7,200 a year on their precept, though the actual amount claimed is expected to be far less.

Only councillors who are voted on by the electorate – not those who are later co-opted – will be allowed to claim.

With the issue of Project A now settled, the parish has only one legacy issue remaining from its recent controversial times.

At its November meeting last year, Sandra Knatchbull who is a borough councillor for the village and was then also a parish councillor, produced a bunch of emails sent by other councillors which had been inadvertently copied in to the parish clerk as evidence that some councillors had "colluded" in their opposition to Project A.

Unfortunately, following a complaint to the information commissioner, an investigation has found that this was a breach of General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR), because Mrs Knatchbull had circulated the emails including personal email addresses.

As her actions had been sanctioned by the then parish council chairman, Mr Hall's predecessor, the council was found to be at fault, and existing councillors will now have to undergo further GDPR training. Mrs Knatchbull has already resigned from the parish council.