Villagers incensed by plans to build thousands of houses on farmland are demanding data from traffic surveys it claims is being withheld by the county council.

Campaigners at Lenham Heath, where there are plans for 5,000 homes, also say they are being blocked from carrying out their own analysis to assess vehicle movements.

Now they are locked in a battle of words with highways authority Kent County Council (KCC) to secure key evidence to support their position.

But a glimmer of hope has been provided by the county's new highways boss who offered to "look again" at the issue.

Maidstone Borough Council, in order to meet government demands for housing, has proposed the 'mega village', called Heathlands, in the heart of rural Kent.

But the scheme has been met with outrage from Lenham Parish Council (LPC) and Save Our Heath Lands (SOHL) who say the area will be changed forever.

LPC chairman John Britt wrote to KCC's Director of Highways and Transportation Haroona Chughtai asking for the Lenham traffic modelling data and the opportunity to independently test alternative scenarios.

This would principally be used to "challenge assumptions" made by MBC regarding the A20 and the single track back roads to the south of the proposed site.

The MBC-led scheme, supported by Homes England, is currently with a government inspector reviewing the Maidstone Local Plan.

In turning down the request, the KCC director added: "Our view is that enabling this work would be a significant risk to both how the model is perceived, and the value of the evidence produced from it.

"...the information provided is considered sufficient for this ‘in principle’ stage of the Maidstone Local Plan process and that more detailed policies to shape and mitigate the proposed development, can be covered by the supplementary planning document planned by MBC and through the planning application process in the event that the plan is found sound by the inspector. Our view is consistent with that expressed by National Highways."

Cllr Britt said: "We have expressed from the outset that the evidence from MBC, and its partners, in support of the development and the allocation is defective and the project is unworkable within the required parameters.

"It is simply not acceptable or deliverable as a proposed allocation. Moreover, in adopting this stance you are hampering Lenham Parish Council, with regard to its delivery of the adopted Lenham Neighbourhood Plan, from testing the soundness of the highways elements relating to the specific proposals within the Maidstone Local Plan.

"We therefore completely disagree with the conclusions expressed in this response, as a result we can only begin to question the neutrality of the highways authority’s approach and position."

MBC plans are currently with a government inspector who is considering fresh submissions from the heavyweight lobbying group Fish Legal relating to proposals to deal with waste water at the site.

Fish Legal has cast doubt over assertions the development will not affect waterways.

The environmental law firm, which has a reputation for securing big compensation payments and taking governments to court, has claimed the upper headwaters of the River Stour could be adversely impacted by so many new houses.

This would have a negative effect on the chalk stream's delicate eco-system further downstream, it claims.

The inspector is now examining the new evidence and a response is expected shortly.

Cllr Britt added: "If they can make a mistake on waste water, have they already made a mistake about the roads?"

Cllr Baker, who took over from Cllr David Brazier during a reshuffle earlier this month, said: "I sympathise because people who live on roads or who use roads sometimes have very different experiences about what modelling appears to show. I'm happy to go and have another look at this."

LPC and Save Our Heath Lands (SOHL) are the main drivers behind the opposition to the Lenham Heath proposal.

MBC leader David Burton said: "I am not aware of any evidence that's not already in the public domain and, as far as I am aware, the inspector has not found a red flag on transport. There may be greater forensic detail required in the future."