A plan to create a new “pastiche” Queen Anne mansion in the countryside has been approved, but only by a narrow margin.

Members of Maidstone council’s planning committee met last Thursday to consider an application for Abbey Farm in Leeds.

At issue was whether the new six-bedroom house, plus two supporting three-bedroom detached homes, could be justified by the applicant’s promise to restore two listed properties that are currently on the Heritage England At Risk Register.

The site includes the remnants of the 12th century Leeds Priory, although all that remains above ground are half of the medieval dovecote, and a “slype” - a monastic building that was essentially a covered walkway.

The applicant, Harry Fern from East Farleigh, said he would repair the properties - converting the dovecote into a dining hall - and also two listed medieval walls, one of which is also on the At Risk Register.

Planning officer William Fletcher said the site was a Scheduled Ancient Monument, which was the highest possible heritage rating putting it on par with Stone Henge - and for that reason, normal rules prohibiting building in the countryside could be ignored.

But Leeds parish councillor Etienne Greeff said no account had been taken of the harm that would be caused to the two Leeds Conservation Areas, which the property sits between, and he also criticised the plan for creating a second entrance onto Lower Road “with no visibility splays” that would be “highly dangerous”.

But the agent for the applicant emphasised how the proposal would safeguard the listed elements at no public cost; a point also emphasised by the councll’s head of planning, Rob Jarman, who said that there were 12 “at risk” properties within Maidstone, and this plan would restore three of them in one go.

Local ward councillor Gill Fort (Con) also raised concerns about the extra entrance and the danger on the B2163, but Cllr Clive English (Lib Dem) said it was a waste of time to even consider highways issues.

He said: “If the highways authority, KCC, hasn’t objected then it is impossible for us to.”

He also warned that if a commercial solution was sought to restore the heritage buildings, it was likely to end up with a far higher number of enabling development homes and even more harm to the countryside than the three being proposed.

But Cllr John Perry (Con) was not in favour of the “massive, semi-palace, pastiche house.”

While Cllr Fay Gouch (Ind) thought the applicant was being “tight-fisted” in only offering the public two days a year to view the buildings.

During the course of the 90-minute debate, one aspect of the Local Plan Review which the councll had adopted just the night before, emerged.

Mr Jarman said that whereas Policy SP17 in the old Local Plan had prohibited all development in the countryside, except where it was supported by other policies; the wording in the new Local Plan Review allows for development in the countryside so long as it did not cause “significant” harm.

His opinion was that the proposal caused less than significant harm.

The application was approved by seven votes to five.

Stephanie Saunders lives at Abbey Farm House, next to the application site, and was opposed to the plan.

She said afterwards: 'We are saddened at the council’s decision.

“It was a close-run thing and we thank the five councillors who did share our concerns and voted against.

“Our own Grade II Listed property and the setting of the two Conservation Areas within Leeds Village will be significantly harmed under these proposals.

“The applicant has been exempted from multiple planning policies, while we will be expected to apply for Listed Buildings Consent to so much as change the colour of front door.

“This sets a new precedent for owners of Scheduled Ancient Monument sites, not only within the borough, but nationally.'“

Find out about planning applications and other public notices in your area by visiting the Public Notice Portal.

The applicant’s agent said that Mr Fern is intending to use the new mansion at Abbey Farm as his own home and that the two supporting houses would also remain in his ownership,