A vote by just five councillors has determined that Maidstone will get hundreds more new homes along the Sutton Road - even though the borough’s Local Plan has yet to be approved.

Members of Maidstone’s planning committee met last night (Thursday) to determine three major applications for a total of around 1260 new homes - the exact figure is unknown because councillors allowed one application to remain open-ended with the number to be decided at a later stage.

In recognition of the intense local opposition to the plans - from parish councils, residents, the Campaign to Protect Rural England and from KCC, members had previously deferred a decision on all three applications while seeking more information on the outcomes and for better conditions to be drawn up.

But at last night’s meeting, many councillors chose to abstain, allowing those in favour to win the day.

The first application was an outline scheme for 800 homes on land to the south of Sutton Road.

The applicant’s agent told members that 42% of the large site would be left as open space, and assured them that once the traffic measures proposed with the scheme were implemented the congestion along the A274 would actually be less than it was now.

That was disputed by KCC highways officers who said the congestion was already severe and would only get worse.

One encouragement for councillors came when the applicant promised that the traffic mitigation measures were “not reliant on the closure of Cranbourne Avenue” - something which councillors had already opposed.

Cllr Eddie Powell (Ukip) spoke passionately against the scheme, on the basis that there were insufficient measures to improve air quality. Referring to statistics that indicated that air pollution was the silent killer that already caused 40,000 premature deaths in the UK each year, he warned his colleagues: “Our planning decisions will lead to the deaths of adults and children.”

Long-standing councillor Paulina Stockell (Con) described the plan as “the most controversial application that I can remember.”

But Cllr Tony Harwood (Lib Dem) said: “Our object is to reap the minimum damage. I actually think of all the applications along the Sutton Road this is the best designed.”

Although every application is supposed to be decided on its own merits, Cllr Clive English (Lib Dem) warned members: “If we refuse this, it will still get built (on appeal) and we will not have a Local Plan.”

After almost two hours of debate, Cllr Steve Munford (Ind) proposed a motion to approve the scheme, which was passed with five in favour, four against and four abstaining.

Councillors then considered an application for Bicknor Road North. A similar debate ensured, but with arguments over how many homes the site could take. Cllr Tony Harwood (Lib Dem) said that sometimes a lot of smaller dwellings could actually give the opportunity for more open space on a site than fewer large homes.

Cllr Powell was again the most vocal opponent, saying “I feel this should be turned down on ecology reasons.”

But a motion to approve was made by Cllr Harwood, with four in favour, four against and four abstentions.

Cllr John Perry (Con) then used his casting vote as chairman to approve the application.

Finally, councillors moved on to the third application: land at Bicknor Farm, adjacent to the other site.

This was slightly different in that the applicant had already lodged an appeal with the Secretary of State because the council had taken too long to give its decision. That meant that members were only being asked to rule on what decision they would have made had they been able to make the decision. The result was crucial as to whether their planning officers would oppose the application at the appeal hearing.

Cllr English proposed that approval should have been given and his motion was passed by four votes in favour, one against, and six abstentions.

The planning inspector will now determine the application taking the councillors’ decision into account.

The chairman of Langley Parish Council was one of many in the Town Hall left fuming after the decisions.

Cheryl Taylor-Maggio said: “KCC Highways strongly opposed the Sutton Road applications, but the borough not only completely ignored them, they brought in their own consultants who, surprise, surprise, countered the formal highways body.

“When will that tactic stop? Will the borough now appoint its own consultants to oppose other formal expert input that it does not like – for example, flooding risk analysis by the Environment Agency?

“Not only did Maidstone’s planners ignore the serious traffic impact on the A274 and the Wheatsheaf junction, they also dismissed serious concerns about air pollution and urban sprawl.

“The air quality at the Wheatsheaf Junction was considered acceptable, despite being among the worst anywhere in Britain.”

She also condemned the councillors who abstained, saying: “Are they not elected to have and apply an opinion?”