A village with an “urgent need” for medical facilities is set to get a new GP surgery alongside a 110-home estate.

Supporters say the area is “screaming out” for a doctor’s practice but others claim it is simply being used as a “lever” to get the housing accepted.

Fernham Homes lodged the plans, for Haven Farm in Sutton Valence, near Maidstone, last October.

At a meeting of Maidstone council’s planning committee on Thursday (October 19), officials recommended members back the plans.

A planning officer said: “It would cause harm to character and appearance of countryside which would usually result in a recommendation for refusal.”

However he stressed the “the urgent need for a doctors’ surgery,” and the fact the site is earmarked for housing in the authority’s emerging Local Plan.

The village currently has two practices run by Sutton Valence Group Practice, one in South Lane and the other in North Street, but bosses say they are operating at peak capacity with no scope for expansion.

Chris Loughead, a director of Fernham Homes, told the committee: “It will take at least three years from planning permission granted until the surgery is constructed and operational.

“The land to deliver this will be provided at nil cost by Fernham.

The application is a full application for 105 homes and retail space, and an outline application for five self-build plots and the GP surgery - meaning a separate provider will come forward to build the facility.”

Dr Cranston of Sutton Valence Group Practice has committed to managing the new surgery when it comes forward.

Mr Loughead added: “The scheme will deliver significant economic benefits including, post-construction, the delivery of 46 additional full-time jobs.

“An additional £4.2m will be spent year-on-year directly and indirectly in the local economy”

Of the proposed homes, 44 are set to be affordable.

However, not everybody was as enthused, with 134 objections lodged with the council.

“This development will have a huge impact on our parish and will alter the whole dynamic of our Sutton village centre,” said Cllr Melvin Flint, chairman of Sutton Valence Parish Council.

“We are dismayed at the size.

“The parish council is in favour of new upgraded medical facilities for the village, but we have misgivings regarding the planning, financing and staffing.

“The lack of detail and information regarding these aspects of the development is a major concern.”

“Local residents have expressed concerns about the present sewage system and the ability to cope with the number of new houses.

“Residents near the Haven Farm site have historically complained of sewage backing up in their drains.”

Cllr Stuart Jeffery (Green) queried Southern Water’s submissions that they could cope with the extra homes.

He said: “Clearly they're not coping at the moment. How they’re going to cope with 110 more is beyond anybody’s guess. I really don’t accept their statement, I think that’s just madness.”

“The GP surgery is being put forward as a lever to accept the rest of the application, and that feels wrong,” he added.

Cllr John Perry (Con) expressed similar sentiments: “This proposal does seem to be driven by the need for a doctor’s surgery.

“I get it this is very important nobody’s going to deny that. But this is for 100 houses being developed, breaking policy.”

But other members praised the plans, with Cllr Tony Harwood (Lib Dem) saying: “There is an absolute pressing need for a state-of-the-art, up-to-date surgery for the Suttons, not just for Sutton Valence.”

“While I understand it's probably not ideal to a lot of people I think there could be a lot more homes squeezed into this area, I think this is the best balance,” added Cllr Lewis McKenna (Con)

“I’ve seen their houses they’re good quality houses.

“How many times do we just sit here and look at pure houses, whereas this is something that we all need and we’re all screaming out for, and I think it would be better if other developers did the same thing.”

The committee voted to approve the plans with seven votes in favour, three against, and one abstention.