Protestors cheered as a planning application for 44 homes on land owned by a zoo was deferred, despite being recommended for approval.

Medway Council’s planning committee on September 25 decided to delay making a decision on proposals from Esquire Developments Ltd to build homes on a plot of land belonging to the Fenn Bell Conservation Project.

The application was made in February and received 65 letters of objection, which raised issues around increased pressure on infrastructure and the risk of flooding due to poor drainage on the land.

However, planning officers had recommended the plans for approval, saying a condition which meant work had to begin within 18 months - therefore being delivered quicker than usual - and the 11 affordable homes meant the benefits outweighed downsides.

The scheme has received opposition from locals, particularly from the St Mary Hoo Parish Council, which voted in February to oppose the scheme and organised a bus for villagers to attend the planning committee in person.

Zoo owner Andrew Cowell said he was selling the land in order to keep his business open, but as a result of the application he had suffered personal attacks.

Ward councillor for All Saints, where the proposed development and Fenn Bell zoo is, Cllr Chris Spalding (Ind), raised how previous planning applications, many much smaller than the 44-home scheme, in the area had been denied and questioned why this one had been recommended to be approved.

He also said the officer’s argument the development helped Medway reach its government-set housing targets wasn’t good enough, and homes should be placed elsewhere.

He said: “If any member is thinking of approving this, don’t stay silent - press your microphone and tell us exactly how 44 homes towards a target of 20,000 outweighs the overwhelming unsustainability of this car-dominated development.

“Explain how exactly you think six planning inspectors in the past have got it wrong. Members, you have only one choice on this - total and unanimous refusal.”

During the debate, councillors raised issues around the sustainability of the site, which officers accepted would be car-dominated and that Section 106 contributions from the developer would go little way to make improvements to local infrastructure.

Particularly, some councillors considered road changes to calm traffic and £50,000 towards improving bus services on the Peninsula were simply not enough to make any difference.

Cllr Gary Etheridge (Con) called the plans “totally unsustainable” and said families living on the new estate would be “basically imprisoned”.

He said: “Let’s just think of the families that are going to live here. They are basically imprisoned here, there’s is absolutely nowhere for them to go in terms of public transport, or by walking or cycling.

“As stated quite categorically in the report, this is a car-dominated site. Any families here, with their children, are going to be going absolutely nowhere.

“If that’s what you want to condemn them to, then good on you.”

The public gallery, which had around 45 members of the St Mary Hoo community, applauded his contribution.

However, other councillors said the need for homes in Medway, and particularly to meet government housing targets, meant developments which might receive local opposition but are compliant with planning rules should go ahead.

Cllr David Field (Lab) and Cllr Adrian Gulvin each argued the country was in a housing crisis, with many people unable to buy their own home until their mid-30s, and so houses needed to be built.

Cllr Gulvin said: “We’ve got to look at the overall picture - in Britain we have not built enough homes for people for the last 40 or 50 years.

“We have far too many people in their 30s, some of them starting a new family, living in their parents’ homes - that is not an acceptable situation for us as a society.

“I know there’s a lot of opposition here, but I think on balance we’ve got to look at that bigger picture. I understand and respect the views against it, but I think we’ve got to take that balanced view.”

Cllr Field agreed, saying: “These are 44 houses, it won’t solve everything but every little helps.

“We do really need to acknowledge we’re in a housing crisis and I think this is a well-balanced application, particularly looking at the schemes that mitigate the impacts of surface run-off.

“I thank everyone who’s come here to put their point of view, but there’s a big group out there of people whose voices aren’t being heard and represented and I really think we have to consider that.”

After discussion between councillors of the proposals, Cllr Pearce proposed the decision be delayed in order for the committee to make a site visit and gain further information and understanding.

This was seconded and agreed with nine votes for (five Con, three Lab, one InGr) and six against (five Lab, one Con) and so a final decision on the application was deferred until after the visit.

The chairman of the St Mary Hoo Parish Council, Darren Summerfield, said he wanted councillors to properly consider the circumstances and effect of the development before deciding.

He said: “I think the delay is the very least they could have done.

“What worries me is that some of those councillors wanted to pass it without looking or knowing the development, which is terrifying, to be brutally honest.

“All we're asking for is a fair assessment. There are no issues with Andy [Cowell, owner of Fenn Bell Conservation Project], or with the zoo.

“It’s purely about the realities of 44 houses being put on that piece of land that are not fit for purpose.”

The committee voted to defer making a decision on the application until after a site visit had been made by councillors, after which it would return for a final verdict.