Controversial plans to build retirement bungalows near a protected wildlife site have been approved — but only on the condition there’s no kids or cats.

The strange stipulation was made as part of a series of conditions pinned to a planning application for 25 homes for the over 55’s, based in a remote part of north Kent.

Medway Council approved the plans for View Road, near Cliffe Woods on the Hoo Peninsula last week but made it a requirement residents be banned from keeping feline friends as pets, while also stating there must be no children under the age of 16 living on-site.

The housing estate has been subject to multiple controversial planning applications, including in 2017 when a planning committee rejected plans for 50 retirement homes which were later approved on appeal by the Planning Inspectorate.

However, those plans were never put into action and a later design for 50 retirement homes was approved in 2022 - despite one councillor likening the designs to a “1950’s eastern European gulag camp”.

The new designs, from Esquire Developments Ltd, are for the same site but the number of homes has been reduced to 25, consisting of 13 two-bed bungalows, eight three-bed chalet bungalows, and four three-bed houses.

The plot is adjacent to another development for 68 homes, also from the Longfield-based developer.

Speaking at a planning committee meeting held on on June 5, Cllr Gary Etheridge (Con), who had criticised the previous designs, said the new blueprint was better but he still did not support the development.

He hit out at planning officers for not making councillors aware of opportunities for appeal on previous applications.

Planning officers had recommended the application for approval with a total of 31 conditions - including no cats or children under the age of 16.

The furry friends exclusion clause was in response to the development’s close proximity to the Chattenden Woods and Lodge Hill site of special scientific interest (SSSI) where there are nesting nightingale birds.

The plans are also intended to be specifically designed for older people and so the condition of no-one under the age of 16 being able to reside there is intended to dissuade regular house-buyers.

However, councillors questioned the enforceability of the policy given the obligation falls upon the developer.

Cllr Gary Hackwell asked: “Even though we approved the last application with a no-cats policy, I still do not understand how that’s going to be enforced - we all know how high up the enforcement list that will be.

“Older people tend to have pets as company, it’s going to be interesting how the proposal is to deal with that.”

And Cllr Dan McDonald asked how the policy around children would work in practice.

He said: “You could possibly have young people, either because older people have adopted or fostered, or end up with their grandchildren - there is nothing to stop bringing young children into the home.”

Planning officers said the condition around under-16s was not unusual for retirement accommodation and all potential buyers would be made aware when considering the properties.

They also said the size of the properties would be unsuitable for large families.

Esquire Developments Ltd and Medway Council were both asked how these policies would be enforced.

Another condition was six of the two-bed bungalows would be sold at a discounted rate, and would continue to be discounted when resold.

Some councillors questioned too how this would be upheld but Cllr Adrian Gulvin (Con) explained this was a condition which had been applied previously and the house would be registered and solicitors would be aware of the condition whenever the house is to be sold.

One suggestion from Independent Group councillor Michael Pearce was for a condition that locals should be given priority for buying the six affordable properties.

He said: “When Trenport [a previous developer who applied for the site] came forward with their proposals, one of the conditions they were proposing was that there would be a priority for local residents which I think would be a good standard across the board for all applications.

“I think it depends on how you really define local, because in terms of the affordable housing criteria the word local could mean anyone in the Medway towns.

“But when it comes to these rural communities we do need to define a local resident as someone who lives in that village.

“I think that will do two things, it will address rural housing need, which there might be a bigger need for in terms of affordability, but it might also reduce contention with development as well.”

However, the suggestion was omitted from the approval conditions as some councillors were cautious about setting a precedent and deciding policy “on the hoof”, while others took issue with what criteria might constitute being local.

Cllr Douglas Hamandishe (Lab) asked whether someone from Cliffe Woods who moved away for a number of years and wanted to move back would be considered local, while Cllr Hazel Browne (Lab) said it might discriminate against people from densely populated areas where these sorts of developments aren’t being built.

Labour colleague Cllr David Field supported these comments, adding “I am very concerned about a potential condition around [priority for locals], I do worry that might entrench some sense of social segregation within the Towns if not thought through in a suitable manner.”

To see more planning applications and other public notices for your area, click here.

Despite the additional condition not being included, the concept is being considered as part of the Local Plan process.

The application was approved with the original 31 conditions with 13 votes for and two against.