Controversial plans to build on former tennis courts will be considered by a planning inspector.

Permission to construct houses on land owned by Avenue Tennis between Second Avenue and Glebe Road, Gillingham, has been turned down by Medway Council four times.

Proposals for six homes were considered most recently in August last year.

The Jarvis family, who own the land and the tennis club in Featherby Road, are behind the plans.

They have issued two appeals, one for the most recent refusal, and another for a previous application for seven homes.

Planning inspectors have already dismissed two more previous appeals.

Councillors refused the proposals as they thought building on the site would be "cramped" and overdeveloped.

They were also concerned about the potential detriment to neighbouring properties and harm to the area's character.

The two new appeals will be considered by a planning inspector tomorrow (Wednesday, April 27) at a hearing at the council's Gun Wharf headquarters in Chatham.

An appeal document submitted by the applicant argues the development "would not have a significantly harmful effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area".

It added: "The proposal would also be beneficial for the delivery of six much-needed housing units in Medway, which currently cannot demonstrate a five-year supply."

Meanwhile, the Upper Gillingham Residents' Association has been canvassing support from locals and groups in the area to have the site listed as an Asset of Community Value (ACV).

ACVs are nominated buildings or land which are listed by the local authority if they further social wellbeing or the interests of their community.

Rehman Chishti MP – clarification

In recent stories about the ongoing application to build homes on land owned by Jarvis Residential (Medway) Ltd in Gillingham we stated that MP Rehman Chishti had apologised for breaking parliamentary rules regarding a “conflict of interest” on the matter.

This was incorrect.Mr Chishti was, in fact, cleared of this by the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner who found that his representations were “made after a consideration of the public interest and was objectively in line the public interest”.

The full relevant paragraph from the publicly available Commissioner’s report can be read below: “Taking into account all of this information, I am satisfied that your support for Jarvis Residential Ltd’s planning application was made after a consideration of the public interest and was objectively in line the public interest.

"I am also satisfied that there is no information available to support the suggestion that your support for the application was due to a private interest.

"Accordingly, I do not find a breach of paragraph 11 of the Code.” On a separate point, regarding the adequacy of Mr Chishti’s declaration, Mr Chishti had made a declaration in his representations which he felt was appropriate at the time in line with the rules of the Parliamentary Code of Conduct.

The Parliamentary Standards Commissioner accepted that Mr Chishti had made a declaration, however, the Commissioner found that the declaration needed to be clearer.

The Commissioner accepted this explanation and remedial action was taken.

KentOnline is happy to clarify this matter and apologises for any distress caused.”