Plans for a controversial housing development in a holiday hot spot have been unanimously thrown out by councillors.

Fifty new homes, a health centre, parking and a school playing field were proposed for the 10-acre former boot fair land next to Eastchurch Primary’s St Clement Site on Leysdown Road, Leysdown. The area is currently used for grazing horses.

The proposals were put in by Kent Design Partnership who said it would increase healthcare provision in the area.

However, the development faced fierce opposition from parish councillors and residents.

Speaking at Thursday’s Swale council planning meeting, Pat Sandle, chairman of both Warden and Leysdown parish councils, said: “Over the last few years we have had some 50 homes built in our parishes which has put an unacceptable burden on our primary school and put an increased strain on the surgeries which no longer hold surgeries due to the lack of staff.

“Leysdown and Warden are a large cul-de-sac with no expectation of any improvement in our access routes and another 50 homes would be detrimental to the wellbeing of the community.”

John Collins, from Kent Design Partnership, tried to justify the plans, saying: “This is a location that needs change. There was a comment made about low expectations and that needs to change for Leysdown.”

The site is not included in the council’s Local Plan, which says what can be built and where until 2031.

Ruth Hodder from the neighbouring Happy Valley Chalet Park also spoke at the meeting, saying the development would impact upon people who spend their summers there.

She said: “A holiday home is designed for rest, relaxation and is away from ordinary daily stresses of home, life and work.

“Therefore why would any tenant want to sit outside their chalet and instead of admiring their children playing, looking at the greenery and wildlife – why would they want to be faced with brick buildings and the daily activities which they had purchased a holiday home to escape from?”

The plans were recommended for refusal by the planning inspector, who said the harm caused would “significantly and demonstrability outweigh the very limited benefit”.

Councillors voted unanimously to refuse the plan.