A controversial development of almost 400 homes in a Kent village has suffered a setback after councillors voted to defer it, which could lead to a public inquiry.

Developers Trenport submitted plans to Swale council for a 380-home development in Tonge, intended as a “high quality new residential-led logical extension" to Sittingbourne.

Previously recommended for approval by town planners, councillors voted instead to defer it while officers seek legal advice should the matter be refused.

The homes were set to range from one-bedroom apartments to four-bed family houses, and the development would include cycle paths, open spaces and “extensive landscaping and biodiversity enhancement.”

Council planning officers previously argued “the scheme is of good quality with carefully considered parameter and design code,” and that “a major benefit of the scheme would be in providing new community facilities for the area and infrastructure for the safeguarding and extension of the 349 bus route".

Roland Brass, representing the developer, spoke at the meeting and told members that “Trenport happily calls Swale home, and has a happy relationship with the council.”

He also told of the developer signing a contract with Tesco to open a shop at the proposed development.

However, amid fears of overdevelopment and traffic problems, councillors voted to defer the proposal.

Sixty residents had previously written to the local authority to object to the plans.

Jayne Burr, of nearby village Teynham, wrote: “It is tragic that villages and hamlets surrounding Sittingbourne are being consumed by development.”

Rick Playford, also of Teynham, told the planning department that “this proposal is the latest in an apparently unending assault upon the environment and quality of life of residents of villages near Sittingbourne”.

Cllr Paul Townson of Teynham Parish Council told the committee: “Three hundred and eighty houses, 700-plus cars, plus service vehicles, around 2,000 vehicle movements per day, all using one access route.

“Imagine the school run - it only takes one double-parked car, one broken down bus, one set of road works to block the access for everybody.”

Council leader Cllr Mike Baldock (Swale Independents Alliance) attended the planning committee meeting as a guest to speak against the development, which he called “very premature.”

“This proposal would condemn another 300-plus people to life at the end of Sittingbourne’s biggest cul-de-sac, and I think that’s a totally irresponsible thing to do.

“Taken on its own, it’ll leave a hell of a lot of people in a hell of a mess,” he added.

Cllr Lloyd Bowen (Con) told members he was dubious of the developer’s plans for amenities such as a new shop, saying “we've heard these promises in the park with Great East Hall and elsewhere and it has come to nothing.”

He added: “It’s not an estate; there are houses here that will make it the size of a village.”

Cllr James Hall (Swale Independents Alliance) argued that the development would be “significantly encroaching into the countryside and not providing any real benefits to the people.

“It will be horrific, further letting down the people of Heron Fields and Great East Hall,” he added.

Cllr Richard Palmer (Swale Independents Alliance) told members that the development would “destroy Tonge as it is.”

He also raised concerns about access to GP surgeries.

He added: “It doesn’t matter how much money you throw at the system, if there’s no doctors then it’s becoming unsustainable to keep approving so many large applications."

As part of the development, Trenport had agreed to contribute £864 per home built to local GP services - for a total of £328,320, if all 380 homes were built.

The development was set to proceed in phases - with the first two, totalling 212 homes, to be built first, and the remainder left until after the construction of the Sittingbourne Relief Road is decided on.

Deputy leader Cllr Monique Bonney (Ind) expressed fears about congestion in the narrow rural roads.

Referring to the highway authority Kent County Council’s “quiet lanes policy” - which seeks to prevent traffic on country roads - she said: “KCC are doing bugger all around quiet lanes.”

A planning officer told members that an objection on traffic grounds would be unlikely to hold if the decision went to an appeal, as KCC Highways had expressed no objection to the plans.

Councillors initially voted to refuse the idea, with 12 votes for refusal and 2 abstentions.

However, planning officers recommended members instead vote to defer the decision “to allow officers sufficient time to consult with counsel’s opinion, because we are struggling to come to a reason for refusal that we believe would be sustainable at appeal.”

Council officers also said that “if this application were to go to appeal, given the complexity of the issues, it’s likely to be a public inquiry.

“That’s no reason not to make your decisions, but I just want to outline that there are substantial costs associated with that.”

A legal officer added that, given that officers recommended approval, the council would likely have to hire consultants to defend the refusal at appeal.

Councillors voted unanimously to defer the decision at the meeting of the planning committee on January 25.

After the meeting, a spokesman for Trenport said if the application is refused "we will be appealing the planning decision."

Two other applications were deferred - one for 14 homes nearby in Bapchild due to its proximity to the larger development, and another for 16 homes on Tonge Road, pending a site visit by councillors.