Plans to increase the size of a village by almost half have been overwhelmingly rejected following pollution fears.
An application for the “sprawling” estate between Bekesbourne and Littlebourne, near Canterbury, had previously been deferred by councillors despite saying they had a “gun to their head” to approve it.
But they were unanimously rejected outright this week when the plans returned to the table.
Gladman Homes first asked Canterbury City Council (CCC) for permission to build 300 homes on the land near Howletts Animal Park in April 2023.
Some 30% of the homes at the site on The Hill were slated to be affordable and a children’s play area, public green space, and a community hub to be used as a local shop were also planned.
However, the plans proved extremely unpopular with neighbours and more than 300 letters objecting were sent to CCC’s planning department.
In May, councillors kicked back the plans after three hours of debate, deferring a decision to ask for more information about transport at the site in the rural area – though councillors were also concerned about sewage.
At a meeting on Tuesday, CCC’s planning committee met again to make the final call, which had been recommended for approval by the council’s planning department.
James Whitehead of Gladman implored councillors to approve the plans, saying: “This council has chosen to allocate the application site for 300 dwellings in the emerging local plan.
“The applicant is keen to move the site forward quickly so it can contribute to Canterbury’s identified need for market and affordable housing.
“The officer’s report notes a clear and urgent need for affordable housing – 464 homes are needed each year but on average only 69 are being delivered.”
CCC is in a “state of presumption in favour of sustainable development” due to previous failures to meet government housing targets.
This means the authority is expected by the government to approve many housing developments which it would otherwise like to reject.
Villagers at the packed meeting gave Gladman’s arguments no quarter, however, with several speaking against.
“This development will increase Littlebourne’s housing stock by 46%,” said parish councillor Melanie Moore
“In times of high rainfall, sewage is backing up into people’s toilets and the bottom of the village now, imagine what it will be like with 46% more people in Littlebourne.
“CCC is keen to dissuade car use in Canterbury but this development is potentially putting 600 cars on the already narrow and congested Bekesbourne Road, all heading towards Canterbury.”
Villager Richard Andrews – a former ecologist for the Environment Agency – stressed that poor local sewerage infrastructure would mean the new development would pollute the Little Stour river.
“Chalk rivers are globally rare, only around 200 exist in the world and 85% of these are in England,” he said.
“You have a legal duty to fully consider the river’s ecology when making decisions – please don’t pass this responsibility onto a failing water company.”
However, Southern Water has said there are no plans to upgrade its sewer systems and alternative access points are unlikely to be implemented.
Resident Henry Fitch argued the plans were “out of all proportion to the scale of housebuilding need,” adding it would “permanently damage the character and appearance of Littlebourne”.
Ward councillor Lee Castle (Lib Dem) said the decision would “define the fate of Littlebourne for generations”.
“This is not a serious attempt to address the housing crisis, it’s a market-led overdevelopment dressed as a solution,” he said.
“It’s a car-dependent sprawl in a rural village without suitable proper walking or cycling infrastructure.”
CCC officers were recommending that members approve the plans, with head of planning Simon Thomas saying the developers’ £2.2 million contribution to the local primary school “would double the capacity within the school”.
He also said the area is “well served” by public transport with half-hourly buses, and can handle the additional demand according to Stagecoach, eliciting chuckles from villagers in the audience.
The planning boss stressed the committee needed to provide good reasons for refusal, or the council would be at risk of losing an appeal and being made to pay costs by the Planning Inspectorate, given its housing shortage and “state of presumption” position.
A vote to approve the development fell, with 10 votes against and two abstentions.
After considerable deliberation, a new motion to reject planning permission due to pollution risks, poor transport links and causing harm to the rural character of the village was passed unanimously to applause from the audience.
Speaking after the decision, Cllr Castle described it as “a win for local residents”.
Gladman has been approached for comment.
