Almost 200 people turned out to protest a controversial planning application to build 150 seafront homes, a hotel and a new sports centre last night.

But their pleas fell on deaf ears as the scheme at Princes Parade, which attracted more than 700 formal objections during its consultation stage, was narrowly approved by members of the Folkestone and Hythe District Council (FHDC) planning committee as recommended by officers.

The application was a culmination of years of work by both the applicants - FHDC itself - and protestors, who criticised the loss of green space among other concerns.

Rainy weather did not put off the residents of Hythe though who were out in their numbers an hour before the meeting with placards, whistles and megaphones to chant phrases such as 'Save Princes Parade' and 'Just say no'.

They marched around the Civic Centre several times and continued their calls after the doors to the meeting had closed when the public gallery was filled.

The council has promised to deliver 150 homes, of which 30% will be affordable, as well as a 25m state-of-the-art replacement pool with a gym and up to 1,270sqm of commercial space. There will also be approximately five hectares of public open space.

So far, most of the application has been only been given outline approval, with detailed decisions on how the project takes shape to happen later.

The authority argues developing the old landfill site will bring significant economic benefits, but campaigners say the business plan is flawed.

Conflicting views also hung over the development’s proximity to the Royal Military Canal, a Scheduled Monument and nationally recognised asset. But less than ‘substantial harm’ will be caused to the nineteenth century waterway according to the council, however, campaigners argue the development will ‘ruin its setting’.

Before the meeting, Lesley Whybrow who has been at the forefront of the Save Princes Parade Campaign, said: “I’m very pleased by the turn out. It just shows how strong public feeling is.

"It's a very valuable open space with beautiful vistas, it's important for the wildlife, and the fact is we do not need the leisure centre there. It's just terrible really that they're even thinking of destroying that beauty when there's no real need.”

Rows have also broken out over the way the council drafted its own planning bid. Mrs Whybrow continued: "There's been a complete lack of transparency and given that it's the council deciding their own planning application, I think transparency is extremely important.

"They're just not listening to us. There is a need for a new leisure centre, we don't dispute that, but there's another site for it at Nickolls Quarry so why destroy all the natural beauty and open space when there is just not the need to do so?”

Jim Martin, chairman of Save Princes Parade had a final message for the councillors before the meeting: “Think about the legacy. Think about Hythe in 20, 30, 40 years time when Princes Parade will be the asset that it always has been and not just another housing estate.”

But Jim Haris, from the group Supporting Princes Parade, said: “I’ve been Chairman of the swimming club for a number of years and I’ve been involved in at least three plans, two of which in the past over the last ten years have collapsed due to local objection and we feel this is the final solution. We feel we need to support this or that will be the end of swimming in Hythe.

“We’re certainly not intimidated by the protestors. I think most people in the community are fairly relaxed about it, it’s just a few people are very loud.

“It will revitalise the whole of Seabrook.”

In the meeting, councillors debated for more than two hours about the benefits and consequences of the proposal, which has engaged hundreds of residents.

Cllr Michael Lyons suggested not all correspondence to him has been civilised though: “The dead crow that was left on my doorstep… whether it was left there because they wanted me to resuscitate it or embalm it, I have no idea, but it was buried, Chairman, with respect.

“We have a golden opportunity to put a plan together that will be beneficial for a lot of people.

“People don’t want this swimming pool here… but I know Romney Marsh would love it.”

Cllr Dick Pascoe said while fishing in the area, he has only ever seen rats, while a Kent County Council (KCC) ecology report notes 36 bird species, two active badger sets and eight species of bats seeking refuge there.

Lizards, snakes, slow worms, toads and invertebrates were also discovered by them on the site.

The matter of housing divided members. Cllr Damon Robinson said: “What is ‘affordable’? Please tell me. I’d like to know.”

Cllr Len Laws echoed this: “If you take what these dwellings will sell for, ‘affordable’ won’t come into it.

“These are going to be people who move in, cash up from London, buy a place by the seaside and use it weekends.

“It’s just importing people for the short term thing of generating money for the council.

“‘Affordable’ should not be allowed to be used.”

Sandgate Parish Council, Historic England and Kent Wildlife Trust were also strongly opposed, but there were 170 written representations in favour, while Hythe Town Council came out in support, and Natural England and the Environment Agency did not object.

As part of the plans, the council also hopes to ‘stop up’ part of Princes Parade road and move it almost one mile adjacent to the canal, something the opposition say is part of driving in Hythe and has easy disabled beach access.

Cllr David Owen, ward councillor for Hythe, said he understood the need for housing and leisure facilities, but echoed concerns about the impact of road realignment, financial viability and how contamination will be managed on the site as a former wasteland.

He said: “It closed in the early 70s and in those days we had a very different attitude to what we put into the ground than we would now.

“The fact is, that we just do not known what is actually in that site.”

Talking about transparency, Cllr Susie Govett said: “I don’t think we can be seen to be giving the applicant - us - special privilege, and to allow this would set a dangerous precedent for future applications.”

In addition to the formal written objections, an e-petition to council leader David Monk for the project be scrapped garnered almost 7,000 names.

But the council refused to consider it as an objection as the signatories had not signed the petition on that basis, something Cllr Philip Martin dubbed as people ‘objectors for objectors sake’ with ‘over a third’ of the names from across the countries.

Cllr Laws said: “You must listen to the people, even if you discount whether the 7000 objections were valid, they did it.

“We are supposedly working towards localism and power to the local people.”

Cllr Peacock addressed suggests about a decline in the popularity of the area: “It was fine until this district decided to put parking metres in which stopped a lot of people using the facilities. Up until then you had a job to get down there.

“This area is only in such disrepair because of this council neglecting the area.”

Cllr Govett and Cllr Laws noted the alternative site of Nickolls Quarry for a pool, which was deemed too expensive by officers as an option compared to the seafront. Cllr Govett said: “We have to convince ourselves and the public that this is the best place for this application and I’m yet to hear one single argument that convinces me of that.”

She also sought to extend the debate before going to a vote: “I really don’t think that an hour and a half gives this application justice.

“The applicant has been working on it for years, the protestors have also been working on it for years and I feel it does them a disservice.”

She asked for other members’ concerns to be addressed, including contamination, in which officers reported that consultants are satisfied the site can be safely developed.

A recorded vote was approved for the meeting, with five councillors - Goddard, Lyons, Martin, Pascoe and Wilkins - for the project, four against - Govett, Laws, Peacock and Robinson - and one, Owen, who abstained.

Mrs Whybrow from the opposition group stated that should the application be approved, a Judicial Review will be explored as a possibility.

After the meeting, Cllr Govett said: “There’s so much more that had to be said.

“We barely touched on the costings. Viability is a factor and the way the costs have been calculated, there are questions over it.

“It’s frustrating. The shame about this application is that it could be really good, and initially what was presented to people was a few houses, a really good leisure centre and people were sold on that. It’s changed so much over that time that now what’s being presented isn’t as acceptable to people. It could have been done so much better with better public engagement and design.

“You could dig down and those costs could escalate over night.”

In a statement, council leader David Monk, said: “I welcome the committee’s decision.

“We can now get on with the construction of this magnificent scheme.”