Plans for what could be one of the UK’s largest housing developments look set to be refused.

The developers behind the 8,400-home “garden village” around the edge of Sittingbourne and Teynham claim the new settlement is “entirely suitable” for the area – but campaigners say approving it would be a “deadly mistake”.

Quinn Estates proposals are split across two separate applications, covering land to the south and east of Sittingbourne, stretching up to Bapchild and Teynham.

Up to 7,150 homes, community space, a hotel, a new tip, and primary and secondary schools are earmarked for the larger site surrounding Sittingbourne, with two halves named Highsted Village and Oakwood Village. It also includes provision for a new M2 motorway junction and completion of the Southern Relief Road.

Half of the site, more than 800 acres of land, will become publicly available open space.

The smaller site, known as Teynham West, is planned to host up to 1,250 homes, sheltered and extra care accommodation, a primary school, and the Bapchild section of a Northern Relief Road - which is already in the local plan.

Quinn Estates argue in planning documents: “The proposals are entirely suitable for the site in terms of land use, amount of development, access, layout and appearance.

“Ultimately it will become a vibrant garden village settlement within the borough, transforming the local area, as well as adding regionally significant benefits to the surrounding area as a whole.”

The firm also writes that it would be “the most sustainable development in the south east.”

The bid has attracted almost 700 letters of objection, including from every neighbouring parish council – Bapchild, Bredgar, Milstead, Teynham, Doddington, Lynsted, Tonge and Rodmersham. There were 242 letters of support.

Much of the land earmarked for development is the highest grade farmland.

Carol Goatham of campaign group Farm, Fields & Fresh Air said: “We’re totally against development on the best and most versatile agricultural land. To think that it could all be concreted with more and more housing – Sittingbourne already has a problem with GP services.”

She also pointed out that the site is not allocated in Swale’s Local Plan – the blueprint which governs future development in the borough.

She said: “If Swale council was to go ahead and give their consent for such huge developments it would set an awful precedent for every other developer in the borough who would want to bring forward mass housing developments.

“I think it would be a deadly mistake for Swale if they let it go through.”

Swale council officers are recommending that councillors vote to reject the plans at a meeting of the planning committee on November 7, however a spokesperson for Quinn says this is a prime example of "local politics standing in the way of national infrastructure."

They note the “urbanising impact” of the development in the countryside, and say Quinn Estates has failed to prove the scheme wouldn’t harm the environment and wildlife habitats.

To see more planning applications and other public notices for your area, click here.

Normally in a rural area with a large development, Swale council policy is that 40% of all new homes built should be affordable properties, sold or rented well below market rate.

However, Quinn says the development would not be financially viable with 40% of homes as affordable. The developer says discussions around this are ongoing but they are looking at 20% or around 1,650 homes.

The development as a whole is one of the biggest in Kent and possibly the country.

MP Helen Whately, who represents Teynham & Lynsted and West Downs, said: "Taken together, the extra 8,400 houses of Highsted North and Highsted South will more than double the population of the two wards. They will fill green fields between villages with houses, completely changing the rural character of the area.

“The sheer size and scale of this development will mean residents who currently live in the countryside will suddenly find themselves consumed into an urban area.

"One of the concerns most frequently raised with me by residents is traffic and the capacity of the local road network. I am aware that there is a plan for a new junction on the M2, but residents are sceptical about whether (or when) this would materialise.

“In any event the M2 already struggles to cope with the volume of traffic on it, and accidents bring it to a standstill – along with nearby A-roads. There is no likelihood of it being expanded to a 3-lane motorway any time soon to address this.

"The development would inevitably lead to an increase in traffic on local lanes, which residents already find alarmingly busy with cars and lorries often trying to avoid queues on main roads. It would also lead to more traffic coming into Sittingbourne."

A spokesman for Quinn said Swale Council is putting politics ahead of its residents, and that such schemes should not be decided by local councils.

They said: "We are incredibly disappointed that our infrastructure-led proposals for Highsted Park have been recommended for refusal despite being supported by the current local plan and receiving wide support across Swale and Kent.

"This is a prime example of local politics standing in the way of national infrastructure.

"Highsted Park would, if approved, answer local housing need. It will privately fund critical highways infrastructure, which has been desperately needed for so long. It would complete the long-anticipated relief road for Sittingbourne and Sheppey by providing the connection to the existing bridge, that has already cost £48million. It would also provide a second motorway junction 5a on the M2 for the only area still served by a single motorway junction.

"Moreover, there has always been local, political support for the Northern Relief Road as demonstrated in the local plan and in speeches delivered by various members of the planning committee over the past two years, and the plans for Highsted Park would secure its delivery.

"This is the only scheme in the borough that is providing this much-needed infrastructure and promising the kind of investment in roads, schools and health facilities that our communities need.

"Action is needed to tackle the long-term challenges that have prevented Swale from achieving its full potential. There is strong support from 75 local businesses, who employ 25,000 people, that are currently being strangled by infrastructure that is no longer fit for purpose and would unlock the economic prosperity in higher skilled, well-paid jobs with the expansion of Kent Science Park.

"The local authority is sadly putting politics before the interests of the people it professes to serve. Despite supporting the need for this infrastructure and the desperate need for homes, Swale Borough Council has consistently failed to approve applications for homes in the area – many of which have succeeded at appeal resulting in a cost of millions to the taxpayer.

"This clearly demonstrates why local infrastructure decisions, of national importance, should be decided at a national level, where an impartial decision can be made, based on the merits of a scheme and its value to both the local and national economy."