Councillors have rebelled against planning officers by refusing a new housing development and school car park for a second time.

Proposals for 25 homes off School Lane, in Newington, near Sittingbourne, were rejected by Swale’s planning committee last year.

Members believed it “would represent unjustified and unnecessary residential development within the countryside”.

However, council officers recommended the scheme be approved as it would have helped create more affordable housing.

Planning permission has now been refused again.

On June 22, the planning committee voted to oppose it with 13 votes against, three abstentions and just one member in support.

An attempt to reverse the first decision goes before the planning inspector on July 11, with a potential second appeal to take place in the coming months.

Cllr Richard Palmer (SIA, Hartlip, Newington and Upchurch) says the outcome was in the best interests of the borough.

He said: “This proposal was outside of the village area and in a dangerous location with the road network.

“The roads nearby would not have been able to take an expansion of the school, so it wouldn’t have been able to cope with more housing.

“I think the application was rushed through, and wouldn’t have been in the best interests for the people of Swale.

“The government keep saying more and more housing should be built, as is the case happening in Thanet and Maidstone for example.

“The government have to take the pressure off local areas because they can’t take it and that’s a concern to me.”

Had the application been successful, nine detached, 10 semi-detached and six terraced houses would have been built – 10 of which would have been affordable.

This was in addition to a new car park at Newington CofE Primary School of 40 spaces – 20 for staff and 20 for parents.

Villagers were worried the development would have led to Newington “becoming yet another ugly urban sprawl”.

Speaking after the decision, one resident said: “Thank you to everyone, particularly local councillors, who’ve put so much time and effort into demonstrating why this proposed development is so inappropriate for the location.”