An animal sanctuary boss was rushed to hospital with a suspected heart attack just days before a crucial council meeting to decide her charity's fate.

Amey James and partner Phil Greenhalgh are seeking retrospective permission to change the use of their land so they can continue operating Happy Pants Ranch near Sittingbourne.

But officers are recommending refusal ahead of a crucial Swale council planning meeting on Thursday evening.

Last Friday Amey, 36, was rushed to hospital with a suspected heart attack.

She said: "I was sat in A&E awaiting for an ECG because of chest pains. I’m pretty sure it was stress-related. I just want this whole nightmare to be over. It’s literally killing me."

The saga began when the couple moved onto 20 acres near Hawes Woods - ancient woodland at High Oak Hill off Iwade Road - at Bobbing last January.

They took with them more than 400 livestock and now have 22 pigs, seven dogs, 32 cats, 25 turtles, two tortoises, a flock of 22 geese and 30 ducks, 120 cockerels, 35 chickens, nine cows, 15 sheep, 17 goats, two emus, 35 guinea pigs, three snakes, two lizards, four ponies, one horse, a peacock and 50 goldfish.

Since then they have been hit by a string of complaints, one of which ended in them being served with a noise notice for having nuisance cockerels, geese and cows.

They were also told to stop using possibly contaminated waste to build roadways.

Amey, who said she feels victimised, said: "I’ve been receiving counselling as all the stress and harassment has had a hugely negative impact on my mental health to the point where I’ve had many suicidal thoughts over the past few months.

"I’m not sure the council even understands the devastating implications behind refusing the change of use permission.

"I’ve spent every penny of my divorce settlement (more than £50k) on the site. The charity or myself simply does not have the money to move again so soon."

The application is to change the use of the land from agricultural to an animal rescue and includes fencing and gates, field shelters, animal houses, shipping containers for storage and a caravan for staff.

Officers insist the proposal does not "accord with the core principle" of sustainable development within the countryside.

They say the gates, fences and structures will cause "substantial harm" to the "rural character and appearance of the streetscene" and add: "Insufficient information is provided to reasonably assess whether the proposed use (open days) would result in the significant uplift in traffic levels to an extent that would be harmful to the character, appearance, and intrinsic visual amenity value of a designated rural lane."

The application first went before the council on December 9 but was deferred for three months to seek more information about the charity's plans. Officers say the charity failed to meet the deadline.

The council's environmental health team said it was "clear from the evidence" the use of the site was "untenable" and has lodged a "strong objection".

The application has received 29 letters of support and two objections, one of which claimed: "In its fervent rush to illegally occupy this land using innocent animals as grounds, this company has killed more wild animals than any others they will ever save."

Another said: "Residents cannot safely walk down our own street for fear of getting run over or attacked by one of their escaped animals."

One supporter responded: "I’ve never been attacked by a farm animal. Sounds like nonsense when you’re surrounded by fields of sheep which could attack you which is nothing to do with the ranch. It could possibly be the most ridiculous objection I’ve ever heard."