A month after Paramount Pictures was cut from plans for a theme park in north Kent, developers of the project have caused more controversy – this time with residents of a quaint nearby village.

A series of mysterious posters have appeared in Bean in the past fortnight asking for landowners of several unregistered plots of land to come forward.

The alleys and footpaths are located around 1-11 Ightham Cottages, whose owners are already under strain from proposals to improve the Bean junction of the A2 from Highways England.

The government-owned company has earmarked the homes for demolition in its preferred option for an upgrade to the section of road used by shoppers heading to Bluewater.

A decision on the preferred route is expected this summer.

When posters began appearing asking for the owners of the small plots of land around the homes, it kicked the Bean Residents’ Association into action.

Its secretary, Linda Collins, wrote to bosses of London Resort Company Holdings, the firm bringing forward the £3.2 billion resort plans between Gravesend and Dartford, whose name was on the notices.

She asked: “Why do LRCH require any land in Bean to build at Swanscombe Peninsular?

“What proposals of their own do LRCH have that require any property at Bean? You do not appear to have spoken to any owners of the 11 private homes.”

The residents’ association’s assistant secretary, Ashley Johnson, said the notices had caused stress for people living at the cottages.

He said: “It’s a surprise they are taking an interest in the land there. Rather than knock on doors they have just stuck notices up.”

"Rather than knock on doors they have just stuck notices up..." - Ashley Johnson, Bean Residents' Association

A response from Savills, the estate agent which put up the notices on behalf of LRCH, apologised for any distress caused.

Wayleave officer Nick Rowe said: “The referencing process requires us to contact residents and also to put up notices and publish notices in local papers in order to glean and verify this information.”

Andy Martin, spokesman for LRCH, said the theme park scheme does not require the demolition of the homes – but confirmed the homes do fall within its boundary, first outlined in 2014.

He said: “We are continuing to seek to identify who owns land currently unregistered at Land Registry and speaking with landowners to discuss what the project could mean for them.

“This doesn’t mean we are proposing to develop the whole site within the borders of our application, but we have a legal responsibility to try to understand who has an interest in the project so that they can formally be consulted and make their views known.”

Last month, it was revealed LRCH had cut ties with Paramount Pictures, which was due to provide the inspiration for much of the theme park’s rides and attractions.

And just yesterday it was revealed the opening date for the planned theme park had been pushed back to 2023.

The theme park’s developers have confirmed their intention to seek powers to force businesses to sell land if their planning application succeeds.

However, resort bosses insisted they have no desire to issue any compulsory purchase orders, despite the revelation prompting a stern reaction from nearby companies.

Minutes of a meeting with the Planning Inspectorate in May confirmed London Resort Company Holdings will seek compulsory acquisition powers.

It caused a stir among the Peninsula Management Group, a band of 140 landowners and businesses.

Nick Dunigan, a prominent landowner, said any compulsory purchase in the area “would lead to the demise of over 140 businesses, 2,750 direct jobs and a similar number of indirect jobs”.

Andy Martin, spokesman for LRCH, said their position on compulsory purchase powers has been consistent since May 2014, when it began the process of preparing its planning application, known as a development consent order.

He said: “We have no desire to use them. We have stated this in public meetings, private meetings with landowners and in our meetings with the Planning Inspectorate.”