Villagers have to grapple with flooded toilets when it pours with rain, a council chairman claimed, as he fought against plans for 132 new homes in Dymchurch.

The grim image was raised during a Folkestone and Hythe District Council planning committee meeting, where the proposed development was rejected, after residents raised traffic and flooding fears.

Speaking in support of the development at the meeting on Tuesday, Philip Payne of RDA Architects, said there was a “low flood risk”, and the Environment Agency confirmed the parcel of land next to Seabourne Way was a safe site for development.

However, Cllr Douglas Young, chair of Dymchurch Parish Council, disputed that the site is a low flood risk, and spoke against the plans, put forward by Redbridge Estates.

He claimed: “After heavy rain residents cannot flush their toilets because the water backs up because the water level remains high all the time, and there’s one little pumping station on the Marsh but it doesn’t work all the same.”

“If you build houses there, and roads, the water has to go somewhere,” he added.

Cllr Tony Cooper (Lab), said the location was wrong, and the homes would be “overpowering and overbearing to the neighbouring properties.”

“It’s extending the existing settlement, I’m at a loss as to seeing how we should be agreeing to this,” added Cllr Mike Blakemore (Green).

Many councillors raised traffic concerns, with vice chairman of the planning committee Nicola Keen (Lab) saying Dymchurch Road “can’t take anymore.”

However, Mr Payne said the development would “provide a rare, significant development opportunity for Dymchurch with low risk of flooding.”

He argued that a bid for more homes on the marsh area would be “a logical, highly accessible southern extension to Dymchurch,” which “will help boost the supply of housing.”

A council officer warned members that their concerns on flooding and traffic would be hard to defend if the developers decided to appeal the decision, but the argument around visual impact would be stronger.

The planning committee voted to reject it with 10 votes for rejection and 2 abstentions.