An angry villager claims plans for a housing development in Newington will ruin their “country idyll”.

Helen Walker said the proposed 14-property scheme earmarked for land at Parsonage Farm in School Lane will have a huge impact on the quiet area.

Miss Walker said the properties, if approved, will overlook her house and a neighbouring grade II listed building.

She claimed if it gets the go- ahead, it will be “hypocrisy” on Swale council planning committee’s part as an application for a small extension at the front of her house has been rejected four times.

She said: “How can they even consider a development of 14 houses? It’s effect on the area’s going to be immense.

“We’re not affecting anybody, our house is in a country lane set back from the road, and yet they continually reject our plans.”

Miss Walker, 50, said she and her partner Paul Taylor, 51, have spent “thousands of pounds” on attempting to get approval for a 12ft extension.

Its possible impact on a neighbouring grade II listed cottage was one of the reasons given for refusal.

Miss Walker, who runs a cleaning business, argues that as the listed building and her property are separated by a garage “built in the 1970s” which belongs to her neighbours, the extension will have no effect on the historical building.

The planned 14-property development is a mixture of detached, semi-detached and terraced houses along with associated garages and parking.

It forms part of the local housing plan and a decision is due to be taken by the planning committee next month.

Miss Walker’s argument is backed by Cllr Mike Baldock, UKIP county council representative for Swale West.

He said: “If the status of the listed building is sufficient to deny a small extension, then why is it not sufficient to stop 14 houses?”

A Swale council spokesman said: “Permission has been refused twice for a front extension, on the basis of its poor design and because of the impact on the adjacent listed building.

“The owners appealed against one of these decisions only and their appeal was dismissed, with the Planning Inspectorate fully supporting the council’s reasons for refusing permission.”