University of Kent bosses have reignited fury by pushing ahead with plans for a huge 2,000-home estate on nearby countryside – despite the land being ruled out of Canterbury’s housing blueprint.

Acting vice-chancellor Professor Georgina Randsley de Moura has written to campaigners confirming the institution is pressing on with the controversial scheme on fields north of its city campus, even though the council has stripped the site from its draft Local Plan.

The plot – part of the university’s Northern Land Holdings – was included in the document last year, but was deleted from a fresh draft in August after officials raised concerns over road access, traffic congestion and the loss of ancient woodland.

Its removal by Canterbury City Council (CCC) was hailed as a major victory for campaign group Save the Blean, which has long warned the development would destroy irreplaceable habitats and threaten one of Kent’s most cherished landscapes.

Members have instead proposed a Blean Biopark – a pioneering eco and research hub they say would protect wildlife, celebrate heritage and still generate income for the university.

But despite that alternative vision, Professor de Moura has confirmed the university will press on, insisting the development is vital to plug a financial black hole and secure its long-term future.

Campaigners have now vowed to fight the plans “all the way through all possible legal means”, but Professor de Moura’s letter to Save the Blean makes clear the university’s intention to pursue housing on the site.

“The University continues to believe that a development of approximately 2,000 homes in the NLH is the best solution for Canterbury, the University and the Southeast region,” she wrote.

She said the location “represents a sustainable and viable option for addressing Canterbury’s housing shortage”, describing the land as being “immediately adjacent to the city, within walking distance of the city centre” and “well-served by public transport”.

“The existing walking and cycling routes can be easily extended into the new village community, providing access to the city centre,” she wrote.

“[It is] next to the largest employer in the region, reducing reliance on car travel and supporting active travel and sustainable commuting patterns.”

Professor de Moura insists less than half of the university’s Northern Land Holdings would be developed and promised “green gap areas between the development and the existing Blean village and Tyler Hill community, as well as the envisaged biodiversity corridors”.

She said the project was crucial to secure the long-term future of the cash-strapped university, which has had to close courses, put staff on redundancy notice, and recently announced a merger with the University of Greenwich to form the London and South East University Group.

Professor de Moura wrote: “The development of the Northern Land Holdings offers a critical opportunity to generate capital that can be reinvested directly into our core mission: delivering high-quality education and research, attracting students and talent to the city, and sustaining jobs and services that benefit thousands of local residents and businesses.”

The acting vice-chancellor confirmed the university has now appointed a development partner and will not co-bid with Save the Blean for National Lottery Heritage Fund money to support the group’s Biopark vision.

“While the Biopark concept is innovative, the alternative land use proposal in its entirety is not financially viable for the university, with a projected return substantially below that achievable from residential development,” she said.

“Accordingly, the university has decided to proceed with the residential development option.”

The statement has sparked anger among campaigners, who fear the university will try to “beat the council into submission”.

Julia Kirby-Smith, founder of Save the Blean, added: "It is deeply disappointing to see the University of Kent trying to forge ahead with development plans.

“They are going against all of the work that elected councillors and the planning team have done to assess the site and conclude that it is not viable for development.

“The university has been presented with a pioneering, revenue-generating vision in the Blean Biopark, yet they obviously intend to ignore this proposal and instead play the planning system, no doubt trying to beat the council into submission via appeal.

“Save The Blean will fight this all the way, through all possible legal means.”

Fellow group member Rob Wildman, of Hackington Parish Council, added: “There’s overwhelming local opposition to the development.

“CCC has rightly concluded the site is unsuitable after weighing up all views.

“I find it troubling to see the university is pursuing an unrealistic plan, seemingly funded by restructuring and job cuts, while dismissing a more ambitious vision for future success.”

The site north of the university had been the single biggest housing allocation in the original Local Plan before being removed earlier this year.

Council leader Cllr Alan Baldock previously said the decision was taken “due to concerns regarding provision of suitable access, impact on the highway network and impact on ecology, including the loss of ancient woodland”.

Despite that, the university’s letter makes clear it intends to pursue planning permission independently of the Local Plan process, setting up a potential clash with both the council and local residents.

Canterbury MP Rosie Duffield (Ind) has long been opposed to the residential development and backs the Biopark proposal.

"I am profoundly disappointed to learn that the university has decided to go ahead with such an incredibly unpopular plan, despite huge local opposition and following the removal of this scheme in the Local Plan by Canterbury City Council in response to residents,” she said.

“I know that local groups will again be organising further against this latest plan, and I am happy to support my constituents in keeping our precious and vital green spaces and seeking alternative areas for much-needed social and affordable housing schemes."

A spokesperson for CCC told KentOnline if a planning application is submitted it “would be determined in line with the Local Plan and all relevant planning legislation in place at that time".

A spokesperson for the University said: “We were disappointed with the decision to remove our site from the local plan and will be submitting further representations as part of the current focused consultation on the revised local plan.

“Canterbury has a critical need for more housing stock and we still believe the land on the University grounds represents the best solution to meet Canterbury’s housing and economic generation imperatives.

“Our next step is to submit further representations as part of the current focused consultation on the revised local plan, whilst continuing to progress plans with our chosen development partner.

“This will be done by 21st October.”

Croudace, a large development firm, is the company working with the Universit