Opponents have slammed plans to turn four barns into nine homes on a farm next to a sports club.

The plans at Gay Dawn Farm, next to Corinthian Sports Club in Longfield, would see one barn demolished and three others converted into eight four-bedroom homes and one three-bedroom home, all with private gardens.

Applicants FC Stark say the barns are underutilised following a “decline in agricultural uses” at Gay Dawn Farm and are currently used for store farm equipment, as well as machinery belonging to the Corinthian Sports Club and a tree surgeon.

But opponents, including Fawkham Parish Council, say the scheme amounts to inappropriate development in the Green Belt and that turning farm buildings into homes would impact on the rural character of the land.

A statement from the parish council added: "The site is located in the Pennis Valley which generally has an open character with landform and vegetation dominating the limited number of buildings in this area. There are six dwellings on Pennis Lane in the vicinity of the site, and so nine represents a significant increase in number, and at a far higher density.

“The greater degree of activity, coupled with domestication and residential paraphernalia (such as cycle stores, bin stores, fencing, garden furniture, car parking, etc) resulting from this proposed development will adversely affect the openness of the Green Belt.”

The council also noted it would be inappropriate to put a housing development in close proximity to a sports club, three listed buildings and two public rights of way, and that the provision of eight four-bedroom homes did not accord with the local need for two and three bed dwellings.

It added: “In summary, there is no strategic requirement for Fawkham to accommodate new housing allocations, the Parish is not a sustainable location for anything other than very limited housing development, there is only a low level of local need for market and affordable homes, and a further 54 dwellings already have planning consent. These points provide further reasons why the application should be refused.”

Other objections from residents in the area also focussed on the preservation of green belt sites, with one adding: “Our green belt is a precious and irreplaceable asset that contributes to the character and quality of life in our village. I firmly believe that the proposed development, while seeking to repurpose barns into homes, does not warrant an exception to the NPPF's emphasis on safeguarding our green spaces.”

Another stated: “The proposed development is in a rural area within the Greenbelt which is designed to prevent urban sprawl. The Greenbelt has been doing a good job. This development is eating into the Greenbelt and is creating urban sprawl. Furthermore, research shows that it is not necessary to build in the Greenbelt in order to meet the Government housing targets, these are being met elsewhere.”

Other objectors noted the development would put pressure on country roads, GP services, broadband, water and electric supplies.

A planning statement from FC Stark Ltd acknowledged the site was in the Metropolitan Green Belt and near three Grade II Listed heritage assets, adding: “Accordingly, the applicant has considered the design approach with great care. Furthermore, the buildings in their current form are of no significant architectural interest or visual quality and lie within a mixed commercial complex with a range of different rural building types.”

“The proposals are demonstrated to fully accord with the Green Belt objectives of the NPPF, as it seeks a re-use of existing buildings that are confirmed to be structurally sound and capable of conversion.”

They added that the scheme complied with elements of planning policy and help meet house-building objectives.

And the statement concluded: “The benefits of the proposal are the creation of nine new homes in a locality already characterised by mixed rural uses including residential, the prudent use of three underutilised buildings, the removal of excess built form within the Green Belt and a range of modest ecological and visual landscaping enhancement. In contrast, there would be little, if any, resultant harm.”