Plans for a 2,500-home garden village and a 28,000-seater stadium bigger than the 02 arena have caused quite a stir among people living in three nearby rural communities.

But what do those in Swanley, a 1960s town teetering on the edge of the M25 between the London commuter belt and their leafy neighbours, think? Senior reporter Alan Smith went to find out.

Sevenoaks council is preparing its next Local Plan, which will direct where development will go between now and the year 2040.

Amid the ongoing housing shortage, the government wants the council to find space for 10,680 new homes during the plan period. At present 93% of the district falls within the green belt.

Within the draft strategy, which a public consultation recently came to an end on, are two controversial sites in the rolling fields of the Darent Valley at Farningham and Crockenhill.

The first at Pedham Place Golf Club is a joint proposal from Gladman Developments and the Ramac Group to create a 2,500-home new community to include its own schools, doctors’ surgeries, transport hub and employment units.

They say the aim is to create “a 20-minute community,” so that the new residents will find everything they need within a 20-minute walk of their homes.

But the developers also say that the par-three golf club’s location just south-east of the Swanley junction where the M25 and M20 meet, plus its closeness to town’s railway station, make it the ideal spot for residents who need to travel further afield.

The good road links have also attracted the newly reformed Wasps Rugby Club, who would like to leave their temporary home at Coventry in favour of a new stadium to be built either at Pedham Place, or alternatively on nearby agricultural land at Petham Court Farm.

The Wasps' plan envisages a 28,000-seat stadium, accompanying hotel and conference centre, training facilities and pitches. The stadium, which would seat almost half as many again as London’s O2, would also be used for other events such as pop concerts.

Residents in Crockenhill, Farningham and Eynsford have been vocal in their opposition, saying the new village would dwarf their communities and that both suggestions would swamp their essentially rural roads with intolerable traffic.

And online – where debate over housing and plann can be both more tribal and toxic – residents said they had been pitted against each other “like the Hunger Games”.

They even held a tractor protest around the area at the begging of the year to emphasise the essential rural nature of the area.

But just a mile away is the Swanley Square Shopping Centre, the main precinct for Swanley town, whose large Asda superstore draws in visitors from many of the neighbouring communities.

When asked what they thought about the two proposals there was a lot of sympathy for the potential plight of the villagers among shoppers, as well as a degree of support for the plans and what economic and social benefits it could bring.

Marc Curtain, 36, is a logistics operative who works in a warehouse on the industrial estate off Wested Lane, very close to Petham Farm.

He has lived in Swanley for 34 years and told KentOnline: “I sympathise with the residents close to the proposals. Eynsford for example is a lovely little village at present, but all the traffic from 2,500 new homes or the thousands of people visiting the stadium will be a disaster for them.”

But he said, with the easy access to the motorways, it was hard to imagine a more suitable place existed.

He said: “I suppose it might be good for Swanley in the sense of the extra people helping businesses stay open.

“But that throws up issues of where will people park – parking is very difficult around here.”

Paul Howell, 56, was in agreement. He said: “What is being proposed is just massive. Traffic is already a problem.

“At peak periods there are big queues of cars trying to get on and off the M25 at Swanley junction. It’s really bad with people queuing on the hard shoulder.

“Adding more traffic is just going to make things worse and risk more accidents.”

But when it came to the needs to solve the housing crisis Mr Howell was also sympathetic to the issues facing younger generations.

He added: “On the other hand, we do need more houses. It’s very difficult for young people to get on the housing ladder.”

Mr Howell thought that if just the stadium proposal went ahead, it would have the reverse affect of adding extra pressure to the housing market.

He said: “People will want to move to the area, either to work at the stadium or just to be close to it.

“That’s likely to increase the demand for housing locally.”

Mr Howell added: “It would be a new facility for the area, but it would also be a shame to lose the golf club – that is very popular. I play there myself.”

Dan Coombs, 37, has lived in Swanley for more than a decade and welcomed the stadium idea.

He said: “As a parent with young children, aged 11, nine and three, it would be great to have some new sports facilities.

“It would also be good to see some more investment in Swanley, rather than just having firms pulling out.”

But the online sports editor added: "I do have sympathy with the residents of the villages who fear for the traffic on their lanes. The M25 Swanley junction does get very congested even now.”

Mr Coombs said he appreciated that both locations fell within the greenbelt, but didn't think that should bar development.

“You have to be prepared to compromise,” he adds. “Each proposal should be looked at on its own merit.”

Although he added: “The loss of the golf club would be disappointing for many.”

Ted Griggs, 59, was very clear in his approach.

“No. No. No!,” he said. “There’s nothing good to be said for either scheme.

"We already know what it will be like from what happens when Brands Hatch has a race day. All the roads around Swanley just snarl up.”

He said: “New homes will just add more pressure on local services. It’s almost impossible to get a doctor’s appointment now – if you do, they will only to talk to you on the phone.”

“Pedham Place is in the greenbelt. That is supposed to mean it can’t be built on.

“The golf club is well used and also hosts very popular boot fairs. Leave well alone.”

Friends Lorraine Gaskin, 64, and Sue Neville, 71, were in Swanley shopping together.

Mrs Gaskin had lived in Swanley for 50 years, athough she more recently moved to Hextable, where Mrs Neville has lived for 30 years.

Mrs Gaskin said: “Another 2,500 homes will put intolerable pressure on Swanley. It is already impossible to register with a NHS dentist.

“And already you can’t move around Swanley after 3.30pm because of the traffic congestion.”

Mrs Neville agreed, saying: “There is no public transport to speak of, which means everyone goes by car.

“Those new homes will have at least two cars each.”

Mrs Gaskin said: “The developers say they will provide a new doctors surgery, but a building is no good if it stays empty.”

She said: “We’ve seen three doctors’ surgeries in Swanley shrink to just one. They just can’t get the doctors to man them.

“Then there’s schooling. Children from Swanley are already bussed out as far as Plumstead because there are not enough local school places.

“And that’s not allowing for the rising population already in the pipeline, with scores of new homes at the White Oak Leisure Centre and 200 more homes going in at Hextable.

“They will all have at least two cars – with pubic transport the way it is you are properly stuck if you don’t have a car.”

Mrs Neville was also incensed that the developments were being proposed in the greenbelt.

But Mrs Neville asked: “What’s the point of these regulations, if the councils never stick to them?”

Mrs Gaskin added: “It’s because the council sees Swanley as the a*** end of Sevenoaks, and they are prepared to stick anything here.”

However, Kevin Alford, was more sympathetic to the plans.

Mr Alford said: “People have got to live somewhere. With so many homeless people on the street, it’s hard to say there shouldn’t be more homes.”

Mr Alford who comes from Orpington four or five times a week to visit the Asda in the Swanley Centre and to walk his dog on the nearby recreation field, also thought more homes could mean more customers for local businesses.

He added: “There could be more shops, more business; it could be beneficial.”

But he warned that serious consideration would have to be given to parking provision. He said: “It can be quite difficult to find a place to park even now.”

Another shopper, enjoying a coffee at Costa Coffee, said: “I think I could support the stadium idea. It could bring employment and be quite positive.

As far as the new garden village was concerned, he said: “It’s affordable homes we need, not new executive homes.”

A retired commercial banker, the 66-year-old, who didn't want to be named, said: “But I can see how the idea would be unthinkable for people in the villages.”

“The roads around Eynsford are just country lanes. There would have to be very strong measures in place to protect them.”

“That number of homes would generate an awful lot of traffic. Perhaps a new bypass would be needed?

“Then again, I suppose even the pubs and small shops in the villages would be grateful of some extra custom.”

The proposed garden village development at Pedham Place would cover 144 hectares of greenbelt, but the developers argue the land is “poorly performing”.

The golf course was created in the 1990s using soil displaced from the construction of Canary Wharf in London.

However, one younger shopper, who wished only to give his first name of Lewis, was more welcoming of the proposals.

He said: “Swanley often misses out when it comes to investment in local services and we have had many sites and shops left empty over the past few years as a result.

“We have lost all of our banks and have an abundance of very busy nail parlours!

“There would be many jobs created and new affordable housing made available on areas of land that are otherwise largely unused.

“Many locals have raised issues around the traffic and disruption that may be caused by such a development, which I do largely share, but I would hope that local infrastructure and traffic arrangements have been considered for such a large project.”

We should be looking at this as a good opportunity but with some questions that need to be answered

He added: “Many local folk who have lived in Swanley for many years appear to fear any new plans or developments.

“I am sure at some point, similar discussions were had when Brands Hatch race course was being considered during planning stage. Much of the fear around such developments comes from fear of change.

“We should be looking at this as a good opportunity but with some questions that need to be answered, such as local infrastructure including education, health care and transport.”

A spokesman for the Wasps said: “Either site would present a huge opportunity to deliver the facilities that the club requires to enable us to operate again as a premiership club.

“In addition, the club’s Foundation Trust would be pivotal in facilitating community outreach and benefits that would support both Swanley and the wider district.”

Swanley has had its own town council since 1974, owning some 150 acres of parks and recreation areas.

Cllr Michael Horwood (Con), who represents Swanley Christchurch and Village ward, said: “We are naturally very concerned about the impact of both proposals on the area.”

“On the issue of the Wasps Stadium, Swanley Town Council is against the inclusion of this in the plan.

“We do recognise the substantial boost for the local economy this could bring in terms of jobs and investment. However, the main concern relates to the significant number of cars and vehicles to fill a 28,000 stadium which would descend on the area, which, if mixed with the regular troubles and congestion of traffic from blockage at the Dartford Crossing, would be a nightmare for local people.

“It’s important to bear in mind that this is not just a rugby stadium – it will be a concert arena and conference centre, which means the traffic would be consistently busy several times per week.

“The area simply cannot cope with that until the new Lower Thames Crossing – which is still over a decade away – and we don’t want to have a town, where residents will not be able to leave their homes due to roads being closed, as already happens in Twickenham.”

Cllr Horwood added: “On the issue of Pedham Place, it is important to highlight that the number of houses proposed in the plan without Pedham Place is unlikely to meet the council’s housing targets, particularly as some of those baseline sites, such as the site in Swanley at Lullingstone Avenue / Archer Way, are thoroughly unsuitable to Swanley residents and which we are also campaigning to have removed.”

There is a fear in Swanley that if Pedham Place is removed, the ideas from the previous Local Plan of 2017, namely the 3,000 home ‘garden village’ in Swanley’s Green Belt between Swanley, Swanley Village and the M25, could be resurrected.

“We are therefore caught in a very difficult place,” adds Cllr Horwood.

“If Pedham Place isn’t included in the next stage of the plan, it could substantially increase the risk of the Swanley ‘garden village’ proposal re-emerging as the next and final stage of the plan, by which point there are no alternative options to meet housing need, and therefore that is what is taken to the National Planning Inspector.

“Of course none of us are in favour of building over greenbelt, and that is the dilemma that we face.

“Pedham Place also presents a range of challenges that need to be further explored before anything could be taken forward, namely infrastructure improvements being guaranteed before the development takes place (such as the Junction 3 M25 and other road improvements), and the guarantee of how the development will be self-sustainable, reducing the number of car journeys into towns like Swanley.

“It also needs to ensure that traffic does not rat-run through other communities such as Crockenhill, Eynsford and Farningham, and it will require significant landscaping to ensure it is kept apart and doesn’t blur the distinct character of those communities.

Find out about planning applications and other public notices in your area by visiting PublicNoticePortal.uk

Cllr Horwood said the only way to guarantee both Pedham Place and the former garden village are not included in the next round of consultation, is to secure a much-needed further clarification of the government’s “announcement” regarding housing targets being “advisory”.

He explained that despite the verbal fanfare, it failed to actually amend the legal and technical document (the NPPF) around this, which specifically doesn’t mention high levels of greenbelt as an “exceptional reason” that allows councils to depart from the housing target methodology.

“That is something we have raised with our MP.”