A huge Kings Hill-style community of up to 5,500 homes could be built to the south of Maidstone.

Developers could be given the go-ahead to build a new village five times the size of Grove Green near Langley, Leeds and Otham.

It is one of the proposals being considered by Maidstone council as it reviews its target for the number of homes that should be built in the borough over the next 20 years.

A figure of 11,000 homes was set two years ago, but the coalition government has scrapped compulsory home-building targets and allowed local councils to set their own limits.

That has reopened what councillors bill as one of the most important debates facing the County Town.

The option of a new village is one of three being investigated by councillors as they decide whether to set a new target of 8,200, 10,080 or 11,000 homes to be built before 2026.

The larger number, including the 5,500 home village, is not universally supported.

Cllr Tony Harwood (Lib Dem) appealed to his colleagues to reject the idea, known as a “strategic development area”.

It is not a new proposal - and has previously been considered alongside the now defunct plan for a Leeds and Langley bypass.

Cllr Harwood said: “Maidstone is on a precipice. We could fall into a future that none of us want.

“We can either exert some real influence and democratic control over the growth of this borough or we can sleepwalk into urban sprawl and a declining quality of life.”

Council leader Cllr Chris Garland (Con) admitted: “The case for a strategic development area has been weakened now that it looks as though the Leeds/Langley bypass will not happen, but not sufficiently for it to be dismissed.”

Cllr Malcolm Greer (Con), cabinet member for regeneration, said that a strategic development area could cater for around 2,500 homes in the plan period and up to 5,500 homes eventually.

Backbench councillors criticised a report on the options for seeming to prematurely favour the highest housing target.

Cllr Garland agreed the report “could be misconstrued towards a particular option”, but he said there was no reason to withdraw it as there was a long way to go in the decision process.

The council will continue to weigh up all three possible targets, with further debates later in the year.