An appeal has been launched against a decision to refuse permission for new blocks of flats.

Medway Council denied permission to Freshbroom Ltd to build 26 homes on a former quarry site off Broom Hill Road, Strood in October last year.

One member of the planning committee claimed the developer was trying to make the “greatest monetary return”, at the expense of “local residents and their environment”.

But the Rainham-based company has launched an appeal against the decision on the grounds the reasons given for its refusal were “subjective” and insufficiently detailed as to why the scheme is unacceptable.

The plans were originally for 33 flats across three blocks but this was revised down to 26 before going to the committee meeting on October 23 in order to reduce the height of the buildings to be more in keeping with other nearby homes.

The proposals intended to demolish existing buildings on the former quarry site to build three-, four-, and five-storey blocks of 10 one-bed flats and 16 two-bed flats.

The tallest block would have been built in the deepest section of the quarry, which the developer argue would reduce the visual impact and prevent overlooking onto nearby properties.

The proposals received 86 letters of objection from locals who opposed the scheme.

Officers had recommended the application for approval, but planning committee members ultimately voted down the scheme with five voting for and seven against.

Councillors voiced concerns over the size and scale of the plans which, in their view, would result in overdevelopment and damage to the character of the area.

Tetlow King Planning Ltd have been instructed by Freshbloom to lodge the appeal and write to the secretary of state.

In documents submitted, the appeal makes counter arguments to the points raised by the planning committee and also argues the decision was contrary to the planning officer’s recommendations.

It also argues because Medway Council doesn’t have a five-year supply of housing sites the authority is required to err on the side of approval.

Writing in the conclusion of its appeal submission, Tetlow King Planning argue: “The only ground of refusal is based on subjective matters, reflecting that the application was recommended by officers for approval only to be overturned by the planning committee.

“At the time of submission of this statement the appellant has seen no substantive evidence to support the reason for refusal.

“In contrast, this statement has considered the separate elements of the reason for refusal and outlined why the scheme is acceptable in regard to compliance with development plan policy.”

The Planning Inspectorate, the public body tasked by the government with deciding major applications and planning appeals, is now collecting representations in relation to the developer’s submission which must be submitted by June 16.

There will then be a further two weeks for each side to respond to the evidence provided.

To see more planning applications and other public notices for your area, click here.

Cllr Stephen Hubbard, ward councillor for Strood North and Frindsbury where the site is, spoke at the meeting last year and pressed for its refusal.

He argued a previously approved scheme for eight homes on the site was much more suitable and the 26 flats would be too much.

The Labour councillor added: “I have leant over the years not to second guess a planning inspector at appeal.

“The council's planning team's recommendation of approval, in their report to the planning committee, will count in the developers favour. On the overhand the planning committee's reason for refusal was strong.

“The inspector will note that the council has approved permission for eight houses on this site. An ideal development. So, there is no track record of the council just refusing development.

“This is a case of the developer looking to make the greatest monetary return, at a cost to local residents and their environment.

“Members of the committee were advocating suitable and sustainable development in Strood.

“I am sure the Inspector will also note that there is clearly a very strong local view opposing this application.

“All that correspondence is available to the Inspector and additionally all the objectors have received a follow up letter/email welcoming further comments.”