A controversial proposal to build houses on a former tennis club will be put forward again this week.

A revised plan to build houses behind Second Avenue in Gillingham is due to be presented to Medway councillors on Wednesday, with the planning department recommending approval.

The plans were last considered by the committee in March when they were refused for a third time.

The proposals – the subject of two Planning Inspectorate appeals which were dismissed – were put forward by the Jarvis family who own the land and Avenue Tennis in Featherby Road.

The application also drew criticism from residents and ward councillor Chrissy Stamp.

The last time the application was considered, the applicant wanted to build seven homes on the site, but this time, councillors will debate a plan for six homes; in order provide access for vehicles coming onto the site, two houses in Second Avenue would need to be demolished.

The fresh proposals have been the subject of more than 40 letters of objection.

The council's planning department has recommended councillors approve the plans, saying in a report: "It is considered that the proposal has satisfactorily addressed the concerns of both the inspectors in the appeals as well as the reason for refusing the previous application."

Oliver Fish, who has led residents in opposition to the scheme, said he was suspicious of a number of letters submitted in a support of the scheme - several of which were from people who lived outside of the area.

He had also investigated a letter of support from an address in Second Avenue itself, and found that the occupant was unaware of the letter being submitted.

And he said residents remain firmly opposed to the plan.

"We're against it because it's backland development," he said. "They've bought a property and they're building in the back gardens.

"We're all exhausted from fighting it."

Rehman Chishti MP – clarification

In recent stories about the ongoing application to build homes on land owned by Jarvis Residential (Medway) Ltd in Gillingham we stated that MP Rehman Chishti had apologised for breaking parliamentary rules regarding a “conflict of interest” on the matter.

This was incorrect. Mr Chishti was, in fact, cleared of this by the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner who found that his representations were “made after a consideration of the public interest and was objectively in line the public interest”.

The full relevant paragraph from the publicly available Commissioner’s report can be read below: “Taking into account all of this information, I am satisfied that your support for Jarvis Residential Ltd’s planning application was made after a consideration of the public interest and was objectively in line the public interest.

"I am also satisfied that there is no information available to support the suggestion that your support for the application was due to a private interest.

"Accordingly, I do not find a breach of paragraph 11 of the Code.” On a separate point, regarding the adequacy of Mr Chishti’s declaration, Mr Chishti had made a declaration in his representations which he felt was appropriate at the time in line with the rules of the Parliamentary Code of Conduct.

The Parliamentary Standards Commissioner accepted that Mr Chishti had made a declaration, however, the Commissioner found that the declaration needed to be clearer.

The Commissioner accepted this explanation and remedial action was taken. KentOnline is happy to clarify this matter and apologises for any distress caused.