Villagers are celebrating a rare victory over a housing developer after a scheme for a new estate on farmland was thrown out by a planning inspector.

The application for 115 homes was on land off Foxborough Lane, Minster, near Ramsgate, behind houses fronting Tothill Street

It was rejected largely on traffic and pedestrian safety grounds as well as the loss of prime farmland by both Minster Parish and Thanet District Council.

But developer Gladman took its proposal to the Planning Inspectorate on appeal which has now been dismissed.

The decision has been welcomed by parish council chairman Cllr John Quittenden who described it as a “great result” for the village.

“A lot of people are going to be mighty relieved at this decision because there were loads of objections,” he said.

“As a parish council, we spent about £6,000 on specialists to challenge it, but it has paid off.

“We are having new developments proposed all over the parish, so it’s good to push back on one.”

The decision has also been welcomed by contributors to the Minster Matters Facebook page.

“It just goes to show that if you fight hard enough and come together then you can make a difference,” writes Dawn Appleby.

Gladman had described its scheme as “a carefully considered and sensitively designed new neighbourhood that will be well-connected with the existing settlement of Minster”.

It included public open space, a children’s play area, allotments, an orchard, landscaping, drainage and ecological enhancements.

The company argued the newly-revised National Planning Policy Framework “marked a decisive shift in the emphasis of the Government’s planning policy, particularly as regards the need to deliver more homes”.

It said: “There is now an explicit intolerance of attempts to frustrate housing delivery and with local planning authorities who fail to play their proper role in securing the homes that people so badly need.

“Thanet District Council cannot demonstrate a five-year housing land supply and, as such, the policies in the Local Plan influencing the scale and distribution of housing (including those policies designed to restrict residential development in the countryside), are considered out of date.”

But planning inspector, David Wallis was not convinced by the arguments and especially highlighted hazards to pedestrian safety at the access to the proposed development.

Part of his lengthy deliberation included: “The appeal proposal would give rise to an intensification of pedestrian movements on the network, and this would increase the probability of an accident.

“I would not agree that the use of tactile paving would be appropriate for pedestrian safety at this junction. The crossing at present is unsafe in my view and drawing greater attention to it, particularly for those with visual impairments who rely on tactile paving to signify safe crossing places, would be a hazard to pedestrian safety.”

The inspector was also concerned the development would harm the character and appearance of the landscape.

He concluded: “For these reasons, the harms of the proposed development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.”