๐ˆ๐ฌ ๐‡๐ข๐ ๐ก๐ฌ๐ญ๐ž๐ ๐๐š๐ซ๐ค ๐…๐ข๐ง๐š๐ง๐œ๐ข๐š๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฒ ๐•๐ข๐š๐›๐ฅ๐ž? ๐€ ๐‘๐ข๐ฌ๐ค ๐“๐จ๐จ ๐†๐ซ๐ž๐š๐ญ ๐Ÿ๐จ๐ซ ๐’๐ฐ๐š๐ฅ๐ž?

One of the biggest concerns raised at the Planning Inquiry over the past couple of weeks is whether the Highsted Park development is financially viable โ€” and what happens if it isnโ€™t.

๐Ÿงฎ The developers claim their numbers stack up. They say even if profit margins are tight, large private firms often proceed based on long-term gain. Theyโ€™ve used a standard 15% profit margin in their viability modelling and argue that key infrastructure, including roads and schools, can be delivered on that basis.

โš ๏ธ But Kent County Council has raised serious doubts. Theyโ€™ve warned that if critical infrastructure like the Southern Relief Road isnโ€™t properly secured with up-front guarantees (bonds, deposits, etc), the whole scheme risks collapsing. Councils donโ€™t have the same financial buffer as developers โ€” if something goes wrong, itโ€™s local taxpayers and residents who bear the cost.

๐Ÿ“‘ The Inspector has repeatedly interrogated the reliability of the figures. She noted the absence of a detailed cost plan and challenged how inflation, compliance costs and contingencies were presented. Sheโ€™s made it clear that viability will be central to whether this plan goes ahead.

๐Ÿ’ฌ This isnโ€™t just about spreadsheets โ€” itโ€™s about whether essential infrastructure will ever materialise. Without strong financial safeguards, thereโ€™s a real risk that residents could be left with thousands of new homes and none of the promised roads, schools or services.

๐Ÿ“ฃ If youโ€™re concerned about the risks to our community in Swale, please donate to the Action Groupโ€™s Fighting Fund:

Click here to donate

The Public Inquiry resumes on Tuesday 22 July.