Keep up to date with the latest developments.
- Highsted Park decision by the end of September 2026
The Planning Inspector has submitted her report to the Secretary of State. A decision is expected by the end of September 2026.
- Concerns Submitted to Secretary of State
The Action Group and the Five Parishes Group have written to the Secretary of State raising concerns about theĀ appearanceĀ of predetermination in relation to the Highsted Park applications (PINS: APP/V2255/V/24/3355313 & 314). The letter requests transparency and disclosure to ensure the calledāin planning decision is made solely on the basis of the inquiry evidence and properly disclosed representations.
- Read the letter to the Secretary of State here [April 2026]
- Read the Sittingbourne Me blog here [April 2026]
- Thank you to our supporters
Thank you to everyone who donated to the Action Group. Your support enabled us to present strong, independent community concerns at the Highsted Park Inquiry. The donation page is now closed. A decision is expected later this summer, although timing is not fixed and may extend beyond this. We will review next steps once the decision is known.
- Action Group responds to Highsted Park North s.106 Agreement
The Action Groupās representation raises concerns over inadequate healthcare contributions, low affordable housing provision, weak relief road obligations, delayed GP services, and unclear community facility commitments, urging stronger safeguards, enforceable delivery, and alignment with local policy to protect residents and infrastructure.
- Public Inquiry Into Highsted Park Concludes
The public inquiry into Quinn Estatesā 8,400-home Highsted Park scheme has ended, bringing to a close what is believed to be the longest housing-led inquiry ever considered by the Planning Inspectorate. Swale Council, parish councils, and community groupsāincluding the Teynham and Highsted Action Groupāmounted a detailed case outlining the schemeās unacceptable impact on landscape, heritage, infrastructure, and local services. The Planning Inspector will now prepare a recommendation for the Secretary of State. A final decision is expected in the coming months.
- Closing Submissions
Today, Wednesday 29 October 2025, the Action Group and the Five Parishes Group presented their closing statements to the Highsted Park Planning Inquiry.
The closing statement from theĀ Teynham and Highsted Community Action GroupĀ and theĀ Five Parishes GroupĀ urges the Inspector and Secretary of State to refuse permission for the proposed Highsted Park developments. The Groups argue that the 8,400-home scheme would causeĀ irreversible harmĀ to the countryside, heritage assets, and local infrastructure. They cite concerns aboutĀ viability,Ā transport,Ā landscape,Ā water, andĀ ecology, describing the proposal asĀ urban sprawl unsuited to rural Kent. The submission concludes that the scheme isĀ undeliverable, undermines the local planning process, threatens heritage sites, and would permanently destroy the areaāsĀ natural and historic character.
- Action Group Presents Impact on the Community
Thursday 2 October 2025
The Inquiry resumed on 2 October after a two-month break over the Summer and is scheduled to conclude on 31 October.
Cllr Julien Speed addressed the Inquiry on behalf of the Action Group. Ā He was answering questions put to him by the groupās barrister, Simon Barnes, on the written proof of evidence he had submitted.Ā ThisĀ examined the impact onĀ the community were the development to go ahead. Ā
Summary of key points
Below isĀ a summaryĀ of some of the key points raised. Ā
- Sources and Methodology: Ā CllrĀ Speed explained that his evidence was based on a detailed review of all public representations submitted to Swale Borough Council for both the Northern and Southern Highsted Park applications, totalling more than 4,000 pages. HeĀ hadĀ categorisedĀ and quantifiedĀ objection themes, distinguishing between volume of objections (total points raised) and breadth (number of individual residents raising an issue).Ā
- Objections versus Support: Ā Tables were presentedĀ showing that 2,087 objection points had been submitted to the Northern site consultationĀ alone,Ā across ten topics, compared with just 218 points of supportāĀ an objection rate of 90%.Ā Importantly, 82% of objection submissions were independently written, while two-thirds of support letters were pre-written templates ā either linked to Sittingbourne Football Club (seeking new facilities) or to businessesĀ handed a templateĀ by the applicant.Ā Objections were heartfelt and diverse, while support was heavily orchestrated.Ā Ā An analysis of public engagement with other large housing applications suggested that Highsted had attractedĀ a highervolume of submissionsĀ thanĀ any site in the UK. Ā
- Traffic and Congestion: Ā The single greatest concern was traffic, with 368 submissions from 212 residents. Objections cited pressure on the A2 through Teynham,Ā BapchildĀ and surrounding rural lanes,Ā which wouldĀ alreadyĀ be exacerbatedĀ by recent approvals for over 1,400 dwellings in nearby schemes.Ā TrafficĀ modelling failed to account for cumulative impacts.Ā Department for Transport and resident traffic counts showedĀ a 24% rise in volumeĀ on London Road in TeynhamĀ between 2019 and 2024, against a slight national decline. Closures of the M2 (32 times in the past year) divertedĀ traffic onto the A2, pushing daily volumes above 19,000 vehicles. TheĀ scheme wouldĀ notĀ promote sustainable travel,Ā as claimed, withĀ inadequate bus services (axed at worst, hourly at best) and a poor rail service from Teynham.Ā Car dependency would rise rather than fall.
- Healthcare Provision: Ā Healthcare was the second most cited concern.Ā TeynhamĀ nowĀ has no GP surgery, leaving residents reliant on Sittingbourne Memorial where access is difficult and appointments scarce.Ā GP ratios in Swale are among the worst inĀ the country, withĀ one localĀ surgeryĀ serving over 4,000 patients per GP compared to the national average of 1,720.Ā Funding pledges of Ā£1.5m for primary careĀ areĀ inadequateĀ andĀ the promised healthcare centre might notĀ evenĀ be delivered,Ā given the failure at Frognal Place despite original promises. Ā Acute care was equally concerning.Ā Medway Maritime Hospital operatesĀ regularlyĀ at 97% occupancy andĀ is ranked 130th out of 134 trusts nationally.Ā TheĀ NHS estimates that Ā£4.5m would be needed to accommodateĀ the Northern siteāsĀ population growth, but the applicantĀ is refusingĀ any contributionĀ at all.Ā
- Education and SEND: Ā Residents feared worsening shortages in school places.Ā Existing primary and secondary schools are oversubscribed, and doubts were expressed over timely delivery of a new on-site primary.Ā On SEND provision, KentĀ wasĀ issued with an improvement notice in 2023Ā and families were already struggling to find suitable placements, sometimes as far as 17 miles away.
- Landscape and Countryside Gaps: Ā A major theme was the destruction of countryside gaps between Teynham, Sittingbourne and Bapchild, contrary to Swale Local Plan policies designed to preserve rural identity.Ā VillagesĀ would coalesce into a single urban sprawl.Ā Additional harm was identified to rural lanes, the TongeĀ ConservationĀ Area and views from the Kent Downs National Landscape.
- Agricultural Land: Ā The Northern site includes 79 hectares of Best and Most Versatile farmland, with 570 hectares at risk across both sites.Ā Swaleās heritage as a nationally significant fruit-growing areaĀ is at risk. Ā Safeguarding domestic food production is criticalbut this land would beĀ permanently lostĀ to speculative housing development.
- Air Quality: Ā On London Road in Teynham, houses sit directly on the street, placing families justĀ metresĀ from vehicle emissionsĀ –Ā .Ā PM2.5 particles are known to penetrate the lungs and bloodstream, contributing to asthma, cardiovascular disease and reduced life expectancy.Ā CurrentĀ levels already exceed interim government targets for 2028 and Highsted Park, combined with other developments, wouldĀ see pollution in excess of legally-binding limits by 2040. Ā Mitigation measures were inadequate.
- Sewage and Water Supply: Ā LocalĀ foul water and drainage networksĀ are already under strain.Ā In Teynham, residents have experienced sewage overflows into gardens and flooding during heavy rain, particularly at Frognal Lane.Ā Southern Water has admitted the network is in poor condition and lacks capacity for even existing approvedĀ developments, stating that no more than 50 additional homes could be connected without a major upgrade.Ā PumpingĀ stations drawing from chalk aquifers already struggleĀ to provide an adequate water supply, with low pressure reported in summer months.Ā There is serious doubtĀ that the infrastructure required for thousands of new homes could be delivered reliably or on time.
- Heritage: Ā The proposed Northern Relief Road would cut directly across the Tonge Conservation Area, disrupting historic features such as the stream and pond at TongeĀ Mill.Ā Listed buildings including Frognal Farmhouse, a Grade II* property, would be enveloped by modern housing, eroding their rural setting.Ā TheĀ scheme would fundamentally alter the character of conservation areas and harm the integrity of historic farmsteads, cottages and landscapes that define the local heritage.
- Other Issues: Ā Additional objections covered issues such as biodiversity (loss of hedgerows and wildlife corridors), the lack of affordable housing being built and the impact on night-time tranquility. Ā
Conclusion
- The harms of the Highsted Park proposals significantly outweigh any claimed benefits. While the applicant presented the scheme as a strategic opportunity, residents and the Action Group view it as fundamentally unsound, unsustainable and not viable.
- There is no need for the large element of employment space proposed, which is misaligned with actual economic demand in Swale. The scheme fails to address pressing local priorities, with inadequate commitments to affordable housing and a complete refusal to contribute to acute healthcare.
- It will not contribute to Swaleās fiveāyear housing land supply ā nor the governmentās 1.5m new homes target – due to long leadāin times and phasing uncertainties.
- The site is not allocated in Swaleās adopted Local Plan. Ā Bringing forward such a major unplanned development outside of the established planāmaking framework would undermine the integrity of local planning and run contrary to national policy principles.
- Highsted Park would inflict a catastrophic catalogue of harmsĀ on the local community andĀ should be refused. Ā
Watch video recording
- A recording of the dayās proceedings can be viewed at: Ā https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2ROk85d_CAĀ Ā Ā
- The Action Groupās evidence startsĀ 5 hours 8 minutes in. Ā
- Fundraising Update
Thank you so much to everyone who has donated to the Teynham and Highsted Community Action Group.
Your support has helped us engage barristers and expert witnesses at the Highsted Park Public Inquiry. We have already presented compelling evidence that this proposed development of 8,400 new houses would cause irreparable harm to our community.
We have raised an incredible Ā£34,000 ā which means we hit our original target.
The Inquiry was due to have concluded in July. However, it has over-run and a further 12 days are scheduled in October. This means we have to find additional funds to complete the job. So we urgently need your continued support to see this through.
This final phase of the Inquiry will hear evidence on planning, to examine whether the application accords with national and local policies. Section 106 agreements and conditions will be also scrutinised ā meaning that, if the development were to be approved, community benefits and other infrastructure commitments must be made enforceable.
Our barrister then has to make his closing statement to summarise our myriad of objections. It is vital that we have professional representation in this final phase of the Inquiry, which will have sat for 53 working days.
We need to raise another Ā£6,000. So we are asking if you might be able to make a further contribution to enable us to see this through. We are very grateful for your support so far and fully understand if you are unable to commit additional funds.
Thank you again for helping us fight this development.
Regards Teynham and Highsted Community Action Group
- Event: Update on the Highsted Park Planning Inquiry
Join members of the Action Group for an update on the Highsted Park Planning Inquiry.
- Fundraising
The Action Group has raised Ā£34,000, but with 12 more days added to the Highsted Park Inquiry, our target has risen to Ā£40,000. Together we can reach it ā join the planned fundraising events or share your own ideas.
The Highsted Park Planning Inquiry has been extended, now running for an additional 12 days ā with the extension our fundraising target rises to Ā£40,000, and further support is urgently needed. So far the inquiry has examined landscape, heritage, ecology, highways, air quality and viability, while the Action Group ā a consortium of Doddington, Lynsted with Kingsdown, Newnham, Teynham, and TongeĀ parish councils ā has, so far, directed its efforts on transport & highways, heritage, and the Section 106 debate, ensuring expert evidence is presented and local voices are properly heard.
Hearings resume in October, and will focusing on the key areas of community concerns, planning policy and the closing arguments from each barrister.Ā
For details of the planned events visit the Fundraising Page
Alternatively, you can always make a donation online at anytime
- Viability Explained
- Day 41: Viability
24 July 2025
Affordable housing at Highsted Park
ā policy compliant or falling short?On the final viability day of the Highsted Park Inquiry on Thursday 24 July, the spotlight was on affordable housing ā how much will be delivered, who itās for, and whether the figures add up.
Giving evidence for the Applicant, Claire Dickenson of planning consultancy Quod confirmed that the developer expects to provide 27.7% affordable housing across the North and South sites combined ā subject to overall viability. But crucially, this is not a firm commitment.
For the Northern site alone (land West of Teynham) the Applicant argued that just 10% affordable housing would be policy compliant, as the land lies within the Sittingbourne urban area ā where Swaleās Local Plan sets a lower threshold. But that position was challenged.
Kent County Council raised concerns about how the Applicant had defined the local housing market area ā suggesting theyād used a broad and favourable definition of āSittingbourneā that could understate real need. Swale Borough Council pressed on whether the mix of housing types would meet local demand, particularly around affordable rent, social housing, and specialist homes.
The impact of compulsory purchase orders (CPOs) was also scrutinised. If parts of the relief roads need to be acquired by CPO, it could delay housing delivery ā and potentially erode viability, reducing the affordable housing offer even further.
The Inspector questioned the reliability of the figures, asking what would happen if costs rose or land deals fell through. With no secured land for key infrastructure and no promotion agreements disclosed, confidence in the Applicantās assumptions appeared to waver.
In short, the Applicant says the scheme could provide up to 27.7% affordable housing ā but offers no guarantees. With viability under pressure, and the prospect of rising costs and land delays, residents may be left asking: how much affordable housing will Highsted Park really deliver ā if any?To donate, click here
- šš¬ šš¢š š”š¬ššš ššš«š¤ š
š¢š§šš§šš¢šš„š„š² šš¢ššš„š? š šš¢š¬š¤ ššØšØ šš«ššš ššØš« šš°šš„š?
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 ā and what happens if it isnāt.
š§® 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. Theyāve 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.
ā ļø But Kent County Council has raised serious doubts. Theyāve warned that if critical infrastructure like the Southern Relief Road isnāt properly secured with up-front guarantees (bonds, deposits, etc), the whole scheme risks collapsing. Councils donāt have the same financial buffer as developers ā if something goes wrong, itās local taxpayers and residents who bear the cost.
š 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. Sheās made it clear that viability will be central to whether this plan goes ahead.
š¬ This isnāt just about spreadsheets ā itās about whether essential infrastructure will ever materialise. Without strong financial safeguards, thereās a real risk that residents could be left with thousands of new homes and none of the promised roads, schools or services.
š£ If youāre concerned about the risks to our community in Swale, please donate to the Action Groupās Fighting Fund:
The Public Inquiry resumes on Tuesday 22 July.
- Ā£532 Raised for Action Group!
Saturday 19 July
A fantastic evening at Teynham Community Hall on Saturday raised Ā£532 towards our Action Group fund. The quiz, āHeads and Tailsā, and raffle made for a fun nightāthank you to everyone who came along, donated prizes, or took part!
Special thanks to quiz master Steve and scorekeeper Elaine for keeping things entertaining and on track.
Funds raised will go towards legal and expert costs to make sure community voices are heard in the Highsted ParkĀ planning inquiry.
- Quiz Night: Saturday 19 July
Saturday 19 July
Teynham Community Hall, Station Road, Teynham, ME9 9DU- To book a table Call Elaine on 07884 355423 or email elaine.coates@hotmail.co.uk
Join us for Quiz Night!
The Action Groupārepresenting Doddington, Lynsted with Kingsdown, Newnham, Teynham, and Tonge Parish Councilsāis hosting a fun-filled evening to raise essential funds for our legal teamācovering the cost of a barrister and expert witnessesāso we can effectively represent our community at the Highsted Park Planning Inquiry.
Come along, test your knowledge, and support the cause!
If you can’t make the Quiz Night, you can still donate online: Donate Here
- Day 31: Financial Viability
This week the Planning Inquiry is focusing on financial viability of the proposed applications ā that means whether the developer can actually afford to deliver what theyāre promising, like affordable housing, roads, schools, and other infrastructure.
Watch live online:
https://www.youtube.com/@SwaleCouncil
List of speakers
https://programmeofficers.co.uk/Highsted/Programme.pdf
- Join Us for Quiz Night: 19 July 2025 Saturday 19 July, 7.30pm Teynham Community Hall
The Action Group is hosting a fun-filled evening to raise essential funds for our legal teamācovering the cost of a barrister and expert witnessesāso we can effectively represent our community at the Highsted Park Planning Inquiry.
Come along, test your knowledge, and support the cause!
- Day 25: Transport
Wednesdayās session continued the evidence ofĀ Bruce Bamber, highways expert for the Teynham & Highsted Community Action Group, followed by testimony fromĀ Cllr Monique BonneyĀ of the Five Parishes Opposition Group.
Key points from the day:
Bruce Bamber (for the Teynham & Highsted Community Action Group)
- š® The Inspector asked whether technological change ā like e-bikes ā could make forecasts obsolete over the developmentās 20-year build-out.
- š£ļø Mr Bamber replied thatĀ planning must be based on evidence, not optimism. As set out inĀ paragraph 116 of the NPPF, forecasts must be reasonable and grounded in reality āĀ not wishful thinking.
- š£ļø When asked why he hadnāt modelled the volume of rat-running onĀ Lower Road, he explained that he had tried to work withĀ KCC and National Highways, but wasĀ repeatedly rebuffed.
- š He also confirmed that the applicant hadĀ not followed TRICS guidance, which requires a clear, evidence-based approach to modelling traffic.
Brendan WeaverĀ (for the Duchy of Cornwall)
- šĀ Brendan WeaverĀ (for the Duchy of Cornwall) added that:
- The criticalĀ Brenley Corner junctionĀ was not assessed until very late. It now showsĀ 300 extra vehicles per hour at peak time, butĀ no mitigation is proposed.
- The applicantās proposedĀ timeline for the motorway junction is unrealistic. He estimated betweenĀ 6 andĀ 9 yearsĀ before it could open ā including at least five years for planning and a minimum 18 months for construction.
- šĀ He argued no homes should be built until the junction is operational.
- š He also pointed out that the applicantās estimates ofĀ bus journey times are misleading, because they ignore walking, waiting, and detours compared to direct car routes.
Cllr Monique Bonney (for the Five Parishes)
- š£ļø In the afternoon,Ā Cllr Monique BonneyĀ gave evidence for the Five Parishes Opposition Group:
- š§ She questioned the traffic modelling aroundĀ Church Street in Rodmersham, particularly given the proposed new primary school nearby.
- š« She arguedĀ no housing should be builtĀ before the motorway junction and relief roads are complete.
- š She spoke of theĀ emotional and financial distressĀ caused to residents since 2021, with manyĀ unable to sell their homes.
- š She criticised KCCās management of bus provision, noting thatĀ the County Council hasnāt even applied to unlock existing Section 106 fundsĀ for services.
- šĀ āBefore COVID, Bapchild had four buses an hour. Now we have just one.ā
- š¶āāļø She said modelling hasĀ ignored pedestrians, cyclists, and equestrian users, and warned of more car travel if, for example, the site shrinks its employment area to make way for more healthcare facilities.
- š She raised major concerns about the proposedĀ Tonge rail crossing, which would standĀ up to 9 metres highĀ in places ā aboutĀ one-third the height of the massive Sheppey CrossingĀ ā plus lighting and visual intrusion.
- šæ She strongly opposed the proposedĀ culvert through a chalk streamĀ in a conservation area for the Northern Relief Road ā calling itĀ āa substantial piece of infrastructure in an internationally important habitat.ā
- š She criticised theĀ Southern Relief Road, noting that theĀ sheer number of junctions would disrupt the flow of traffic.Ā SheĀ also highlighted thatĀ key design drawings are still missingĀ from the application.
In summary
- šĀ Day 25 revealed how the Highsted Park proposal is built onĀ over-optimistic assumptions and inadequate modellingĀ ā withĀ serious risks to local communities, natural habitats and transport resilience. Local voices continue to call for the plans to be rejected.
Your support helps us continue representing our communityās voice.
To donate, click here. - Day 24: Transport ā Cross-Examination of Bruce Bamber
Tuesday 10 June: The entire day was spent withĀ Bruce Bamber, the highways consultant for the Teynham & Highsted Community Action Group, under detailed cross-examination by the applicantās barrister.
Key Points from the day
- š The barrister questioned why Mr Bamber and the Duchy of Cornwallās consultant are the only highways professionals opposing the transport plans.
- š£ļø Mr Bamber said he wasĀ surprisedĀ by this and suggested there may beĀ evidence that KCC and National Highways have seen that he has not.
- š He also challengedĀ National HighwaysĀ forĀ accepting flawed assumptionsĀ without proper scrutiny, warning that the applicantās modelling is being treated as credible when it fails to withstand basic testing.
- š¶āāļø He made clear thatĀ sustainable transport was not built into the scheme from the startĀ ā in breach of theĀ National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which requires early integration of sustainable travel into site design.
- š The site is laid out inĀ separated parcels, disconnected from Sittingbourne, makingĀ integrated public transport almost impossible.
- š² The applicant claimed there was easy cycle access to Teynham rail station ā but Mr Bamber explained thatĀ rat-running along Lower Road makes it unsafe for cyclists, particularly with further development in the area.
- š He emphasised that theĀ site layout does not support sustainable travel, regardless of what is claimed in policy statements.Ā āSaying itās a vision doesnāt make it a reality,āĀ he argued āĀ a vision must still be evidenced.
On the transport modelling:
- ā ļø The applicantās assumptions about people switching from cars to walking, cycling or buses areĀ wildly over-optimistic.
- š Even under generous estimates, non-car travel might reachĀ 22%Ā ā but it could be as low asĀ 7%. TheĀ āgold standardā of 50%Ā is far out of reach given the siteās design and location.
- š£ļøĀ London Road in Teynham is already heavily congested, and additional development ā especially with the Northern Relief Road ā would make conditions worse.
- š Mr Bamber repeated that building new roads createsĀ induced traffic: more road capacity leads to more driving, not less. As he put it,Ā āYou canāt plan for a sustainable future by ignoring how people actually behave.ā
In Summary
- š Todayās cross-examination highlighted deep flaws in the Highsted Park transport plans. Far from enabling sustainable travel, the proposals wouldĀ entrench car dependency,Ā exacerbate congestion, andĀ undermine road safetyĀ ā particularly in places like Teynham.
- Day 23: Highways ā Bruce Bamber’s evidence
Fridayās session continued the expert evidence of Bruce Bamber, highways consultant for the Teynham and Highsted Community Action Group. His testimony challenged the applicantās assumptions on traffic impact and sustainable transport ā raising serious doubts about how this development would function in reality.
Key concerns raised by Mr Bamber:
The applicantās transport modelling is based on optimistic aspirations, not evidence. They claim the development will achieve double the level of sustainable travel seen in similar areas around Sittingbourne ā but provide no proof to support it.
Walking to Sittingbourne from Highsted Park isnāt realistic. At over 2km away, itās simply too far for most people. Estimates for non-car use (walking, cycling, public transport) are around 7% ā far lower than the applicantās inflated figure of 65%.
The Northern Relief Road would push hundreds of HGVs onto the already strained A2 through Teynham, particularly eastbound toward Faversham and Canterbury.
The A2 in Teynham is already at or over capacity, made worse by on-street parking that often forces vehicles to queue ā especially when HGVs are coming the other way.
Lower Road in Teynham, which has a collision rate five times the national average, would also see increased traffic ā despite being earmarked as a future national cycle route.
The plans ignore the effect of induced traffic ā the increase in car journeys that comes when new roads are built. As Mr Bamber put it: āIf you increase supply, demand increases too.ā
Cross-examination
In cross-examination by the applicantās barrister, Mr Bamber was told he was focusing too much on the past – as opposed to taking a āvision-ledā approach as required by the NPPF.
His response: āWe canāt abandon our understanding of the past. Thatās not the same as being stuck in it. You canāt build the future by assuming people will change their behaviour ā without any evidence to support that assumption.ā
Bottom line:
Fridayās evidence exposed major flaws in the developerās modelling. Promises of sustainable travel and reduced car use arenāt backed by facts. Existing routes like the London Road and Lower Road in Teynham simply canāt cope with whatās proposed.
- Day 22: Delivery & Transport Impacts
Following a two-day site visit where the Inspector walked the full length of both proposed relief roads, the Day 22 session returned to Swale House with a sharper focus on deliverability and transport impacts.
Cross-examination of National Highways
- š¤ Simon Bell (on behalf of the Teynham & Highsted Community Action Group) raised critical concerns in his cross-examination of National Highways witnesses:
- ā What happens if Junction 5a ā the new M2 connection central to the proposals ā cannot be delivered? Would the housing still go ahead regardless?
- ā ļø Mr Bell argued that the highways approach is ālight touchā and applicant-led, with real risks being “kicked down the road.” He suggested the scheme is not future-proofed, noting that even with Junction 5a, capacity could be exceeded by the time the development is completed.
- šæ Mr Bell also highlighted that National Highways had not fully assessed the environmental impact of the junction.
- š In his examination of the junction designs and modelling assumptions, Mr Bell pointed to a lack of scrutiny over such a major motorway change ā stressing that greater oversight should be expected given the scale of the proposal.
Bruce Bamber
- š¶āāļøš² Bruce Bamber (transport expert for the Teynham & Highsted Action Group) delivered a powerful critique of the applicantās claims about walking and sustainable travel:
- š· Mr Bamber warned that the proposed layout discourages walking and cycling, with internal journeys dispersed and the new roads physically separating communities.
- š The southern relief road alone is expected to carry 1,400 HGVs per day, deterring safe pedestrian movement.
- ā±ļø He disagreed that walking 2km from the development to Sittingbourne centre would take just 22 minutes, saying itās closer to 32 minutes. This debunks the claim of “modal shift” – residents will either use cars or it will be impractical for older/less mobile residents.
- š°ļø Mr Bamber concluded that sustainable transport had been an afterthought, only introduced into the plans in recent months.
Key takeaway:
- š The deliverability of key infrastructure ā especially Junction 5a ā remains deeply uncertain. Without it, the development is neither viable nor responsible.
The Teynham & Highsted Action Group is now just Ā£3,500 short of its fund raising target.
Please help us get from 89% to 100%. To donate, click here. - New fundraising total: Ā£30,509
ThankĀ youĀ forĀ yourĀ generousĀ support!Ā WeāveĀ raisedĀ anĀ incredible Ā£30,509 toĀ supportĀ theĀ ActionĀ GroupāsĀ legal representationĀ and subject experts at the planning inquiry, ensuring our communityās voice is heard.
The planning inquiry will restart in June, where the inspector will consider highways,Ā oneĀ ofĀ theĀ mostĀ importantĀ andĀ high impact topics. This is where expert evidence can make a real difference.
EveryĀ contributionĀ helpsĀ strengthenĀ ourĀ case.Ā CouldĀ youĀ lendĀ yourĀ supportĀ today?Ā
To donate:Ā Click here
- Community Voices – Day 2 of 2
Friday 16 May
The second public speaker session took place on Friday, giving another 13 residents and community representatives the opportunity to address the Inspector. People spoke passionately in opposition to the proposed Highsted Park development. Only one speaker expressed support.
It was a diverse and at times emotional session, with community voices once again providing the Inquiry with a powerful account of whatās at stake. A summary is shown below.
š¹Ā Main issues raised by objectors included:
- šļøĀ Harm to listed buildings and historic settings
Speakers voiced deep concern about the impact of the scheme on nearby listed buildings and conservation areas. The loss of rural context and historic landscape was seen as a serious erosion of the boroughās heritage. Specific references were made to the visual intrusion and inappropriate scale of the proposals in relation to historic buildings and their settings. - š§Ā Water stress and sewage overload
Several residents raised urgent concerns about local water shortages and sewage discharges. Swale was described as one of the driest parts of the UK, already suffering from over-abstraction and regular sewage spills. The addition of thousands of homes was seen as untenable without major infrastructure upgrades. - ā£ļøĀ Pollution risks from historic industrial use
One speaker with experience at the former Shell site, at what is now the Kent Science Park, raised serious questions about unknown chemical residues left in the soil. The lack of long-term study into the environmental risks of past pesticide testing on site was highlighted as a major uncertainty. - š¾Ā Loss of best and most versatile agricultural land
The proposed development would result in the permanent loss of some of the highest quality farmland in Kent. Residents stressed the importance of protecting this land for future food production and local food security, especially in the context of climate change. - šļøĀ Pressure on local villages
Rodmersham, Bapchild and Tunstall were among the communities cited as at risk of being overwhelmed by the scale of development. Concerns were raised about increased congestion, loss of green space, and damage to community identity. The proposal to build thousands of homes around villages with only a few hundred residents was seen as disproportionate and insensitive. - šæĀ Voices of the younger generation
In a particularly moving moment, pupils from Rodmersham Primary School addressed the Inquiry. They spoke clearly and confidently about their love of the countryside, wildlife, and quiet surroundings ā and their fear that all this would be lost if the scheme goes ahead.
š¹Ā Supportive comments:
The one speaker in favour of the development spoke about the need for housing, economic growth, and the benefits of a privately funded infrastructure package. They described Highsted Park as a āblueprint for sustainable growthā and a vital opportunity to unlock new jobs and modern facilities.
The inquiry is now adjourned for two weeks. Site visits are due to take place at the beginning of June, and the inquiry will then resume with expert evidence on transport and highways.
- šļøĀ Harm to listed buildings and historic settings
- PublicĀ Speakers:Ā Day 1Ā of 2
Thursday 15 May
ThursdayĀ wasĀ theĀ firstĀ ofĀ twoĀ sessionsĀ dedicatedĀ toĀ hearingĀ fromĀ localĀ residentsĀ andĀ communityĀ representatives.Ā NineteenĀ peopleĀ addressedĀ theĀ Inspector,Ā offeringĀ personalĀ andĀ powerfulĀ reflectionsĀ onĀ howĀ theĀ proposedĀ HighstedĀ ParkĀ developmentĀ wouldĀ impactĀ theirĀ livesĀ andĀ neighbourhoods.Ā SeventeenĀ speakersĀ objectedĀ toĀ theĀ scheme,Ā whileĀ twoĀ spokeĀ inĀ support.
- A summary of the key themes, from day 1, is shown below.
- Watch the session in full online (Swale Borough Council’s YouTube channel)
- Support our campaign
It was a powerful and heartfelt day, providing the Inspector with real insight into the views of the local community. A second public speaker session was held on Friday 16 May.
Concerns from Public Speakers
š¹Ā Key concerns raised by objectors included:
- Loss of Landscape and Character:Ā Many described how the development would erode the rural setting, peace, and heritage of villages like Tunstall, Bredgar, Rodmersham, and Teynham. Particular concern was raised about harm to the Kent Downs National Landscape and local conservation areas.
- Traffic and Safety:Ā Residents highlighted the worsening of already difficult road conditions and congestion around schools and village lanes. Concerns included pedestrian safety, increased air pollution, and inappropriate road upgrades (e.g. traffic lights near schools).
- Infrastructure Strain:Ā There was strong feeling that essential infrastructureāespecially healthcare, schools (including SEND provision), and public transportācould not cope with the additional demand from thousands of new homes.
- Water Supply and Drainage:Ā Several speakers expressed concern that the development would put unsustainable pressure on local water resources and increase the risk of surface water flooding, especially in low-lying and rural areas where drainage infrastructure is already limited.
- Impact on Wildlife and Access to Nature:Ā The countryside was described as integral to local wellbeing and daily life. Residents spoke about the likely loss of biodiversity, public rights of way, and the dark skies that define the rural character of the area. The removal of hedgerows was noted as a further blow to the landscape and local habitats.
- Heritage and Local Identity:Ā Speakers referenced the historical importance of their villages and the threat posed to listed buildings, ancient field patterns, and long-established community connections.
- Concerns Over Process and Trust:Ā There was unease about the outline nature of the application, with residents fearing that key details (like housing layout, lighting, and green buffers) would only be decided later, when public input may no longer be possible.
Support
š¹Ā Supportive voicesĀ focused on the need for housing and the potential for economic growth, although this was a minority view.
- Community Voices: New Evidence Submitted to Planning Inquiry
Two important documents were submitted to the Highsted Park Planning Inquiry last night, giving voice to widespread community opposition to the Highsted Park proposals.
On behalf of the Action Groupārepresenting Doddington, Lynsted with Kingsdown, Newham, Teynham, and Tonge Parish CouncilsāJulien Speedās Proof of Evidence and Executive Summary highlight key concerns including traffic, healthcare, education, landscape, transport, air quality, loss of farmland, biodiversity, sewage, and heritage. These documents ensure residentsā views are formally heard and on record.
- Recap: The story so far
The Highsted Park Planning Inquiry will restart on Tuesday 8 April. Local parish councils are standing up for our communitiesābut they need your help. Hereās a brief overview, and how you can get involved.
What is it all about?
Highsted Park consists of two large planning applications proposing a major development of 8,400 houses, new roads (including the northern and southern relief roads), and infrastructure like schools and space for GP facilities. The sites are located on land to the south and east of Sittingbourne and west of Teynham. Combined, these applications represent one of the largest development proposals in England.
What is currently happening?
A Planning Inquiry is taking place in the council chamber at Swale House in Sittingbourne and will run until July 2025. The Planning Inspector will listen to evidence from the applicants (the companies proposing the development) and groups opposing it. After considering all views, the Inspector will provide a recommendation to the Secretary of State later this year.
What are the key concerns?
Local residents, business owners, and parish councils have raised concerns, including:
- Scale: The proposed development will stretch from the M2 motorway to Lower Road, Teynham
- Urbanisation: Permanent loss of rural character, turning countryside into built-up areas.
- Environment and Landscape: Damage to the countryside, with the loss of farmland.
- Traffic and Roads: Significant increases in traffic on already congested roads.
- Public Services: Pressure on existing schools, healthcare facilities, and emergency services.
- Loss of Agricultural Land: Reduced food production and loss of rural character.
- Pollution: Increased noise and air pollution.
- Heritage Impact: Risk to nearby historic sites and landscapes.
- Sustainability: Preference for using brownfield sites before developing farmland.
- Loss of Recreation Space:Ā Reduced green spaces for walking, exercising, and dog walking.
How are we responding?
Doddington, Lynsted with Kingsdown, Newnham, Teynham, and Tonge Parish Councils are working together as The Action Group. They have applied to become a Rule 6 party, meaning they are a formal participant in the inquiry with the right to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses. To strengthen our case, weāve employed a barrister and expert consultants to represent community concerns effectively.
Why are the parish councils working together?
By working together, the parish councils can pool their resources and share expertise, to represent community views. Collaboration also helps them engage specialist support and make a stronger case against the applications.
Why Bother?
Highsted Park would dramatically alter the landscape and character of our communities. It would bring additional congestion, strain local services, and reduce valuable agricultural land. By participating in the inquiry, we have a chance to protect our environment, heritage, and quality of life. Every voice matters, and sharing community concerns can make a significant impact.
How can I help?
- Attend the Inquiry: The sessions are open to the public, and your presence shows community interest.
- Stay Informed: Follow updates from The Action Group, via the dedicated news page.
- Raise Awareness: Share this page with friends, neighbours, and local businesses.
- Contact Your MP: Let your concerns be known through emails or letters to your Member of Parliament.
- Donate: Contribute to help cover the costs of the barrister and expert witnesses. Click here to donate.
- Display a Poster: Show your support by putting up a poster in your window.
- Garden Board: Display a garden board to raise awareness in your neighbourhood. Request a board via your parish clerk (limited availability)
Together, we can make sure local voices are heard and the best decision is made for our community.
- Day 6: Landscape
š¢ Highsted Park Public Inquiry ā Day 6 Summary (Wednesday 19 March)
Wednesday 19 March marked the conclusion of the landscape discussions at the Highsted Park Public Inquiry. The session featured cross-examinations of Clare Brockhurst, the applicantās landscape consultant, by barristers for Swale Borough Council and Kent County Council.
š¹Ā Landscape and Visual Impact
James Pereira KC (for Swale Borough Council) challenged the applicantās assessment of landscape impacts, questioning whether the scale of the development had been properly considered. He raised concerns about the loss of rural character, the impact on long-distance views, and how effectively proposed green buffers would mitigate the developmentās visibility. Ms Brockhurst defended the proposals, stating that landscape integration had been a key design principle and that mitigation measures, including planting and screening, would help soften the visual impact over time.š¹Ā Public Rights of Way and Connectivity
Christopher Young KC (for Kent County Council) focused on how the development would affect public rights of way, including footpaths and bridleways. He questioned whether existing routes would be adequately preserved and whether new connections would truly compensate for any lost access. Ms Brockhurst acknowledged that some paths would need to be rerouted but maintained that the new network of green spaces and pedestrian links would provide a high-quality alternative.This session concluded the landscape discussions at the Inquiry. The Inquiry now takes aĀ two-week breakĀ and will resume onĀ Tuesday 8 April, when the focus shifts toĀ heritage considerations.
This summary has been brought to you by the Teynham & Highsted Community Action Group and was generated by AI based on a transcript of the proceedings. Ā Weāll continue to provide updates when the Inquiry resumes. Ā In the meantime, if youād like to contribute to our fighting fund please visit: Ā Ā Ā https://gofund.me/51bcc120
- Day 5: Landscape & Visual Impact
šæĀ Day 5: Landscape & Visual Impact at Highsted Park InquiryĀ šæ
Main Discussions:
šĀ Cllr Monique Bonney (Five Parishes Group)Ā presented evidence emphasising theĀ severe landscape harmĀ the development would cause.
š She highlighted that the area includesĀ protected landscapes, conservation areas, and countryside gaps, which would beĀ permanently degradedĀ by the proposal.
š Bonney argued that theĀ cumulative visual harmāconsidering this development alongside othersāwould beĀ significant and damagingĀ to local character and views.āļø Cross-Examination (Zack Simons, Barrister for the Applicant):
š Simons questioned theĀ objectivity of the landscape assessmentsĀ used by the opposition.
š He suggested thatĀ mitigation measures, such as planting buffers and open spaces, could reduce visual harm.
š He challenged whether some of the identified areas were truly atĀ high risk of visual degradationĀ or if they had already been impacted by modern infrastructure.š¤ Expert View from Clare Brockhurst (Leyton Place, for the Applicant):
š³ She defended theĀ applicantās landscape impact assessment, arguing that the project had been designed toĀ minimise visual intrusion.
š³ Brockhurst stated that theĀ countryside park and green buffersĀ would helpĀ integrate the development into the landscape.
š³ However, she acknowledged that certain areas would still experienceĀ notable visual changes, particularly in locations withĀ historical and ecological importance.ā ļø Key Concerns Raised:
š§ TheĀ cumulative landscape impactĀ when combined with other large-scale developments.
š§ Loss ofĀ open countryside views, particularly from protected andĀ designated landscape areas.
š§ The risk thatĀ proposed mitigation (such as planting) may not be enoughĀ to prevent significant visual harm.š¢Ā The inquiry continues, and weāll keep you updated with factual summaries from each session.
The Teynham & Highsted Community Action Group is a consortium of five parish councils ā Teynham, Lynsted with Kingsdown, Tonge, Doddington and Newnham. Ā This summary has been generated by AI from a transcript of the video recording. Ā
To donate:Ā Click here
- New fundraising total: Ā£28,372 (18 March 2025)
Thank you for your generous support! We’ve raised an incredible Ā£28,372 to support the Action Group’s legal representation and subject experts at the planning inquiry, ensuring our community’s voice is heard. Every contribution help strengthens our case. Could you lend your support?
Click here to read updates from the Action Group
- Fundraising target increased to Ā£35,000
We are increasing our fundraising target from Ā£31,000 to Ā£35,000 to reflect the expanded scope of our involvement following insights gained during the first week of the planning inquiry.
To donate: Click here
- Day 4: Landscape Focus
Highsted Park Inquiry ā Day 4: Landscape Focus
Day 4 of the Highsted Park Public Inquiry focused onĀ landscape impact, with expert witnessĀ Katie Miller, Head of Planning and Place at Kent Downs National Landscape, giving evidence on behalf ofĀ Swale Borough Council. She was first questioned by Swaleās barrister,Ā James Pereira, and later cross-examined by the applicantās barrister,Ā Zack Simons.
Key Points from Katie Millerās Evidence
šæĀ Significant Landscape HarmĀ ā Katie Miller stated that Highsted Park would causeĀ āsignificant negative impactāĀ to the Kent Downs National Landscape, affecting itsĀ character, tranquillity, and biodiversity. She highlighted concerns aboutĀ light pollution, loss of open views, and urbanisation of a rural area.
šĀ Loss of Distinctive CountrysideĀ ā She argued that the proposed development would permanently alterĀ historic landscapes, damaging theĀ natural and cultural heritageĀ that defines the area.
šĀ Infrastructure and Landscape DamageĀ ā New roads and housing wouldĀ fragmentĀ the landscape, disrupt wildlife corridors, and reduceĀ the sense of opennessĀ that local residents value.
Barristersā Questions & Key Exchanges
š¹Ā James Pereira (Swale BC)Ā focused on ensuring Katie could explain how the proposal conflicts withĀ national and local planning policiesĀ protecting the Kent Downs. He asked her to clarifyĀ why mitigation measures proposed by the developer (such as tree planting and screening) would not be sufficient.
š¹Ā Zack Simons (Developerās Barrister)Ā challenged herĀ interpretation of impactĀ and questioned whetherĀ development could be designed to fit within the landscape. He asked if similar developments elsewhere had beenĀ successfully integratedĀ and pushed her onĀ whether any parts of the proposal could be acceptable.
š¹ Katie maintained thatĀ no amount of mitigationĀ would prevent theĀ fundamental harmĀ to the landscape and that Highsted Park would setĀ a dangerous precedent for future development in protected areas.
This was a key session forĀ highlighting the conflict between the proposed development and the need to protect Swaleās rural landscape. The inquiry continues this week, with much more evidence still to come.
The Teynham & Highsted Community Action Group still needs more funds to pay its legal and professional fees. Ā
- Day 3: Landscape & Visual Impact
This is aĀ summary of Day 3, focusing onĀ landscape and visual matters, as discussed byĀ Kate Ahern (LUC, representing Swale Borough Council)Ā andĀ barrister Zack Simons (for the applicant).
š³Ā Kate Ahernās Key Points (Swale Borough Council’s Landscape Expert):
š¹ Concerned that the development could significantlyĀ alter the character of the landscape, particularly in relation toĀ towns, settlements, and natural green spaces.
š¹ Argued that the proposed green space may not beĀ genuinely accessible or beneficialĀ to local communities.
š¹ Stressed the importance ofĀ well-designed and planned green infrastructure, warning against aĀ piecemeal approach.
š¹ Highlighted that the schemeās impact onĀ visual amenity, natural views, and heritage characterĀ needed closer scrutiny.āĀ Barrister Zack Simons’ Cross-Examination (For the Applicant):
ā Questioned whether Swale Borough Council’s position wasĀ consistent with planning policiesĀ regardingĀ green infrastructure and public spaces.
ā ChallengedĀ what qualifies as ālandscape-ledā design, arguing that the applicantās proposals includedĀ substantial green space provisions.
ā Pressed Kate on whether herĀ concerns were over-generalised, suggesting that the schemeĀ does include well-planned areas of amenity green space.
ā Argued thatĀ natural and semi-natural green spacesĀ could still serve a functional purpose, even if they were notĀ formally designated as parks or public spaces.The Teynham & Highsted Community Action Group is a consortium of five parish councils – Teynham, Lynsted with Kingsdown, Tonge, Doddington and Newnham. Ā This summary has been generated by AI from a transcript of the video recording. Ā
For more information on the action group, please visit: Ā Ā https://teynham-highsted.org/news/
To donate: Click here
- Garden boards on display
We extend our heartfelt thanks to all local residents who have kindly displayed the garden boards. Your support is raising awareness for the planning inquiry and strengthening our fundraising efforts to present a compelling case.
Due to popular demand, a second batch of boards will be produced this week. Supplies are limited, so if youād like to secure one, please reach out to your parish council. (Doddington, Lynsted with Kingsdown, Newnham, Teynham, or Tonge Parish Council.)
To donate: Click here.
- The first batch of signboards has been dispatched.
The Teynham & Highsted Community Action Group’s first batch of garden boards are ready for delivery.
Thank you to the volunteers who produced the boards, supplied the posts and staked them up – all free of charge!To donate: Click here
- Week 1: Highsted Park Planning Inquiry Begins
The Highsted Park planning inquiry has officially commenced.
Throughout the week, members of the Action Groupāincluding Bev Smith, Julien Speed, Paul Townson, and Emma Turnerāhave taken turns observing the proceedings in the inquiry room at Swale House, Sittingbourne.
- Day 1:Ā The inquiry opened with statements from six barristers, followed by a “Masterplan” presentation from the applicants.
- Day 2: Landscape
- Day 3: Landscape
- Day 4: Landscape ā The focus turned to the Kent Downs national landscape, and the proposed motorway junction.
To donate: Click here
- Highsted Park Planning Inquiry starts on Tuesday
The Highsted Park Inquiry will open at 10:00 am on Tuesday, 11 March 2025, at Swale House, East Street, Sittingbourne, ME10 3HT.
Members of the public can observe in person (limited space available) or watch online via the Swale Borough Council YouTube channel. Recordings will be available after each day.
If attending in person, please arrive at least 15 minutes early, report to reception, and inform staff you are here for the Highsted Park Inquiry. You will need to sign in and be escorted to the inquiry room. For any access issues, call 01795 417107.
- New total: Ā£25,377 (7 March 2025)
- Barrister and members of the ‘Action Group’ and ‘Five Parishes’ visit sites
Representatives from the ‘Action Group’ and the ‘Five Parishes’ group have visited the proposed northern and southern development sites alongside our joint barrister, Simon Bell.
The site visit included key locations such as Tonge Mill, the Tonge Conservation Area, Rodmersham Church, Frognal, archaeological dig sites, Highsted Valley, and the proposed motorway junction location.
- Doddington meeting raises Ā£580
Great turnout at Doddington Village Hall this morning, where 50 local residents gathered to learn more about the proposed Highsted Park development (8,400 new houses). We raised an impressiveĀ Ā£580Ā towards our crowdfunding campaign.
On stage representatives fromĀ Doddington, Lynsted with Kingsdown, Newnham, Teynham, and Tonge Parish Councils, standing together for our communities. Thank you to everyone who attended and supported the cause!.
To donate, Click here
- New Total: Ā£21,838 raised (28 February)
Weāve now raised 70% of our target to fund a barrister and professional consultants to stop 8,400 houses being built at Highsted Park. Please help us reach 100%.
- Delivery of leaflets starts
Volunteers from the Action Group have begun distributing leaflets to residents across the parishes of Doddington, Lynsted with Kingston, Newnham, Teynham, and Tonge.
- Volunteer: Sign Up to Help
We need your help. We’re fighting a proposal to build 8,400 new houses between Sittingbourne and Faversham. We need leaflet distributors, people to set up meeting venues, and social media helpers to name but a few roles. Could you spare an hour or two? To volunteer, complete this online form.
- To donate, click here.
- New Total: Ā£17,483 raised (16 February)
Thanks to generous supporters, weāve raised Ā£17,483 towards our Ā£31,000 target!
Your contributions are making a real impactāletās keep the momentum going!- To donate to the campaign, click here.
- To volunteer, click here
- Heritage Evidence Submitted
We’ve submitted ourĀ heritage evidence documents, which will be part of the first tranche of topics at theĀ planning inquiry starting Tuesday, 11 March. TheĀ heritage report, prepared by our expertĀ Dr. Nicholas Doggett, provides a detailed assessment of the developmentās impact. A crucial step in making our caseāthank you for your continued support!
- Successful Launch Event at Teynham ā Thank You!
Our public session on 9 February 2025 was held in the Village Hall at Teynham. Around 55 people attended, learning about the how we plan to respond, plus opportunities to get involved. Ā£500 was also raised for campaign funds.
- To volunteer, click here.
- To donate, click here
Members of Doddington, Lynsted with Kingsdown, Newnham, Teynham, and Tonge Parish Council
- Crowdfunding campaign started
The Teynham & Highsted Action Group has launched a crowdfunding campaign to help fund our fight against the Highsted Park development.
How You Can Help: Donate, Share & Stay Updated
GoFundMe Link: https://gofund.me/74abfcca - Statement of Case published
Today, Friday, 17 January, the Action Group formally submitted its Statement of Case to the Planning Inspectorate as part of the Highsted Park planning inquiry process. This document outlines the Action Groupās principal arguments and supporting evidence opposing the proposed development.
- Donate Now
The Action Group needs your help to stop the Highsted Park development. Donate now! Donations will fund a barrister to present our case, expert transport analysis, and campaign materials like this website. Together, we can safeguard our countryside and communities.
- Introducing ‘The Action Group’
We are The Action Group: a coalition of five parish councilsāDoddington, Lynsted with Kingsdown, Newnham, Teynham, and Tongeāunited in opposition to the proposed Highsted Park development.
