News

Keep up to date with the latest developments.

  • 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 Group—representing Doddington, Lynsted with Kingsdown, Newnham, Teynham, and Tonge Parish Councils—is hosting a fun-filled evening to raise essential funds for our legal team—covering the cost of a barrister and expert witnesses—so 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 – that means whether the developer can actually afford to deliver what they’re 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 team—covering the cost of a barrister and expert witnesses—so we can effectively represent our community at the Highsted Park Planning Inquiry.

    Come along, test your knowledge, and support the cause!

  • Day 25: Transport

    Wednesday’s session continued the evidence of Bruce Bamber, highways expert for the Teynham & Highsted Community Action Group, followed by testimony from Cllr Monique Bonney of the Five Parishes Opposition Group.

    Key points from the day:

    Bruce Bamber (for the Teynham & Highsted Community Action Group)

    • 🔮 The Inspector asked whether technological change — like e-bikes — could make forecasts obsolete over the development’s 20-year build-out.
    • 🗣️ Mr Bamber replied that planning must be based on evidence, not optimism. As set out in paragraph 116 of the NPPF, forecasts must be reasonable and grounded in reality — not wishful thinking.
    • 🛣️ When asked why he hadn’t modelled the volume of rat-running on Lower Road, he explained that he had tried to work with KCC and National Highways, but was repeatedly rebuffed.
    • 📚 He also confirmed that the applicant had not followed TRICS guidance, which requires a clear, evidence-based approach to modelling traffic.

    Brendan Weaver (for the Duchy of Cornwall)

    • 🚗 Brendan Weaver (for the Duchy of Cornwall) added that:
    • The critical Brenley Corner junction was not assessed until very late. It now shows 300 extra vehicles per hour at peak time, but no mitigation is proposed.
    • The applicant’s proposed timeline for the motorway junction is unrealistic. He estimated between 6 and 9 years before it could open — including at least five years for planning and a minimum 18 months for construction.
    • 🔐 He argued no homes should be built until the junction is operational.
    • 🚌 He also pointed out that the applicant’s estimates of bus journey times are misleading, because they ignore walking, waiting, and detours compared to direct car routes.

    Cllr Monique Bonney (for the Five Parishes)

    • 🗣️ In the afternoon, Cllr Monique Bonney gave evidence for the Five Parishes Opposition Group:
    • 🚧 She questioned the traffic modelling around Church Street in Rodmersham, particularly given the proposed new primary school nearby.
    • 🚫 She argued no housing should be built before the motorway junction and relief roads are complete.
    • 💔 She spoke of the emotional and financial distress caused to residents since 2021, with many unable to sell their homes.
    • 🚉 She criticised KCC’s management of bus provision, noting that the County Council hasn’t even applied to unlock existing Section 106 funds for services.
    • 🚌 “Before COVID, Bapchild had four buses an hour. Now we have just one.”
    • 🚶‍♀️ She said modelling has 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.
    • 🌉 She raised major concerns about the proposed Tonge rail crossing, which would stand up to 9 metres high in places — about one-third the height of the massive Sheppey Crossing — plus lighting and visual intrusion.
    • 🌿 She strongly opposed the proposed culvert through a chalk stream in a conservation area for the Northern Relief Road — calling it “a substantial piece of infrastructure in an internationally important habitat.”
    • 🔀 She criticised the Southern Relief Road, noting that the sheer number of junctions would disrupt the flow of traffic. She also highlighted that key design drawings are still missing from the application.

    In summary

    • 📌 Day 25 revealed how the Highsted Park proposal is built on over-optimistic assumptions and inadequate modelling — with 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 community’s voice.
    To donate, click here.

  • Day 24: Transport — Cross-Examination of Bruce Bamber

    Tuesday 10 June: The entire day was spent with Bruce Bamber, the highways consultant for the Teynham & Highsted Community Action Group, under detailed cross-examination by the applicant’s barrister.

    Key Points from the day

    • 🔎 The barrister questioned why Mr Bamber and the Duchy of Cornwall’s consultant are the only highways professionals opposing the transport plans.
    • 🗣️ Mr Bamber said he was surprised by this and suggested there may be evidence that KCC and National Highways have seen that he has not.
    • 📉 He also challenged National Highways for accepting flawed assumptions without proper scrutiny, warning that the applicant’s modelling is being treated as credible when it fails to withstand basic testing.
    • 🚶‍♂️ He made clear that sustainable transport was not built into the scheme from the start — in breach of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which requires early integration of sustainable travel into site design.
    • 🚌 The site is laid out in separated parcels, disconnected from Sittingbourne, making integrated public transport almost impossible.
    • 🚲 The applicant claimed there was easy cycle access to Teynham rail station — but Mr Bamber explained that rat-running along Lower Road makes it unsafe for cyclists, particularly with further development in the area.
    • 🛑 He emphasised that the site layout does not support sustainable travel, regardless of what is claimed in policy statements. “Saying it’s a vision doesn’t make it a reality,” he argued — a vision must still be evidenced.

    On the transport modelling:

    • ⚠️ The applicant’s assumptions about people switching from cars to walking, cycling or buses are wildly over-optimistic.
    • 📉 Even under generous estimates, non-car travel might reach 22% — but it could be as low as 7%. The “gold standard” of 50% is far out of reach given the site’s design and location.
    • 🛣️ London Road in Teynham is already heavily congested, and additional development — especially with the Northern Relief Road — would make conditions worse.
    • 🚗 Mr Bamber repeated that building new roads creates induced traffic: more road capacity leads to more driving, not less. As he put it, “You can’t plan for a sustainable future by ignoring how people actually behave.”

    In Summary

    • 📌 Today’s cross-examination highlighted deep flaws in the Highsted Park transport plans. Far from enabling sustainable travel, the proposals would entrench car dependency, exacerbate congestion, and undermine road safety — particularly in places like Teynham.

  • Day 23: Highways — Bruce Bamber’s evidence

    Friday’s session continued the expert evidence of Bruce Bamber, highways consultant for the Teynham and Highsted Community Action Group. His testimony challenged the applicant’s assumptions on traffic impact and sustainable transport — raising serious doubts about how this development would function in reality.

    Key concerns raised by Mr Bamber:

    • 📊 The applicant’s 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 — but provide no proof to support it.
    • 🚶‍♂️ Walking to Sittingbourne from Highsted Park isn’t realistic. At over 2km away, it’s simply too far for most people. Estimates for non-car use (walking, cycling, public transport) are around 7% — far lower than the applicant’s 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 — 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 — despite being earmarked as a future national cycle route.
    • 🔁 The plans ignore the effect of induced traffic — the increase in car journeys that comes when new roads are built. As Mr Bamber put it: “If you increase supply, demand increases too.”

    Cross-examination

    • ⚖️ In cross-examination by the applicant’s barrister, Mr Bamber was told he was focusing too much on the past – as opposed to taking a ‘vision-led’ approach as required by the NPPF.
    • 🗣️ His response: “We can’t abandon our understanding of the past. That’s not the same as being stuck in it. You can’t build the future by assuming people will change their behaviour — without any evidence to support that assumption.”

    Bottom line:

    • 📌 Friday’s evidence exposed major flaws in the developer’s modelling. Promises of sustainable travel and reduced car use aren’t backed by facts. Existing routes like the London Road and Lower Road in Teynham simply can’t cope with what’s proposed.

    To donate, click here

  • 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

    • 🎤 Simon Bell (on behalf of the Teynham & Highsted Community Action Group) raised critical concerns in his cross-examination of National Highways witnesses:
    • ❓ What happens if Junction 5a – the new M2 connection central to the proposals – cannot be delivered? Would the housing still go ahead regardless?
    • ⚠️ Mr Bell argued that the highways approach is “light touch” 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.
    • 🌿 Mr Bell also highlighted that National Highways had not fully assessed the environmental impact of the junction.
    • 🔎 In his examination of the junction designs and modelling assumptions, Mr Bell pointed to a lack of scrutiny over such a major motorway change – stressing that greater oversight should be expected given the scale of the proposal.

    Bruce Bamber

    • 🚶‍♀️🚲 Bruce Bamber (transport expert for the Teynham & Highsted Action Group) delivered a powerful critique of the applicant’s claims about walking and sustainable travel:
    • 🚷 Mr Bamber warned that the proposed layout discourages walking and cycling, with internal journeys dispersed and the new roads physically separating communities.
    • 🚛 The southern relief road alone is expected to carry 1,400 HGVs per day, deterring safe pedestrian movement.
    • ⏱️ He disagreed that walking 2km from the development to Sittingbourne centre would take just 22 minutes, saying it’s 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.
    • 🕰️ Mr Bamber concluded that sustainable transport had been an afterthought, only introduced into the plans in recent months.

    Key takeaway:

    • 📌 The deliverability of key infrastructure – especially Junction 5a – remains deeply uncertain. Without it, the development is neither viable nor responsible.

    The Teynham & Highsted Action Group is now just ÂŁ3,500 short of its fund raising target.
    Please help us get from 89% to 100%. To donate, click here.

  • New fundraising total: ÂŁ30,509

    Thank you for your generous support! We’ve raised an incredible £30,509 to support the Action Group’s legal representation and subject experts at the planning inquiry, ensuring our community’s voice is heard.

    The planning inquiry will restart in June, where the inspector will consider highways, one of the most important and high impact topics. This is where expert evidence can make a real difference.

    Every contribution helps strengthen our case. Could you lend your support today? 

    To donate: 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 what’s at stake. A summary is shown below.

    🔹 Main issues raised by objectors included:

    • 🏛️ 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 borough’s heritage. Specific references were made to the visual intrusion and inappropriate scale of the proposals in relation to historic buildings and their settings.
    • 💧 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.
    • ☣️ 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.
    • 🌾 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.
    • 🏘️ 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.
    • 🌿 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 — and their fear that all this would be lost if the scheme goes ahead.

    🔹 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 “blueprint for sustainable growth” 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.

  • Public Speakers: Day 1 of 2

    Thursday 15 May

    Thursday was the first of two sessions dedicated to hearing from local residents and community representatives. Nineteen people addressed the Inspector, offering personal and powerful reflections on how the proposed Highsted Park development would impact their lives and neighbourhoods. Seventeen speakers objected to the scheme, while two spoke in support.

    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

    🔹 Key concerns raised by objectors included:

    • Loss of Landscape and Character: 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: 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: There was strong feeling that essential infrastructure—especially healthcare, schools (including SEND provision), and public transport—could not cope with the additional demand from thousands of new homes.
    • Water Supply and Drainage: 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: 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: 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: 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

    🔹 Supportive voices 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 Group—representing Doddington, Lynsted with Kingsdown, Newham, Teynham, and Tonge Parish Councils—Julien Speed’s 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 residents’ views are formally heard and on record.

    Read the evidence online.

    Read summary of evidence

    Donate to our funds

  • Recap: The story so far

    The Highsted Park Planning Inquiry will restart on Tuesday 8 April. Local parish councils are standing up for our communities—but they need your help. Here’s 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: 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, we’ve 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

    📢 Highsted Park Public Inquiry – 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 applicant’s landscape consultant, by barristers for Swale Borough Council and Kent County Council.

    🔹 Landscape and Visual Impact
    James Pereira KC (for Swale Borough Council) challenged the applicant’s 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 development’s 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.

    🔹 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 a two-week break and will resume on Tuesday 8 April, when the focus shifts to 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.  We’ll continue to provide updates when the Inquiry resumes.  In the meantime, if you’d like to contribute to our fighting fund please visit:    https://gofund.me/51bcc120

  • Day 5: Landscape & Visual Impact

    🌿 Day 5: Landscape & Visual Impact at Highsted Park Inquiry 🌿

    Main Discussions:
    📌 Cllr Monique Bonney (Five Parishes Group) presented evidence emphasising the severe landscape harm the development would cause.
    📌 She highlighted that the area includes protected landscapes, conservation areas, and countryside gaps, which would be permanently degraded by the proposal.
    📌 Bonney argued that the cumulative visual harm—considering this development alongside others—would be significant and damaging to local character and views.

    ⚖️ Cross-Examination (Zack Simons, Barrister for the Applicant):
    🔍 Simons questioned the objectivity of the landscape assessments used by the opposition.
    🔍 He suggested that mitigation measures, such as planting buffers and open spaces, could reduce visual harm.
    🔍 He challenged whether some of the identified areas were truly at high risk of visual degradation or if they had already been impacted by modern infrastructure.

    🎤 Expert View from Clare Brockhurst (Leyton Place, for the Applicant):
    🌳 She defended the applicant’s landscape impact assessment, arguing that the project had been designed to minimise visual intrusion.
    🌳 Brockhurst stated that the countryside park and green buffers would help integrate the development into the landscape.
    🌳 However, she acknowledged that certain areas would still experience notable visual changes, particularly in locations with historical and ecological importance.

    ⚠️ Key Concerns Raised:
    🚧 The cumulative landscape impact when combined with other large-scale developments.
    🚧 Loss of open countryside views, particularly from protected and designated landscape areas.
    🚧 The risk that proposed mitigation (such as planting) may not be enough to prevent significant visual harm.

    📢 The inquiry continues, and we’ll keep you updated with factual summaries from each session.

    The Teynham & Highsted Community Action Group is a consortium of five parish councils – Teynham, Lynsted with Kingsdown, Tonge, Doddington and Newnham.  This summary has been generated by AI from a transcript of the video recording.  

    To donate: Click here

  • New fundraising total: ÂŁ28,372 (18 March 2025)

    Thank you for your generous support! We’ve raised an incredible ÂŁ28,372 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 donate

    Click here to read updates from the Action Group

  • Fundraising target increased to ÂŁ35,000

    We are increasing our fundraising target from ÂŁ31,000 to ÂŁ35,000 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 – Day 4: Landscape Focus

    Day 4 of the Highsted Park Public Inquiry focused on landscape impact, with expert witness Katie Miller, Head of Planning and Place at Kent Downs National Landscape, giving evidence on behalf of Swale Borough Council. She was first questioned by Swale’s barrister, James Pereira, and later cross-examined by the applicant’s barrister, Zack Simons.

    Key Points from Katie Miller’s Evidence

    🌿 Significant Landscape Harm – Katie Miller stated that Highsted Park would cause “significant negative impact” to the Kent Downs National Landscape, affecting its character, tranquillity, and biodiversity. She highlighted concerns about light pollution, loss of open views, and urbanisation of a rural area.

    🌍 Loss of Distinctive Countryside – She argued that the proposed development would permanently alter historic landscapes, damaging the natural and cultural heritage that defines the area.

    🚗 Infrastructure and Landscape Damage – New roads and housing would fragment the landscape, disrupt wildlife corridors, and reduce the sense of openness that local residents value.

    Barristers’ Questions & Key Exchanges

    🔹 James Pereira (Swale BC) focused on ensuring Katie could explain how the proposal conflicts with national and local planning policies protecting the Kent Downs. He asked her to clarify why mitigation measures proposed by the developer (such as tree planting and screening) would not be sufficient.

    🔹 Zack Simons (Developer’s Barrister) challenged her interpretation of impact and questioned whether development could be designed to fit within the landscape. He asked if similar developments elsewhere had been successfully integrated and pushed her on whether any parts of the proposal could be acceptable.

    🔹 Katie maintained that no amount of mitigation would prevent the fundamental harm to the landscape and that Highsted Park would set a dangerous precedent for future development in protected areas.

    This was a key session for highlighting the conflict between the proposed development and the need to protect Swale’s 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.  

  • Day 3: Landscape & Visual Impact

    This is a summary of Day 3, focusing on landscape and visual matters, as discussed by Kate Ahern (LUC, representing Swale Borough Council) and barrister Zack Simons (for the applicant).

    🌳 Kate Ahern’s Key Points (Swale Borough Council’s Landscape Expert):
    🔹 Concerned that the development could significantly alter the character of the landscape, particularly in relation to towns, settlements, and natural green spaces.
    🔹 Argued that the proposed green space may not be genuinely accessible or beneficial to local communities.
    🔹 Stressed the importance of well-designed and planned green infrastructure, warning against a piecemeal approach.
    🔹 Highlighted that the scheme’s impact on visual amenity, natural views, and heritage character needed closer scrutiny.

    ⚖ Barrister Zack Simons’ Cross-Examination (For the Applicant):
    ❓ Questioned whether Swale Borough Council’s position was consistent with planning policies regarding green infrastructure and public spaces.
    ❓ Challenged what qualifies as “landscape-led” design, arguing that the applicant’s proposals included substantial green space provisions.
    ❓ Pressed Kate on whether her concerns were over-generalised, suggesting that the scheme does include well-planned areas of amenity green space.
    ❓ Argued that natural and semi-natural green spaces could still serve a functional purpose, even if they were not 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.  This summary has been generated by AI from a transcript of the video recording.  

    For more information on the action group, please visit:   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 you’d 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 Group—including Bev Smith, Julien Speed, Paul Townson, and Emma Turner—have taken turns observing the proceedings in the inquiry room at Swale House, Sittingbourne.

    • Day 1: 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 — 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: ÂŁ25,377 (7 March 2025)

    The Action Group has raised ÂŁ25,377. Thank you for all your donations.

    To donate: Click here

  • 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 ÂŁ580

    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 impressive £580 towards our crowdfunding campaign.

    On stage representatives from 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: ÂŁ21,838 raised (28 February)

    We’ve 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.

  • New Total: ÂŁ17,483 raised (16 February)

    Thanks to generous supporters, we’ve raised £17,483 towards our £31,000 target!
    Your contributions are making a real impact—let’s keep the momentum going!

  • Heritage Evidence Submitted

    We’ve submitted our heritage evidence documents, which will be part of the first tranche of topics at the planning inquiry starting Tuesday, 11 March. The heritage report, prepared by our expert Dr. Nicholas Doggett, provides a detailed assessment of the development’s impact. A crucial step in making our case—thank you for your continued support!

  • Successful Launch Event at Teynham – 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. ÂŁ500 was also raised for campaign funds.

    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 Group’s 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.

    Donate via Bank Transfer

  • Introducing ‘The Action Group’

    We are The Action Group: a coalition of five parish councils—Doddington, Lynsted with Kingsdown, Newnham, Teynham, and Tonge—united in opposition to the proposed Highsted Park development.