A Remembrance Service was held today at Teynham Church to honour those from Lynsted with Kingsdown, Norton and Teynham Parishes who laid down their lives for their country in the First and Second World Wars.
Chairman Julien Speed laid a wreath on behalf of the Parish Council. Cllr Speed and Jacqui Langdon-Bassett read out the Roll of Honour, which contained no fewer than 44 names from our small community.
Let us remember those from the parish of Lynsted who gave their lives in the First World War:
Leon Lorden ACKERMANN died July 1916, aged 32
Thomas William BEER 9 September 1916
Charles Peter BOOKER
Amos John BROWN 3 May 1917
Frederick Percy CARLTON 19 June 1915
Robert Stewart CLARK 5 January 1918 Aged 19
Stanley Monckton CLEAVER 3rd May 1917
Malcolm Philip DALTON 9 November 1915
Macdonald DIXON 3 May 1917
William Charles DRAYSON 18 March 1916
James FRENCH 14 April 1917 and his brother
Reginald FRENCH 10 June 1918
Herbert David GAMBELL 21 March 1918 and his brother
Walter John GAMBELL 27 June 1920
William GAMBRILL died 3 May1917 aged 27
Reginald Frank GILBERT 10 November 1917
Frederick GODFREY 21 November 1915
Albert Edward HADLOW 26th March 1918, aged 19
Charlie HOLLANDS 1st July 1916, and his brother
Frederick Thomas HOLLANDS 15 September 1916
Arthur HUGHES 27 May 1915
Edward JORDAN 31 October 1919 from wounds and illness
Herbert Ewart KADWILL 23 March 1918
Ernest Cecil KEMP 1 March 1916
George LOMBARDY 7 October 1916
William Henry PACKMAN 7 August 1920
Thomas QUAIFE 4 November 1917
John Lovett SATTIN 13 April 1917
William Allan SEWELL 12 November 1917
Elvey Thomas SIMS 28 March 1918
Frederick Percy SMITH 10 October 1916
Charles Alfred TOLHURST 19 December 1914
Sydney Arthur WATTS 1st December 1917
Reginald Douglas WEAVER 3 May 1917
Frederick Walter WILES 21 August 1918
...and those from the parish of Lynsted who gave their lives in the Second World War:
Harry Stephen AMOS 2 June 1942
Edith Caroline BAILEY 24 October 1944
Ernest Harry BRANCH 6 September 1944
Francis Henry CLAPP 25 January 1943
Alfred Henry Daniel FISHER 1 April 1945
Winifred Mary Clarice GAMBELL 14 March 1944
Archibald GILBERT
Edric Albert HUTTON 8 June 1944
Robert Henry (Bertam) MILLS 23 May 1941
“When you go home tell them of us and say: “For your tomorrow we gave our today”.
The Teynham and Highsted Community Action Group, together with the Five Parishes Group, presented their closing statements today at the Highsted Park Planning Inquiry.
We urged the Planning Inspector and Secretary of State to refuse permission.
We argued that the 8,400-home scheme would cause irreversible harm to the countryside, heritage assets, and local infrastructure. We cited concerns about viability, transport, landscape, water and ecology - describing the proposal as urban sprawl unsuited to rural Kent.
The submission concludes that the scheme is undeliverable, undermines the local planning process, threatens heritage sites and would permanently destroy the area’s natural and historic character.
Many thanks to the 12 volunteers who carried out our recent Lynsted litter pick. We collected 18 full bin bags… Rubbish collected included multiple cans of Stella Artois, sweet wrappers, takeaway containers, empty bottles, crisp packets etc etc. We fail to understand why people have to throw such items into the hedge instead of taking them home and putting them in their own rubbish bin.
The Highsted Park Public Inquiry resumed on 2 October after a two-month break over the Summer and is scheduled to conclude on 31 October. Lynsted with Kingsdown Chairman, Cllr Julien Speed, addressed the Inquiry on behalf of the Teynham & Highsted Action Group – a consortium of five parish councils that also includes Teynham, Tonge, Doddington and Newnham. He was answering questions put to him by the group’s barrister, Simon Barnes, on the written proof of evidence he had submitted. This examined the impact on the community were the development to go ahead. Below is a summary of some of the key points raised.
Sources and Methodology: Cllr 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. He had categorised and quantified objection themes, distinguishing between volume of objections (total points raised) and breadth (number of individual residents raising an issue).
Objections versus support: Cllr Speed presented tables showing that 2,087 objection points had been submitted to the Northern site consultation alone, across ten topics, compared with just 218 points of support– an objection rate of 90%. Importantly, 82% of objection submissions were independently written, while two-thirds of support letters were pre-written templates – either linked to Sittingbourne Football Club (seeking new facilities) or to businesses handed a template by the applicant. Objections were heartfelt and diverse, while support was heavily orchestrated. An analysis of public engagement with other large housing applications suggested that Highsted had attracted a higher volume of submissions than any site in the UK.
Traffic and Congestion: The single greatest concern was traffic, with 368 submissions from 212 residents. Objections cited pressure on the A2 through Teynham, Bapchild and surrounding rural lanes, which would already be exacerbated by recent approvals for over 1,400 dwellings in nearby schemes. Traffic modelling failed to account for cumulative impacts. Department for Transport and resident traffic counts showed a 24% rise in volume on London Road in Teynham between 2019 and 2024, against a slight national decline. Closures of the M2 (32 times in the past year) diverted traffic onto the A2, pushing daily volumes above 19,000 vehicles. The scheme would not promote sustainable travel, as claimed, with inadequate bus services (axed at worst, hourly at best) and a poor rail service from Teynham. Car dependency would rise rather than fall.
Healthcare Provision: Healthcare was the second most cited concern. Teynham now has no GP surgery, leaving residents reliant on Sittingbourne Memorial where access is difficult and appointments scarce. GP ratios in Swale are among the worst in the country, with the Medic Care surgery serving over 4,000 patients per GP compared to the national average of 1,720. Funding pledges of £1.5m for primary care are inadequate and the promised healthcare centre might not even be delivered, given the failure at Frognal Place despite original promises. Acute care was equally concerning. Medway Maritime Hospital operates regularly at 97% occupancy and is ranked 130th out of 134 trusts nationally. The NHS estimates that £4.5m would be needed to accommodate the Northern site’s population growth, but the applicant is refusing any contribution at all.
Education and SEND: Residents feared worsening shortages in school places. Existing primary and secondary schools are oversubscribed, and doubts were expressed over timely delivery of a new on-site primary. On SEND provision, Kent was issued with an improvement notice in 2023 and families were already struggling to find suitable placements, sometimes as far as 17 miles away.
Landscape and Countryside Gaps: 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. Villages would coalesce into a single urban sprawl. Additional harm was identified to rural lanes, the Tonge Conservation Area and views from the Kent Downs National Landscape.
Agricultural Land: The Northern site includes 79 hectares of Best and Most Versatile farmland, with 570 hectares at risk across both sites. Swale’s heritage as a nationally significant fruit-growing area is at risk. Safeguarding domestic food production is critical but this land would be permanently lost to speculative housing development.
Air Quality: On London Road in Teynham, houses sit directly on the street, placing families just metres from vehicle emissions. PM2.5 particles are known to penetrate the lungs and bloodstream, contributing to asthma, cardiovascular disease and reduced life expectancy. Current levels already exceed interim government targets for 2028 and Highsted Park, combined with other developments, would see pollution in excess of legally-binding limits by 2040. Mitigation measures were inadequate.
Sewage and Water Supply: Local foul water and drainage networks are already under strain. In Teynham, residents have experienced sewage overflows into gardens and flooding during heavy rain, particularly at Frognal Lane. Southern Water has admitted the network is in poor condition and lacks capacity for even existing approved developments, stating that no more than 50 additional homes could be connected without a major upgrade. Pumping stations drawing from chalk aquifers already struggle to provide an adequate water supply, with low pressure reported in summer months. There is serious doubt that the infrastructure required for thousands of new homes could be delivered reliably or on time.
Heritage: The proposed Northern Relief Road would cut directly across the Tonge Conservation Area, disrupting historic features such as the stream and pond at Tonge Mill. Listed buildings including Frognal Farmhouse, a Grade II* property, would be enveloped by modern housing, eroding their rural setting. The 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: 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.
Conclusion: Cllr Speed concluded that the harms of the Highsted Park proposals significantly outweigh any claimed benefits. While the applicant has 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 help towards Swale’s five‑year housing land supply – nor the government’s 1.5m new homes target - due to long lead-in times and phasing uncertainties. The site is not allocated in Swale's adopted Local Plan. Bringing forward such a major unplanned development outside the established plan-making framework would undermine the integrity of local planning and run contrary to national policy principles.
Highsted Park would inflict a catastrophic catalogue of harms on the local community and should be refused.
A Service of Remembrance and Thanksgiving was held today in Nouds Lane, Lynsted. This annual event is in commemoration of Pilot Officer Roy Marchand, 73 Squadron, who was shot down and killed whilst flying a Hurricane fighter plane over Nouds Farm on 15 September 1940 aged just 22.
The site of the crash is marked with a headstone. Every year, around Battle of Britain Day, the Royal Air Force Association organises a service to remember all those who fell in past and present conflicts.
The service was attended by many local residents and dignitaries.
A wreath was laid on behalf of Lynsted with Kingsdown Parish Council by chairman Julien Speed.
Lynsted with Kingsdown Parish Council has submitted objections to Swale planning officers regarding the application to build five houses on land to the West of Cellar Hill. This follows a meeting held on Monday 28 July attended by Cellar Hill residents.
The Parish Council believes the application contravenes several policies in the adopted Swale Local Plan as well as the National Policy Planning Framework (NPPF) and the Lynsted Parish Design Statement.
It would have an adverse impact on local heritage assets and the Cellar Hill/Greenstreet Conservation Area.
We have also highlighted the dangerous Cellar Hill/A2 junction and the limited highways access due to the narrow single-track lane which is regularly used by walkers and horse riders.
Residents are encouraged to submit their own views on the Swale planning portal quoting reference number: 25/502261/FULL
On the final viability day of the Highsted Park Inquiry on Thursday 24 July, the spotlight was on affordable housing — how much will be delivered, who it’s 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 — 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 — where Swale’s 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 — suggesting they’d used a broad and favourable definition of “Sittingbourne” 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 — 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 Applicant’s assumptions appeared to waver.
In short, the Applicant says the scheme could provide up to 27.7% affordable housing — 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 — if any?
Swale’s planning committee has voted to approve the application to build 10 houses on land East of Lynsted Lane, near the junction with London Road - despite vigorous opposition from the Parish Council.
In fairness, the committee was left with little choice. The planning inspector, in a decision we considered to be unsound, had already approved the outline application on appeal - following initial refusal by Swale Council. This meant the principle of building 10 houses on that plot was established.
We argued there was no detailed highways scheme to alleviate the traffic problems, as demanded by the inspector. And that the five on-site parking spaces, supposedly reserved for existing residents, will not adequately compensate for all the householders now unable to park outside their own homes once yellow lines and width restrictions are introduced. But we were advised these matters would be dealt with by way of conditions.
We were left with only being able to comment on “reserved matters” such as appearance, scale and landscaping. Given the layout was reflective of what had already been approved, members voted to support the application.
This is a very disappointing decision - and marks the end of the road for a long campaign waged by the Parish Council against this totally inappropriate development.
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 — and what happens if it isn’t.
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. They’ve used a standard 15% profit margin in their viability modelling and argue that key infrastructure, including roads and schools, can be delivered on that basis.
But Kent County Council has raised serious doubts. They’ve warned that if critical infrastructure like the Southern Relief Road isn’t properly secured with up-front guarantees (bonds, deposits, etc), the whole scheme risks collapsing. Councils don’t have the same financial buffer as developers — if something goes wrong, it’s local taxpayers and residents who bear the cost.
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. She’s made it clear that viability will be central to whether this plan goes ahead.
This isn’t just about spreadsheets — it’s about whether essential infrastructure will ever materialise. Without strong financial safeguards, there’s a real risk that residents could be left with thousands of new homes and none of the promised roads, schools or services.
Lynsted with Kingsdown Parish Council has teamed up with Teynham, Doddington, Tonge and Newnham Parish Councils to form the Teynham & Highsted Community Action Group. This consortium is a "Rule 6" party at the Inquiry and has instructed a barrister and expert witnesses to put forward our objections to this application. If you would like to support the action group, below is the link to their Fighting Fund: https://teynham-highsted.org/donate-page/
