
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.
Highsted Park would inflict a catastrophic catalogue of harms on the local community and should be refused.
Cllr Speed's evidence can be viewed here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2ROk85d_CA&t=18520s
The full written proof of evidence submitted to the Inquiry can be read here:

Lynsted with Kingsdown Parish Council will hold its annual parish meeting on Monday 29 September, commencing at 7pm in Lynsted Church.
We have a great line-up of speakers.
Michael Barnes will give a talk on the life-saving work carried out by Kent Air Ambulance.
Vanessa Ross Russell will present an update on the award-winning Lynsted Community Kitchen Garden.
Finally, Cllr Julien Speed will summarise the latest council news - including the biggest local government shake-up in 50 years.
Complimentary wine, beer, soft drinks and snacks will be provided.
All residents of Lynsted and Kingsdown are invited to attend.

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/
The Public Inquiry resumes on Tuesday 22 July.

An application has been received to build five homes on land West of Cellar Hill in Lynsted.