The Teynham & Highsted Community Action Group has submitted its planning evidence to the Highsted Park Public Inquiry. Lynsted with Kingsdown Parish Council Chairman, Julien Speed, wrote the report and will be cross-examined on the evidence by the applicant’s barrister on Wednesday 16 July.
The document can be viewed via this link.
The summary below outlines the main conclusions and findings on the community impact of the proposed development.
Volume and Breadth of Community Opposition
There is overwhelming community opposition to the Highsted Park proposals. The total
number of objection arguments raised across all the main identified topics for the Northern
site alone was 2,087. Added to the 2,014 objection points for the Southern site, that’s a total
of 4,101 arguments against the combined site – an exceptional number for a planning
application and representing an overall objection rate of 92%. A broad range of issues were
raised, including traffic, healthcare, education, landscape harm, ecology, sustainable
transport, and water infrastructure. In contrast, only 362 supporting arguments were
recorded - of which 64% were based on pre-written templates. By comparison, 82% of
objections were personalised. This disparity reflects the depth and authenticity of local
concern.
Traffic and Congestion
Objectors cite significant existing congestion on the A2 London Road and fear that the new
link road will add pressure to surrounding roads, rat-runs and junctions – particularly if the
northern site alone is approved. Numerous residents describe daily delays, safety risks for
pedestrians and cyclists, and doubts about the deliverability or effectiveness of mitigation
measures.
Healthcare Provision
Residents expressed grave concern about access to primary care, citing long waits and
difficulty travelling from Teynham to the relocated GP surgery in Sittingbourne. Swale
already has one of the lowest GP-to-patient ratios in England, and population growth is
likely to exacerbate pressure on overstretched hospitals such as Medway Maritime.
Education Provision
Residents report difficulty obtaining local school places, with some children allocated
schools miles from home. There is widespread scepticism that proposed schools will be
delivered on time and concern about the impact on SEND provision, which is already
stretched.
Landscape and Visual Harm
There is deep concern about the loss of rural separation between historical hamlets,
intrusion into valued countryside views, and harm to local biodiversity. Wildlife corridors
and habitats for protected species would be permanently fragmented.
Sustainable Transport
The site is poorly served by public transport. Rail services are inadequate and local buses
infrequent. The claim that walking and cycling will be viable alternatives is strongly disputed
by residents.
Sewerage and Water Supply
Southern Water has admitted that existing infrastructure cannot accommodate additional
demand without significant upgrades. Residents report existing issues with low water
pressure and sewer overflow. Key aquifers serving the area are also vulnerable.
Air Quality and Health Impacts
Residents are alarmed by likely increases in air pollution, especially PM2.5 particles. The site
lies adjacent to Air Quality Management Areas in Teynham and East Street, Sittingbourne,
and current pollution levels already exceed new legal targets for 2028 and 2040.
Loss of Agricultural Land and Food Supply
Residents strongly object to the loss of Best and Most Versatile (BMV) agricultural land. The
Highsted Park proposals would see the permanent removal of hundreds of hectares of
productive farmland, undermining national food security and contradicting government
policy to protect soil quality. Concerns are raised about the irreversible impact on a rural
landscape historically tied to fruit-growing and food production.
Ecology and Biodiversity
The development would fragment wildlife corridors, destroy priority habitats, and threaten
protected species such as dormice, slow worms, and rare birds. Residents and experts argue
that proposed mitigation is insufficient, and that cumulative damage to biodiversity is
incompatible with national commitments to nature recovery and the Environment Act 2021.
Heritage and Conservation Areas
Objections highlight the proximity of the proposed development to listed buildings,
conservation areas and ancient routes. The loss of rural context and setting would harm the
character and significance of these heritage assets, contrary to national planning policies
requiring their protection and enhancement.
Conclusion
For all these reasons – the scale and sincerity of local opposition, the weight of evidenced
community harm and the failure of the application to meet national planning objectives – I
respectfully urge the Inspector to refuse permission for the proposed Highsted Park development.
Cllr Julien Speed
You can read the full Proof of Evidence HERE
