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
An incredible £30,509 has been raised to support the Teynham & Highsted Community Action Group’s representation at the Highsted Park planning inquiry - ensuring our community’s opposition is heard against the devastating plan to build 8,400 new houses to the South and East of Sittingbourne. 
 
The inquiry will restart in June, when highways impact is on the agenda. This is one of the Action Group's key topics and they have an excellent transport consultant who will be presenting expert witness. 
 
Some additional funds are needed to produce evidence on new aspects. The group is now just £4,500 short of their revised target of £35,000.
 
Please donate if you can, or share with your friends. 
 
 
Lynsted with Kingsdown Parish Council is a leading member of the Action Group - a consortium of five PCs which also includes Teynham, Tonge, Doddington and Newnham.
 

Highsted Park Inquiry – Public speaker day 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.

🔹 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.

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.

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.

Highsted Park Inquiry – Public Speaker Day 1 (Thursday 15 May)


Thursday’s session was 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 of the speakers objected to the scheme, while two spoke in support. Thanks in particular to parish councillor Alastair Stewart who explained the strain on local water supply and the issues with drainage. 

🔹 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.

🔹 Supportive voices focused on the need for housing and the potential for economic growth, although this was a minority view.

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 today (Friday 16 May). A summary of that session will follow shortly.

The Parish Council has submitted a further letter of objection to the application to build 10 houses on land East of Lynsted Lane.  In response to our previous objection, the applicant has added another three parking spaces within the development.  However this does not adequately compensate existing residents of Lynsted Lane who will no longer be able to park outside their own homes.

We are also concerned about the removal of the long-established hedgerow and the loss of privacy for those living currently in Lynsted Lane - the proposed housing would be built on higher ground, so occupiers of the new homes will be able to look directly into their bedrooms.

The original application was rejected by Swale Borough Council but granted permission by the Planning Inspectorate after the developer appealed.  This means the principle of the houses being built has been establised.  All we can comment on now are "reserved matters" - landscaping, layout, scale and appearance.

The latest objection letter can be read  HERE

The Public Inquiry into the Highsted Park proposal for 8,400 new houses commenced on 11 March and is scheduled to run for 47 working days until 25 July.

The 'landscape' section has completed. There is now a two week break and the Inquiry restarts on 8 April with heritage being the next topic.

Lynsted with Kingsdown Parish Council is a leading member of the Teynham and Highsted Action Group, which also includes the parishes of Teynham, Tonge, Doddington and Newnham.  

We will be calling an expert heritage witness to identify the damage that would be caused by this development.

For updates on proceedings, please visit:   https://teynham-highsted.org/

 Stop Highsted garden boards

 

Lynsted litter pick 22.03.25 copy
 
Thanks to everyone who joined the litterpick last Saturday.  We started both sides of London Road - then made our way up Cellar Hill, Lynsted Lane and Claxfield Lane.
 
We ended up with 28 bags of rubbish in total...  Amongst unusual items collected were 10 supersize nitrous oxide canisters, a wheelbarrow tyre and a spade.
 
The most discarded drinks were Red Bull, cider and vodka.
 
 

The Parish Council has lodged an objection to the "Reserved Matters" application for 10 houses to be built on land to the east of Lynsted Lane.  This proposal, despite being refused by Swale Borough Council, was approved following an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate - which established the principle of these houses being built.

However, the Parish Council has some important concerns regarding the detailed application.

You can read our objection letter  HERE  

Teynham & Highsted Community Action has launched a crowdfunding campaign to raise funds to fight the Highsted Park planning application.  This development, if approved, would see 8,400 new houses built between Faversham and Sittingbourne - causing harm to heritage assets, habitats, conservation areas and ancient woodland.

It would also exert excessive strain on infrastructure - such as highways, healthcare, education, water supply and drainage.

The Action Group is a consortium of parish councils including Doddington, Newnham, Teynham, Lynsted with Kingsdown and Tonge.  We have instructed a planning barrister and specialist consultants to represent our local community at the forthcoming Public Inquiry. 

As parish councils, our financial resources are limited – which is why we need your help to fund legal and professional fees. 

Please donate whatever you can.  The bank account is administered on behalf of the Action Group by Lynsted with Kingsdown Parish Council

https://teynham-highsted.org/

 

 

The Teynham & Highsted Community Action Group has formally issued its statement of case on the Highsted Park development to the planning inspector. 

This document outlines the Action Group’s principal arguments and supporting evidence opposing the proposal for 8,400 new houses.

We need to raise £40,000 to fund the cost of a planning barrister and expert consultants to represent us in the forthcoming Public Inquiry - at which we have been granted ‘Rule 6’ status, making us a main party to the proceedings. 

If you would like to support our campaign, please send a donation - however small or large - to:

Account name:  LKPC Fighting Fund

Sort code:  30-18-06

Account no:  35374768

The Action Group is a consortium of five local parish councils:  Lynsted with Kingsdown, Teynham, Doddington, Tonge and Newnham.  The above bank account is managed by Lynsted with Kingsdown PC on behalf of the group.

The Public Inquiry commences on 11 March and is scheduled to run for 47 days.

You can read the statement of case  HERE