Action Group Presents Further Evidence to Highsted Inquiry

 

The Inquiry resumed on 2 October after a two-month break over the Summer and is scheduled to conclude on 31 October.

Cllr Julien Speed addressed the Inquiry on behalf of the Action Group.  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:  Tables were presented 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 one local 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:  The harms of the Highsted Park proposals significantly outweigh any claimed benefits. While the applicant 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 contribute to 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 of 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 recording of the day’s proceedings can be viewed at:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2ROk85d_CA  

The Action Group’s evidence starts 5 hours 8 minutes in.