Planning inspector considers controversial housing

Schools could be built as part of the development

Controversial plans for more than 8,000 new homes in an area of Kent are being considered by a planning inspector after intervention by Housing Secretary Angela Rayner.

Critics have concerns the Highsted Park development would engulf rural communities outside Sittingbourne and place a strain on roads and service.

But supporters suggest it brings much-needed housing and a 3.7-mile (6km) relief road to ease existing and future traffic worries.

The three-month inquiry was due to start at 10:00 GMT on Tuesday in Sittingbourne.

Swale Borough Council (SBC) was due to make a decision on the applications in November, but because Rayner "called in" the scheme, no determination was made, the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS) said.

However, the planning committee "would have been minded to refuse both", according to SBC.

The proposals by Quinn Estates are split across two separate applications, covering land to the south and east of Sittingbourne, stretching to Bapchild and Teynham.

Up to 7,150 homes, community space, a hotel, a recycling centre, and primary and secondary schools are earmarked for the larger site surrounding Sittingbourne, with the two halves named Highsted Village and Oakwood Village.

The plans were conceived more than a decade ago

It also includes provision for a new M2 motorway junction and the completion of the southern relief road.

The smaller site, known as Teynham West, is planned to have up to 1,250 homes, along with sheltered and extra care accommodation, a primary school and the Bapchild section of a northern relief road – which is already in the local plan.

Swale county councillor Mike Baldock, from the Swale Independents, has concerns about traffic and says the "whole idea is an abomination".

But Kevin McKenna, Labour MP for Sittingbourne and Sheppey, said the development could bring more industry to the town.

Quinn Estates said Highsted Park would "sustainably answer local housing need for the long term, while also delivering significant environmental and economic benefits and the much-needed highways infrastructure where it is chronically needed".

It will ultimately be Rayner's decision whether it goes ahead or not, the LDRS said.