But KentOnline now understands the authority could have to find around £100,000 more to pay for a 12-day extension to the inquiry – an amount it has not budgeted for.

It comes after planning inspector, Christina Downes, decided extra time was needed as the evidence was taking longer to hear than anticipated - particularly discussions on highways evidence.

The additional sessions will not take place for another four months, however, with the inquiry now expected to conclude on October 31.

Councillors decided it would fund the extra costs during an urgent meeting which took place today (June 27).

They agreed that if the council could not plug the gap from making savings to its budget by March 31, then it would use money from its reserves.

Funds could come from not rehiring staff when there are vaccines, deciding not to carry forward a planned council project or from interest payments from investments.

Swale council would not confirm the figure in its Blue Paper, which has been given out to councillors ahead of the discussions.

A spokesman said: “The paper involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 3: Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person, including the authority holding the information.”

Issues still to be discussed at the inquiry include Section 106 agreements (how much the developer would have to pay towards existing infrastructure if the scheme was approved), potential planning conditions and each side’s closing statements.

Swale’s planning department had already gone £902,000 over its £337,000 budget for the 2024/2025 financial year – and that is without the costs it is facing from the Highsted inquiry.

It had budgeted £1.423 million for 2025/26.

Swale councillor Richard Palmer (Reform), who cannot attend Friday’s meeting due to other commitments, says if the inquiry goes on any longer it could “cripple the council” financially.

He said: “I have not seen the Blue Paper and have not been as close to the case as I would like to be, but there is a lot of money at stake.

“Whatever happens, it has caused the council a problem going forward.

“Swale isn’t near bankruptcy, but it doesn’t have a bottomless pit of cash.

“Even if the planning inspector sides with it, the government can still choose to approve Highsted Park.

“In theory, the council could have said they weren’t going to fight it and could have used its officers rather than a legal team, but the public would have been up in arms if it hadn’t done everything it could and not used highly qualified barristers.”

Meanwhile, the Stop Highsted Park Action Group is also having to fundraise to be able to stump up thousands of pounds more needed to pay its own lawyers.

Formed from five parish councils – Doddington, Lynsted with Kingsdown, Newnham, Teynham, and Tonge – it has already spent £33,000 in fighting its case.

Cllr Julien Speed (Con), who has been speaking on behalf of the alliance during the inquiry, says the extension could cost it around £6,000.

He said: “It is frustrating, as I have been most days, so it has taken up a huge amount of time.

“It is going to cost the group as well, and we are running out of people to ask to donate.

“We cannot pull out as these sessions are really important, and we have the closing statements.

“Of course, it is putting pressure on Swale’s budget as well.”

To view the action group’s GoFundMe page, click here.

The inquiry began in March after the plans were ‘called in’ by Ms Rayner at the “eleventh hour”, taking the decision away from Swale council, which was going to refuse the plans.

MP for Sittingbourne and Sheppey, Kevin McKenna (Lab), received a backlash from Swale councillors, who blamed him for the costs the authority is facing after it emerged he wrote to the Deputy Prime Minister asking her to intervene.

He was keen to point out “dozens of local residents, businesses and community groups asked for the application to be called in” as well.

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 two halves named Highsted Village and Oakwood Village.

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 host 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.

Find out about planning applications and other public notices in your area by visiting PublicNoticePortal.uk

The applications were submitted by Quinn Estates Kent Ltd, GH Dean & Co Ltd, Atwood Farms Ltd, Attwood Trustees and AG Kent Holding BV.

Critics say the development would engulf rural communities outside Sittingbourne and place massive strain on roads and services.

But a spokesman for Quinn Estates previously said: “The proposals are entirely suitable for the site in terms of land use, amount of development, access, layout and appearance.

“Ultimately it will become a vibrant garden village settlement within the borough, transforming the local area, as well as adding regionally significant benefits to the surrounding area as a whole.”