An 8,000-home “abomination” planned for a huge swathe of Kent countryside will go before a planning inspector today (March 11).

The Highsted Park development, which was conceived more than a decade ago, would engulf rural communities outside Sittingbourne and place massive strain on roads and services, say critics.

But supporters say it brings much-needed housing and with it a six-kilometre relief road to ease existing and future traffic worries.

The three-month inquiry will be heard by planning inspector Christina Downes and starts at 10am at Swale House, Sittingbourne.

Swale council was due to make a decision on the applications last November but because housing secretary Angela Rayner “called in” the scheme, no determination was made.

But the planning committee “would have been minded to refuse both”, according to the council.

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 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.

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

Official papers state the southern site will be made up of 577 hectares of land south and east of Sittingbourne for the vast majority of the houses, including sheltered/care accommodation, and business and commercial uses.

The northern location will take in 98 hectares of land west on Teynham and will require the demolition and relocation of existing farmyard and workers’ cottages.

A Quinn Estates’ spokesman said: “It would not be appropriate to comment at this time on the process or the potential outcome of the inquiry that is now under way.

“What we can say is that our proposals should be seen in the round. Highsted Park will 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.

“Over 50% of the total area will be retained as publicly available open space. In addition, while affordable housing will be a matter for the inquiry, we are committed to a level significantly higher than the 4% campaigners claim.

“The economic potential of Highsted Park for Swale and the wider region has the backing of businesses across Kent, including significant support in Swale from companies based at Eurolink Business Park and Kent Science Park.”

But Quinn Estates said in planning documents: “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.”

Swale county councillor Mike Baldock said: “The whole idea is an abomination. It will mean the loss of the countryside and huge traffic chaos. You don’t solve the traffic problems in Swale by building more than 8,400 houses.

“As for the relief road, it will soon fill up and be congested because everyone will want to use it. And there is the pressure on all the other local services, too.

“You can give as much money towards a doctors’ surgery if you like but if you can’t get the doctors, it’s not a lot of use, is it?

“I am concerned about the low level of affordable housing coming with this scheme. It’s going to be a disaster for the people of Sittingbourne and the surrounding areas.”

Mrs Rayner made the decision to call in the scheme and it will ultimately be her decision whether it goes ahead or not.

Rodmersham resident and vocal opponent, Monique Bonney, believes there are “strong arguments” for refusal.

She said: “The call-in came just before the council was about to make the decision and that has caused an enormous problem.

“We are talking about an enormous development of about five and half miles that straddles all of our villages and will have a much wider impact to others.

“But effectively it will obliterate the villages and will cause an enormous amount of rat-running through the rural lanes. Local people are appalled, frankly.”

Fellow Rodmersham resident Lucy Winzer, 36, who works in the commercial property sector and whose family have had links to the area for generations, said: “It’s absolutely devastating.

“We’re just trying to make sure our village can survive and that is why we have grouped together to make the best of the situation.”

Labour MP for Sittingbourne and Sheppey, Kevin McKenna, says residents of the Easthall development would be able to take advantage of the relief road.

He said: “All of the residents there (Easthall) are basically landlocked - you’ve got one way in and one out which drives them right through the centre of Sittingbourne in that traffic snarl up. Residents are really frustrated.

“It will allow Sittingbourne to bring more industry to the town and jobs and employment.

“The key thing is these houses pay for the (relief) road. They pay for others as well, primary school, secondary school, health centre, a new football club - but they actually pay for the road.

“What really matters is that we get the infrastructure in first and that is what has been proposed by the developer.”

But not all are opposed to the proposal, especially those who may be set to benefit.

Maurice Dunk, chairman of Sittingbourne FC which may lay claim to new facilities, said the Highsted Park scheme could benefit the community and help struggling businesses.

A former head of accounts at the London law firm Slaughter & May, he warned that none of it will be possible unless the relief road is a definite part of the overall scheme to be delivered.

He believes a new sports ground would be a community asset and added: “We would be moving to nearer the motorway on a 125-year lease for the community.”