Maidstone council could be in big trouble if its Local Plan Review, which begins its public examination today, does not run smoothly.

That is the view of planning consultant Peter Court of Peter Court Associates in Chart Sutton.

Public hearings into Maidstone's revised Local Plan are taking place before David Spencer, a Government planning inspector, in the Town Hall this week.

But Mr Court argues that Maidstone can no longer demonstrate that it has a five-year supply of housing, a Government requirement, which means that in any future planning appeal, Government planning inspectors will have to apply a "tilted balance" - ie a presumption in favour of new housing unless there are very good reasons against it.

So there is an urgent need for the Local Plan Review to be approved quickly if the council is to retain any control over planning.

The situation - which Maidstone has been in before, prior to its current Local Plan being adopted - is often referred to as "planning by appeal" because local authorities without an adequate housing supply often refuse what they regard as unsatisfactory development schemes, only to have their decision overturned on appeal.

Such a situation can also lead to a 'rabbit-in-the- headlights' scenario, where councillors become too frightened of any appeal - and the costs that the borough will bear if it loses - to risk any refusal in the first place.

Mr Court recently represented Millwood Designer Homes at an appeal over the council's refusal to grant permission for six houses at Linden Farm Barn in Stockett Lane, Coxheath.

The council asserted that it had a five-year housing supply, based on the annual requirement in the existing Local Plan of 883 new home per year.

But Mr Court said that the existing Local Plan itself had stated that the plan needed to be upgraded by April 2021 - a date the council has missed - and so was now out-of-date.

He pointed out that in its Local Plan Review submitted to the planning inspector, the borough was now saying there was a need for 1,157 homes per year.

Taking the new figures into account means that in fact Maidstone only has an inadequate 4.5-year housing supply.

Mr Court believes his argument was accepted by a separate planning inspector, Stewart Glassar, hearing the Coxheath appeal, who nevertheless went on to reject that application on design grounds.

In his report, the inspector's actual words were: "There is dispute between the main parties as to whether or not the council can demonstrate a 5-year supply of housing land.

"The appellant has produced a detailed assessment which points to the council having just under 4.5 years supply.

"On this basis, Paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework would apply (the tilted balance) and the most important policies for determining the appeal would be out of date."

But he went on to say that the policies he was relying on would not be affected.

Mr Court accepted that the inspector did not categorically rule that the council did not have a five-year supply, but said the implication was plain.

He said: "If I am right, Maidstone council is not just up a creek without a paddle, it is up a creek without a canoe."

Maidstone council has been asked for comment.