Maidstone council leader David Burton has come under strong personal criticism at the public inquiry into the town's Local Plan Review

The Tory was accused of political interference in the planning process in order to steer new development away from Marden, the ward he represents. He has strongly denied the accusations.

The public inquiry chaired by Government inspector David Spencer was considering whether the council's proposed garden village site at Lenham Heath – to be known as Heathlands – was an appropriate place to build 5,000 new homes as suggested by the Local Plan.

Mr Spencer said: "I am under no illusion from everything I've already read that there's quite a charge sheet against the soundness of the Heathlands location."

He listed as concerns the deliverability of a proposed new rail station, the quality of road connections to the M20, congestion on the A20, the effect on an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, the effect on the internationally protected Stodmarsh nature reserve, the closeness of the site to Maidstone and whether it really was "sustainable" as among them. He said: "It's clearly a complex situation."

But he then asked those at the hearing for further views.

David Hicken, the chairman of DHA planning consultants was the first to speak. His firm is representing Countryside Properties which has an alternative plan for a garden village at Marden.

Mr Hicken said the manner in which the plan had been prepared had been "shrouded in secrecy", with successive requests for information refused by the council until quite recently.

He said: "This plan is clearly motivated by a political desire to push development away from the south of the borough to less politically sensitive locations.

"The committee which first decided the direction of travel for the Local Plan was made up of members almost entirely from the south of the borough."

Noting that the council itself was one of the partners in the Heathlands project, he asked if a private developer were to put forward a scheme for 5,000 houses and 5,000 jobs would they be allowed to get away, as Maidstone had done, with not demonstrating that it had agreements from all the landowners involved to ensure it was deliverable? If a train station were necessary, would any uncertainty over its delivery be allowed?

Would a private developer be allowed to make a submission before detailed modelling of the strategic road network was complete? Would it be allowed to build on a site adjacent to an AONB without submitting a detailed land character assessment?

Would it be allowed to get away with not providing detailed evidence of its employment claims, or suggest a phasing of house delivery that "far exceeded any development in Kent over the past 40 years?"

Mr Hicken said: "This Heathlands proposal has been rushed. It has been politically driven. It is ill-conceived and neither sound nor deliverable."

He said: "Network Rail, Highways England and KCC have all quite clearly stated that they have been given insufficient evidence to provide an opinion on the site's suitability. The council's evidence is being retro-fitted to suit the plan."

But he said: "We have promoted a well researched and evidence-based plan for Marden. It is sound and deliverable without the need for any external funding."

He said: "All the land needed – including that for junctions improvements, is in place.

"I have to date heard no explanation from the council as to why the Marden proposal has been discarded in favour of the Heathlands scheme.

"But there is one simple explanation. The leader of the council represents Marden Ward as a councillor."

Mr Hicken added: "Do I believe that the Heathland proposal would have been put forward if the leader of the council had been the representative for the Heathlands area? Absolutely not.

"Whether officers share their councillors' confidence in this Local Plan is unknown."

Mr Hicken said: "However I have rarely encountered such a reluctance from officers to be publicly questioned or scrutinised over plan-making process.

"But it must be scrutinised and not just sanctioned because it meets the political objectives of the current administration."

In response, the council's interim director for the Local Plan, Philip Coyne, said: "When the planning process began, the council was under a different administration, with the Liberal Democrats."

And he said: "I suggest Mr Hicken has his own motivations – the interests of the landowner he represents."

The council's planning policy manager Mark Egerton said: "We received a significant number of submissions for garden communities – seven.

"Our consultants narrowed that down through a two-stage process.

"The Heathland scheme brings many benefits – a new primary and secondary school, rail station and country park."

Once the list had been whittled down to three - Lidsing, Heathlands and Marden, he admitted: "We have been open that all three of those were deliverable and viable."

But he said: "We wanted to achieve the significant strategic infrastructure gains that both Heathlands and Lidsing will deliver."

James Neill is a barrister engaged by Lenham Parish Council to fight Heathlands. He largely agreed with Mr Hicken.

Mr Neill said: "There has been no transparency and no evidence as to how Heathlands was selected.

"We are now hearing from Mr Egerton that Heathlands brings many benefits, so we might assume there was some form of comparison made of the benefits from each site, but there is no evidence of that.

"In any case, what he lists as benefits are not benefits at all; they are simply mitigation measures to try to make this site sustainable.

"The county park is purely to provide recreational space for the Heathlands development; the primary and secondary schools are strictly for the site's own residents.

"What Mr Hicken said as to political bias, we say is entirely substantiated."

Steven Heeley, speaking for the Save Our Heath Lands group, agreed.

He said: "The political influence has been there from the very outset.

"The garden communities call for sites proforma specifically required applicants to state hat they had permission from all the landowners.

"But the council didn't have permission for Heathlands

"The scheme they put forward covers 900-odd acres with 140 landowners – I am one of them. We were never asked our permission at all."

'Cllr Burton has orchestrated the Local Plan the whole way through'

Mr Heeley said: "This has been a completely manufactured scheme from the start.

"Garden communities are simply not the policy solution that most residents in Maidstone would support.

"And the point that Mr Coyne made about the administration changing over the time, and he suggestion that the plan has cross-party support even from the Liberal Democrats – well the policy direction of this local plan sits squarely with the leader of this council, Cllr Burton,

"He was the chairman of the strategic planning and infrastructure committee from 2017 onwards.

"He (Cllr Burton) has orchestrated the Local Plan the whole way through."

Mr Heeley said: "It was all about ensuring it didn't end up in Marden, which is his ward. He has done everything possible in policy terms to try and make sure that development stays as far away from Marden as possible."

Cllr Burton was not in the Town Hall to respond to the accusations made against him, but KentOnline contacted him afterwards.

He said: "First of all I don't live in Marden – I'm in Sutton Valence. I do have a business in Marden, but presumably that would benefit from having an increased population on its doorstep.

"Secondly the plan has not been shaped by any one individual – for most of the time the council's system of governance was by committee.

"I have a track record of integrity. For instance, I kept very quiet when all the new development at Langley was being considered, which is near my home."

He said: "If I am guilty of anything it's of looking at the bigger picture, the bigger map if you will.

"Marden is not suitable for a garden village because of the highways situation – a view shared by KCC.

"That's why I oppose development on the south of the borough – but also in the west of the borough, at Fant Farm for example, where there would be similar traffic issues."