When Government planning inspector Robert Mellor arrived at Maidstone Town Hall this morning to open the inquiry into the borough council’s proposed Local Plan, he found that in addition to the various speakers, council officers and lawyers, there were around 30 members of the public waiting for him.

Residents, amenity groups, developers, parish and borough councillors were all keen to catch a glimpse of the man who holds the future of the borough in his hands.

In the audience were the leader of the borough council, Cllr Fran Wilson (Lib Dem), and the KCC cabinet member with responsibility for planning, Cllr Matthew Balfour (Con).

Mr Mellor has set out what questions he wants answered and who he wants to hear from during his five-week examination of the proposals.

At the end of it, he can accept the proposals put forward by the borough, or order it to make alterations.

Many residents are hoping to convince Mr Mellor that the council’s housing target of 18,560 new homes by 2031 is too high for the borough to properly absorb, although many building firms are hoping to convince him that the figure is too low.

The council's head of planning, Rob Jarman, told the hearing: "We have risen to the challenge of setting local development targets which are appropriate for Maidstone."

But he said it was understood that not all the details would have everyone's support.

The council immediately came under fire as to whether it had met its legal requirement to co-operate fully with neighbouring boroughs.

Roger Vidler of the Bearsted and Thurnham Society, said the council had listed 22 meetings with Tonbridge and Malling officers in its list of evidence, but that when he had sought details of those meetings using a Freedom Of Information inquiry, the council had only been able to produce minutes for six of them.

He was surprisingly supported by Andrew Wilford from the developer Gleeson and Wates, who might usually be expected to be on the opposite side of the fence to residents groups.

Mr Wilford said he was concerned about "the lack of transparency" in the council's evidence. He said: "These meetings are said to have happened but there is very little evidence about what happened at them that has been presented to us."

Gary Thomas from the CPRE pointed out that the report from the council's own consultants GVA, who had been asked to look into the need for employment sites, had six times in the introduction to their report made it clear that they had only looked within Maidstone.

His contention was that Maidstone should have considered the possibility of using spare employment land at Aylesford, in the borough of Tonbridge and Malling, instead of allocating land at Woodcut Farm in Hollingbourne.

For the council, Sarah Anderton said that the national policy framework "was clear that we should make every effort to meet our needs within the borough."

Mr Jarman pointed out that Tonbridge and Malling's plan was far from finalised, having only gone out to public consultation the previous Friday.

The inspector conceded that it was difficult for Maidstone to take too much notice of the demands or opportunities that might be arising in neighbouring boroughs when their Local Plans had not advanced as far as Maidstone's.

The session is continuing.

Helen Whately, the MP for Faversham and Mid Kent is due to give evidence at 2pm on Thursday.

The hearings are open to the public, but there is no opportunity to speak except for those who have already been invited to do so.

The full session programme is available at www.maidstone.gov.uk.