A raucous council meeting saw a controversial blueprint for its future approved for submission to the public.

Medway Council approved a draft Local Plan to be published and consulted on with the public at a special Full Council meeting last night (June 26).

Debate between councillors became heated at points and the packed public gallery made their own contributions with cheers, applause, boos and jeers about the proposals.

Many of the people attending from the public were workers from Chatham Docks, designated for residential-led development in the draft, who called Labour leader Cllr Vince Maple and others “turncoats”.

They also cheered Tory contributions which accused the Labour group of betraying the Save Chatham Docks campaign which it had previously supported.

However, Labour group members said although the proposals had difficult elements and that no-one across the Towns would be happy with everything in it, the Local Plan set out a positive vision and would address housing and infrastructure need until 2041.

They also said without a Local Plan, Medway would remain vulnerable to predatory development from housebuilders who did not have to abide by the rules and allocations which a Local Plan sets out.

Ultimately, the vote saw the entire Labour group, except one member, and independent councillor Chris Spalding vote for the draft to be published to the public.

All present members of the Conservative group, Independent Group and Reform UK group voted against.

Cllr Stephen Hubbard (Lab) was not in attendance due to being advised by legal officers that statements he had made on social media saying he would not support the plan because of the changes to the green belt north of Strood had been classed as pre-determination.

Because the Local Plan is a document which has influence over future planning decisions, councillors were required to enter the meeting with an open mind to avoid possible legal challenges from developers who might suggest decisions were made upon personal preference rather than an evaluation of facts.

Councillors who gave an indication they had already made up their mind before the vote were advised they could have - or at least be perceived as having - predetermined and so open the Local Plan to a possible legal challenge.

During the meeting, the Labour group made accusations of predetermination and whipping against the Tory group after Cllr Gary Hackwell said: “The Conservative group will not be supporting this Local Plan” in the opening of his contribution.

A similar accusation of predetermination was made against Cllr Alex Hyne (Con) after he said he “would be proud to be on the right side of history and will have no regrets in voting down this deeply flawed Local Plan”, suggesting he had made his decision before the debate was over.

But legal officers decided these were not instances of predetermination but poor phrasing on the part of the councillors involved because councillors usually conclude their remarks at normal debates at other council meetings by indicating how they will vote.

They repeated advice that councillors should make clear they have an open mind on the Local Plan and will vote based on the evidence and discussion, rather than personal bias.

However, Cllr Alex Paterson (Lab) asked if there were no consequences to councillors, as he saw it, clearly demonstrating predetermination, what was the point of the legal advice.

He asked: “We seem to be dispensing indulgences from the dais after the fact, what does it mean if there are no consequences for members of the council completely running a coach and horses through the advice that has been given, what is the point in the rest of us following the rules if these people are refusing the follow them?

“What are the consequences? Otherwise, there is no legal advice.”

The chair, Cllr Trevor Clarke (Con) reminded members of the legal advice and said a complaints process was available but that it was in the best interest to continue the meeting.

The majority of the opposition group’s contributions criticised the draft for a lack of infrastructure to support the new homes and Tory leader Cllr George Perfect said it did not meet the current needs of the Towns, nor future needs.

He said: “This Local Plan does not achieve the goals of sustainable housebuilding, creating employment opportunities and protecting our green spaces.

“It is a bad plan that will destroy many acres of green spaces, overdevelop land, and does not provide the necessary infrastructure to meet the needs of Medway today or tomorrow.

“It relies heavily on section 106 [developer contributions] for the infrastructure needs which is a pipedream given the developer viability challenges faced within Kent and Medway.

“This plan will rely on housebuilding first and infrastructure second.”

He said rather than submitting an amendment to the Local Plan at the meeting that evening (June 27), his group would be making submissions to the planning inspectorate for changes should the draft be approved.

But Cllr Teresa Murray (Lab) said the administration had managed what the Tories had failed to do and put a viable and comprehensive Local Plan forward.

She said: “This is a sound and fair Local Plan, balancing the needs of homes, work, services, travel and the environment.

“I’m very aware it comes with painful compromises because the plan encapsulates the greater good.

“Tonight we’re hoping to do what the last Tory administration failed to over 20 years and completely failed to protect Medway from predatory developers and costly court cases.

“I want decent homes, good jobs, green space to enjoy, reliable public transport and great public services for everyone.

“Having a Local Plan sends a strong message that this is our place - we can call the shots and make sure developers understand we demand higher standards, fair prices, and the design of neighbourhoods meets our needs.”

The decision in the draft Local Plan to designate Chatham Docks for residential-led development was the most discussed element of the evening.

Cllr Perfect said: “The leader [Cllr Vince Maple], the then-shadow cabinet, the deputy leader of the council [Cllr Teresa Murray], the portfolio holder [Cllr Simon Curry], every single one whilst in opposition backed saving Chatham Docks.

“They made promise after promise, and people trusted them. Well, now they don’t.”

Cllr David Finch, Reform UK group leader, said: “Chatham Docks is not surplus land, it is not derelict, it is not waiting for a better use.

“Why is this economic powerhouse being earmarked for 3,000 homes? How can we say we’re protecting jobs when we’re displacing hundreds of skilled workers?”

Cllr Elizabeth Turpin (IndGr) said: “I read the employment land needs assessment and it said existing employment areas in the south east of Medway need to be protected because they have high occupancy and are performing well.

“The executive summary also states “We do not recommend de-allocation of existing sites”.

“The landowner has claimed Chatham Docks would require subsidy for flood defences and land decontamination to build housing, so why not spend that to protect the jobs?”

She also accused Cllr Paterson of laughing during Cllr Perfect’s contribution, something he denied and when she repeated it he called her a liar.

But council leader Vince Maple said circumstances had changed with Chatham Docks, and said Arcelor Mittal, one of the businesses on the site, had claimed it was planning on making an offer to buy the land in 2021 - but since then no bid had been made.

He said: “On November 25, 2021, the council received a letter from a solicitor on behalf of Arcelor Mittal saying they were prepared to purchase the docks and were assembling a bid to do so.

“We confirmed today no bid has ever been received by the current landowner from Arcelor Mittal.

“If anyone has betrayed those workers, it is the senior management who have failed to deliver.

“Ultimately, this issue is between two private sector companies and one of them has failed to deliver.”

This received shouts of “rubbish” from the public gallery.

Cllr Maple continued: “Between 2020 and 2023, this council spent over £600,000 on appeals directly as a result of not having a Local Plan.

“We’ve seen over 4,000 houses in places I never wanted to see them because we didn’t have a Local Plan.

“That’s why tonight is critically important. No Local Plan is perfect, but it’s a lot better than not having one.”

The draft Local Plan was approved to be published for public consultation on June 30 by 30 Labour members and independent councillor Chris Spalding.

It was opposed by 17 Conservative members, five Independent Group members, and two Reform UK group members.

The draft plan will now be published for the views of the public over six weeks and can be viewed on the council’s website.

Seven events will be hosted where the plans can also be viewed.

Rochester: Corn Exchange - Monday, 30 June, 4-7pm

Strood: St Nicholas Church – Tuesday, 1 July - 10am-1pm

Chatham: Pentagon Shopping Centre in former Wilko unit – Thursday, 3 July, 11am-2pm

Hoo St Werburgh: Hundred of Hoo Academy – Tuesday, 8 July, 5.30-8.30pm

Gillingham: Medway Park Sports Centre – Thursday, 10 July, 4-7pm

Lordswood: Lordswood leisure centre – Tuesday, 15 July, 4-7pm

Rainham: St Margaret’s Millennium Centre – Wednesday, 16 July, 5-8pm

After the six weeks, responses will be considered before being submitted to the Planning Inspectorate who will then evaluate the plan.