New powers allowing Canterbury City Council to rein in the spread of student housing in residential areas may yet be enacted as planned.

The authority’s shock decision not to activate laws imposing curbs on the conversion of family homes into Houses of Multiple Occupancy(HMOs) has been suspended pending a review.

A so-called Article 4 Direction would leave potential landlords needing planning permission for such conversions.

Last week the Kentish Gazette newspaper reported how members of the Policy and Resources Committee voted against rolling out the new powers at the 11th hour.

But the decision has faced a formal challenge and a Decision Review Committee will decide on August 4 whether it should be overturned.

Nick Eden-Green, who is among 16 councillors who challenged the decision, said: “We have spent years trying to get this Article 4 Direction instituted.

“It had been agreed by the last council, it was agreed by the planning committee, so we were absolutely flabbergasted that it had been turned down at the last minute.

“We are delighted that within 24 hours we got the minimum 14 councillors needed to call for a review of the decision and we very much hope that Article 4 will be instituted as council policy.”

Hundreds of city centre properties have been transformed into student digs with developers cashing in on the booming rental market.

Opponents claim an unrestricted market has led to family communities being torn apart and residential quarters such as the Hales Place Estate being turned into “student ghettos”.

Had the city council imposed an Article 4 direction, the authority would have had the discretion to refuse planning permission in areas where HMO density exceeded 10% of overall property stock.

The council’s decision to shelve the powers could be overturned on August 4, in which case the authority would have to take a re-vote within 10 working days.

Richard Norman, chairman of the St Michael’s Road Area Resident Association, welcomed the possibility.

He said: “We are pleased that the matter has been referred to the Decision Review Committee. That committee was set up precisely to deal with cases of this kind. It will be a good test case.”

Documents lodged with the council reveal that the challengers claim the Policy and Resources Committee had failed to properly look at evidence submitted in support of imposing Article 4.

They state the council “failed to consider the implications of not confirming the Article 4 Directive on local communities in the light of evidence offered in the report and by the officer”.

They also claim that the authority “failed to adequately consider the strategic importance of a balanced community being an objective of an Article 4 Directive”.