Maidstone council is considering either selling or re-developing for housing 33 of the sites it owns in the borough - including some play areas and open spaces.

But the public are being kept in the dark as to which ones are at risk.

When the "Property Asset Review" was first brought to the policy and resources committee last November, it was submitted as a "Part 2" document to be considered in closed session with the public excluded. Councillors rebelled and said it should be debated in public.

The report was brought back to the committee last Thursday in public - but with all the details about which properties were under consideration redacted from the report.

Mark Green, the council's director of finance, said that was for reasons of "commercial sensitivity."

The review was conducted by consultants Gen2 who looked at all the council's 300 properties or land holdings, together valued at £48m.

Gen2 suggested 23 might be suitable for redevelopment, while 10 could be disposed of. Another 61 needed more work "to maximise value."

Mr Green's report acknowledged not all of the sites could be disposed of immediately. He said: "In some cases, capacity from other sites would be required in order to enable development, for example by providing alternative public space."

Mr Green emphasised that no decisions on disposal had yet been made and asked permission for officers to carry out further research on specific sites, including their perceived value to the community. He said: "This is only the beginning of the process."

Councillors approved going to the next stage but with two constraints added in a motion proposed by Cllr Brian Clark (Lib Dem) and seconded by Cllr Derek Mortimer (Lib Dem).

They were that the officers should consult any councillors who felt their ward could be affected by any sale or redevelopment, with "affected" councillors interpreted more widely than just the ward councillor. Secondly that the next steps of the asset review be brought back to the committee for review.

Afterwards Cllr Clark said: “I understand the need for the council to consider the best use of its property assets, but the value of any open space has to be considered in light of benefit to the local community.

"No member of the committee would be likely have an appetite for a locally valued public open space to be lost, wherever it may be in the borough, but not all MBC land is public open space and some may be suitable for redevelopment."

Although the council has done its best to keep secret which plots are at risk, Bearsted residents had been tipped off that their Rosemary Road play area was among those earmarked for possible housing development.

Villager Stephen Kendall presented a petition signed by 153 villagers to the meeting.

He said: "News that the Rosemary Road play area could be redeveloped has shocked us all.

"It is close to 11 sheltered bungalows, all occupied by elderly, mostly sick or disabled people, many of whom need lifelines. A building site next door would impact on all their lives."

He said the small car park allowed for carers, pharmacy deliveries and ambulance access. He went on to describe the play area as popular with dog-walkers and parents looking for a safe and secure place for their children to play.

He said: "People also meet and chat using the park bench, particularly those who cannot walk too far.

"The green space is an attractive area. The strength of feeling that it should remain untouched and not developed is very high indeed. We therefore ask that the council leave it as it is for the well being of all who use it now and in the future."

Other play areas known to be on the list include Quarry Square and Snowdon Avenue in Maidstone, Mangravet Recreation Ground and Park Wood Recreation Ground.