Maidstone council has turned it back on the option of exercising some control over the conversion of offices to flats in the town centre.

Under current Government policy, owners of offices have "permitted development rights" that allow them to convert the building to housing without going through the normal planning application process.

Although the measure encourages the provision of housing, it means the developer is not obliged to make any of the normal "Section 106" payments such as contributions to library provision, schooling or open spaces often required by the planning process.

In addition there is a concern that so many of Maidstone' offices are being converted that there could be a shortfall of employment opportunities in the future.

Planning officers proposed that the council apply to the Government for permission to impose an "Article 4 " direction on some of the town's remaining key office properties. An Article 4 order removes permitted development rights and would require developers to apply for planning permission in the usual way.

The proposal was rejected at a meeting of the Strategic Planning Sustainability and Transport Committee last month, but was considered again this week by a different committee after three councillors challenged the decision.

Cllr Brian Clark (Lib Dem) told members of the Policy and Resource Committee it was "a very large decision" with wide-ranging implications that needed consideration by more than just "a small group of councillors."

Cllr Derek Mortimer (Lib Dem) said that an article 4 order would not necessary halt the conversions, but would led to a higher quality of conversion in terms of room sizes and parking.

Cllr Fran Wilson (Lib Dem) said that the borough had already lost more than £710,000 in Section 106 money and that the current policy was leaving a legacy of low quality housing.

But Cllr David Burton (Con) said that as the borough didn't have a policy on room sizes, even if conversions were required to obtain planning permission, nothing could be done to enforce larger flats.

He criticised the three councillors for calling in the decision, saying the cost of the additional meeting - estimated at £1,500 was a drain on the borough's resources and did not respect the democratic process.

Cllr Patrik Garten (Con) agreed. He described Article 4 as "a blunt instrument that would deny property owners their legal rights."

Asked what effect imposing an Article 4 order would have on the borough's ability to meet its housing targets, the head of planning, Rob Jarman, said: "Possibly none," because the planning applications could still be approved if desired.

Cllr Matt Boughton (Con) warned: "We have to be careful in interfering with the free market."

Cllr Steve Munford (Ind) said he was concerned about anything that might inhibit the supply of housing coming forward. Since the council didn't have policies on room size or parking in the town centre that could be imposed on planning applications, there was little point.

Cllr Val Springett (Con) asked: "If we make it more difficult to convert offices, does it not put our greenfield sites more at risk?"

However, Mr Jarman said it would allow the council to implement its policy of requiring developers to provide 30% affordable housing if desired, but he also warned that with an immediate imposition of an Article 4 order there was a high risk the council would incur costs as developers sought compensation for work they had already done towards conversion plans.

Cllr Wilson warned that the borough "could end up with a very large number of bed-sits, far more than we need, and they could be taken up by London boroughs."

She said people transferred from other boroughs tended to have a high level of social need - which also placed costs on the council. She said: "We could end up with a really serious problem."

Former Council leader Chris Garland (Con) said that having listened to the debate in his view the original decision not seek an Article 4 order was wrong, but the decision had been arrived at in democratic manner and therefore should stand.

The committee voted by eight votes to seven not to seek any Article 4 orders.