Despite the threat of legal action and guidelines from the Department of Trade and Industry' Bromley councillors have refused to back down and allow council premises to be used for civil partnership ceremonies.

A free vote on the issue on Monday ended in a 21-21 tied decision after rebel Tories joined with Labour and Lib Dems to try and defeat the policy.

The council's ruling executive will now decide the issue on Monday 10 October where it is thought the policy could be vetoed as several Lib Dem councillors were unable to attend the meeting because of the party conference.

London Mayor Ken Livingstone has warned Bromley that its decision to refuse ceremonies for gay and lesbian couples who register under the new Civil Partnerships Act' which comes into force in December 2005' is potentially unlawful and that he will consider challenging them in the courts.

"I have taken legal advice on Bromley Council's position and I am assured that a refusal to permit a ceremony or celebration by a same sex couple of their civil partnership could be successfully challenged in the courts as unlawful discrimination and an infringement of the Human Rights Act 1998'" the Mayo wrote in a letter to the leader of the council' Stephen Carr.

The Civil Partnerships Act does not impose an explicit requirement on councils to allow ceremonies to take place. However' Department of Trade and Industry guidance encourages gay people to have ceremonies as part of their registration.

"We hear a lot about gay rights but you should also take account of straight people's rights - people who have normal sexual relationships'" said Tory councillor Michael Tickner' adding that most religions did not agree with homosexuality.

"We have to take account of the feelings of the wider community not just the gay activists who bang on about these issues'" he added.

However' Labour councillor John Holbrook said the planned policy was' "At best ignorant' unfair and hurtful. At worse it's bigoted."

While councillor George Taylor said the policy was not about religion but about offering a service to taxpayers.

"The freedom of individuals to make their own personal choice about how they live should be paramount without the intervention of nanny state or nanny council'" he said.

"It would be distasteful to be so impolite to homosexual taxpayers in the borough whose activities are completely legal."