THURROCK councillors have unanimously turned down an application for a “carless” HMO.

The council’s planning committee debated plans for a first floor extension to 36 High Street, Stanford Le Hope where residents would be “discouraged” from owning cars and relying instead on public transport.

The application followed the model of some London carless developments where residents are not allowed to register cars at their address but councillors heard that could only be permitted where such developments are noted on local plans.

Councillors heard as Thurrock is yet to finalise its local plan a carless development could not be permitted under planning laws.

The HMO would have a total of nine bedrooms, with four bedrooms and a shower, kitchen and dining are on the ground floor and five bedrooms and showers on the first floor.

The extension is to the rear of a uniform shop and has space for eight bicycles but no provision for parking and would “compromise” parking and access for the shop.

Councillors feared there would be a loss of parking space to the rear of the building currently used by shops.

Terry Piccolo, Conservative councillor for Stanford-le-Hope, said: “It’s going to have a devastating affect if they can’t park their trade vehicles at the back of the shop.

They just wouldn’t be able to cope with the amount of business they have to do and the stock they need to hold if they didn’t have facilities to park outside the shop.

Lee Watson, Lyn Watson, Labour councillor for West Thurrock and South Stifford, said: “I’m not against HMOs per se and the development looks quite nice. However, we do have standards with relation to car parking.

“We’ve also seen in neighbouring boroughs where they tried to have car-free developments. It doesn’t work. Everybody by nature will park down the road and then it becomes more of a burden for the council.”

Objections to the scheme included overlooking of a neighbouring property, noise from a communal terrace and loss of light.

Another objector said: “The applicant has indicated that the proposal would be a car-free development but previously suggested that parking permits in an adjacent public car park could be sought. Moreover, it is considered that developments being “car-free” cannot be secured.”