THURROCK councillors have unanimously turned down an application for a "carless" house of multiple occupancy (HMO) in the heart of a borough town.

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

The application was first submitted to the council in the summer of last year and the HMO would have had 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 school uniform shop and has space for eight bicycles but no provision for parking and would "compromise" parking and access for the shop, councillors were told.

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

The development would have slotted in between the shops and neighbouring homes.

Stanford West ward councillor Cllr Terry Piccolo told the meeting: "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."

Committee member Cllr Lee Watson 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."