Plans to replace two Victorian houses with a three-storey block of flats in central Watford were last night rejected for a second time.

Developer Mr M Hussein's first application to demolish the houses and replace them with 18 flats were turned down in February this year.

Seven months later, Watford Borough Council's development control committee was last night presented with amended plans for 17 flats on the same site in Marlborough Road.

Described as a “car free development” due to its proximity to the town centre, with no off-street parking provided, council officers reported it would have a “positive impact on the character and appearance of the area” and recommended it for approval.

Local residents, however, filled the council chamber, angry at a scheme they claimed would lead to increased on-street parking in an already busy area of town.

Speaking against the application, Mohammed Arfeen said: “We don't have any objection to any change that may take place. What we do have objection to is with regard to the car free development.

“Something like this seems quite out of date. Certainly car use is a necessity and we do have parking problems on the road.

“Other developments in this area have ample parking in the development. I cannot seem to understand why this development has been made as a car free development.”

Central ward councillor Chris Leslie also spoke against the application, who said it was “unattractive” and would not complement the area.

During the committee's debate, Councillor Sheila Smilie described the design as an “eye sore” and drew attention to the small unit size and lack of amenity space.

She said: “People do have to live in this and it does ring alarm bells that we are allowing insufficient amenity space and undersized rooms.

“The car free development is something that's forced on us by guidelines but people do still use cars. This area in particular is one of the worst for parking.

“Whilst we always sit here and say we should allow modern designs, this just doesn't suit the area. It's going to be such an eyesore. It's a very modern building and still trying to pack in as much as possible in this corner.”

Addressing unrest from residents who were upset at the second application, Councillor Iain Sharpe said there was no limit to the number of proposals developers could submit for a particular site.

He added: “I'm more than aware of the difficulties of parking in this area but the reality is this isn't just some whim of the planning officers to allow a car free development. This is the whole drive of national policy for the last 15 years.

“The hard reality we know is it would be very hard for us to sustain and win an appeal on the grounds of parking, however much I have sympathy with residents.”

Councillor Nigel Bell described the development as “overbearing”, while councillor George Derbyshire declared it no better than the first application.

Following a motion by Councillor Rabi Martins, the application was rejected due to scale and design.