A housing scheme that hoped to provide more than 50 new flats on a London Underground station car park was rejected for a second time as councillors were left unconvinced it would benefit the area.

Brent Council’s planning committee voted to refuse permission for 52 one-bed properties across two buildings up to five storeys high in the car park attached to Sudbury Town Station.

The developers, Pocket Living, were given a second opportunity to present the scheme after it was deferred at a meeting in May following councillors’ concerns around parking and the lack of family homes.

But the promise of £600,000 to support affordable housing projects at another site, as well as plans to provide another disabled parking space were deemed insufficient.

Cllr Michael Maurice, who represents Kenton ward, said the scheme “won’t help anything or anyone” and suggested, in his view, “nothing’s changed” from the previous application.

He described it as an “overdevelopment” and criticised the loss of car parking spaces and lack of family homes.

Brent Council officers noted this site is “unsuitable” for family homes and pointed out the land belongs to Transport for London, who could sell off the car park in any case.

Pocket Living explained that they saw this site as an opportunity to support young people living in Brent who want to get on the housing ladder.

Lee Jay, a 34-year-old firefighter who used to live in the borough, said he was forced to leave due to a lack of housing options.

He lent his support to the development, noting that he now lives in a Pocket flat in Haringey and wants others to have the same opportunity.

However, several councillors could not see past the need for affordable family homes in the borough, while the committee’s deputy chairman, Cllr Robert Johnson, said this was “not the site” for a scheme of this nature.

Those living close to the station said they appreciate the need for housing in Brent – for families and single key workers.

But they said it should not come at the expense of those already living near sites earmarked for development.

Objector Paul Lorber noted that residents would have to “live with the consequences of [the council’s] decisions” – including the expected issues associated with a loss of parking and lack of amenity space.

He was supported by Cllrs Mary Daly and Tom Stephens, who suggested this scheme would “not meet local need” and, like the previous application, is a “departure from several planning policies”.