Falmouth Town Council has used its new powers over houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) as it recommended refusal of plans to regularise up to nine occupants at one Dracaena Avenue property.

The members of the council’s planning committee were examining an application to change the use of 33 Dracaena Avenue from C4, house in multiple occupation, to sui generis - meaning that it would not fall into any specific category but would be a use “of itself.”

In a planning statement, the owner - who wrote on the application form that he was applying “under protest” as no change will be made to the use of the house - described the building as a “detached bungalow with loft rooms” with a part-built rear extension.

He wrote that it had been in use as an HMO for 14 years and when completed would house up to nine people, and added: “The house has always been a residential house and has for years been rented out to people on a per room basis and this will continue.”

Councillor Candy Atherton noted that the house had been a frequent topic of debate at the planning committee, while a neighbour to the site “lives in absolute misery” because of the building.

She said: “This was a two bedroom bungalow and it’s grown like Topsy, and it continues to grow like Topsy,” adding that there had also been a suggestion that planning conditions were not being followed.

Town clerk Mark Williams told councillors that the change of use would mean the house would not be covered by Article 4, the new planning regulations governing the creation of new HMOs in Falmouth. And he added: “It’s your job to ask whether it would be acceptable.”

Councillor John Spargo said: “The neighbourhood plan says that it isn’t, policy HMO 1 says that it isn’t.”

Councillor Steve Eva added: “He’s got more than he should have and to give him any more is totally ridiculous.”

However councillor Alan Jewell pointed out that the applicant was “only applying to regularise what he’s got.”

Mr Eva replied that although he wasn’t trying to increase the size of the building, the plans would increase the number of occupants “which to me is just as bad.”

Ms Atherton proposed that the application be refused on the grounds that it is in conflict with the emerging neighbourhood plan, and asked “is there grounds on overuse of the site - too many people?”

The council also proposed refusal on grounds of overdevelopment and un-neighbourliness.

To view the application and to comment, search for PA17/03591 on Cornwall Council’s planning website.