Angry residents claim the owner of a student house knocked down their boundary wall at the end of their road to create access when he had no right to do so.

People living along Ashfield Villas, behind the property at 130 Dracaena Avenue, attended a meeting of Falmouth Town Council’s planning committee last week to oppose an application to build a two bedroom bungalow in the back garden for the owner, who lives in Truro, to live in.

Falmouth Packet: This is the third application for the property on Dracaena AvenueThis is the third application for the property on Dracaena Avenue (Image: Paul Armstrong)

In order to create access to the bungalow he has knocked down the wall at the end of Ashfield Villas to create a new driveway into the property.

Originally a private road, residents say Ashfield Villas was adopted by county highways in March 1992. The small road ends at the boundary of the back garden of 130.

But, they say, even before the application went in the owner, David Hemlock, had demolished the wall at the end of their road and replaced it with a metal fence and gates to allow access, despite residents saying he has no right to do so.

They say the owner of 130 Dracaena Avenue has, over the last few years, incrementally taken down trees, removed part of the fence, put up gates then knocked down the wall into Ashfield Villas, then put up a no parking sign on the Ashfield Villas side.

Speaking on behalf of the residents at the meeting, one resident told councillors that the proposed entrance to the new building is not an established access and is not identified as such on the deeds of the property.

“The access proposed through Ashfield Villas which has been created over time by knocking down the wall of our turning point which has caused all sorts of conflict with workmen blocking the road, driveway and turning space,” she said.

“In addition to this the students walking through, banging gates causing increasing litter and damage to our vehicles as well as hostility shown towards the residents of Ashfield Road.

“The conflict at times has led to police involvement and these plans would allow that to escalate further.”

She said the increase in vehicles on the road would be dangerous to residents and their children.

Falmouth Packet: The entrance to Ashfield Villas with the gate to the rear of 130 Dracaena Avenue at the end,The entrance to Ashfield Villas with the gate to the rear of 130 Dracaena Avenue at the end, (Image: Paul Armstrong)

She said when the wall was originally knocked down, the owner told them he would rebuild it but it hadn’t happened.

She said if they were to rebuild the wall he had told them he would come and knock it down again.

Speaking on behalf of Mr Hemlock, his agent told the committee that the current property was an HMO with seven students.

He said the application was to build a small accessible bungalow for his client who has mobility issues. He said the garden was not currently used apart from for drying clothes and the students were away during the summer.

He said the development would formalise the parking at the front of the property to ensure there was room.

He said they could use the access off Ashfield Villas to form the drive way for two parking spaces for the bungalow.

He said it would improve parking for the surrounding houses as it would prevent people from parking in the turning head at the end of the road.

He told Cllr Jude Robinson that the access gate in Ashfield Villas had been there for around ten years.

Replying to chairman Cllr Steve Eva’s question about the residents’ claim that his client had said he would demolish the wall if it was rebuilt he said the ownership of the wall was related to the boundary but wasn’t an issue in terms of planning but was a civil issue.

He said the bungalow would be for the owner but he couldn’t think of a restriction which would stop it from being used by students in the future.

The planning committee voted to recommend refusal of the application for the third time as the development was an extension to a student property which would result in an HMO which contravenes NDP Policy HMO1.