A controversial bid to turn a home in a coastal town into housing for asylum seekers has failed again.

Change of use plans that could have seen a mid terrace property in Kirkley, south Lowestoft, converted into an eight-bedroom House of Multiple Occupancy (HMO), have been turned down once more following numerous objections.

Earlier this year a scheme to use the property at 47 London Road South as a nine-bedroom HMO with "accommodation for asylum seekers" was denied.

East Suffolk Council ruled the application was "contrary to relevant policies."

The home on London Road South, Kirkley in Lowestoft. Picture: Principle DesignThe home on London Road South, Kirkley in Lowestoft. Picture: Principle Design (Image: Principle Design)

A new application was lodged with the council in June which proposed change of use from a residential dwelling to eight bedroom HMO.

But the council rejected the proposals as the scheme submitted by agents Principle Design - on behalf of applicant Patrice Elonge for Poseday Properties - was refused again under delegated powers.

Lowestoft Town Council recommended the plans for refusal , and the town council said it remained concerned about the welfare of occupants and the living conditions of the property.

The Environment Agency also objected to the proposals, along with twenty-four locals who cited issues of over-development, fly-tipping, and anti-social behaviour.

Change of use plans for the property at 47 London Road South to be converted into an HMO for asylum seekers have been refused. Picture: Principle DesignChange of use plans for the property at 47 London Road South to be converted into an HMO for asylum seekers have been refused (Image: Principle Design)

A report from the council's case officer said a previous application established the house was at some point converted to a seven-bedroom HMO "which is an unlawful and an unlicensed HMO."

It added: "This application therefore seeks to regularise the use to enable a licensed large HMO - eight bedrooms - for asylum seekers."

With the property currently vacant, the report said it would be operated and managed by SERCO.

In refusing the proposals they concluded it was contrary to policies once more, as "the benefits of this type of accommodation in this location do not outweigh the flood risk."