The latest attempt to more than double the accommodation at Penryn's Old Telephone Exchange despite objections from residents and town councillors has been turned down at appeal.

The James brothers, who own the property, had launched an appeal to the planning inspectorate after their third application to enlarge the building had been rejected by Cornwall Council's planning committee.

The proposal to change the four-bedroomed building to house 19 residents - which followed previous plans for up to 24 occupiers - had been refused permission by the council on the grounds it would result in overdevelopment, and failure to respect the Penryn Conservation Area and the setting of nearby listed buildings, as well as being un-neighbourly.

Upon leaving the planning meeting in August last year, the applicants had indicated they would be contesting the decision, and in September they submitted an appeal to the council.

In response to objections over the size and density of the building and resulting overdevelopment, the applicants said the planned size had been reduced from previous applications, and the form of the building had been altered to better suit the nearby conservation area.

In terms of density they added that it "presents a modest increase in the number of bedrooms overall" and would be "an effective use of brownfield land" in a sustainable location.

The applicants also responded to claims the development would be unneighbourly, saying they had reduced the scale and simplified the design while increasing the distance from neighbouring buildings and removing overlooking windows. They have also put in measures to reduce noise and disturbance.

They added that concerns from the highway officer about parking and bike parking would be addressed with the provision of cycle storage, with details to be confirmed.

And they noted that concerns had been raised about students occupying the building, as had happened before, but that the scheme is not aimed at students.

In the appeal statement, Hollie Nicholls of planning agents Laurence Associates said the site was in a sustainable location and the principle of development had already been considered acceptable.

She added: "The current scheme has successfully adopted the inspector’s comments and proposes a reduced scheme of eight apartments in a far more considerate building. Owing to the changes made in light of the inspector’s advice, the current scheme will not lead to an overbearing impact, direct or harmful indirect overlooking or unreasonable disturbance."

However planning inspector Colin Cresswell of the Department for Communities and Local Government turned down the appeal.

Mr Cresswell found that although the development would have an "acceptable" effect on the living conditions of neighbours, its form would "harm the character and appearance of the area."

He concluded: " I note that the proposal would contribute to the supply of housing in an accessible

location. Nonetheless, I have found that the development would harm the setting of designated heritage assets, the protection of which is assigned great weight within the [National Planning Policy]Framework. Whilst the harm would be less than substantial, it would not be outweighed by public benefits."

Do you have any thoughts on this story? Tell us at thepacket.co.uk or on our Facebook page.