A developer's attempt to add a further two bedrooms to an already approved scheme for student accommodation in Falmouth's Trescobeas Road, has been thrown out by Cornwall Council.

Members of the council's central sub-area planning committee had been recommended to approve the application by its case officer, but following representations from local members, it was refused.

The previously approved scheme will provide 15 student bedrooms, in addition to the seven existing ones on the other half of the site at 1 Trescobeas Road. The latest application sought to add two more bedrooms at the rear of the approved extensions within a single storey addition.

When the new proposals went before Falmouth's planning committee, councillors accused the developer of being “greedy” and recommended the plans be refused on grounds of overdevelopment, loss of amenity space and being un-neighbourly.

Case officer, Laura Potts, however told Cornwall councillors: “The relatively small addition is considered to be appropriate for this site. The proposal is not considered to constitute over-development nor, in my view, could the council sustain a refusal on lack of residential amenity area or lack of parking. Also, the design, whilst not ideal, is not considered to be harmful.

“The additional two bedrooms are not considered to adversely affect the site so significantly that it tips the balance towards a refusal .”

Arguing against that, though, was Councillor David Saunby, who said: “The building of two additional bedrooms into the garden area is a blatant case of garden grabbing which would be far too close and encroaching on its neighbours in Tresco Place.

“I believe the applicant should be satisfied with their original application for student accommodation without having to squeeze more out of this tiny plot of land by adding two more bedrooms in this already over built up area. This is a classic case of overdevelopment and the application should be refused.”

The committee agreed and rejected the application stating the proposal would result in an overdevelopment of the site, which would result in a lack of parking and amenity areas suitable for 24 occupants.