It is second time unlucky for property developer Phillip Brett after his revived plan to turn an empty dance studio in Old Town into flats has again been refused.

Mr Brett had applied to build a third storey onto the empty building last used by the Judith Hockaday Dance School and make the whole building into six one-bed flats.

His first attempt in 2023 had been turned down after ward councillors, the Prospect Place Conservation Area Trust, South Swindon Parish Council and two dozen nearby residents had written in to object.

Mr Brett’s renewed application said it addressed the issues with the first, and included pictures of the outside of the building with windows boarded up with chipboard panels, as well as pictures of the inside of the building and says its condition has deteriorated and is no longer useable in its current state.

It said: “The long-term benefits delivered to the change of use of the building, will significantly outweigh the harms through the loss of a commercial building by assisting the current housing land shortfall – which is noted as brownfield.”

The design and access statement in the application says the appearance of the building will be changed to make the proposals more acceptable, and that it will be re-rendered with: “limestone white render and pale grey render with timber vertical slats finished with a natural stain.”

(Image: Dave Cox)

But there were, again, a number of objections, including from the council’s urban design officer and the Prospect Place Conservation Area Trust.

The Trust said: “60 Prospect Place has none of the historic characteristics of the surrounding area and is an alien form with a negative impact.”

The trust’s submission said the fact the building was two storeys high was a saving grace, but the proposal to add an extra storey to the building would remove even that.

The borough council’s planning officers agreed.

In refusing permission, they said: “The proposal still fails to adequately respond to its immediate context in light of the change to residential it seeks to gain consent for. The enlarged building has increased the bulk and mass when compared to the refused scheme, resulting in a building that further fails to respond to its immediate character.

In terms of internal layout, the flats are very small in size. The accommodation is undersized against the standard for a One-bed apartment – 50 square metres. Such level of living space represents overdevelopment of the site that will be detrimental to the amenities of future occupants.”