A property developer is facing the prospect of tearing down an extension to a building in Trowbridge unless he can win an appeal against a planning refusal.

Michael Thomas, of Staverton, was refused permission by Wiltshire Council for the extension at 12 Newtown which is already partly built.

He was seeking permission for an extension and conversion of a shop and accommodation to be used as house of multiple occupation to provide seven bedsits over three floors.

After work started without permission, the council issued a closure order. The vacant building was previously Pasquale’s Italian pizza takeaway shop on the ground floor.

Trowbridge Town Council leader, Cllr Stewart Palmen, said: “They have the right to appeal then if they lose the appeal they will have to dismantle the work done to date.”

Ten local residents, Trowbridge Town Council, Wiltshire Council’s highways officer, and Wiltshire Council’s public protection officer had all objected to the scheme.

Planners refused the application on four grounds:

  • The proposed development by virtue of its bulk, mass, scale, elevational design and roofline represents an unacceptable form of development that fails to respond positively to the existing built form, mass, scale, elevational design, streetscape and rooflines, resulting in poor quality design and detracts from the prevailing character and appearance of the area.
  • The proposed development would result in an overbearing impact on and overlooking of the private amenity space of the adjacent dwelling at 13 Newtown. Furthermore, by virtue of limited outdoor amenity space provided for the future occupants of the building, as well as insufficient information to demonstrate that no impact would arise to the amenities of future and adjacent occupiers in terms of noise, smells and waste storage from the proposed takeaway unit, the proposed development represents an unacceptable form of development that fails to ensure an appropriate level of amenity would be achieved for both existing neighbouring and future occupiers.
  • The proposed development fails to provide adequate provision for the parking/storage of bicycles on site. Additionally, it fails to provide adequate on-site parking for vehicles and would encourage occupiers to park their vehicles nearby on the public highway, which would prejudice the safety of local road users and interrupt the free flow of traffic resulting in an unacceptable impact on highway safety.
  • Insufficient information has been provided as part of the application to demonstrate that no net loss of biodiversity would arise as a result of the proposed development.