The developer behind a scheme to convert a local Old Town landmark into flats for 22 people has appealed against Swindon Borough Council’s refusal of permission.

Brett Invest Ltd was refused permission at the end of 2023 for a scheme which would have seen the former Regent Hotel  at 151-152 Victoria Road converted into two five-bedroom HMOs and 12 flats.

The ground floor would have two shared apartments with five single bedrooms each, with communal kitchens and living areas, while the upper floor would have five self-contained single apartments and a rear extension with 10 single-bed flats across three floors.

But agreement between the borough council and the developer could not be reached on the latter’s section 106 contributions - the system where developers and builders pay for improvements to local infrastructure as part of a planning agreement.

The council wanted £14,000 to continue to build outdoor spaces away from the site; local parks, offsite sports facilities and allotments, but Brett Investment did not agree.

After refusal of the proposal the developer has appealed to the government-appointed planning inspector

Brett Invest has submitted its initial argument which says: “Tt is unclear on what evidence base the council has determined that a scheme for 12 residential units trigger the need for off-site contributions.

“Eastcott ward, to which the appeal site is located, is served by Queens Park, 300 metres from the site, which provides a high quality public open space, and Savernake Play area is 600 metres from the site.

“There are outdoor sports facilities within the ward and in adjacent wards, creating adequate accessibility and there are allotments within adjacent wards creating good accessibility, all within 1.5km of the site.”

The developer adds that the council is working from obsolete policy documents: “The 2014 Open Space audit is now 10 years old and does not take into account the large number of improvements that have been made to the existing open space provision within the ward, since the publication of the audit.”

The statement of case concludes: “It is considered that the off-site contributions sought and forming the only reason for refusal do not meet the legal tests, being that they are not necessary to make the development acceptable, are not directly related to the development and are not fairly or reasonably related in scale or kind to the development.”

The company has also applied for its costs to be paid.

The borough council will also make its argument by writing. No date has yet been set for a decision.