We use this phraseology when controlling light circuit traffic following a Small+ departure eg G-CD cleared to land, land only due wake turbulence, expect further clearance on the runway.
It helps to emphasise that a touch and go should not be carried out in order to prevent a wake turbulence encounter. It does not prohibit a G/A, however if the pilot needs to he will then be aware of the WT.

To me this phraseology seems more appropriate for denying a circuit detail due to traffic levels rather than holding the aircraft for WT before continuing, it also does not inform the pilot of a potential WT encounter.

OK so the conclusion I can come to from this is that it was not a prohibition of going around (didn't think it would be this). But more likely a controller who likely by accident mixed in his normal patter for circuit traffic in a given circumstance to an aircraft inbound commercial IFR?

That's the way I would take it OhNoCb. It's definately not an instruction to not go around.

Just using the wrong phraseology - though interestingly that is what I was taught in college too!

It's non standard but i don't feel it was that ambiguous. I would certainly only use it for Circuit traffic/training traffic in a Wake Turbulence situation.

Instrument approach does not necessarily mean that he would not conduct a touch and go - it's not necessarily a commercial operation. Instrument training aircraft do this all the time.

Could also have been an error/slip form the controller, or maybe a student controller under instruction.