Plane to knock down a listed Leamington nightclub for student accommodation were rejected by councillors this week.

Warwick District Council’s planning committee agreed with officers – the authority’s employed professionals – that the benefits of knocking down the two-storey Smack nightclub on Tavistock Street, Leamington Spa, to replace it with 48 student bedrooms across five floors would outweigh the loss of heritage assets. 

It was also deemed that the scale, mass and bulk of the new building would overdevelop the area that sits just behind The Parade in the town centre.

The club is housed in grade II curtilage-listed buildings that are mews-style former coach houses from the 19th century.

They were deemed “increasingly rare” within planning officer Lucy Hammond’s report, providing the basis for the council’s case that the proposals would cause substantial harm, leaving developers Ni Ann Limited – a company owned by nightclub owner Steve Smith – with a higher bar to justify their destruction. 

There were objections over the loss of the club and listed building but also supportive comments arguing that it is the right location for student accommodation, citing problems caused by the nightclub and the tatty state of the building. 

However, Barbara Lynn from the conservation advisory forum (CAF) said they are the “last remaining examples” in the town and that they should be considered as a part of the buildings they historically served on The Parade. 

“You will be destroying the example of how the town was built, 200 years ago possibly,” she said.

“I think it is something which one should very carefully consider before agreeing to that. Is the benefit to be gained from destroying these buildings sufficient? I think we would say not.

“The buildings can be renovated. They are still in use and popular, they cannot just be dismissed as being insignificant.”

Patrick Horrocks of Worlledge Associates, the Oxford-based firm that produced a heritage report advocating demolition, referenced “extensive alterations” over the past century, arguing that had caused the historic and architectural value to be “seriously depleted” with a “very changed context” created by replacement buildings around them. 

“Demolition would not represent substantial or total loss of the listed building, nor would it result in substantial harm to the listed building,” he said.

“The interest that the buildings may hold could be preserved by record prior to demolition.” 

Cllr Bill Gifford queried the difference between the council stating that the plans would create substantial harm, while English Heritage categorised it as less than substantial harm.

“It seems to me that which way to go depends a lot on whether we consider there to be substantial harm or less than substantial harm,” he said.

Planning officer Lucy Hammond said: “Whichever the case, the recommendation for refusal is based on officers’ view that the total demolition amounts to substantial harm. 

“Notwithstanding any impacts resulting from the proposed development, which in officers’ view amounts to less than substantial, the starting point for officers is the complete demolition. 

“It is an unusual position for officers and Historic England to have quite such opposing views but the rationale behind that is set out quite clearly.”

That was enough to gain support from Cllr Gifford and the bulk of the planning committee – Cllr Peter Phillips and Cllr Judy Falp neither supported nor objected to the proposal to say no to the plans.

“There is only one grade above that, there are not that many in this area and it is of historic importance as part of the building,” said Cllr Gifford. 

“One looks at it in Tavistock Street but actually it is connected to the buildings on The Parade historically, and as has been well put by the officer in the report, there is an enormous historic importance to these buildings (in their own right).

“Student accommodation does not really respect the history of these buildings. I can see it may well be advantageous to the applicant to demolish them but there is no requirement to do so, they could be kept and converted.

“I take the point from officers that there is substantial harm and the only way that can be overcome is by showing there are substantial benefits, greater than the harm. I don’t think that is the case with this application.”