There was “no justification” for a 200-year-old building in Warwick to be demolished earlier this year, council planners have ruled.

Retrospective planning permission was sought after Spring Cottage on Budbrooke Road was knocked down earlier this year, despite the owners not having permission to do so.

The application submitted to Warwick District Council said the work was needed “urgently” with the former customs house having “sustained irreversible damage”.

The application explained: “The extent of deterioration had made restoration economically unfeasible. 

“Significant structural instability and extensive damage had rendered the building unsafe and uninhabitable over the past few years, raising concerns about the potential for whole or partial collapse.

“Additionally, the client has noticed signs of multiple break-ins, indicating unauthorised entry by individuals. 

“This situation not only endangers those who enter the premises but also raises significant public safety concerns. 

"Despite attempts to secure the building with site hoarding, these incidents seem to continue.”

The application said there had been multiple break ins at the site (image via planning application)

But council planners did not look favourably on the application and instead refused to grant retrospective planning permission.

Five objections were submitted by residents, alongside objections from conservation and ecology officers.

While the 19th century building was not listed, the council’s report said permission for its demolition would only be granted where designs for a replacement demonstrated it would “reserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area”.

“Though the building was clearly in need of structural repairs, officers have seen no evidence in the documentation provided to suggest that the building was prone to collapse and required a full demolition and rebuild,” the report continued. 

“No justification has been provided to warrant demolition.”

Planning permission was granted in 2015 for the redevelopment of the site, but this was before the conservation area was implemented.

And this application had lapsed before the building was knocked down.

The report continued: “It is our view that the building made a contribution towards the character and appearance of the conservation area due to its age, traditional appearance and construction. 

“Therefore, as the application is simply to approve retrospective demolition, rather than to propose an appropriate replacement building, the application is in clear contravention of this policy.”

See the full application here.