A landmark club in Old Town that features two, huge statues outside its entrance has been refused permission to keep them.

South Pacific-themed nightclub Kioki, in the High Street, applied for retrospective permission for the statues as well as work that created a rear extension storeroom, replacing the roof covering the seating area at the back of the club, and an extension to its opening hours.

It comes after council enforcement officers discovered the owners did not have planning permission before the changes were made.

Having taken over the club in the second half of 2021 and later reopening, Alan Mok was told he would need to apply for retrospective permission on the visit by officers.

The application made by Mr Mok said he is “keen to support the night-time economy of Swindon town; the rebranding and refurbishment of the nightclub is part of this aspiration and since its re-opening in 2021 has since been doing well in offering variety of venue choice for Swindon’s residents evening entertainment".

“The recent works were undertaken in genuine good faith under the assumption that planning permission would not be required for the replacing and extending of sections of the roof,” he added.

As part of the application, Mr Mok sought to change the hours he could use the rear beer garden.

Swindon Advertiser: One of the giant statues outside of Kioki in Old Town.One of the giant statues outside of Kioki in Old Town. (Image: Aled Thomas Newsquest)

The original conditions allowed use of the garden and terrace between 7am and 11pm; Mr Mok asked for permission to use the areas between 11am and 6am every day, the same hours as the inside of the club.

Of the changes to the front of the building, his application said: “It is acknowledged that the ‘tiki’ style is not typically a traditional feature of the character of the Conservation Area, however they help identify the club brand and set it apart from the other uses in the High Street.

“It is not considered that the proposal will result in the change of the perception of the character and appearance of the Old Town Conservation Area and particularly the wider street scene of High Street.”

But a strong objection to permission for the extension was lodged by the Co-op supermarket next door: “The structure is adjacent to our rear yard and clad in wood which has been identified as a huge fire risk.

“It has been constructed on land owned by Co-op and they have no rights whatsoever to do this. We will be sending legal correspondence asking them to remove this structure but it should not be given planning permission given the fire risk it poses.”

The borough council’s planners also took against the plans.

Refusing retrospective permission, they said: “The development to the front of the application building, which consists replacement shopfront doors and windows, first floor and dormer windows, a new awning, and new concrete plinth and two statues, by reason of its proportions, design, materials, positioning and scale does not reflect the historic appearance of the application property and results in an unsympathetic and incongruous appearance and visual clutter which has a detrimental impact on the historic street scene.

“The rear extension/enclosure blocks outlook and light to a side facing window at no. 26, having a harmful impact on neighbouring occupants’ amenity, and the concrete plinth at the front results in an obstruction to the public highway and presents a hazard to highways safety.”

The matter is now with the council’s enforcement team.

Mr Mok could be told to remove all the work without permission. He can appeal against the refusal of permission and also any enforcement he might face.

But if appeals do not succeed and he does not comply with enforcement, he could face prosecution.