Conservation watchdogs have slammed planners for allowing the demolition of a historic school to make way for 24 flats.

Worthing Society chairman Robert Elleray, a long-standing campaigner against the destruction of the town's architectural heritage, accused the borough's development control committee of having already made up its mind before the meeting to decide the fate of the John Horniman School on the corner of Brighton Road and Park Road.

But James Appleton, the council's assistant director of planning services, rejected the claim, saying the application was fully debated at length.

Committee chairman Janet Goldsbrough-Jones used her casting vote to support demolition of the Victorian structure.

The school, for four to 11-year-olds with learning difficulties, was founded in 1958 and a 90-strong petition against redevelopment had been submitted.

Mr Elleray said: "The meeting, along with its procedures, was a mere formality. We believe the decision had been made some time before. All was cut and dried, irrespective of any possible opposing views.

"At this meeting, the Worthing Society submitted a statement opposing demolition and also submitted an important addendum. This addendum was not read out. Why? We deserve a full explanation for this omission.

"We feel it only right to also draw public attention to the extraordinary statement asserting that the John Horniman School building was too difficult to convert into flats.

"This is nonsense. In 1982 Beach House was very successfully transformed into apartments and, at this very moment, the old brewery tower in Warwick Road, a far more difficult proposition, is being converted, any similar challenges having been addressed and resolved.

"We must also refer to the odd fact that this school is just outside the conservation area.

"In December 2001, when this area was under review, the Worthing Society pointed out this serious omission and professional advisers to the borough strongly recommended that the John Horniman School should be included.

"Our understanding is this advice was over-ruled, at the highest level, by the council. The reason for this exclusion is, perhaps, now becoming clear - forward planning, rather than conservation."

Mr Appleton said: "The day after the meeting I was asked about whether the building could be converted. I said yes it could have been an option but we had a proposal for redevelopment."

The planning department was investigating what had happened to the addendum and, if it was important, the application may have to be considered again.

Mr Appleton added: "Mr Elleray is implying that three years ago we knew there was a proposal to redevelop the school, which is clearly nonsense from our point of view.

"It would be improper to suggest we have deliberately excluded it (from the conservation area) to allow for its redevelopment."