Plans have been submitted to carry out repairs and refurbishment work at a boarded-up building in Northampton town centre which has cost taxpayers more than £196,000.

The plans cover 5 Spencer Parade, near St Giles Street, which has stood empty for several years.

As reported by this newspaper in July, figures released by the council showed £196,263 had been spent on the building between the 2021/22 and 2026/27 financial years.

Almost £125,000 of that total was spent on rent, with further costs including council tax, electricity, professional fees and maintenance.

The council's proposals, submitted this month (October) include repairs to the roof, chimneys, windows, doors and brickwork, as well as removing overgrown vegetation.

Inside, the work would include new kitchens and bathrooms, repairs to damaged plasterwork, new flooring and redecoration.

Fire safety improvements are also planned, including new fire doors where needed and upgrades to lighting and fire alarm systems.

The documents state that the building would continue to be used as six flats across four floors.

The work is intended to repair damaged parts of the building while keeping its historic features wherever possible, according to plans.

The Chronicle & Echo revealed in July that the building had cost taxpayers more than £196,000 since West Northamptonshire Council was created in 2021.

The council said it had been leasing the property from private landlord Stephen George Harris, with rent accounting for the largest share of the spending.

At the time, the authority said buying the freehold was something it might consider in the future, but any decision would require Cabinet approval.

The building has reportedly been occupied by squatters in the past, and Google Street View images appear to show it becoming vacant around 2021 before being boarded up by 2024.

The council has been leasing the property from private landlord Stephen George Harris.

In July, the authority refused to release recent correspondence with Mr Harris or property valuations, describing the information as "commercially sensitive" and saying releasing it "may prejudice current discussions".

At the time, the council said purchasing the freehold was "something that it may consider in the future".

Any decision would require Cabinet approval, and the council said it had no approved plans to buy the building.