Listed building in Towcester to be converted into homes despite parking concerns

The grade II listed building on Watling Street has been vacant for two years.

The buildings at 152 and 154 Watling Street had been used as a club with associated offices, function rooms and a four-bedroom apartment.

But in 2018 it became vacant and now Clayson Country Homes has secured planning permission to convert the grade II listed buildings and its various outbuildings into 15 one-bedroom flats.

These will be provided over three floors of the building, which dates back to the Georgian period with Victorian additions. Seven flats will be located on the ground floor, seven on the first floor and one on the second floor.

154 Watling Street backs onto the Tove short stay car park.

Members of South Northamptonshire Council’s planning committee voted by eight votes to two to approve the scheme when they met virtually on December 3.

This came despite objections from Towcester Town Council, which objected due to the lack of car parking being provided. The council’s written statement said: “This will inevitably result in occupiers parking in public spaces within the town centre which are already insufficient in numbers and exacerbating the issue with on-street parking. One car parking space should be provided per unit. The proposal is an over-intensification of the site with the footprint filling the entire site and making no allowance for amenity space.”

Councillor Martin Johns, who sits on the planning committee at SNC as well as on Towcester Town Council, added: “Residential use is the only viable option for this. But I just do think it is over-development. To bring this back into use is commendable, but I find it very difficult to support because of the issues on parking.”

The highways team at Northamptonshire County Council also objected to the scheme, saying a minimum of 15 car parking spaces should be provided. But Councillor Phil Bignell, the deputy leader of the council and a member of the planning committee, agreed with the officer’s recommendation to approve the scheme as it was policy compliant. He argued that any refusal of the scheme would be ‘laughed at’ by planning inspectors if it was appealed by the applicants, a decision which would come at a financial cost to the council.

He said: “The discussion on parking is unbelievable. Those flats sit in a row of houses none of which have parking provision on the street, so why make an exception in saying this one needs to have parking? I’m sure the neighbours either side would love their own parking, but they don’t have it - they have on-street parking which is free and they have to use it. I don’t see the case in point.”