The government has approved plans to redevelop a retail unit on Harrogate’s James Street to create three flats.
The application was made by Leeds-based company SJM Cotech Ltd and included plans to create a three storey extension for the flats to the back of the site and create two ground floor retail units.
The developer revised the plans after submitting them in May 2021, which initially outlined proposals for four flats.
The property is located at 16 James Street, near the cut-through to the Victoria shopping centre. It fronts both on James Street and on Market Place to the rear. It was previously home to Thomas Cook, the travel agent.
SJM Cotech Ltd took the proposal to the government’s Planning Inspectorate after Harrogate Borough Council refused the plan in February this year.
Council officials said the proposal would fail to enhance or preserve the character of the conservation area.
In a decision notice, the council said:
“The rear historic offshoot is considered a heritage asset. The proposal seeks to remove and replace this without suitable justification.
“The proposal therefore would fail to enhance or preserve the character and appearance of the host building and Harrogate Conservation Area.”
Read more:
- Four flats could be built above James Street shop in Harrogate
- Developer appeals James Street flats plan
It added that the proposal would also result in “poor levels of natural daylight to all apartments”.
However, TJ Burnham, a government planning inspector, said in a decision notice that “nothing within the evidence suggests that this would have any harmful effect on the living conditions of a future occupier”.
A decision notice from the inspector said:
“There would therefore be no significant harm to the living conditions of future occupiers of the flats with regard to the availability of daylight or ceiling height.”
It added:
“I have identified no conflict with the development plan and there are no material considerations to indicate that the appeal should be determined otherwise than in accordance with it. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be allowed.”
