Plans approved for discount store at Castleford’s old Poundstretcher building
The property has been vacant for around seven years
Plans for a new discount store at Castleford’s former landmark Poundstretcher building have been approved.
The property has been vacant for around seven years but has been seen as integral to the regeneration of the town centre.
Details of the planned new business were revealed in an application submitted to Wakefield Council in October for permission to put new signage on the outside the Carlton Road premises.
Planning officers have approved the application by Zafar Afghani, chief executive of BBM Bargains Castleford Ltd.
A report said: “It is considered overall that the design and scale of the advertisement scheme would be appropriate and relative to the size of the application site and to serve its purpose.
“The materials, colours and design of the advertising sign are considered acceptable within the context of the surrounding area which is characterised by neighbouring residential and commercial units.”
Attempts by the council to acquire the premises previously failed as the authority was unable to reach a deal with the building owners.
In September 2024, Bartonvale Ltd was then granted planning permission to renovate the building.
Council officers said at the time that the proposals would add “vitality and viability” to the town centre.
The local authority had been hoping to buy the building as part of a major town centre regeneration scheme after being awarded £24m of government Town Deal funding.
Plans included demolishing it to make way for a new skills hub and training centre to be run by the Castleford Tigers Foundation, the charitable arm of the town’s professional rugby league club.
The deal fell through after the council and Bartonvale were unable to agree on the sale price.
In May 2024, a spokesperson for the company confirmed that it wanted £500,000 for the sale.
At the time, Mark Lynam, the council’s corporate director for regeneration and economic growth, said the sum was five times higher than a valuation from an independent third party and “too high a price to pay with public money”.