Appeal 6006876

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for costs was made by [name] against North Northamptonshire Council. This application is the subject of a separate Decision.

I have paid special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the Rushden Conservation Area (CA), in accordance with the statutory duty set out in Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on (i) amenity and (ii) public safety.

Four of the proposed signs would be positioned on the main side gable elevation of the appeal property and a further sign would be placed on an extension to its rear elevation. In those positions they would be located within the CA, albeit close to its outer edge. They would have prominence from a number of different vantage points due to their positioning in relation to the surrounding road network. Signage in the surrounding area is generally restrained to the minimum that is appropriate to advertise commercial premises.

When viewed in conjunction with the building on the opposite side of [address], the gable wall of the appeal property on which the four proposed signs would be positioned frames an important vista within and into the CA. The gable wall is currently a blank, unassuming feature and it does not divert attention within that view. The property on the opposite side is in commercial use, but its signage is modest and it also does not distract from this attractive vista.

Contrary to this, the four proposed signs would be visually dominant features, and they would cause detriment to the view in question, to the CA and to the amenity of the surrounding area in general. The proposed sign to the rear would add clutter to the area and it too would cause harm to amenity. None of the signs would relate to the use of the appeal property, which is understood to be in residential use. That the signs would not be illuminated would not overcome the harm. They would as a whole cause significant harm to the amenity of the surrounding area and would fail to conserve or enhance the character and appearance of the CA.

My attention has been drawn to a sign that has previously been positioned on the side gable of the appeal property. However, no details of how that display came to be in place have been put before me and it has been removed. In those circumstances, I do not consider that the previous sign provides justification for the harm to amenity I have found. I have also been directed to signage close by, on the gable of a nearby property at [address]. Again, no details of the status of that signage has been provided, but in any event, it is an exception in the area, and its presence does nothing to dispel my concerns that the appeal proposal would have a harmful impact on amenity.

For these reasons, I conclude that the proposal would cause significant harm to amenity due to its collective size and its positioning. There would also be harm to the CA. I have taken into account Policies 2 and 8 of the [name] 2016 (JCS) and Policy EN12 of the East Northamptonshire Local Plan Part 2 2023 (LP), which together seek to protect amenity and designated heritage assets, and so are material in this case, together with paragraph 141 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). [name] have concluded that the proposal would harm amenity and the CA, the proposal conflicts with these policies.

The Delegated Report makes reference to the proposed signs being a distracting feature for all users of the public highway, particularly to drivers exiting the roundabout. However, as they do so they join a one-way street leading into the centre of Rushden, where cognitive demand on the driver is lower. The sign to the rear would be set well back from the highway. Overall, I consider that there would be no harm to public safety.

In conclusion, I find no conflict with Policy 8 of the JCS or the Rushden Neighbourhood Plan 2018, where collectively they aim to protect public safety, or with the Framework in the same regard. Whilst the reason for refusal includes further reference to Policy EN2 of the LP, that policy is not relevant to the matter of public safety.

Whilst the proposal would not alter the appeal property’s architectural form, materials or fabric, would not affect any listed buildings and would not cause any change to public accessibility or ecology, none of those considerations overcome the harm I have found.

For the reasons given above, the appeal should be dismissed.