Appeal 6007405

The appeal is dismissed.

The signs have already been installed.

The Council has cited Policies BN5 and S10 of the [site address] Joint Core Strategy Local Plan (Part 1) (2014) (CS), Policies ENV7 and ENV10 of the Daventry District Settlement and Countryside Local Plan (Part 2) (2020) (LP), the [site address] Conservation Area Appraisal and Management plan and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) in its decision notice. However, the control of advertisements is exercisable only with respect to public safety and amenity and consequently, whilst they are material considerations, they are not decisive in the determination of this appeal.

The Council has not raised any concerns in respect of public safety and I note that the highway authority has no objection. I see no reason to disagree.

Therefore, the main issue is the impact on amenity including the [site address] Conservation Area and nearby listed buildings.

The appeal site comprises a two-storey terraced property of Victorian origin. It contains an attractive entrance with surround and multi paned shop window with two sash windows at first floor. The Council indicate that is considered to be a non-designated heritage asset due to its fine architectural details. It is located on the southern side of the [address] in the [site address] village centre, identified as a primary service village in the LP, and is adjoined by other commercial properties. It lies within the [site address] Conservation Area which encompasses most of the commercial village centre as well as areas to the east and west focussing on the main routes running in those directions.

Opposite on the northern side of [address] lie further terraced properties comprising Nos. 5a, 7, 9 and 11 which are all [name] listed. Their significance is mainly derived from the architectural features and historic interest of the buildings which are described as a well-constructed and legible example of an historic village row of buildings of 17th and 18th century date, built in the local vernacular tradition with ironstone elevations under steep thatch and slate roofs with probable origins as part of a farmstead. The 19th century shopfront to No. 7 is noted as a good representative example of the type.

The [site address] Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan (2021) (CAMP) summarises the special interest of the CA as including the high quality and variety of architecture with over 30 listed buildings, strong contribution from non-listed buildings predominantly of vernacular materials, medieval street layout and the contribution of historic shop fronts particularly on the [address]. These factors all contribute to the significance of the conservation area in the locality of the appeal site. The CAMP also notes that historic shopfronts are an integral part of the character of the conservation area making a particular contribution to [address], with many retaining traditional shop fronts.

The signage is of bold, modern appearance which contrasts starkly with the traditional appearance of the host property and those within its surroundings. The use of modern materials and bright colours emphasise further the incongruity of the signage within this historic environment. I find that the signs do not complement the host building or wider area resulting in harm to the amenity of the area and to the character and appearance of the CA and the setting of the nearby listed buildings. There is conflict with CS policies BN5 and S10 and [name] ENV7 and ENV10 which seek to sustain and enhance the historic environment of the district and ensure high quality design that reflects and integrates with the surrounding area.

The appellant acknowledges that the signage results in some harm to the CA and to the setting of the nearby listed buildings though at the lower level of the less than substantial scale in terms of Framework paragraph 215. Notwithstanding this level of harm, it is to be given significant weight and importance. A similar level of harm results to the non-designated heritage asset.

Framework paragraph 215 states that the harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset is to be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. The appellant contends that the signage is key to the continued occupation of the property by the business and its contribution to the vitality of the local centre. It thus supports it and the public benefits that arise in terms of economic and social objectives.

[name] agree that the occupation of the premises by the business supports the vitality and economic role of the primary service village centre and that signage plays a role to support that function, there is limited evidence to support the contention that the signage as it exists is key to that.

Overall, I find that the public benefits in this instance are insufficient to outweigh the harm. Similarly, the harm to the significance of the non-designated heritage asset is not outweighed.

I therefore conclude that this appeal should be dismissed.