# 4-6 Ashford Road, Tenterden (listed building consent, first-floor sign)

- **Decision:** dismissed, 30 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Edward Dade
- **Authority:** Ashford (South East)
- **Appeal reference:** 6011717
- **Application reference:** PA/2025/2073
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Retrospective listed building consent for replacing a hanging sign with a large flat light-green sign on first-floor weatherboarding of a Grade II terrace (Appeal B; the ground-floor sign Appeal A is 6011714)
- **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area, listed-building-setting
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** HE6(4), HE6(3)
- **Development plan policies:** Ashford Local Plan 2019 SP1, SP6, ENV13, Tenterden Neighbourhood Plan TEN NP4
- **Main issues:** special interest of the listed building, conservation area
- **Tags:** tier-2, listed-building-consent, heritage-harm-decisive, he6-harm-graded, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, retrospective, alternative-scheme-not-explored, transitional-no-consultation, linked-appeals

## Summary
Retrospective listed building consent for an estate agent's large, light-green flat sign fixed to the first-floor weatherboarding of a Grade II terrace in Tenterden. Dismissed, with the linked ground-floor sign appeal. Moderate harm, given considerable importance and weight, was not outweighed, because the claimed commercial benefits could be had with sensitive signage.

## Issues and findings
- **Effect.** "the Appeal B sign appears as an incongruous and visually dominant feature" (DL ¶20).
- **HE6.** "each sign gives rise to a moderate degree of harm. Nonetheless, I give these harms considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶24).
- **Benefits.** "it is unclear why these benefits could not be achieved through signage which is sensitive to the building’s special interest" (DL ¶25).

## Transferable points
- Corporate branding is not a public benefit that outweighs harm where a sensitive sign would serve the business equally (DL ¶21-22, 25).

## Policy findings
- **HE6(1): harm (substantial weight).** substantial weight to conservation; each sign causes "a moderate degree of harm" (DL 24)
- **HE6(3): harm (considerable weight).** "I give these harms considerable importance and weight" (DL 24)
- **HE6(4): fail.** continued commercial use and tourism benefits achievable with sensitive signage, so not sufficient (DL 25)

## Key facts
- Same decision letter as Appeal A (6011714, ground-floor sign), also dismissed
- The sign covers weatherboarding at first floor, breaks its horizontal lines and projects forward; corporate colour out of keeping (DL 16, 18-20)
- Previous consents for commercial signage show a suitable design is possible (DL 22)
- [object Object]

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011717
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/245d4c90-8b7e-4731-af98-e434ab701aa9

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011717.html

A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.