Appeal to demolish arson-hit pub in Rushden and replace it with flats and shops refused again
Plans to demolish a fire-damaged high street pub and replace it with a three-storey block of flats and shops have been thrown out once again.
A government-appointed planning inspector sided with the council’s refusal notice for a development at the former Feathers pub at 105 High Street, Rushden.
Applicant Briggs & Hulland Ltd applied to North Northamptonshire Council (NNC) to demolish the old public house and erect a new complex with two retail units, two office spaces and 10 apartments.
Council planning officers rejected the plans at the start of 2024, calling the development’s design ‘unsympathetic and eclectic’ to the rest of the high street.
The building has remained empty since 2018, most recently trading as Fate nightclub.
Soon after its closure, a fire broke out, destroying the roof and causing significant damage to the inside of the building.
The arson-hit building remains off-limits and is fenced off from the rest of the high street. After reviewing the plans, the inspector said it was clear that the site had been ‘an untidy and unattractive presence’ for a long time.
With the complete demolition of the existing remains proposed, the inspector wrote that the new plans would reflect some of the positive elements of the previous building.
It was concluded that the restoration of the site on the high street would not harm its overall character and would have a positive effect because of the removal of the currently fire-damaged building.
However, the appeals process highlighted a lack of amenity space for tenants as a failure of the proposal, as there would be no balconies or patios for the individual apartments.
Other concerns around the absence of affordable housing were also raised.
The inspector concluded: “The appeal scheme would preserve the character or appearance of the Rushden Conservation Area. The benefits that would arise from the redevelopment of a fire-damaged site in a prominent location on High Street is a matter to which I give substantial weight.
“However, these matters should not be achieved at the expense of adequate living conditions for future occupiers, without making adequate provision for affordable housing provision or sufficiently mitigating pressure from increased recreational disturbance.
“Thus, for the reasons set out, and having considered all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.”