Councillors vote against March Turkish restaurant sign

The internally illuminated sign on F&S Majestic in Broad Street, March, sparked a strong debate at Wednesday's Fenland Council planning meeting when members discussed an application for it to remain on the Turkish restaurant.

Restaurant owner Fauk Solak had submitted the retrospective application for the sign, previously described by March Town Council as being visible from space, following enforcement action taken because the sign did not have planning permission.

The application was to put the bureaucratic process right, but unfortunately for Mr Solak, it had the opposite effect, with councillors voting four to two against it being allowed to stay on the former NatWest bank building.

Councillors felt the former NatWest Bank sign was more in keeping with the building. (Image: Fenland District Council)

The restaurant garnered a lot of public support for the sign when the application was originally discussed by the town council, which determined to object to its retention, with many people saying it enhanced the newly regenerated town centre.

That public support, which was against the council's planning officers' recommendations, led to the application being before this week's committee meeting.

A report on the application drawn up by planning officer Nicola Crow, explained: "The illuminated fascia sign appears dominant upon the principal elevation of the host building and conceals important architectural features.

"These include ionic columns that form the termination of the pilasters and keystones to the centre of the window arches.

RECOMMENDED READING: School land will be sold after councillors back its sale in majority vote

"Additionally, the size and scale of the sign, in combination with other advertisements, results in a cluttered frontage to the building."

She concluded by saying: "The fascia sign fails to make a positive contribution and therefore is considered to adversely impact on the street scene and character of the area and fails to protect and enhance heritage assets."

However, Cllr Ian Benney disagreed with her summation.

He felt there was nothing wrong with the sign and said the council should be supporting businesses that want to invest in our towns, not make life difficult for them.

He said the sign was there to attract people's attention and advertise the business, and added: "It brightens up March Broad Street, the people of March must wonder what we are doing if we turn this down."

But Cllr Mark Purser disagreed. He was unhappy with the fact that the application was retrospective, and suggested that people just ignore the rules and do what they want.

Cllr Sidney Imafidon was on the side of the officers and said businesses needed to abide by the rules.

He agreed the sign was out of place in the conservation area, which was there for a reason, and also argued the heritage of the building was damaged because the sign covered some of its architectural features.

"I will not be supporting this. I think the officers have got this one right," he said.

Cllr Benney pointed out that other businesses in Broad Street had illuminated signs, a view agreed by Cllr Charlie Marks.

They argued the principle of internally illuminated signs in Broad Street was already established because of the other business signs dotted along the street.

But planning officer David Rowan argued that those businesses may also not have planning permission, and he would be looking at the businesses named by the two councillors to ensure they were compliant.

He said, as a rule, internally illuminated signs are not encouraged in conservation areas, where you would normally expect to see more bespoke signage that was more fitting for such areas.

Areas, he said, which have been identified for protection by the council.

Some councillors had tried to suggest alternatives for the F&S Majestic sign, including moving it up the building to reveal the architectural features, but Mr Rowen pointed out it was not the committee's business to discuss whether any sign should be allowed; the members were there to discuss the sign that was currently on the building.

Mr Solak has the right to appeal the decision.