Fenland councillors have been warned they could face legal action over their inconsistency in decision-making after they did a full U-turn on a restaurant's illuminated sign.
This week's planning committee approved an application for the large sign on the front of the F&S Majestic Turkish restaurant in Broad Street, March - just four months after the committee refused the exact same application.
In September, councillors went along with a recommendation by officers to refuse the retrospective application, which sought to put the bureaucratic process right.
A decision which came under heavy criticism from the public on social media, as people leapt to defend the sign, arguing it enhanced the town centre.
Grounds for refusal were based around the sign's impact on the former NatWest Bank as they covered "important architectural features" and "adversely impacted the street scene and the character of the area".
Faruk Solak resubmitted his planning application less than a month after September's planning committee decision, hoping it would be a case of second time lucky.
And it was as the councillors decided the signs could stay, despite the officers' continued concerns over the impact of them on the building and a warning from both Matthew Leigh Fenland's head of planning, and another chief officer that they could face legal action over the committee's lack of consistency in decision-making.
Mr Leigh warned that councillors needed to have solid planning reasons for changing their view on an application.
Cllr Charlie Marks had argued that demolition of the Barclays Bank and the approval of an illuminated barber's pole on another business meant there had been changes in circumstances, and that was why he was now looking to approve the application.
But Mr Leigh said previously the committee had found the sign was detrimental to the character of the area, and had an adverse impact on the architectural features of the building.
He also pointed out that councillors were aware that Barclays Bank was due to be demolished when they made the previous decision, so that was not a fundamental change.
"Members would need to find something that has happened in the last four months since September when this committee said the sign had demonstrably detracted and eroded the quality of this conservation area for the planning committee to now say that the harm is no longer there," said Mr Leigh.
RECOMMENDED READING: Restaurant's illuminated sign deemed out of place in town's conservation area
"Obviously, that is quite difficult when the points that have been raised have actually been promoted as either being neutral or promoting the conservation area."
He said the public not being able to see the building's architectural features is the type of thing that erodes the street scene and impacts the conservation area.
"They're the things that really harm a heritage asset, and that's why the council agreed refusal," he said.
Councillors needed to point out what significant planning changes there had been that could be demonstrated to have "brought the conservation area down to a standard that a sign that was found unacceptable four months ago is now acceptable."
RECOMMENDED READING: Seven new homes to be built in tiny hamlet... increasing its size by almost a third
He also pointed out that the decision-making was not just about individuals.
"Committee members change, officers change, inspectors change, but the decision-making in theory should be consistent," said Mr Leigh.
Cllr Ian Benney argued that circumstances had changed because of the demolition of Barclays Bank. He said now the bank is down, "we can see what we are dealing with, which we couldn't before."
He also argued that putting a sign over the architectural features was not damaging a heritage asset, but was protecting it.
"I voted for it last time, and I still think that is the right decision," he added.
However, Cllr Mark Purser was a "lone warrior" and still not in favour of the sign and felt it was out of keeping and too large.
He recommended going along with planning officers and refuse the application. But there was no seconder.
Cllr Charlie Marks agreed with Cllr Benney that circumstances had changed because of what had happened in Broad Street.
He also pointed out that should the Turkish restaurant close, then the sign would be removed, and the architectural features would still be there.
Cllr Benney proposed going against the officers, seconded by Cllr Marks, and the motion was passed.
Share