Takeaway’s ‘garish’ sign turned down

Retrospective proposals rejected by planners

Retrospective plans for an illuminated sign at a Bothwell takeaway, described as‘brash’ and ‘garish’ by villagers, have been rejected by planners.

Amran Tandoori had installed the internally illuminated sign to the front and side of its Main Street premises which sits within the village conservation area.

But Bothwell Community Council and a number of villagers, including Brighter Bothwell members, had objected to the sign.

The community council in its objection stated that descriptions such as ‘Las Vegas’ and ‘Blackpool Illuminations’ had been used to show villagers’ distaste for the sign – and there were fears it could set a precedent for similar signage in future.

One letter of objection from a villager stated: ‘The current sign is brash and garish in terms of its size, design and illumination and is not in keeping with the conservation village.

‘It has an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the village.

‘It should be removed and replaced with one that better respects the special architectural and historical nature, character and appearance of Bothwell.

‘The replacement sign should preferably be monochrome and similar in nature to other shops in the main street.’

South Lanarkshire Council rejected Amran Tandoori’s retrospective plans for the illuminated sign last week under delegated powers.

Delegating officer Steven Clark said in his report; ‘The sign as erected however is overly large and out of character with its immediate environment.

‘This is compounded significantly when it is illuminated resulting in a very prominent and visually offensive and obtrusive form of signage that is damaging to amenity and the immediate locality in general and the conservation area in particular.

‘The council has a statutory obligation to preserve and enhance the special character of conservation areas. The sign does not accord with this requirement.’

‘Appropriate enforcement action’ may now be necessary to address the breach of advertisement control.

Discussions and meetings, said the planning officer, had taken place with applicant and agent to agree a more suitable sign with no success.

Mr Clark explained: “Unfortunately the various discussions/meetings have proven to be ineffective in persuading the applicant to revise the existing unauthorised sign.

“Accordingly the only option now to address the breach of advertising control is to refuse consent on the basis that the sign has a detrimental impact on amenity due to its size, scale, design and means of illumination.”