A SHOP sign slammed as "horrendous, appalling, tacky and garish" has been refused by planning chiefs.

A retrospective application for an illuminated sign on Queensbury Mini Market, on the village's High Street, was submitted by Prince Sabharwal and prompted a raft of objections. 

One said it would be "better suited to an alternative location such as Las Vegas or Blackpool".

The below video was part of the planning application

In another damning indictment, an objection said: "This is not what the village wants. 

"Its appearance is horrendous, appalling, tacky and garish. It is not in-keeping with the area, looks a mess and creates an eyesore on the street, spoiling the area."

Another said: "The changes are detrimental to the aesthetics of the area and would not be allowed in other town streets in the district, so shouldn't be here."

One person pointed out Queensbury is spelt incorrectly, while another objector said: "This change ruins the heritage character of Queensbury's Conservation area and does not recognise the history or the hard work that has been put into maintaining Queensbury's heritage past, and should be returned to its former appearance."

Concern was also raised that the lights attract groups to gather and: "The amount of time it has taken for enforcement action has been embarrassing."

Conservation Officer Jon Ackroyd said the shop sits within the "core of the conservation area".

"The illuminated facia is wholly inappropriate and creates a strident feature that harms the conservation area," he said.

"There should be a strong presumption to enhance the character of the conservation area through well-designed shop fronts and proportionate signage, which this does not do."

Planning officer Jacob Muff described the shopfront as "wholly out of place" on the high street and added: "The level of harm is increased at night, where the addition of flood lighting and lighting that changes colour in fast succession, increases the prominence of the advertisement, further highlighting it as an incongruous addition in the streetscene."

The levels of illuminations were considered to be "excessive" and raise a highway safety issue.

In refusing the application, the planning officer said: "The advertisement by way of its many features, its design, projection and its use of poor quality materials is a cumbersome and incongruous addition to the front of this traditional shop."

The Telegraph & Argus visited the shop, but no-one was available for comment.

A number was left to contact a reporter on, but we did not hear from them by the time of going to press.