Appeal 6003041

The appeal is dismissed.

The Council’s reasons for refusal refer to Liverpool Local Plan Policy UD91 and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). However, the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 (the Regulations) require that decisions are made only in the interests of amenity and public safety. Therefore, although I have taken the Framework and the development plan policy into account, they have not been decisive considerations in my determination of this appeal.

A consultation draft of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published on 16 December 2025 but given that this is at the consultation stage I do not consider it necessary to invite comments from the parties at this time. Any reference to the Framework is based on the current version, dated December 2024.

No concerns have been raised regarding public safety and from the evidence before me I see no reason to disagree. Therefore, the main issue is the effect of the proposed advertisements on the amenity of the surrounding area.

The proposed advertisement would be located close to the gable wall of a tall detached building, 64 [site address] on land within an NCP [site address] . The area is characterised by tall buildings and the advertisement would be a large sign, approximately 6 metres x 3 metres elevated on steel poles. It would be a modern 1 Liverpool City Council – Liverpool Local Plan 2013 – 2033 [name] 2022. digital illuminated sign, examples of which can be seen in various parts of the City. However, although the area is a commercial one within a busy City Centre, there are no other signs of this scale or design in this area.

The [site address] is a small one that runs around 64 [site address] . On the appeal site side, there is a narrow road between tall buildings, [address]. [site address] is a busy, wide and fairly straight road which would allow long distance views of the proposed sign. Clearly, the purpose of such advertisement signs is to be highly visible.

The appeal site is not within a Conservation Area but it is close to the [address] Conservation Area. This includes tall and imposing buildings on [site address] including [address] and further to the south-west, [name] (a station now closed but used for other commercial purposes). The scale and prominence of these buildings have an impact on the area outside the boundaries of the defined Conservation Area which is reflected to some extent by the modern buildings on [site address] and the signage which is generally low key and unobtrusive. There is large wall art, outside the Conservation Area, which adds to the character of the area unlike the proposal which would be an alien feature in these surroundings.

There are residential properties including student accommodation in the area. Some buildings appear to have living accommodation on the upper floors although, in some cases it is not entirely clear. The appellant suggests that city centre living goes hand in hand with the activities associated with such locations. [name] do not dispute this, in this area there is no other signage of this type and given the elevated position of the sign, it would appear intrusive.

Consequently, I conclude that the proposed advertisement would have a harmful effect on the amenity of the surrounding area.

The appellant refers to previous signage on this site and has submitted photographs of a large free standing elevated sign close to the gable with 64 [site address] . However, that sign was not illuminated and did not have a digital display. In any event, the Council state that there is no planning history of approval for a sign in this location.

I also note reference to other approved displays in Liverpool including one allowed on appeal which involved a large digital screen at [address] close to a Listed Building and the [address] Conservation Area2. Whilst this is close to the same Conservation Area, it is a large Conservation Area and that proposal is not close to the appeal site before me. I have not been supplied with a copy of that decision but from the information submitted, it is not directly comparable. Other allowed digital displays are also referred to and I appreciate that signage can provide economic benefits and support business in Liverpool. I saw for myself other advertisements around the City Centre and note that the appellant states that the proposed sign would represent the smallest digital display of the recent Liverpool applications referred to. I appreciate that industry standards can control levels of brightness and content and that the proposal would represent up to date technology in digital signage. 2 Appeal Ref: APP/Z4310/Z/23/3326278.

The Framework acknowledges, in paragraph 85, that planning policies and decisions should help create the conditions in which businesses can invest, expand and adapt and that significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth and productivity. However, whilst advertisement infrastructure can make a positive impact, in this case, the benefits of this proposal do not outweigh the harm I have identified and as I have stated above, the Framework or the development plan policy are not determining factors in assessing advertisement proposals.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.