Appeal 6003422

Appeal A is dismissed.

Appeal B is dismissed.

The two appeals relate to the same site and proposal and raise overlapping issues. I have therefore combined them in a single decision letter.

For appeal B, the Advertisement Regulations require that decisions be made only in the interests of amenity and public safety, taking account of any material factors. Development plan policies and guidance are therefore not determinative in relation to this appeal, but I have taken them into account where relevant to the

For Appeal A, the main issues are the effect of the proposed Hub on the character and appearance of the area, together with its effect on pedestrian safety and the operation of the public highway.

For Appeal B, the main issues are the effect of the proposed advertisement display on amenity and public safety. Appeal Decisions 6003422 & 6003423

The appeal site forms part of a projecting section of the footway on the east side of [address], close to the junction with Moorfields. The street is framed by large commercial buildings and is characterised by broad, generally open footways with a clear forward aspect. Street furniture is present but is arranged so that it does not intrude prominently into principal views.

The proposed Hub would be a relatively bulky structure incorporating an 86-inch illuminated digital screen on one elevation. Its siting on the open projecting part of the pavement would cause it to stand prominently within views for pedestrians and drivers travelling southwards, where it would sit directly in the forward line of sight. For pedestrians travelling northwards, the structure would interrupt the open aspect of the pavement ahead and appear as a conspicuous projection into the footway. The result would be a visually intrusive addition that would diminish the generally open and uncluttered character of this part of [address].

The immediate surroundings are not characterised by extensive digital or other illuminated forms of advertising. I did observe a digital display screen on a nearby bus shelter, but it is located on the internal face of the shelter and is partly enclosed. The introduction of a large outward-facing illuminated screen in this exposed section of the footway would therefore appear discordant and visually assertive. While conditions could regulate the brightness, hours of operation and the nature of the display, such controls would not address the fundamental concern, which arises primarily from the physical bulk, siting and prominent visual presence of the structure.

For these reasons, the proposal would significantly harm the character and appearance of the area. For Appeal A, it would conflict with Policies SP3 and UD1 of the Liverpool Local Plan 2022 (the LP), which require new development to contribute positively to the public realm and respect local character and distinctiveness. For the same reasons, the advertisement subject to Appeal B would harm amenity. Although not decisive, it would conflict with LP Policy UD9, which seeks to resist advertisements that contribute to clutter or detract from local character. It is also contrary to paragraph 141 of the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) which sets out that poorly sited and designed advertisements can have a negative impact on the quality and character of places.

The Hub would introduce a substantial physical structure into a location where clear inter-visibility between pedestrians and drivers is important for safe movement. While a clear route for pedestrian passage would remain along the footway, the highway authority has expressed concerns that pedestrians approaching from behind the structure would be more difficult for drivers to detect, especially when vehicles are manoeuvring close to the junction. Similarly, pedestrians would have reduced visibility of approaching traffic. I have not been provided with any substantive or technical evidence from the appellant demonstrating that these effects would not arise, or that the Hub could be accommodated in this position without compromising safety. Appeal Decisions 6003422 & 6003423

Given its size, solid form and the nature of the pavement layout, I consider that the Hub has potential to impede sightlines and present a point of conflict between users of the footway and road. The operational controls suggested by the appellant would not overcome the harm that would arise from the physical scale, form and siting of the structure.

Therefore, on the evidence before me, I find that the proposal would adversely affect pedestrian and highway safety. For Appeal A, it would conflict with the pedestrian and highway safety objectives of [name] TP1 and TP6. For Appeal B, the structure as a whole would not satisfy the public safety expectations of the Advertisement Regulations. The Council also refers to Policies TP3, TP8 and STP4, but these add little to the determinative considerations in this case.

For Appeal A, I have taken into account the multifunctional capabilities cited by the appellant, including public Wi-Fi, free calls, device charging, the defibrillator, smart-city functions, crime prevention features and community messaging. These benefits attract positive weight and accord with national aims to support communications infrastructure. However, in the absence of clear evidence demonstrating that such facilities would address a specific local shortfall or pressing requirement at this site, nor evidence that alternative, less intrusive provision has been meaningfully explored, the extent of the public benefit in this location is limited. While digital infrastructure can contribute to local connectivity objectives, the Framework requires development to be sympathetic to local character, and to create places that are safe and which minimise conflict between pedestrians and other road users. In this case, the public benefits advanced are not sufficient to outweigh the identified harm.

For the avoidance of doubt, I have not taken the Council’s concerns regarding a lack of demonstrated need into account as a basis for harm. My findings are instead based solely on the visual and spatial impacts arising from the scale and siting of the proposal, which are not outweighed by the limited benefits evidenced in this particular location.

For the reasons given above, I find that for Appeal A the harm to the character and appearance of the area and to pedestrian and highway safety is not outweighed by the limited public benefits put forward. The advertisement subject to Appeal B would also result in harm to amenity and would not satisfy the safety expectations of the Advertisement Regulations. Accordingly, both appeals are dismissed.