Appeal 6003502

Appeal A is dismissed.

Appeal B is dismissed.

The two appeals relate to the same site and physical 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 for this appeal, although I have had regard to them where they assist in assessing those matters.

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

For Appeal B, the main issues are the effect of the proposed advertisement display on amenity and public safety. Appeal Decisions 6003502 & 6003503

The appeal site forms part of a widened pavement along the A59 [address], close to the main pedestrian entrance to Liverpool John Moores University and a signal-controlled pedestrian crossing. The surrounding street scene contains a variety of highway infrastructure, including lighting columns, traffic signal equipment and signage. These elements tend to be slender, utilitarian in appearance and visually recessive, and they are arranged in a manner that retains a sense of openness within this busy pedestrian environment along a main transport corridor.

The proposed Hub would be a relatively bulky free-standing structure incorporating an 86-inch illuminated digital screen on one elevation. Its siting close to the carriageway, within an otherwise open part of the pavement, would cause it to stand prominently within views along [address] for both pedestrians and southbound drivers. Although an existing telephone kiosk would be removed, that structure is positioned against a wall at the back edge of the pavement where it has far less prominence, and it does not incorporate illuminated digital advertising.

By reason of its scale, exposed siting, and integrated illuminated screen, the proposed Hub would introduce a visually assertive feature in a location that is not otherwise characterised by prominent digital advertisements. It would read as an isolated and dominant element within the public realm, contributing to a cluttered appearance and eroding the sense of openness which currently characterises this part of the pavement.

Although conditions could control matters such as luminance, hours of operation and the nature of the display, such measures would not address the fundamental concern arising from the physical presence, scale and siting of the structure itself as an object in the street scene.

For these reasons, the proposal would result in clear and appreciable harm to 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 cause harm to amenity. While not determinative, it would also conflict with LP Policy UD9, which seeks to resist advertisements that contribute to clutter or detract from local character. The proposal 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 be positioned about 5.9 metres from the back of pavement, within a widened section of footway. This would leave a clear pedestrian corridor substantially in excess of typical minimum standards for inclusive movement, even allowing for peak student flows. The evidence before me does not therefore support the Council’s view that pedestrian routes would be materially narrowed or that pedestrian flows would be impeded to an unsafe degree. Appeal Decisions 6003502 & 6003503

The Council also refers to the proximity of the pedestrian crossing and the risk of pedestrians stepping out into the road from behind the structure. However, the crossing is signal-controlled and represents the only practical place for pedestrians to cross this busy main road. Pedestrian movement is therefore already regulated by the traffic signals, and there is no persuasive evidence that the presence of the Hub would alter pedestrian behaviour or sightlines in a manner that would give rise to an unacceptable risk to highway safety at this location.

Concerns relating to impacts on CCTV and surveillance infrastructure, including potential glare from the screen, are not supported by any specific or substantiated explanation of how or where such effects would occur.

Therefore, on the evidence before me, I conclude that the proposals would not pose an unacceptable risk to pedestrian or highway safety. As such, the proposal subject to Appeal A complies with [name] TP1 and TP6 insofar as they relate to highway safety and pedestrian movement. For the same reasons, the advertisement subject to Appeal B would not adversely affect public safety. The Council also refers to Policies TP3 and TP8, but these do not alter my conclusion on highway and pedestrian safety in this case.

For Appeal A, I have considered the multifunctional capabilities cited by the appellant, including public Wi-Fi, free calls, device charging, the provision of a defibrillator, smart-city functions, integrated crime prevention features and community messaging. This public utility attracts some positive weight and aligns with national objectives to support digital and communications infrastructure. However, there is no clear evidence before me to demonstrate that these facilities would address a specific local deficiency at this location, nor that they could not be provided in a less visually intrusive position. Consequently, even when these benefits are taken into account, they do not outweigh the visual harm arising from the scale and siting of the proposal in this particular location.

Paragraph 123 of the Framework confirms that local planning authorities should not question the need for electronic communications systems. I have therefore not taken the Council’s concerns regarding a lack of demonstrated need into account as a basis for harm. My findings are based solely on the identified visual and spatial impacts of the proposal, which are not outweighed by the limited public benefits presented.

For the reasons given above, I find that Appeal A conflicts with the development plan when read as a whole, and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. In respect of Appeal B, the advertisement display would result in harm to amenity.

Accordingly, both appeals are dismissed.