Appeal 6003505

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 issue is the effect of the proposed Hub on the character and appearance of the area.

For Appeal B, the main issue is the effect of the proposed advertisement on visual amenity. Appeal Decisions 6003505 & 6003506

The appeal site forms part of a broad area of public realm on the north side of [address], a busy strategic route framed by tall commercial and university buildings. Existing street furniture includes the current phone kiosk with an integrated poster panel, utility cabinets, lighting columns, refuse bin, traffic signal equipment, cycle hoops and a CCTV column. These are generally arranged at the edges of the space, maintaining an open character and uninterrupted pedestrian desire line.

The replacement Hub would project further into the footway than the existing kiosk, and would reduce the separation to the adjacent utility cabinets. Although the pavement is wide, the Hub’s depth and siting would intrude into space used regularly by pedestrians to pass comfortably. It would contribute to a more cluttered arrangement of street furniture and would diminish the openness that currently characterises this part of the pedestrian route.

One of the Hub’s principal elevations would incorporate an 86-inch illuminated digital display. In views from the south, the Hub and its screen would sit directly within the line of sight towards the well-known [name] artwork. While not a designated heritage asset, that sculpture is a highly distinctive feature of the townscape and a notable point of orientation and visual focus. The Hub’s height, massing and illuminated display would intrude into these close-range views and would dilute appreciation of this local landmark. As a result, the proposal would appear as a conspicuous and intrusive addition to the street scene.

This part of [address] is not characterised by extensive illuminated advertising. There is a digital screen on a nearby bus shelter, but it is particularly noticeable because of its illumination, sequential imagery, and the limited advertisements in the area. The addition of a second large digital screen within a short distance would be perceived as a cumulative proliferation of illuminated advertising in an area where such displays are otherwise limited. Rather than reducing clutter by replacing the existing kiosk, the proposal would introduce a more assertive and visually intrusive feature.

I recognise that brightness, hours of illumination and frequency of image changes could be secured by conditions consistent with industry standards. However, the harm would arise principally from the scale, siting and prominence of the structure itself, together with the cumulative effect of introducing a further large digital screen in a short stretch of road. The advertisement display would remain visually intrusive even with such controls, and the conditions would not overcome the fundamental concerns identified.

I therefore conclude that the proposal would result in significant adverse visual effects. For Appeal A, it would conflict with Policies SP3, UD1 and STP4 of the Liverpool Local Plan 2022 (the LP), which collectively require new development to contribute positively to the public realm, respect local character and distinctiveness, and demonstrate how infrastructure address national or local priorities. 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 which sets Appeal Decisions 6003505 & 6003506 out that poorly sited and designed advertisements can have a negative impact on the quality and character of places.

For Appeal A, I have considered the multifunctional capabilities cited, 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, the extent of the public benefit in this location is limited. It is also unclear whether these could be provided in a less intrusive location. Given the scale of visual harm identified, I am not persuaded that these benefits are sufficient to outweigh the harm in this case.

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 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 Appeal B, while the Council did not raise concerns regarding highway or public safety, the harm to visual amenity is decisive.

For the reasons given above, the proposals would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the area and to visual amenity. In respect of Appeal A, the benefits would not outweigh that harm. Accordingly, both appeals are dismissed.