Appeal 6003900

The appeal is dismissed.

The Regulations require that advertisements should be subject to control only in the interests of amenity and public safety, taking into account any material factors. The National Planning Policy Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance reiterate this approach. Therefore, while I have taken account of the policies and guidelines that the Council considers to be relevant, these have not been decisive in my determination of this appeal.

I have taken the site address from the appeal questionnaire as that appears to better reflect the site. This is reflected in the banner heading above.

In the interests of clarity, I have amended the description of development as follows ‘Advertisement consent for the display of 1no. freestanding internally illuminated D48-Poster digital advertising sign’ and this is reflected in the banner heading above.

The Council raised no objection in respect of public safety, and I observed nothing which would lead me to dispute this conclusion. Accordingly, the main issue is the effect of the proposed advertisement on the amenity of the area.

The appeal site is a petrol filling station located on [site address] North, which is a busy through route between Crosby, Bootle and Liverpool City Centre. The area around the appeal site has a mix of uses, including residential apartments and office buildings which front onto [site address] North. To the north there are a range of commercial uses which are associated with Waterloo Town Centre which provides service provision to the surrounding area.

Whilst [site address] North is a busy route, it maintains an attractive appearance due to the broad prominence of mature street trees which line the road to the south of the appeal site, assisting in providing a visual connection through to Waterloo Park, which is located on the opposite side of the road to the appeal site. The linear nature of [site address] North results in extended views of the petrol filling station, particularly for road users travelling from the North.

The nature of the petrol filling station results in a range of advertisements, illuminated or otherwise, being noticeable from the street. This includes a canopy with illuminated fascia, an illuminated totem sign and other non-illuminated signs associated with its business operation. Consequently, the advertising associated with the petrol filling station presents a prominent feature on the street scene.

Whilst there is a prominence to the advertising associated with the petrol filling station, I observed little in the way of other advertising in the immediate vicinity of the appeal site. I noted that the advertising connected with the commercial activity in Waterloo Town Centre was a notable distance away from the appeal site, beyond the junction of [site address] North and [address], with the primary commercial area of Waterloo focused on [address] itself. As a result, the prevalence of advertising from the street scene in this location is generally low and, beyond the petrol filling station itself, it cannot be described as a dominant feature in the wider character of the area.

The appeal proposal relates to the installation of a free-standing digital advertisement display, measuring 3m in height, 6m in width and a depth of 0.38m and would be positioned 2m above ground level. The display would be positioned on the southern boundary of the petrol filling station adjoining the pedestrian footway.

The scale of the proposed freestanding digital panel is reflective of other elements of the filling station, particularly the height of the existing canopy and the totem sign. It’s positioning and design would mean that the proposed digital display would not be visually apparent in the street scene when viewed from the south. Despite the linear nature of [site address] North, the proposed display panel, due to its positioning and size, would be well screened when viewed from the south due to the positioning of the adjacent [name] residential apartment building and the presence of mature street trees.

However, the proposed display would nevertheless be afforded significant prominence when viewed in the street scene from the north. The height, positioning and illuminated nature of the display, coupled with the linear nature of [site address] North would result in long-ranging views of the display within the street scene for those travelling towards Liverpool City Centre.

By virtue of being hemmed in by other buildings the site does not comprise a traditional corner plot, nonetheless the appeal site forms a prominent feature on the street scene in a location where, despite its position in Waterloo Town Centre, advertising is not a dominant characteristic. The proposed digital display would further add to that prominence. The linear nature of [site address] North would result in long-ranging views of the proposed digital display, particularly when viewed from the street scene to the north and would create an intrusive and unsympathetic feature into the street scene. I note the appellants suggestion of the use of conditions to limit the brightness of the display and its frequency of change, however I do not agree that such conditions could overcome its impact.

Considerations of amenity are inherently site specific and the examples provided by the appellant of similar advertisements elsewhere do not draw me away from my conclusions regarding the proposal’s impact on the amenity of the area.

Consequently, I conclude that the proposed digital display would introduce a dominating and overly intrusive additional feature to the street scene and would have an adverse effect on amenity. Insofar as it is material, the proposal would conflict with Policy EQ11 of the Local Plan for Sefton (2017) which states that advertisements should respect the scale of and be sympathetic to their immediate surroundings and not dominate buildings, street scenes or open areas.

The proposed display is located within the setting of the Waterloo Park Conservation Area. However, I note the Council have concluded that the proposed display would not harm the setting of this designation, and I observed nothing which would make me disagree with that conclusion.

I note the environmental, social and economic benefits presented by the appellant in regard to digital advertising. These relate to issues of design, reduction in waste, flexibility and its ability of use for public messaging. I would afford these matters moderate weight in my decision.

In regard to the amenity of surrounding residential properties, the proposed digital display would face away from residential properties, particularly the residential apartments within the adjacent [name]. I note that the Council have raised no objections regarding the impact on residential amenity and I observed nothing which would make me disagree with that conclusion.

For the reasons given above I conclude that the display of the advertisement would be detrimental to the interests of amenity, therefore the appeal is dismissed.