Appeal 6003940

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the installation of 1no. [address] Hub and removal of associated BT payphones at [site address] , Liverpool [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25F/2944, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

The appeal is allowed and express consent is granted for the display of 2no. digital 75’’ LCD display screens, one on each side of the [name] unit at [site address] , Liverpool [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25A/22943, dated 28 October 2025. The consent is for five years from the date of this decision and is subject to the five standard conditions set out in Schedule 2 of the 2007 Regulations, and subject to the conditions set out in the attached Schedule.

The two appeals are for related proposals on the same site. Appeal A concerns the refusal of planning permission to erect a [address] Hub (the Hub). Appeal B concerns the refusal of express consent to display advertisements on the Hub. I Appeal Decisions 6003940 & 6003941 have considered each appeal proposal on its merits, however, as they are intrinsically linked and were refused by the Council for similar reasons, I have combined both decisions in a single decision letter.

With respect to Appeal B, the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 (as amended) (the Regulations) and the National Planning Policy Framework both make it clear that advertisements should be subject to control only in the interests of amenity and public safety. Furthermore, any relevant policies within the development plan are not, by themselves, determinative in regard to advertisement appeals such as this.

The Council has referred to Policy UD9 of the Liverpool Local Plan (LP), adopted January 2022, in its reasons for refusal in respect of Appeal A, and LP Policy TP8 in the second reason for refusal set out in the decision notices that are the subject of [name] and [name] a copy of these policies has not been provided for these cases, I have had sight of them in respect of other recent appeals. I am therefore aware that Policy UD9 relates to advertisements and, consequently, is not relevant to the consideration of the Appeal A proposal which involves the installation of the Hub and not the display of advertisements. In addition, as LP Policy TP8 relates to matters to which the Council has not raised concerns, namely car parking and servicing, it is not relevant to the main issues relating to pedestrian and cycle movements set out below.

For Appeal A, the main issues are the effect of the Hub on: • the character and appearance of the area; and • pedestrian and cycle movements.

For Appeal B, the main issues are the effect of the proposed advertisements on: • Visual amenity; and • public safety, with particular regard to pedestrian and cycle movements.

The appeal site is situated on a wide pavement in front of a row of retail and commercial units that form part of West Derby Village Local Centre (local centre). There are a substantial number of advertisements displayed on the units, including fascia and projecting signs, many of which are illuminated, as well as signs within windows. Contained within the pavement near to the site are planters and safety railings.

The Hub would replace an existing telephone kiosk (the kiosk) which is sited a short distance from the appeal site. The kiosk is a utilitarian feature which displays advertisements on one side and adds little to the quality of the public realm. Whilst the kiosk appears to be outside of the application site, as it is in the appellant’s ownership and control its removal could be secured by condition. This would ensure that the Hub would not result in an increase in visual clutter in this locality. Appeal Decisions 6003940 & 6003941

The Hub would be as high as the fascia level of the adjoining units and would be discernibly taller and wider than the kiosk. It would, however, have more slender proportions, and a simpler, more modern design. In the context of the busy local centre, where the kiosk is already part of the streetscape, and there are a significant number and variety of advertisements, the Hub and the proposed advertisements would not appear incongruous or unexpected. Accordingly, they would not detract from any elements of the townscape which add interest and contribute to the character and appearance of the area. Furthermore, as the Hub and advertisements would not result in harm, there is no reason why they would undermine the environmental quality of the local centre.

Therefore, in relation to Appeal A, the Hub would not be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. It would not conflict with LP policies UD1, UD2, UD3 and SP3. Such policies require, amongst other things, that local character and distinctiveness is considered, development has an acceptable layout and form, minimises visual clutter and reinforces local distinctiveness, and contributes to enhancing the shopping environment.

With regards to Appeal B, the proposed advertisements would not harm visual amenity and would also accord with LP policies UD1, UD2, UD3, UD9 and SP3 insofar as they are relevant to such a consideration.

Like the two planters nearby, the Hub and proposed advertisements would be in a position close to the pedestrian guard rail. The remaining, unobstructed pavement between it and the parade of shops would be generous and, in the absence of any substantive evidence to the contrary, sufficient to accommodate cyclists and the high volume of pedestrian traffic experienced in this local centre, without undue hindrance.

I am satisfied, therefore, that all users of the pavement, including those with visual and cognitive impairment, would be able to safely pass the Hub and proposed advertisements even at busy times. Consequently, they would not have an unacceptable effect on pedestrian or cyclist movements in this location.

Furthermore, for the same reasons, there is no basis upon which to conclude that the Hub and advertisements would undermine the aims of the Council’s active travel schemes, and nothing is before me that demonstrates they would compromise the committed scheme to introduce high-quality paving and create cycleways on [address].

Accordingly, in relation to Appeal A, the Hub would not harm pedestrian and cycle movements. As such, it would accord with LP policies TP1, TP3, TP5 and. Such policies require, amongst other things, that development should not compromise existing transport infrastructure, schemes or land safeguarded for a transport function, has a positive impact on the cycling network, and actively encourages walking through a well-designed pedestrian environment.

With regards to Appeal B, the proposed advertisements would not be harmful to public safety with regard to pedestrian and cycle movements, and would therefore accord with LP policies TP1, TP3, TP5, TP6 and UD9 insofar as they are relevant to such a consideration. Appeal Decisions 6003940 & 6003941

The main parties have suggested conditions, which I have reviewed in line with guidance and best practice.

In addition to the standard time limit condition, limiting the lifespan of the planning permission, I have attached a condition specifying the approved plans in the interests of certainty and to ensure that the appearance of the Hub would be satisfactory. A condition has also been imposed for the removal of the kiosks, as that forms part of the proposal and is required to reduce street clutter in the interests of the appearance of the area.

The Council proposes that the Hub should be removed if it ceases to be used for telecommunication purposes. However, it would also display advertisements. In the absence of any compelling evidence that demonstrates that it should only be retained when also utilised for telecommunication purposes, this requirement is not reasonable or necessary. Such a condition has not, therefore, been imposed.

The five standard conditions imposed by the Regulations are necessary, but do not need to be set out in this decision.

Conditions are required to control elements of the advertisement’s display and brightness in the interests of amenity and public safety. In the interests of public safety, I have imposed a condition specifying that no advertisement shall be displayed that resemble road signs.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that [name] and B should be allowed

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Site Location Maps 001 [name]; Proposed Site Plan 002 [name]; Existing and [name] 003 [name]; and [name] 003 [name].

Within three months of the development hereby permitted commencing, the existing BT payphone outside of [address], which is indicated for removal, shall be removed and the land made good to the same condition as the adjacent land. Appeal Decisions 6003940 & 6003941

The intensity of the illumination of the two digital display screens shall not exceed [address] metre (cd/m2) between dusk and dawn in line with the maximum permitted recommended luminance as set out by 'The Institute of [name] '[name] 05: The Brightness of [name].

The digital display screens shall not display any moving, or apparently moving, images (including animation, flashing, scrolling three dimensional, intermittent or video elements).

The minimum display time for each piece of content on the digital display screens shall be 10 seconds.

The interval between each piece of content on the digital display screens shall take place over a period no greater than one second; the complete screen shall change with no visual effects (including swiping or other animated transition methods) between displays, and the display will include a mechanism to freeze the image in the event of a malfunction.

No content on the digital display screens shall resemble traffic signs, as defined in section [address] Traffic Regulation Act 1984.