Appeal 6004423

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the installation of 1no. [address] Hub and removal of associated BT payphones at Pavement at [address], Liverpool [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25F/2894, 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 Pavement at [address], Liverpool [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25A/2893, dated 27 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 6004420 &6004423 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.

For Appeal A, the main issues are the effect of the Hub on: • the character and appearance of the area; and • highway safety, with particular regard to driver visibility.

For Appeal B, the main issue is the effect of the proposed advertisements on visual amenity.

The appeal site is situated on a wide pavement adjoining the car park to a restaurant which forms part of a parade of shops within the Hunt’s Cross Local Centre (local centre). There are many advertisements displayed in the surrounding area, including fascia and projecting signs, many of which are illuminated, as well as signs within windows. In addition, a large internally illuminated free standing sign is sited within the forecourt of a nearby petrol filling station.

Within the pavement near to the site there is a bus shelter displaying advertisements, a bin, pedestrian guard rails, cabinets and lampposts. Bollards, traffic lights, and road signs are also located nearby, positioned close to the carriageway.

The Hub would directly adjoin two existing telephone kiosks (the kiosks) which it would replace. The kiosks are utilitarian features which display advertisements on one side and adds little to the quality of the public realm. Their removal could be secured by condition ensuring that the Hub would not result in an increase in visual clutter in this locality.

The Hub would be discernibly taller and wider than the kiosks, but would have more slender proportions, and a simpler, more modern design. Notwithstanding that the Hub and the proposed advertisements would be seen in long ranging views along [address], in the context of the busy local centre where the kiosks are already are part of the streetscape, and there are a significant number and variety of advertisements, the Hub and proposed advertisements would not appear discordant, isolated or unexpected. Furthermore, as they would not result in harm, there is no reason why they would undermine the environmental quality of the local centre. Appeal Decisions 6004420 &6004423

Accordingly, in relation to Appeal A, the Hub would not be harmful to the character and appearance of the area and would not conflict with policies STP4, SP3, and UD1 of the Liverpool Local Plan (LP), adopted January 2022. Such policies, amongst other things, support the provision of new infrastructure, requires that development contributes to enhancing the shopping environment and that local character and distinctiveness is considered.

The Council has also referred to LP Policy UD9 in its first reason for refusal in respect of Appeal A. However, as that policy refers to advertisements, which is the subject of Appeal B, it is not relevant to the consideration of Appeal A.

With regards to Appeal B, the proposed advertisements would not harm visual amenity and would accord with LP Policy UD9 insofar as it is relevant to such a consideration.

The appeal site is a short stretch of pavement between an access to the car park and one to the rear of the adjoining parade of commercial units and is also close to an access into the nearby petrol filling station. A busy crossroad junction is nearby.

The Hub would be sited directly adjoining the kiosks in a position that would be marginally closer to the carriageway edge but, nonetheless, 1.6 metres from the kerb. Furthermore, near to the appeal site [address] is straight, and the Hub would be some distance from the crossroad junction. For these reasons, and in the absence of robust evidence to the contrary, I am satisfied that any disruption to the visibility of highway users, above that arising from the kiosks currently on site, would not be to the extent that it would pose a risk to motorists or have a detrimental impact on the function of the public highway.

Accordingly, in relation to Appeal A, the Hub would not harm highway safety with regard to driver visibility. As such, it would accord with LP Policy TP8 which, amongst other things, requires that car parking is usable and safe. In addition, as it would not compromise land used for transport functions, it would also accord with LP Policy TP3, which has not been provided, but I have had sight of it in respect of other recent appeals.

Within the supporting Planning Statement, the appellant has 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 five standard conditions imposed by the Regulations are necessary, but do not need to be set out in this decision. Appeal Decisions 6004420 &6004423

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]; and Existing and [name] 003 [name].

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

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.