Appeal 6004433

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] , [address], Liverpool [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25F/2896, subject to the conditions set out 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 o Lush, [address], Liverpool [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25A/2895, 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, 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 6004433 & 6004437 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 (the 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 Appeal B.

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

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

As part of the main retail area of the city centre, [address] is a pedestrianised route characterised by retail and commercial uses displaying advertisements including fascia, projecting and window signs. [address] also contains freestanding advertisements, including one outside of [name], and a large digital sign attached to the side of the HSBC bank. The pedestrian route between the commercial units is very wide and contains trees and street furniture including benches, bollards, bins and street signs.

The Hub would directly adjoin an existing telephone kiosk (the kiosk) which it would replace. The kiosk is a utilitarian feature which displays advertisements on one side and adds little to the quality of the public realm. Its removal could be secured by condition ensuring that the Hub would not result in an increase in visual clutter in this locality.

I acknowledge that the Hub would be taller, wider and more solid than the kiosk it would replace, which is partially glazed, but it would have more slender proportions, and a simpler, modern design. Although they would be seen in long ranging views along [address], the Hub and advertisements would not appear as isolated, incongruous or prominent features in the context of a bustling commercial centre, amongst many illuminated advertisements and a large digital display. Overall, they would not materially diminish the visual qualities or integrity of the existing high-quality public realm within which they would be sited.

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 SP3 and UD1 of the Liverpool Local Plan (LP), adopted January 2022. Such policies require, amongst other things, that development contributes to enhancing the shopping Appeal Decisions 6004433 & 6004437 environment, and take into account local character and distinctiveness. In addition, it would not conflict with the similar aims of the Framework.

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 not conflict with LP Policy UD9 insofar as it is relevant to such a consideration. Furthermore, it would not conflict with the Framework.

Positioned next to the kiosk it would replace, and being only marginally wider than it, the Hub would not hinder the passage of people moving along the street or reduce the coherence of any pedestrian desire lines to a materially greater extent than existing circumstances. As the Hub would replace the kiosk, it would not increase the amount of physical clutter or introduce an additional barrier to pedestrian movements.

I acknowledge that [address] is a heavily trafficked pedestrian route. Nonetheless, given the width of the pavement between the Hub and the adjoining store, and the amount of free space that would remain around it, and in the absence of robust evidence to the contrary, I am satisfied that all users of the footway, including those with visual and cognitive impairment, would be able to safely travel along [address]. Consequently, it would not have an unacceptable effect on pedestrian movements in this location.

Accordingly, in relation to Appeal A, the Hub would not be harmful to public safety, with regard to pedestrian movement. As such, the Hub would not conflict with LP policies TP1, TP3, and TP6. Such policies require, amongst other things, that development should not compromise existing transport infrastructure, schemes or land safeguarded for a transport function, and actively encourages walking through a well-designed pedestrian environment. In addition, it would not conflict with the similar aims of the Framework.

The Council has also referred to the Design for Access for All Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) in its second reason for refusal of the Appeal A decision notice. However, as a copy of the SPD has not been provided and the officer report does not identify how the Hub would conflict with the guidance it contains, I have not considered it in my determination of Appeal A.

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. Appeal Decisions 6004433 & 6004437

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. I have not, however, imposed a condition specifying that no advertisement shall be displayed that resemble road signs as it is not reasonable or necessary in the interests of public safety given the location of the appeal site in a pedestrianised street.

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, as shown to be removed on the Proposed Site Plan 002 [name], 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.