Appeal 6004444

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] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25F/2898, 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 [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25A/2897, 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 Appeal Decisions 6004441 & 6004444 concerns the refusal of express consent to display advertisements on the Hub. I 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: • on the character and appearance of the area; and • highway safety, with particular regard to driver visibility and the pedestrian environment.

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

The appeal site is situated on a wide pavement in front of a Tesco store (the store) that forms part of the Park Road Local Centre (local centre). The store is a substantial commercial building that displays several advertisements on its Park Road frontage in addition to a freestanding sign within its car park. Opposite the store are blocks of three storey buildings containing retail and commercial units displaying fascia signs, some externally illuminated, as well as signs within windows.

Along the same section of pavement is a bus shelter displaying advertisements, bike racks, bollards and lampposts. Traffic lights, road signs, safety railings are located nearby positioned close the carriageway.

The Hub would replace two nearby telephone kiosks (the kiosks), which are utilitarian features displaying advertisements that add little to the quality of the public realm. While the kiosks are outside of the application site, as they are in the appellant’s ownership and control, their removal could be secured by condition. This would ensure that the Hub would not result in an increase in visual clutter in this locality.

The Hub would be tall and wide, but would have slender proportions and a simple, modern design. Notwithstanding that the Hub and advertisements would be seen in long ranging views along Park Road, in the context of the busy local centre where there are many and varied advertisements, they would not appear incongruous or unexpected. Furthermore, as the Hub and advertisements would Appeal Decisions 6004441 & 6004444 not result in harm, there is no reason why they would undermine the environmental quality of the local centre.

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 UD3 of the Liverpool Local Plan (LP), adopted January 2022. Such policies require, amongst other things, that new development contributes to enhancing the shopping environment, minimises visual clutter and reinforces local distinctiveness.

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

The Hub and proposed advertisements would be set back from the carriageway, in a similar position to other nearby street furniture. The remaining unobstructed pavement between the Hub, the store and the bus shelter would be generous and, in the absence of substantive evidence to the contrary, sufficient to accommodate a high volume of pedestrian traffic in addition to people waiting for a bus, 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 between the Hub and the proposed advertisements even at busy times, and I have been presented with no substantive evidence that demonstrates to the contrary. Consequently, it would not have an unacceptable effect on pedestrian movements in this location.

It is reasonable to consider that a significant number of customers of the store will cross over Park Road, many to access the bus stop diagonally opposite. Such pedestrians are likely to cross where the road is at its narrowest, before it widens to accommodate a filter lane for left turning vehicles. This would be between the bus shelter directly adjoining the store and the Hub. Therefore, such movement would be in front of the proposed structure where pedestrians would be visible to drivers travelling on the near side of the road. Even if pedestrians were to cross on the other side of the Hub, drivers would have some forewarning of pedestrians and have time to stop if required due to it being set back from the kerb. Accordingly, any impediment to visibility arising from the proposal would not be to the detriment of pedestrian safety.

I acknowledge that bus users may congregate around the bus shelter and that drivers may need to overtake buses. Nonetheless, there is no substantive evidence before me to suggest that driving conditions are so demanding in this location that the siting of the Hub and the proposed advertisements would distract drivers, or pedestrians, thereby presenting and unacceptable highway/public safety risk.

Accordingly, in relation to Appeal A, the Hub would not be harmful to highway safety with regard to driver visibility and the pedestrian environment. As such, it would accord with LP policies UD4, TP1, TP3, and TP6. Such policies require, amongst other things, an inclusive, well-designed pedestrian environment, that development does not compromise existing transport infrastructure, schemes or Appeal Decisions 6004441 & 6004444 land that may be safeguarded for a transport function, and that walking is actively encouraged through a well-designed pedestrian environment.

LP policies TP5 and TP8 have also been referenced in the second reason for refusal of the Appeal A decision notice. [name] have not been provided with a copy of either policy, I am aware other recent appeals that Policy TP5 relates to cycling and Policy TP8 relates to provision of car parking and servicing. They are not, thus, relevant to this main issue.

With regards to Appeal B, the proposed advertisements would not be harmful to public safety and would therefore accord with LP policies SP3, UD3 and UD9 insofar as they are relevant to such a consideration.

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 also, in the interests of certainty, attached conditions specifying the approved plans. A condition requiring compliance with the submitted details is also necessary to ensure that the appearance of the proposals would be satisfactory. In addition, a condition has been imposed for the removal of the kiosks in the appellants ownership and control, as that forms part of the proposal that I have assessed and is required to improve the appearance of the area and reduce street clutter.

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. Also, 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 payphones near to the [address]/Park Road junction and 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.