Appeal 6005693

Appeal A is allowed and planning permission is granted for the installation of 1no. [address] Hub and removal of associated BT payphones at [site address] , [site address] , Ropewalks, Vauxhall, Liverpool [postcode] , in accordance with the terms of the application, 25A/3373, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

Appeal B is allowed and express consent is granted for the installation of 1no. [address] Hub and removal of associated BT payphones at [site address] , [site address] , Ropewalks, Vauxhall, Liverpool [postcode] as applied for. The consent is for five years from the date of this decision and is subject to the five standard conditions set out in the Regulations and the additional conditions set out in the attached schedule.

Appeal A concerns the refusal of planning permission for the installation of a [address] Hub. Appeal B concerns the refusal of express consent to display advertisements on the hub which is proposed under Appeal A. As they are intrinsically linked and raise similar issues, I have combined both decisions into a single decision letter. Appeal Decision 6005693 and 6005694

The main issue in relation to both Appeal A and B is the effect of the proposals upon visual amenity.

The main issue with specific regard to Appeal A is the effect of the proposal on highway safety.

The appeal site is located on the pavement directly next to a four-storey building. This building is of a notable height and sits immediately alongside the pedestrian footway. While buildings of a comparable scale are present within the area, there is variation in both height and architectural design. The surrounding environment is characterised by a strong commercial presence. Within the immediate street scene and wider locality, a diverse range of street furniture of differing scales is evident, including litter bins, lighting columns, bollards, and traffic signage.

The proposed development would introduce an additional item of street furniture whilst facilitating the removal of an existing telephone booth and ATM, as illustrated on the submitted plans, within a location where comparable features are already present. Its siting adjacent to the highway would be consistent with the established positioning of lampposts and traffic signage along [address] and within the wider area. Although the proposed street hub would be of a notable scale in terms of both width and height, it would be perceived as a contemporary replacement for the existing, more dated telephone booth.

Furthermore, due regard has been given to the height and scale of buildings within the street scene. In this context, the proposal would not result in a structure that appears unduly prominent or intrusive within the cityscape. The scale of surrounding development provides an appropriate visual envelope within which the proposal would sit comfortably. Accordingly, both the advertisement displays and the physical form of the hub would integrate effectively within the mixed streetscape, where modern street furniture and a variety of advertising features, including illuminated displays, are established and visually prominent elements. The proposal would not detract from the character of the area nor result in harmful visual clutter.

Based on the above considerations, I conclude that in relation to Appeal A, the proposed street hub would not appear incongruous or visually harmful within the surrounding street scene. The development would therefore not conflict with Policies SP3 and UD9 of the Liverpool Local Plan 2022. Collectively, these policies seek for development to be of an appropriate design which follows the character of the area and have a positive impact on the public realm, amongst other things.

Turning to Appeal B, I have regard to Policy UD9 of the Liverpool Local Plan

This policy seeks for advertisements to be of a high standard that contribute to, rather than detract from an area and do not lead to the cumulation of clutter, amongst other things. This policy seeks to safeguard visual amenity and is therefore material to this case. The proposal would not give rise to an Appeal Decision 6005693 and 6005694 unacceptable impact to the visual amenity of the area. As such, the scheme would not conflict with Policy UD9 of the Liverpool Local Plan 2022.

The appeal proposal would involve the removal of an existing telephone booth and ATM. The proposed structure would be reduced in depth compared to both existing installations, albeit marginally wider than the current telephone booth. Whilst these existing features would be removed, the street hub would not be positioned directly within their exact footprint, but would instead be sited next to this location.

The appeal site is located within a busy area of Liverpool. It is characterised by high levels of pedestrian footfall, as a result of its strong commercial offer. The submitted plans indicate the presence of two existing poles adjacent to the appeal site, which were confirmed to be in this position during my site visit.

The introduction of a street hub at this location would result in a structure positioned slightly closer to the two existing poles than the current telephone booth and ATM. However, the proposed siting would only be marginally different to the existing situation. It would not be much wider than the existing arrangement of the ATM and telephone booth in this location. I am also cognisant of the two existing poles, which would be located in line with the proposed development. Pedestrians would be seeking to avoid these pieces of street furniture, thereby positioning themselves in other areas of the pavement which serves this area of [address]. As such, the proposed development under Appeal A would not impede pedestrian movement beyond a level which is currently experienced in this location. Any impediment of the movement of pedestrians that may occur in busy periods would be brief, owing to the overall small depth of the appeal structure.

To conclude, the proposed development under Appeal A would not have an unacceptable effect upon the efficiency and safety of the highway network in this location. The proposed development would not conflict with Policies TP1, TP3 and TP6 of the Liverpool Local Plan 2022. Collectively, these policies seek for development proposals to address the accessibility of pedestrians, to not compromise land for transport functions, be designed to create a well-designed pedestrian environment and access, amongst other things.

With regards to Appeal A, in the interests of certainty, I have imposed a condition which relates to the commencement of the development [1] and the approved plans [2]. A management plan was included in the application. This management plan addresses issues such anti-social behaviour and misuse of the kiosk. I consider the conditioning of this document which details the operation and management of the hub [3] as necessary, in the interests of maintaining for public safety and the management of the kiosk.

Appeal B would be subject to the 5 standard conditions, as set out in the Regulations. In addition, to prevent the proposed advertisements from distracting road users, I have attached a condition which requires the display to operate within the recommendations by the Institution of [name] in its [name] 05 (PLG 05) to restrict the intensity of illumination [1] Appeal Decision 6005693 and 6005694 and I have included a minimum display time [2]. For the same reasons, I have also included a condition which controls movement within each advert [3] and a restriction on the transitions between each different advert. This also includes a mechanism to switch off the screen in the event of malfunction [4].

For the reasons given above, both appeals should be allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall begin no later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawings: • [name] 001 [name] (Site Location Maps) • [name] 002 [name] (Proposed Site Plan) • [name] 003 [name] (Existing and [name])

The development hereby permitted shall be operated and managed in accordance with the submitted [name] Plan (Version 3), or an updated equivalent. Appeal B: 6005694

At all times, the display shall operate within the recommendations by the Institution of [name] in its [name] 05/23 Brightness of [name] (or its equivalent in a replacement guide).

The minimum display time for each advertisement shall be no less than 10 seconds.

The digital advertisement screen shall be statically illuminated and shall not display any moving, apparently moving or audible images (including animation, flashing, scrolling, three dimensional or video elements).

Any change in the advertisement display shall be instantaneous and shall not include blending, fading, swiping or other animated transition methods. The display shall include a mechanism to freeze the image or switch off the screen in the event of a malfunction.