Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 4 May 2011
by Susan Heywood BSc(Hons) MCD MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
Decision date: 8 June 2011
Appeal Ref: APP/X4725/A/11/2144975
Girnhill Lane / Wakefield Road, Featherstone
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
against a refusal to grant consent, agreement or approval to details required by a
condition of a planning permission.
• The appeal is made by Lidl UK GmbH against the decision of City of Wakefield
Metropolitan District Council.
• The application dated 18 May 2009, sought approval of details pursuant to condition No.
20 of a planning permission Ref 10/01938/FUL, granted on 25 November 20101.
• The application was refused by notice dated 21 January 2011.
• The development proposed is “the **** of neighbourhood foodstore together with
associated landscaping and highway works”.
• The details for which approval is sought are: “crime prevention / security measures”.
Decision
1. I dismiss the appeal.
Reasons
2. The appellants have submitted details of the proposed security measures at the
recently constructed Lidl store in accordance with the requirements of condition
20 on application 10/01938/FUL. The main issue in this case relates to the
effectiveness of those security measures in deterring crime.
3. In consultation with the Police Architectural Liaison Officer, the Council raised
concerns in relation to the lack of security gates across the entrance to the
service area / loading bay. No issue is raised with any of the other proposed
security measures as detailed in the appellants’ letter of 18 May 2009 and the
submitted plans. This decision will therefore concentrate on the lack of security
gates to the service area and whether this would render the proposed security
scheme unacceptable.
4. Policy D15 of the Local Development Framework Development Policies
Document for Wakefield seeks to ensure that development proposals reduce
the opportunities for crime. The policy indicates that natural surveillance will
be one of the factors taken into account in assessing development schemes.
The service area is located to the rear of the store adjacent to the southern
boundary of the site. It adjoins the car park to the rear of a working men’s
club to the south of the site and is located in a part of the site which is not
directly overlooked by any of the surrounding properties. It therefore has poor
1 A previous planning permission reference: 08/02751/FUL was granted by the Council on 9 April 2009. That
permission also contained condition 20 relating to crime prevention / security measures.
Appeal Decision APP/X4725/A/11/2144975
http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk 2
natural surveillance, unlike the areas of car parking to the north and west of
the store.
5. I have had regard to the evidence presented in relation to crime and anti-social
behaviour in this area. Whilst that seems to be predominantly focussed on the
shops on Station Road to the north, it is possible that the newly constructed
Lidl store may become a further focal point for such behaviour. In particular,
the presence of doors into the rear of the premises may prove an attraction for
attempted criminal activity given the poor level of natural surveillance. I
therefore share the Council’s concerns in relation to the design of the security
measures as they relate to the service area.
6. The appellants state that the presence of security gates would affect the
turning circle, but no evidence is presented to support this argument. It would
appear from my site inspection and from the submitted plans that it would be
possible to install gates without affecting the manoeuvring space for a delivery
vehicle.
7. The appellants also refer to the creation of an enclosed area which itself could
have negative impacts; increased interest in the area; creation of an
unobserved area if criminals do succeed in gaining entry; encouraging staff to
use it as an outside storage area. These concerns could be overcome through
appropriate design of the security gates and through advice to staff. I note the
proposed CCTV system. Whilst this may make it easier to identify perpetrators
or pin-point undesirable activities as they happen, I have no evidence to
suggest that this would provide a deterrent to such activities occurring in the
first place.
8. The appellants also argue that the requirement for a delivery driver to open the
gates would add to the delivery time, having a cumulative impact over the
course of a week. However, I agree with the Council that there would be no
need for the security gates to be closed during the opening hours of the store.
Thus the installation of gates would not impact on deliveries which take place
during store opening hours. Even if all deliveries take place outside opening
hours of the store, it would be possible to design the gates to minimise the
time spent opening and closing them by the driver.
9. I accept that the standard Lidl design does not include measures such as
security gates, but I note the appellants’ agreement that natural surveillance is
considered to be most effective in deterring crime. In this instance, the service
area within the scheme does not benefit from good natural surveillance.
Accordingly, in the light of the evidence in this case and despite the possible
effects on the timing of deliveries as outlined above, I conclude that the lack of
security gates to the service area would reduce the effectiveness of the
proposed security measures in deterring crime. The proposed security scheme
would conflict with the advice in policy D15 of the Local Development
Framework Development Policies Document and would therefore be
unacceptable.
10. I note the concern from a local resident in relation to non-compliance with
conditions and highway matters. None of these matters are before me in this
appeal and I am not therefore in a position to comment upon them.
11. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.
