Appeal 6004358

The appeal is dismissed.

A new Lidl food store was granted under permission reference DC/091767. Condition 36 of that permission requires the provision of a staff shower, changing and locker facilities, and an appropriate drying area, before the store opens for trade. The appeal proposal seeks to remove this condition. My site visit identified that the development has commenced and construction is underway.

Section 79(1)(b) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 allows that, on appeal under section 78, the Secretary of State may reverse or vary any part of the decision of the Local Planning Authority whether the appeal relates to that part of it or not, and deal with the application as if it had been made to them in the first instance.

Conditions need to satisfy 6 tests, as identified by Paragraph 57 of the National Planning Policy Framework ('the Framework') (2024) and the Planning Practive Guidance1. Conditions must be necessary, relevant to planning, relevant to the development, enforceable, precise, and reasonable in all other respects. 1 Paragraph: 003 [name]: 21a-003-20190723; Revision date: 23 07 2019.

The main issue is whether the development would sufficiently encourage staff to travel by sustainable transport modes.

The appellant contends that condition 36 is unnecessary for the operation of the foodstore or staff requirements; unnecessary to ensure that the development is compliant with planning policy due to sustainable modes of transport already being promoted; and not relevant because the requirement for staff shower facilities is not specified in any development plan policy.

Lidl has a national standard of internal store layout specification, which does not include staff shower facilities due to the operational and business model need to maximise the use of space for efficiency. However, there is no demonstration that the provision of the small-scale measures required under condition 36 would unreasonably reduce that efficiency, as the internal layout already includes a cloak room, changing room, and toilets. Moreover, there is no staff engagement evidence before me to support the suggestion that the lack of existing shower facilities in [name] stores is also due to a lack of staff demand.

The development promotes active travel modes as it includes covered and secure staff cycle parking, and dedicates land alongside the [address] North and [address] frontages to help enable the delivery of the A6 [name] cycle scheme of a segregated cycle track and footway. The Travel Plan2 also identifies other provisions to promote sustainable travel to staff such as providing information and manager support.

Nonetheless, I find it evident that the value of all this provision would be markedly restricted, if no end of trip facilities for cyclists are provided within the store. This would form an unacceptable deterrent to maximising the use of sustainable travel methods. This is because despite the good nearby cycle infrastructure including National Cycle Network routes, the 5km cycle accessibility radius identified in the Travel Plan is not entirely flat. This is particularly evident in the gradient difference between the site and the river corridor valley to the south, such as traveling up [address] or the segregated route alongside the A5145. Such a commute is likely to require a level of exertion for which an outfit change or shower would be necessary.

Cycling in inclement or hot weather would also require an outfit change and drying facilities, even where the cycle itself was not strenuous or long. I am aware that Lidl employment requires uniform and direct customer contact, whereby high staff hygiene levels are therefore to be expected. Lockers, showers, and drying facilities are therefore necessary to enable cycle commuting. I also expect that showers would also be of value to those choosing to run to work, or those walking in some circumstances.

Showers would assist in reaching the Travel Plan target in Table 6.1 to increase the cycling mode share across the 5 year period. It is important to maximise encouragement of cycling as a travel mode from the outset, as recognised by the hope expressed in paragraph 6.11 that the initial designed-in features for the 2 Ref: SCP/190486/TP/5; 27.03.2024 6th Issue. development, together with the promotion of the Travel Plan process, will encourage staff to travel to work by sustainable modes.

Policy T-1 of the [name] (‘the CS’) identifies that new development generating significant numbers of trips will be required to be sustainably accessible by public transport, walking and cycling. It further identifies that there are minimum cycle parking standards, and that developers will also be required to provide other associated infrastructure in developments to support cycling, which could include showers, changing and drying facilities, and lockers. [name] acknowledge that Policy T-1 does not state that such facilities ‘must’ always be provided, a reasonable reading of the policy as a whole suggests that ‘other associated infrastructure’ would not ordinarily consist of anything other than such facilities. In overall terms, I therefore find that condition 36 is reasonable and necessary having regard to Policy T-1, the site circumstances, and the proposed sustainable transport package taken as a whole.

The other CS policies cited in the reason for the condition, being SC9 and T-3, also provide broader support for development which reduces the need to travel by car, and safe and well-designed access arrangements and internal layouts. This is further supported by the Framework paragraphs 109(e) and 117 (a), whereby development proposals should identify and pursue opportunities to promote walking and cycling, and give priority first to pedestrian and cycle movements. I note that the CS Policy SIE1 was also cited in the reason for the condition, but I do not find this to have distinct relevance in this instance.

Overall therefore, I find that condition 36 is necessary and relevant for staff requirements, meets the other tests for conditions, and is necessary and justified for the development to fully comply with the [name]-1, T-3, and SC9.

A Lidl store in [name] was allowed on appeal on 14 January 20263. The Council proposed the same shower facility condition, which the Inspector did not impose because they were unpersuaded of its need to make the development acceptable. However, I am unaware whether the condition was a key point of dispute specifically discussed in the evidence, and of the extent of information before that Inspector, who identified that there was no compelling evidence for it. The site location is also different. On this basis, I do not find that decision to be determinative to the extent to override my findings above.

Condition 36 is necessary and justified in order for the development to provide an acceptable total package of measures that would sufficiently encourage staff to travel by sustainable transport modes, when considering the development plan as a whole. No other identified material considerations indicate differently, and so for the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal is dismissed.