Appeal 6000199

The appeal is dismissed.

Notwithstanding the description of development set out in the banner heading above, it is clear from the plans and decision notice that the proposal is for the change of use from retail (use class E(a)) to a hot food takeaway (sui generis), installation of external ventilation system and associated works. The Council dealt with the proposal on this basis and so shall I.

The main issue in this appeal is whether the location of the proposed use would be acceptable having regard to development plan policies in respect of reducing childhood obesity.

The appeal site comprises a vacant shop unit within Plumstead district centre. There is a mix of commercial premises at street level, with some flats above.

Policy E9 of the London Plan 2021 (LP) includes a criterion that hot food takeaway uses should not be permitted where these are within 400m walking distance from the entrances and exits of an existing primary or secondary school. The LP indicates that obesity is one of the greatest health challenges facing the capital, with 38% of year 6 pupils (10 to 11 year-olds) in London being overweight or obese, higher than any other region in England. It states that hot food takeaways generally sell food that is high in calories, fat, salt and sugar, and there is evidence that regular consumption of energy-dense food from hot food takeaways is associated with weight gain, and that takeaway food is appealing to children.

[name] lies on [address] behind the site and [name] lies east of the site further along [address]. Both schools have entrances or exits within 400m walking distance of the appeal site.

The proposed hot food takeaway would open at 4pm on Mondays to Fridays, with different times at the weekends. Although the primary school collection times range from 3.15pm to 3.30pm, it is likely that some pupils leaving school at these times would still be in the area at the proposed takeaway opening time.

In any event, [name] offers after school clubs to 4.15pm and late night provision to 6pm so those children staying on beyond school hours would be in the area when the proposed takeaway is open. There may also be other instances when children attend school activities and sporting/leisure events after school and at weekends. The proposed use would therefore provide the opportunity for pupils and their parents to purchase unhealthy food.

It is indicated that the premises would serve pizzas in an area where there are no similar takeaways. The appellant pledges to enrolling in the [name] which includes providing clear nutritional information to customers, offering healthier menu selections and considering appropriate portion sizes. It is also stated that there would be no child focussed marketing.

However, although the menu would include some lower calorie choices, pizzas are generally an unhealthy food option, high in calories, fat and salt, and an attractive food option for children. Further, there is no planning mechanism to control the type of food served. Thus, the introduction of a hot food takeaway close to existing primary schools would be contrary to the LP’s aims to combat childhood obesity.

The appellant refers to an appeal decision in Bristol1 where the Inspector allowed an appeal for a hot food takeaway within 400m of youth facilities as it was in a town centre where such uses are to be expected. However, that case was in a different city and the current proposal would clearly conflict with LP Policy E9.

Local, London and national planning policies support the vitality and viability of town centres. Whilst the proposal would bring a vacant unit back into use, there is no substantive evidence to demonstrate that refusing the appeal scheme would harm the vitality and viability of the Plumstead district centre.

The proposed development would generate five new jobs (two full time), but the economic benefits would not outweigh the harm to children’s health.

Consequently, I conclude that the location of the proposed use would be unacceptable having regard to development plan policies in respect of reducing childhood obesity. This would conflict with Policy E9 of the LP.

For the above reasons, the proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed. [planning inspector] INSPECTOR 1 Appeal ref: APP/Z0116/W/16/3145036