Appeal 6001642

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are • the effect of the proposal on the vitality and viability of the area, • the effect of the proposal on the health of the local community, and • whether the proposal makes adequate provision for the storage of waste.

Policy BCS7 of the Bristol Development Framework – [name] (adopted June 2011) (the [name]) sets out that the role of meeting day-to-day shopping needs will be retained within District Centres. Policy DM8 of the Bristol Local Plan – Site Allocations and Development Management Policies (adopted July 2014) (the Site Allocations Plan) sets outs that the change of use of shops to other uses will not be permitted unless the proposal would make a positive contribution to the vitality, viability and diversity of a Primary Shopping Area. In addition, policy JSB3 of the [site address] Neighbourhood Development Plan (adopted 2017) (the ND Plan) resists the change of use of premises to fast-food-takeaway-outlets within the designated retail core area and key shopping area. The reasoned justification for this policy indicates that fast-food-takeaway-outlets account for over 20% of the retail units within Ridingleaze.

The site lies within a designated District Centre and a designated primary shopping area. The proposal would result in the loss of an existing retail unit and its change of use to a hot food takeaway. While there would be a level of activity associated with the proposed takeaway use, it would remove a retail unit from an area that is designated specifically for retail provision in order to meet residents retail needs. The Council’s Delegated report sets out that within the primary shopping area, 6 of the existing 20 units (30%) are already in use as hot food takeaways, this is above the 20% figure set out when the neighbourhood plan was adopted, indicating that the proportion of non-retail uses is increasing. While the scheme would result in a single retail unit being lost, this would result in the percentage of hot food takeaway increasing further to 35% and there is nothing substantive before me to show that this would have an acceptable effect on, and not undermine, the retail role of the area.

The appellant states that the existing unit is not viable, yet there is no evidence of any marketing exercise to gauge the demand for the continuing use of the unit for retail purposes.

Thus, it has not been sufficiently demonstrated that the proposed development would not result in a degradation of the vitality and viability of the area. Therefore, the proposal conflicts with the policies I set out above.

Policies DM10 and DM14 of the Site Allocations Plan state, respectively, that takeaways in close proximity to schools and youth facilities will not be permitted where they would be likely to influence behaviour harmful to health or the promotion of healthy lifestyles, and that developments that will have an unacceptable impact on health and wellbeing will not be permitted.

The site would be within 300 metres of both a secondary school and local college. [name] note that there are other fast-food takeaways in the area, the proposal would only serve to increase the number of these. Therefore, the proposal is likely to increase unhealthy eating and thus would not promote healthy lifestyles.

I have had regard to the appellants comments that the premises would serve healthy food options. However, the proposal is for a hot food takeaway use and whilst there may be intentions to sell healthy food, there would be no means to restrict this. It has also been contended that the sale of hot food to children could be restricted by a management plan, and the sale of products to school premises could also be restricted. However, there are no details of this before me and as such it does not alter my findings on this matter.

Without substantive evidence to the contrary, I consider that the proposal would have a harmful effect on the health of the local community, contrary to policies DM10 and DM14.

The Council state within the [name] that officers were unable to conclude that the proposed development has the potential for an acceptable solution to waste storage and management. However, given the floorspace within the proposed unit, together with the external space to the rear, I see no reason why such arrangements cannot be satisfactorily achieved. As such, subject to an appropriate planning condition, the scheme would be able to make adequate provision for the storage of waste.

Thus, I find no conflict with policy DM32 of the Site Allocations Plan, insofar as it seeks to ensure that development provides waste storage with sufficient capacity.

The Council’s decision notice refers to policy BCS10 of the [name] in regard to this matter. However, this policy refers to transport infrastructure and thus does not appear to be directly relevant.

The appellant has suggested that the retail use could be lost to another use falling within Use Class E, which could be a non-retail use. While this is noted, it would not allow for a change to a hot food takeaway, which is what has been applied for. As such, while this may influence the matter of the loss of the retail use, it does not overcome the matter of the health impacts. Thus, this matter has little bearing on my decision.

The appellant refers to economic benefits of the proposal, including increased local expenditure and footfall within the area. I note comments in respect of utilising an empty unit and increasing diversity and choice within the area. However, these matters are not sufficient to outweigh the harm that I have identified.

I have had due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty set out under the Equality Act 2010. The harm caused by the appeal development outweighs its benefits in terms of eliminating discrimination against persons with the protected characteristics of religion, advancing equality of opportunity for those persons, and fostering good relations between them and others.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and there are no material considerations that indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it.

For the reasons given above, the appeal is dismissed.