Appeal 6004805

The appeal is dismissed.

I have utilised part of the description of development from the decision notice as this more succinctly describes the appeal development than that provided on the application form. The development subject of this appeal was in place at the time of my visit, although it was not in use. For clarity, I have determined the appeal as a proposed development based on the submitted plans.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: • the health and wellbeing of the local community, • the living conditions of neighbouring residential occupiers, with regard to noise and disturbance, outlook and odour, • the character and appearance of the area; and, • on highway safety.

The National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) at paragraph 97 states that local planning authorities should refuse applications for hot food takeaways and fast-food outlets within walking distance of schools and other places where young children and young people congregate, unless the location is within a designated town centre.

The appeal site is outside a designated town centre and located in a residential area. There is some difference between the main parties on how far [name] is from the appeal site, with the appellant referring to a 12-minute walk. Based on the evidence before me, the nearest walking route to this school is under 400 metres away and less than a 10-minute walk.

Irrespective of this, the Framework refers to places where young people would congregate. There are a number of these, such as the green space off [name] and a play area which is around a 5-minute walk away from the appeal site. Although these spaces may be used for a variety of leisure and recreational activities, local green spaces are also areas where young people gather.

The appellant has set out that the mobile catering van is not currently operating and consequently is not contributing to health problems in the area. It is also noted that obesity is influenced by a variety of factors and lifestyle choices, with supermarkets also selling unhealthy foods. Nevertheless, the proposal would, through the addition of a hot food takeaway, exacerbate existing health inequalities, with the submissions before me demonstrating that childhood obesity rates are significantly higher in the Middleton Park ward than in the Leeds district.

The appellant states that healthy food options such as salads would be provided that are not available in the local area, but photographs of the catering van display burgers, chips and other such products, and as such, this would offer children an opportunity to consume unhealthy food, which would contribute negatively to the health of the community.

I therefore conclude that the proposal would have an unacceptable harmful effect on the health and wellbeing of the local community. As such, it would be contrary to Policy GP5 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan (UDP) and paragraph 97 of the Framework, which seek, amongst other matters, to avoid problems of danger to health or life.

The proposed mobile catering van would be positioned in the front garden/driveway of a semi-detached dwelling. The activity of cooking and the expected short-stay vehicle trips from customers in such close proximity to neighbouring residential properties would give rise to harmful noise impacts on nearby occupiers. Although the appellant has referred to the engine being off, there is no mechanism before me that would ensure that this would be the case, and as such, periods of engine idling could give rise to further noise impacts. Customers who arrive on foot could generate further activity whilst they wait for food to be prepared, some of whom may choose to consume their food nearby which would be a further source of disturbance, even if the opening hours were restricted.

The proposal would generate cooking odours, and although the appellant has referenced a fan and a flue, no details of any mechanical extraction or filtration equipment have been provided. Even if a 1-2m flue was provided, it would be unlikely to fully disperse odours, as this would result in it terminating close to the level of first floor windows of neighbouring dwellings.

Due to the presence of tall boundary treatments along the boundary with properties either side of the appeal site, only a small part of the catering van would be visible, and consequently, there would not be a harmful overbearing impact arising. The provision of a waste collection and management strategy can be controlled by condition. This would address littering in and around the appeal site. Although the Council has referenced the potential for increased littering in the wider surrounding area, given the scale of the proposal and the presence of bins near bus stops and nearby green spaces, I do not find that the proposal would be materially harmful in terms of littering.

Nevertheless, I conclude that the proposal would have an unacceptable adverse impact on the living conditions of neighbouring residential occupiers, with regard to noise and disturbance, and odour. As such, it would be contrary to Policy P10 of the Leeds City Council Core Strategy ([name]), UDP Policy GP5 and paragraph 135 of the Framework, which seek, amongst other matters, to protect residential and general amenity.

The appeal site is situated in an area that is characterised by semi-detached properties which are set back from the highway behind front gardens and parking areas. The two-storey form of the buildings, consistent in their palette of materials and their regular layout provides for a consistent residential character.

The catering van would be a strident addition on a residential street. Although it is only partially visible from certain vantage points, it becomes noticeably more prominent at closer range on [name] as seen in a number of the appellant’s submitted photographs owing to its size and its black colour.

I therefore conclude that the proposed development would have an unacceptable adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area. As such, it would be contrary to Core Strategy Policy P10, UDP Policy GP5 and paragraph 135 of the Framework, which seek, amongst other matters, to secure development that respects local distinctiveness.

The proposed mobile catering van would give rise to additional vehicle movements and parking demand, in addition to that generated by the existing dwelling at [site address] . The appellant has referenced the unrestricted on-street parking along [name] that could be used by food delivery drivers. However, there is already a high level of parking on the public highway, and it has not been demonstrated that the additional parking demand arising from the proposal could be accommodated.

Whilst the appellant may favour the use of deliveries by cyclists, it is acknowledged that deliveries would also be undertaken by car, where car drivers would likely attempt to park close to the site to save time. This could result in parking on footways or in other locations that restricts visibility and causes harm to road users, including vulnerable users such as those with mobility impairments.

Although only limited details have been provided on commercial refuse storage and collection, this is a matter that, had the development been otherwise acceptable, could have been secured by condition.

I conclude that the proposed development would have an unacceptable adverse impact on highway safety, and as such, would be contrary to Policies P10 and T2 of the [name], UDP Policy GP5, paragraph 116 of the Framework and the Leeds City Council Transport Supplementary Planning Document, which seek, amongst other matters, to ensure development provides parking provision and safe and secure access for pedestrians, cyclists and people with impaired mobility.

Reference has been made to inaccuracies, including an incorrect informative on the decision notice and a typing error referring to 127 [name] as opposed to No. 131. As these matters have been pointed out, and the main parties are aware and have been able to make appropriate representations, I do not consider that any prejudice has arisen from the stated inaccuracies. A plan marked with a red cross was also referenced, but this refers to the position where the site notice was displayed as opposed to the location of the appeal site. In any event, I have been able to assess the proposal based on the correct references, including the location of the appeal site.

The appellant has referenced a number of other fast food establishments that are located in close proximity to a school. These are, however, existing establishments, and their presence is therefore not before me for consideration. Whilst consistency in decision-making is important, the Council has set out that many of the referenced examples by the appellant are café’s or shops, with the takeaways being within a shopping parade or a local centre. None of them are mobile catering vans within the front garden/driveway of a residential dwelling, and are therefore not comparable to the appeal proposal.

Reference has been made to administrative matters, including the lack of communication and the lack of request for further information from the Council. These matters do not however have a bearing on the planning merits of the case. The provision of CCTV and the appeal scheme’s acceptability in this regard is a neutral consideration and is not a matter which weighs in its favour.

The proposed development would not accord with the development plan as a whole and there are no other considerations, including the Framework, that indicate that I should take a different decision other than in accordance with this. I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.