Appeal 6008190

The appeal is dismissed.

The change of use has already taken place. I note that the application had been submitted partially retrospectively. I have dealt with the appeal on that basis.

The main issues are: • whether the appeal site is an appropriate location for the proposed take-away; • whether the appeal proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the [address] and [address] Conservation Area; and, • the effect of the appeal proposal on highway safety.

Policy D.TC5 of [site address] Local Plan 2031 (adopted 2020) (Local Plan) only supports proposals for new hot-food take-aways when certain criteria are met. Part (a) states there must be a separation of at least 4 non take-away units between each new hot-food take away unit. Part (d) requires that a new take-away is not within 200 metres walking distance of a school. Policy E9 of the London Plan 2021 restricts new take-away proposals to locations which are at least 400m walking distance away from the entrance/exit of a primary or secondary school.

These policies are delivered in the context that a wide range of health experts recommend restricting the proliferation of hot-food take-aways, particularly around schools, in order to help create a healthier food environment.

The appeal proposal does not meet the criteria specified above. There is another hot-food take-away immediately adjacent to the appeal site. It is also well within 200m of the main entrance to [name]. The Council state the appeal site is 35m from the school entrance. Having had the benefit of a site visit, I see no reason to disagree with that assessment.

Local Plan Policy D.SG3 requires planning applications containing hot-food take away uses to include a health impact assessment. No assessment was provided with the appeal. The supporting text to the policy states that such assessments should outline how the development could positively or negatively impact on the wider determinants of health and should identify actions to enhance the positive impacts and mitigate the negative impacts. The location of the appeal site relative to the school indicates to me that there would be the potential for the use to negatively affect the health outcomes of those children. Without a health impact assessment, there is little evidence before me to identify any relevant mitigating factors.

In conclusion on this main issue therefore, the proposal conflicts with London Plan 2021 Policy E9 and Local Plan Policies D.TC5 and D.SG3 insofar as they set out the criteria against which proposed hot-food take-aways must be assessed and require a health impact assessment to support applications for new take-aways.

The appeal site is located in the [address] and [address] Conservation Area (CA). The statutory duty under Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires me to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA.

The CA broadly follows [address] and surrounding streets between Bethnal Green Road and Whitechapel. It contains architecturally and historically significant buildings including 18th Century houses on [address], [name] and [name]. [address] is characterised by densely packed buildings, which in the vicinity of the appeal site tend to be 3-4 storey terraces with commercial uses at ground floor. There is a diverse mix of entertainment, creative, cultural, residential and industrial uses. The CA’s variety of land uses and diverse character has been informed by historic waves of immigration to the area, notably from Huguenot, Jewish and Bangladeshi communities. The significance of the CA is derived from the consistent quality of the Georgian townscape, historic landmarks and cultural significance.

The appeal site comprises a ground and 3 upper storey brick-built building with a shopfront and pairs of sash windows above. The building contributes to the significance of the CA in that it forms part of the consistent 3-4 storey terraces characteristic of the area.

The proposed stainless steel extract duct would be a significant structure located centrally on the rear elevation of the building. The central location would be prominent and consequently the duct would dominate the rear elevation of the building. [name] appreciate that views of the rear are largely from the private domain of other buildings, effects of the scale, bulk and finish of the duct when experienced from neighbouring properties nevertheless would fail to preserve the character and appearance of the CA. [name] appreciate an extract duct is necessary to facilitate the use, and that environmental health officers have not raised objection to it, the proposed location is nevertheless harmful relative to the character and appearance of the building and CA.

In failing to preserve the character and appearance of the CA, I find that the proposal, in the words of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), would result in less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset. The harm identified is towards the lower end of the spectrum. In such circumstances, the Framework requires that the less than substantial harm should be weighed against the public benefits.

There would be some socio-economic benefits arising to the local economy thorough employment, local spend and the service offered by the take-away use. The appellant has drawn my attention to the removal of former mechanical plant on the roof. Given the public benefits identified would be small in scale, they would not be sufficient to outweigh the identified less than substantial harm to the significance of the designated

In conclusion on this issue therefore, as set out above, the duct due to its height, bulk, scale and materials would fail to preserve the character and appearance of the CA. The proposal conflicts with London Plan 2021 Policy HC1 and Local Plan Policies S.DH1 and S.DH3. Taken together and amongst other things, they require proposals to conserve the significance of heritage assets and be of an appropriate scale, bulk and height with materials that enhance and compliment the wider surroundings.

The Council consider is common for hot-food take-away uses to be associated with an increase in bikes and mopeds around the site for food pick-up and delivery; I see no reason to disagree. Interested parties state that bikes and mopeds are often seen waiting on the pavement and along the highway in front of the take-away. This has the potential to obstruct pedestrians and the transport network especially during evenings and weekends when it would be a reasonable assumption that the use would be at its busiest.

No supporting transport statement with regard to how the appellant proposes to manage food pick-up and deliveries has been submitted and no specific management or mitigation measures are proposed, including any cycle parking. However, had the appeal been allowed, this matter could reasonably be addressed through the imposition of a planning condition requiring a management plan for servicing, deliveries and any necessary mitigation measures to be agreed with the Council.

Subject to a management plan as set out above, I do not consider the proposal would have an unacceptable effect on highway safety and would be consistent with the aims of Local Plan Policies S.TR1 and D.TR2. Collectively, these policies require development to maintain the safety of the transport network, contribute to and deliver appropriate transport infrastructure or mitigation measures.

There is no dispute that the extraction system would be capable of achieving the relevant technical and noise requirements. This matter carries neutral weight in the

The location of the take-away conflicts with the criteria set out in the development plan. The position, size and finish of the proposed duct would not preserve the character and appearance of the CA.

The appellant identifies a benefit though the removal of the former roof-mounted mechanical plant, though this is negated due to the harmful effect of the proposed replacement duct. The socio-economic benefits arising from employment and spend in the local economy do not outweigh the harm I have identified.

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. For the reasons give above the appeal should be dismissed.