How has planning guidance, documents and policy on hot food takeaways faired at appeal?

National policy, local plans and supplementary planning documents are material planning considerations which can be used to address local health concerns and to support local planning authorities in promoting healthier food environments.

In Week 2, we learnt about the appeals process, where the applicant can lodge an appeal with the Planning Inspectorate to review the local planning authority’s decision. The independent inspector will decide whether to refuse (agreeing with the local planning authority decision) or allow (disagreeing with the local planning authority’s decision and therefore approving the development).

What are the outcomes from the appeals process?

A research study explored the decisions made by the Planning Inspectorate in the appeals process for applications for hot food takeaway outlets (1). The study found that there were 52 planning appeals cases related to obesity, health and hot food takeaways in England and Wales between January 2010 and June 2018. Of these, 26 appeals cases were upheld (that is, the local planning decision was over-turned, and the Planning Inspector found in favour of the hot food takeaway business) and 26 cases were dismissed (that is, permission was not granted to the hot food takeaway business).

In terms of the appeals cases which were refused (meaning the application was not granted permission), the reasons for this decision centred around:

• Insufficient evidence concerning hot food takeaways and health impacts (particularly when the evidence is at a national, rather than a local level)
• A belief that parental control would mitigate impacts on health for children. For example, upholding the appeal for a hot food takeaway near a primary school because these children would usually be accompanied by parents or carers who could guide food purchases
• Giving more weight to economic arguments, rather than health impacts
• Concerns around enforceability of restricting opening hours. For example, excluding lunchtime, or after school opening
• Questioning the health impact of the addition of one hot food takeaway outlet
• Disputing factual information. For example, the distance that school children may travel to access hot food takeaways

In terms of those appeals which were upheld (meaning that the application was granted permission), the reasons for this decision centred around:

• Contrary to local policy and planning – for example, providing planning permission for hot food takeaway establishments would be considered to undermine the Council’s efforts in enabling healthier communities and be in direct violation of a policy with the local plan and/or supplementary planning document guidance
• The economic case considered – for example, the positive economic outcomes being outweighed by the public health harm created

Interestingly, the study found that even in the appeals of hot food takeaways which were dismissed, the importance of local obesity prevalence as a factor in making this planning decision was variable between cases. Inspectors place a great deal of emphasis on robust evidence at a local level. Generally, health evidence is largely produced at a national level, and its applicability to specific cases is therefore considered limited.

Another study also reviewed planning appeal examples as well as draft policies that underwent the statutory examination in public process. The study identified challenges and strengths in decisions made by the Planning Inspectorate. Understanding these factors can help the public health system navigate engagement with inspectors and secure successful outcomes when managing takeaways (2).

Next week we will cover using the evidence to support planning decisions and developing supplementary planning documents.