Obesity-based policies to restrict hot food takeaways: progress by local planning authorities in England
Obesity-based policies to restrict
hot food takeaways: progress by
local planning authorities in
England
Andrew Ross
Planning and Health Consultant
Final Draft Consultancy
www.fdconsult.co.uk
January 2013
Obesity-based policies to restrict hot food takeaways: progress by local planning authorities in England
Summary
21 local planning authorities (LPAs) have policies or draft policies designed to
restrict hot food takeaways to help curb obesity in their local area
Most (15) have developed supplementary planning documents (SPDs)
The most common policies include exclusion zones around schools and
restrictions on how many hot food takeaways can operate along a high
street/shopping strip
Exclusion zones are generally a 400 metre restriction (outside designated
centres) around schools (primary and secondary), and in a few examples
youth/community centres, parks/playgrounds and leisure centres
At least 9 LPAs have cited their policies to restrict hot food takeaways when
refusing planning applications
5 LPAs have had their policies tested successfully on appeal
Introduction
This brief overview of English local planning authority (LPA) policies on hot food
takeaways (planning-speak for fast food outlets) was commissioned by NHS Kent
and Medway as background to a workshop it has organised with Medway Council on
Planning and Healthy Eating to Tackle Obesity. 1
The work involved identifying the LPAs that have adopted, or are in the process of
adopting, polices to restrict the number of hot food takeaways in their areas to help
reduce the projected increases in obesity (note that this is not the only reason for
pursuing these policies, but one of a range of concerns).2 This review is
complemented by direct contact with the LPAs to establish how often the policies
have been used when determining planning applications, and their success so far.3
The research identified a total of 21 LPAs that cite obesity concerns in their policies
to restrict hot food takeaways (A5 uses) (5 are at draft stage). Most of these are
clustered in London (6), West Midlands (5) and the north west (5); none are located
in the south east region (see map on next page). They are urban authorities
characterised by high levels of deprivation, with the possible exception of Worcester
in the West Midlands.4
1
The workshop will be held on 21 January 2013
This involved contact with regional representatives and a web search
3
Many thanks to the planning officers that compiled data for this exercise
4
For more information refer to the accompanying Excel file that sets out the LPA policies in more
detail
2
Obesity-based policies to restrict hot food takeaways: progress by local planning authorities in England
Map illustrating location of local planning authorities with an obesity-based policy/draft policy
to restrict hot food takeaways (excludes Gateshead)
How are LPAs using the planning system to restrict hot
food takeaways?
Supplementary planning documents
Fifteen councils have supplementary planning documents (SPDs) that cite obesity
concerns relating to hot food takeaways. Of these:
10 focus on hot food takeaways only (ie Hot Food Takeaway SPDs)
4 include hot food takeaway policies within a wider SPD on retail, shopping or
town centre activities
1 is called an Access to Healthy Food SPD.
Two of these are at a draft stage.
Other planning documents
Seven authorities have policies in another document, including:
5 local plans (2 at draft stage)
2 development management policies DPD (both draft).
Only 3 councils/joint areas (London Borough of Waltham Forest, Halton Borough
Council, and Central Lancashire made up of Chorley, Preston and South Ribble
Councils) have a policy in their local plan relating to restricting access to hot food
takeaways, and an SPD. SPDs are not required to have a local policy hook
(interestingly Barking and Dagenham’s core strategy, adopted at the same time at its
Obesity-based policies to restrict hot food takeaways: progress by local planning authorities in England
SPD, makes no mention of hot food takeaways or healthy eating), although they
must be consistent with national planning policy, that is, the National Planning Policy
Framework (NPPF).
The NPPF states that:
‘The planning system can play an important role in… creating healthy, inclusive
communities.’ (para 69)
Policies
Exclusion zones to restrict hot food takeaways
There is a high degree of consistency between the policy proposed to restrict access
to hot food takeaways – generally a 400 metre exclusion zone (outside designated
centres).5 However, there is some variation as to what uses it is applied to (number
in brackets, includes drafts):
primary schools (10)
secondary schools/sixth form colleges (14)
youth facilities/community centres (4)
playing fields/parks/children’s play spaces (3)
leisure centres (2).
Some LPAs have taken the view that an exclusion zone needs to apply only to
secondary schools because primary school children are not permitted to leave the
schoolgrounds at lunchtime.
Overconcentration/proliferation
LPAs have also included policies to limit the number of hot food takeaways in
shopping centres and along high streets (that is, in locations outside of exclusion
zones). These include policies such as:
no more than X per cent of the units within a shopping centre or frontage
should be hot food takeaways
no more than two hot food takeaways are to be located beside each other
there should be at least two units of another use between a group of hot food
takeaways.
These policies are designed to avoid hot food takeaways dominating shopping
areas. Hot food takeaways bring with them many aspects that communities object to
such as noise, parking problems, anti-social behaviour and litter. For elected
members, these issues are the most pressing to address; however, they are all
indirectly related to wider health concerns and some places – for example
Birmingham – have used these issues as the route in to also tackle obesity
concerns. Policies to curb overconcentration of hot food takeaways also limit
5
This was the distance adopted by the London Borough of Waltham Forest based on research
conducted by London Metropolitan University suggesting that 400m was the maximum distance that
students could walk to and back in their lunch break – the GLA Takeaways Toolkit notes that students
‘may well walk further than 400m to purchase food at lunchtimes.’
Obesity-based policies to restrict hot food takeaways: progress by local planning authorities in England
people’s exposure to unhealthy food and potentially create retail space for
businesses selling healthier food.
Other
Salford’s SPD includes a policy to encourage hot food takeaways to provide a range
of healthy eating options. When interviewed a planning officer there acknowledged
that the LPA has not been able to refuse applications on this basis as it is not a
planning consideration.
However, building on this learning, Stoke’s draft SPD includes the following
statement:
‘Although the planning system cannot control the type of food to be sold from any
takeaway, the SPD encourages prospective takeaway operators to consider healthy
eating options, such as food that contains reduced salt, sugar and fat content.’
This underlines the importance of planners working with public health specialists,
environmental health officers and others to develop a cross-sector approach to
tackling obesity. For example, the preparation of Waltham Forest’s SPD was
underpinned by a hot food takeaway corporate steering group that pulled together a
range of programmes and initiatives to tackle the health impacts of fast food.
Barking and Dagenham has a fixed fee of £1000 for any approved hot food
takeaway to contribute towards initiatives to tackle childhood obesity in the borough
such as providing facilities in green spaces to encourage physical activity and
improvements to the walking and cycling environment.
An application in Bristol was approved with a condition that the outlet closed
between 3 and 6pm so that schoolchildren couldn’t use it on their way home.
Impact
At least 9 LPAs have cited their SPD or other planning policies on hot food
takeaways when refusing applications.6
Five LPAs – the London boroughs of Barking and Dagenham, Newham, Tower
Hamlets and Waltham Forest, and St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council in the
north west – have had their policies tested successfully on appeal. Two decisions by
Sandwell Council to refuse planning permission to hot food takeaways are currently
being appealed.
What does it mean to have a policy tested on appeal? If an applicant appeals a
council’s decision to refuse a hot food takeaway application, then the LPA’s decision
is considered by an independent planning inspector – see examples from St Helens
and Newham below, where the appeals were dismissed.
6
At the time of writing responses had not been received from Birmingham City Council or Worcester
City Council
Obesity-based policies to restrict hot food takeaways: progress by local planning authorities in England
Local planning
authority
Grounds for refusal [part]
What the planning inspector
said [part]
St Helens Council
The application premises falls
within 400 metres of the ‘hot foot
takeaway exclusion zone’ for
Longton Lane Primary School and
as such, the proposal is contrary
to Supplementary Planning
Document Hot Food Takeaways
(adopted June 2011).
London Borough of
Newham
Site was within 400 metres of St.
Bonaventures Secondary Catholic
School. The building was
therefore within one of the
Council’s preferred ‘exclusion’
zones for such hot food takeaway use.
[Taken from Takeaways Toolkit]
The council also cites its recently
adopted Supplementary Planning
Document Hot Food Takeaways,
primarily in relation to the health
objective of restricting the number of hot
food takeaways near schools… I do not
regard [this obj] as decisive in this case.
However, insofar as they pull in the same
direction as my conclusion on the main
issue I have identified, they do lend some
additional weight to it.
The Planning Inspectorate gave four
reasons for the decision to reject the
appeal of which two were over
concentration and healthy lifestyles. The
inspector found that the National
Planning Policy Framework as well as
the London Plan both confirm the
important role that the planning system
can play in facilitating social interaction
and creating healthy, inclusive
communities.
[Taken from Takeaways Toolkit]
Note that there is normally a combination of reasons why a planning application for a
hot food takeaway is refused. In the St Helens example above the other reason was
that ‘evening noise and general disturbance associated with a hot food takeaway in
this predominantly residential area, is considered to be detrimental to the residential
amenity that neighbours could reasonably expect to enjoy.’
Because of the multiple factors that are taken into account when assessing a
planning application – and an appeal – it is not possible to give a precise number of
hot food takeaways that have been rejected due to the obesity-influenced policies
developed by LPAs. However, so far a total of between 40 and 50 hot food takeaway
applications have been refused by LPAs with policies designed to restrict the number
of outlets in their area.
Conclusions
The recently published Takeaways Toolkit published by the Greater London
Authority concludes that:
‘The increase in fast food outlets will be a contributory factor in the growth of the
obesogenic environment.’
A first wave of LPAs are coalescing around a set of policies that are a part of
planning’s contribution to tackling this proliferation.
From a planning practice perspective, it does appear from this brief investigation that
planners are drafting policies, especially in SPDs, that are robust and being taken
Obesity-based policies to restrict hot food takeaways: progress by local planning authorities in England
account of by planning inspectors when considering appeals against decisions to
refuse hot takeaways.
From the perspective of reducing/restricting obesity, this planning approach has not
been evaluated and the impact of hot food takeaway SPDs on obesity ‘remains
unknown’ (Takeaways Toolkit, p 37).
It will always be difficult to isolate cause and effect sufficiently to attribute any
reduction solely to an SPD, although the potential evidence base is growing. Local
places put more importance on planning policies/implementation being part of a
wider strategic effort to reduce obesity that involves other parts of the council (such
as environmental health), school food programmes, public health and other agencies
that promote healthier eating (see for example Waltham Forest’s hot food takeaway
corporate steering group). To quote a food giant, the overall approach is that ‘every
little helps’.