Obesity, hot food takeaways and
Planning
planning and hot food takeaways
Supplementary planning
documents (SPDs)
15 local planning authorities (LPAs) with relevant
supplementary planning documents (SPDs) –
more are on the way:
• 10 focus on hot food takeaways only
• 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
Other planning documents
• 6 local plans (2 draft)
• 2 development management policies DPDs
(both draft)
Where?
Note – excludes Gateshead/Newcastle
Exclusion zones
Generally a 400 metre exclusion zone (outside
designated centres) included in policy that
applies to:
• primary schools (10)
• secondary schools/sixth form colleges (15)
• youth facilities/community centres (4)
• playing fields/parks/children’s play spaces (4)
• leisure centres (2)
Impact
• At least 9 LPAs have cited planning
policies on hot food takeaways when
refusing applications
• 5 LPAs have had their policies tested
successfully on appeal - but to date no
examples of appeals where an inspector
has cited the exclusion zone as the only
consideration
Potential benefits
Opportunity for:
• elected members to respond to community
concerns
• planning to participate in wider corporate
agenda
• planners to get in early with public health
and show value
Observations
Evidence base is contested:
‘The use of SPDs by local authorities has not as yet
been evaluated and the impact on obesity and other
health issues remains unknown.’
Takeaway Toolkit (2012)
‘The literature review overall is entirely unclear and
not firm enough to base ANY planning policy
changes on.’
[Andrew Lainton, planning commentator]
Observations
• There are examples of policies that have been
found sound, such as Newham Council’s local
plan (adopted 2012 after draft NPPF published)
• Seems reasonable – essential even – that LPAs
have some licence to experiment
• But needs to be within wider corporate
framework for tackling obesity
• Role of planning to curb ‘lifestyle’ public health
concerns will continue to be debated
Experience from Medway
• Evidence review
• Engagement and key allies
• Planning tools to tackle HFT and where we are
now
• Some reflections
Evidence review
Evidence review
Hooks for engagement
• Allies: Planning policy, Greenspace, HWB, individual councillors.
• Drivers: Policy hooks nationally/locally. Improving health and wellbeing –
statutory responsibility, professional responsibility, personal passion.
• Need more work: Licensing, planning committee, DM, social regen
• Deterrents: Threat of extra work, you and us, new languages
Obesity planning policy review…
… interim planning guidance
• Interim guidance note, NOT new policy.
• Later situate within land allocations policies..
– Purpose & status of guidance note
– Planning Policy Context
– Material considerations
• Case law
• Health policies (national & local)
• Existing health information on local population
• Also informed by trend analysis of Class A5
• Next CS? Policy review findings will have wider importance
The journey Reflections
so far: reflections
•
•
•
•
•
•
Evidence - strong basis for collaboration opportunities
Allies - friends are easy to find, persist with pessimists.
External networks - invaluable
Partnership - takes time, senior support, human resource
Start small – 1 lens, base on agreed priority, aim for quick wins
Monitor - track the process, also the impact?
Class A5 trend analysis