Agenda item

To consider the report of the Director of City Development on a proposed Draft Hot Food Takeaway (HFT) Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) and seeking approval to undertake public consultation on the Supplementary Planning Document - which is attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

Further to minute 33 of the meeting held 27^th September 2016, the Panel considered a report seeking endorsement for a public consultation to be undertaken on a Draft Hot Food Takeaway (HFT) Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). Following a White Paper Motion to full Council in June 2016 the Panel had considered the issue and resolved that the preparation of a draft SPD could address links between health issues and planning policy. The draft SPD sought to control HFT proposals, particularly from the perspective of improving the health and wellbeing of Leeds’ population. A copy of the draft SPD was attached as Appendix 1 to the report and included site plans showing every secondary school in Leeds, with a 400m boundary from the centre of the school premises.

The Planning Assistant (Project Support) explained that the draft SPD had been prepared in consultation with Licensing, Public Health, Environmental and Development Management officers. After the proposed 6 week public consultation; the draft SPD would be revised accordingly and be brought back to DPP before being approved for adoption. The draft SPD would form part of Leeds’ Local Plan and carry weight when future planning applications and H5 applications are determined.

Councillor Leadley briefly presented the three key issues for discussion as being:

HFT1 - the proposed guidance to control HFT proximity to schools – where he expressed a preference to extend the 400m boundary extend from the school perimeter rather than the centre of the building

HFT2 - clustering in designated centres – where he promoted discussion in respect of those areas which already saw a proliferation of HFT; whether there was scope to introduce neighbourhood policies with neighbourhood definitions for HFT. In Leeds there are the equivalent of 126 HFT per 100,000 population, which is above the national average, the Panel were asked to consider whether a discretionary measure of a given number of HFT per 100,000 population should be established. He also referred to public health concerns, noting that some communities were more affected by the harm linked to HFT than others.

HFT3 - to address amenity concerns

Additionally the Panel was asked to consider whether it would be beneficial to include a caveat for HFT2 in order to allow an A5 use after a certain amount of unit vacancy. Councillor Leadley also referred to previous discussions on the status of drive-thru take aways and suggested this needed further discussion to understand what planning use class these fall within.

Members and Officers discussed the following:

HFT1 Drawing a zone of restriction:

-  Members considered whether it would be preferable to implement a 500m “exclusion zone” and noted the response that 400m was the accepted accessibility standard as the anticipated distance covered during a ten minute walk- the aim being to control HFT within a ten minute walk from a secondary school.

-  Whether the zone should be calculated from the centre of the school building, from the perimeter of the school grounds or from every access point (school gates), noting the approach adopted at Gateshead and Newcastle planning authorities.

-  The issue of whether the SPD would apply to land earmarked for school development would be given further consideration, although it was felt the school would have to be constructed for the SPD to have effect.

HFT2 Clustering:

-  Most HFT are located in local centres, town centres or neighbourhood parades.

-  HFT can blight shopping parades and discourage new business start-ups

-  Concern the SPD did not address or reflect those A3 restaurants which also operated as HFT. It was noted that this should be an enforcement matter and there was support for the SPD to contain information on how operating without consent would be tackled.

HFT2 Vacancy Caveat – Members did not support the inclusion of the proposed caveat.

HFT3 Amenity concerns

-  Comments about control of littering, bins and waste were also noted. It was agreed that the links between this SPD and the relevant town centre policies would be given greater attention.

Noting the comments and queries raised by Members, officers agreed to undertake further work with LCC Children’s Services and Public Health Team in order to report back to Panel Members via email in the first instance with options for their consideration. In order to progress the SPD, the consultation responses from Panel Members will be considered by the Chief Planning Officer in consultation with the Chair in order to determine the proposals to be included within the consultation draft.

RESOLVED

a)  To note the comments made during discussion and to note that officers will make the minor amendments to the draft SPD prior to the start of the consultation period.

b)  To note that officers will further consider the proposed 400m perimeter and will present options for Panel Members to consider via email. The matter of the boundary distance and secondary school will be determined by the Chief Planning Officer in consultation with the Chair, taking into account Members’ views.

c)  To note that Panel did not support the proposal for policy HFT2 to include a caveat allowing an A5 use after a certain term of unit vacancy.

d)  To endorse the undertaking of public consultation on the Draft Hot Food Takeaway Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), once amended.