Full text:
POSITIVELY PREPARED
1. The draft policy is not based on any objectively assessed development requirement, but instead implies that within 400 metres of the boundary of primary or secondary schools, no hot food takeaways (HFTs) will be required over the Plan Period. It does this without evidence of:
• existing numbers of HFTs within these areas or the wider Borough
• the effect of the policy on numbers in these areas or the Borough
• link between obesity incidence and proximity of HFTs to schools
• any particular distance at which incidence increases or is harmful
2. In fact, the distance chosen has the effect of banning HFTs from a significant proportion of the Borough. Because no assessment has been made of the number of HFTs that might be refused as a result of this or what the social, economic or environmental impacts of that might be, it is not possible to balance these impacts.
3. The policy is essentially an area-based blanket ban and is negative in its assumption that all HFTs offer little choice and serve the same type and standard of food. This is unfair to those that engage positively to offer healthy choices and therefore acts as a powerful disincentive to do so where others established businesses compete negatively.
4. Increasingly, town centres and lower-order parades and groups of shops depend upon the presence of experiential (that is, difficult or impossible to replace online) or serendipitous uses (that is, unlikely to generate a specific trip), such as hairdressers and HFTs, to draw in and maintain the footfall to support remaining non-experiential uses.
5. An inability to operate such uses will result in not only their loss and resulting additional and longer trips by car, but also the loss of the remaining convenience stores and other non-experiential uses close by. Each zone covers 50 hectares, containing typically around 1,000 households. This amounts to a significant spend lost and car journeys caused.
JUSTIFIED
6. Neither the supporting text nor the evidence base provide any information to show that the incidence of overweight or obesity in the district is above average or increasing, but rather focusses on disparities within the Borough.
7. Consequently, it is difficult to draw any conclusions from the evidence as to the effect of particular land uses or their proximity to others on the attainment of healthy diet and weight. Clearly, diet is a key determinant both of general health and obesity levels, but its predictors are far more complex than the environment around schools.
8. Whilst some HFTs, together with restaurants, pubs and shops are a source of cheap, energy dense and nutrient poor foods, not all of them are, and the planning system is ineffective in distinguishing between those that are and those that are not. Indeed, in some respects, pubs and restaurants can often be worse (Robinson et al, 2018).
9. Planning Inspectors at appeal (APP/P4415/A/11/2159082) have found that refusing HFTs within 400 metres of primary schools cannot be justified. This is because such policies tend to be justified as countering the vulnerability of unaccompanied children to making poor diet choices. However, primary school children are rarely unaccompanied.
10. Sometimes, local evidence can demonstrate a correlation between the density of food and drink uses in a given geography and incidence of overweight or obesity. Policies related to limiting over-concentration of these uses within a specified area might be justified, but the evidence on proximity specifically as a factor is very weak.
11. Typically, where similar policies have been adopted elsewhere in the United Kingdom, it has been as a result of very high and increasing incidence coupled with proliferation of the use controlled, together outweighing limited evidence of effectiveness. It is also often the case that, where adopted, no objections have been made.
EFFECTIVE
12. In the past, reviews (Williams et al, 2014) have found very little evidence for an effect of the retail food environment surrounding schools on food purchases and consumption, so it is at best unclear whether an effort to attain healthy diets and weights based on refusing HFTs within 400 m of primary and secondary schools could ever work.
13. As discussed in Williams et al (2004), the methods for defining and measuring the food environment vary widely between studies and few consistent findings emerge. The premises studied rarely, if ever, map across to actual use classes or specific land uses, making it near-impossible to conclude whether HFTs specifically are problematic.
13. The inclusion of primary schools is particularly problematic, as it is clear that children at primary schools are not usually permitted to leave the premises at lunchtime and, given their age, are unlikely to travel to or from school unaccompanied. Outside school time, children’s diets are properly the responsibility their parents or guardians.
14. On a point of practicality, exclusion zones based on radii take no account of real barriers, either physical or perceptual and therefore affect premises on the other side of line features, such as canals or rivers, that are in reality more than a 400 m walk away. Such premises can play no part in a supposed link between incidence and proximity.
15. The area affected covers a significant part of the Borough, so it is hard to see how the effectiveness of its extent could be monitored. Would poor or negative achievement against the objective result in reduction or expansion of the zones? What other corrective action might be taken short of their withdrawal?
16. Exercise is also a key determinant that must be considered for a complete picture. Access to open space, sport and recreation facilities is a longstanding and achievable output of the planning system. Directing resources to this and targeted lifestyle interventions would be a far more appropriate strategy for reducing childhood obesity.
CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY
17. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) recognises the role planning takes in better enabling people to live healthier lifestyles. However, it seeks to do this by creating, not restricting choice, by increasing access to open space, sport and recreation facilities and health services, and ensuring developments are within walkable distance.
18. The NPPF requires policies to be sound, assessed against tests, including justification (which requires evidence that there is problem that can be solved by planning policy) and effectiveness (which requires at least reasonable correlation and a potential mechanism of action between the thing controlled and outcome sought.
19. The NPPF requirements are not overridden by Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) paragraph 4 of part 53, which suggests consideration of a list of issues, including high incidence of obesity and over-concentration of certain uses (implicitly food and drink, not necessarily HFTs) in proximity to locations where children and young people gather.
REFERENCES
Robinson E, Jones A, Whitelock V, Mead B R, Haynes A, (Over)eating out at major UK restaurant chains: observational study of energy content of main meals. BMJ 2018; 363: 4982
Williams J, Scarborough P, Matthews A, Cowburn G, Foster C, Roberts N and Rayner M, A systematic review of the influence of the retail food environment around schools on obesity-related outcomes. Obes Rev 2014; 15: 359-374
