The Planning Inspectorate has thrown out an appeal against Northumberland County Council's refusal to grant planning permission for a new hot food takeaway in Ashington.
The plans, rejected in March, would have converted the former Shoezone store on Station Road into a mixed-use café or restaurant with unrestricted hot food takeaway. The council refused the application, stating it posed a "risk to the long-term health of the population of Ashington".
Existing takeaways and health concerns
Within 100 metres of the site, there are already three hot food takeaways. A previous application by the same applicant was also refused last year for similar reasons.
The council noted that the number of overweight or obese children and the number of approved takeaways per 1,000 residents "already exceeds the acceptable levels". Concerns were also raised about the ventilation system, which could have a "detrimental impact" on residents due to odours.
Appeal arguments
In the appeal, the applicant argued that the council "exaggerated" the impact of existing takeaways and that further outlets would "just provide more choice". He added: "The way to combat obesity is education, and not arbitrary restriction of competition and new businesses."
He also said that Ashington's main road is a "very long commercial parade" that, due to "globalisation, supermarkets, the internet and Amazon", no longer supports traditional shops. He claimed that "it is better 'something' than 'nothing' and another long-term void". On odour concerns, he said the system was "internal" and should be acceptable.
Inspector's dismissal
However, the planning inspector dismissed the appeal, stating that the council's criteria "must be complied with" for new takeaways to be supported, and if not, it "reasonably follows" that new takeaways would not be supported.
The dismissal highlighted that links between obesity and unhealthy food choices are "well understood", noting that 44.4% of Year Six pupils in Ashington are overweight or obese. It also mentioned a "proliferation" of takeaways in the area and that the proposals "would harm the living conditions" of neighbours due to odour. The applicant had not demonstrated "with any rigour" that the odour would be "satisfactorily dispersed".
