Tag Archives: planning guidance

Banning fast food outlets near schools: have takeaways had their chips?

Posted on by

A number of organisations – including the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, Public Health England and the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health – have called for the creation of ‘fast food exclusion zones’ – banning fast food outlets from opening within 400m of schools and other places where children congregate.

In this blog post, we consider the arguments in favour of restricting the growth of such fast food outlets near to schools, and whether the evidence supports this.

More children becoming obese, earlier and for longer

The UK is now ranked among the worst in Western Europe for childhood obesity. Not only are more young people overweight or obese, they are also becoming obese at earlier ages and staying obese for longer.

Indeed, recent statistics show that nearly a quarter of children in England are obese or overweight by the time they start primary school aged five, rising to one third by the time they leave aged 11.

Increased risk of social, psychological and long-term health problems

In addition to the social and psychological problems associated with obesity, obese children are at a greater risk of developing serious diseases, including coronary artery disease, high blood pressure and type 2 diabetes.  They are also 20% more likely to develop cancer as adults than those of a healthy weight.

There is also a financial incentive for addressing obesity in both adults and children – recent estimates suggest that obesity-related conditions cost the NHS around £6.1 billion per year.  The total estimated cost to society is even greater – at least £27 billion per year.

Indeed, the annual spend on the treatment of obesity and diabetes is greater than the amount spent on the police, the fire service and the judicial system combined.

Deprived areas have greater levels of both obesity and fast food outlets

There are also strong reasons to address obesity from an equalities angle.

Recent data compiled by Public Health England shows that there is a strong association between area level deprivation and the density of fast food outlets.  Some areas, such as Blackpool, and parts of Manchester and Liverpool, have up to five times more fast food outlets than more affluent areas.

The evidence is generally clear that deprivation is associated with higher levels of overweight and obesity, and lower levels of vegetable consumption.

The evidence suggests that the food environment does influence food choice

During the past 10 years in the UK, there has been a significant increase in the number of fast food outlets, and the consumption of food away from the home has increased by 29%.

Researchers and policymakers have sought to understand whether unhealthy food environments – such as those with a high density of fast food takeaways – may encourage unhealthy food choices, and thus contribute to obesity.

Last year, the Scottish Government published a research paper on the link between the food environment and the planning system.

In relation to the link between the food environment and obesity in general, the report concludes that while the evidence is mixed, “overall the evidence would suggest that increased exposure to outlets selling unhealthy food increases a person’s likelihood of gaining weight”.

In relation to the effect of the food environment around schools on children and young people specifically, the evidence is less clear cut – with some research showing a link to obesity while other research does not.

Interestingly, there was evidence that access to outlets selling healthy food decreased the odds of being overweight or obese.

Research by Brent Council, involving seven secondary schools – four of which were within 400m of a fast food outlet – found that 27% of students said they would not bother going out at lunch if they had to walk more than 8 minutes.

It does seem like common sense – make fast food less readily obtainable and children will be less likely to consume it.

Prof Russell Viner, of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, has said “This food is tasty and cheap – it’s easy to blame the individual, but humans, particularly children, will find it hard to resist tempting food.”

England already making progress, Scotland likely to follow

In England, the National Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) outlines the role that planning can have in reducing obesity by limiting over-concentration of fast food takeaways, particularly around schools.  It also encourages planning authorities to limit takeaways in areas with high levels of obesity, deprivation and general poor health, and in areas with over-concentration and clustering of outlets within a specified area.

Similarly, the Child Obesity Strategy commits to developing resources to support local authorities who want to use their planning powers to restrict fast food takeaways, and providing up to date guidance and training for planning inspectors on the creation of healthy food environments.

A number of councils have already implemented 400m exclusion zones.  Some notable examples include St Helen’s Council, Sandwell Council, Dudley Council, and Milton Keynes.

Sadiq Khan has included proposals for a 400m exclusion zone around schools in the new Draft London Plan, and plans to limit the number of fast food takeaways near schools in Luton were approved in 2018.

At present, there are no powers to restrict fast food outlets on health grounds in Scotland – however, it is likely that this will change in the near future.

As well as the aforementioned research project, last year, the Scottish Government published the consultation, ‘A Healthier Future’, which commits to exploring the opportunity for the planning system to contribute to an improved food environment:

“We will research precedent, evidence and good practice on the relationship between the planning system and food environment, including exploring how food outlets in the vicinity of schools can be better controlled, with a view to informing the review of Scottish Planning Policy”.

In the December 2018 issue of Scottish Planning and Environmental Law (SPEL), Neil Collar of Brodies LLP concludes that:

“Taking account of Action 2.12 in ‘A Healthier Future’ and the research project, it seems likely that the draft National Planning Framework, expected to be published by the Scottish Government in 2019, will contain policies to control hot food takeaways and the food environment around schools. An evidence base to justify controls in local areas will be important”.

Creating a robust evidence base is crucial

Children have a right to grow up in an environment that supports them to attain the highest possible standard of health – and the planning system has a key role to play in facilitating this.

Of course, the planning system cannot address obesity on its own, and the causes of obesity are far wider and more complex than just the food environment.

Other approaches are also being put in place – including supporting food outlets to provide smaller portions and healthier options – some of which have been very successful already.

The creation of a robust evidence base upon which to make informed decisions regarding the location of fast food takeaways and the creation of healthy environments is essential.

There are already a number of useful datasets available for local authorities to use, including the Food environment assessment tool (Feat) and guidance on the creation of healthy food environments.

As more local authorities make use of their powers to restrict fast food outlets, it will be interesting to see whether more evidence emerges of the link between fast food and childhood obesity. We at the Information Service will, of course, be watching this with interest.

 Follow us on Twitter to discover which topics are interesting our research team.

Going underground: in London, basement digging is a cheaper way to property expansion – but councils are getting tough on “iceberg homes”

Posted on by
ANTHONY_SALVIN_-_11_Hanover_Terrace_Regent's_Park_London_NW1_4RJ_est (1)

London’s Hanover Terrace, where Damien Hirst is planning an ambitious basement extension to his 19th century villa. Image by Spudgun67 via Creative Commons

 “It was the newly dug three-storey basement that had the guests buzzing. Below the cinema, gym and spa (complete with sauna, pool and massage table) sprawled an enormous six-car garage. But how did the vehicles get down there? Our host, an American who worked in finance, was only too happy to demonstrate: The cars were lowered down by a custom-built automobile elevator built into the parking pad in the side garden.”
– Maclean’s 29 July 2015

Basement conversions and extensions are making a big noise in London. In 2001, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea received 46 planning applications for basement conversions. By 2013, that figure had soared to 450 applications. Rising house prices in the capital are making basement conversions more attractive, mostly to super-rich owners. The expansions can add millions to the value of their already expensive properties, and for those needing additional space a conversion can be cheaper than moving home.

But the trend to build down is not universally popular. Some conversions have hit the headlines because ambitious projects by rich and famous owners have triggered objections from their rich and famous neighbours:

  • in 2015, Jon Hunt, founder of Foxtons estate agency, won a legal battle with his neighbours (the French Embassy) to build an enormous basement to house his classic cars (the Embassy plans to challenge the ruling)
  • in 2013, Daimler-Benz heir Gert-Rudolf Flick got permission for a two-storey basement beneath his £30 million house in South Kensington. More than 50 local residents, including the cellist Julian Lloyd Webber, had objected to the construction plans, which they described as “entirely selfish”
  • last year, Queen guitarist Brian May launched a campaign to ban “iceberg homes” that can occupy more space below ground than the original property above

The bad feeling caused by these subterranean grand designs has spawned a new type of nimby – the “numbing” (Not Under My Bloody Idiot Neighbour’s Garden). Disgruntled neighbours’ concerns include:

  • the disruption caused by traffic, plant and equipment
  • the effects on the structural stability of nearby buildings and roads
  • the noise generated during construction (an experience described by Brian May as “an instrument of torture”)

The role of planning

Beyond the headlines, it’s planning authorities who have to deal with applications for basement extensions and to consider the implications.

Conversions of existing cellars don’t always require planning permission, unless the external appearance of the building is altered, for example by adding a light well. However, excavating the ground under a building to create a new basement may require planning permission, and these are the types of projects that can ignite disputes. As Westminster City Council’s 2014 planning guidance observes, with admirable understatement: “basement development is often contentious…”

Rewriting the rules on basement digging

In 2014, the rising tide of concerns prompted the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea to revise its policy on basement development. The new policy restricts the extent of basement excavation to no more than under half the garden or open part of the site and limits the depth of excavation to a single storey in most cases.

Westminster City Council has moved to make similar changes to its basement extension policy, as has Richmond Council. As well as acknowledging residents’ concerns about noise and disruption, councils are anxious to address the wider environmental impact both during and after basement development. Westminster’s policy notes that:

“The uses associated with basement spaces may be more energy intensive due to additional requirements for lighting, ventilation and pumps, particularly where underground rooms house swimming pools and media rooms.”

Even if planning permission is not needed for basement development, the changes must comply with building control rules on fire safety, ventilation and structure. Neighbours affected by basement projects should also be aware of their legal position:

The only way is down?

The number of planning applications for domestic basements in London may have more than tripled since 2011, but a sharp deceleration in the rate of growth last year indicates that the trend may have peaked. As more boroughs tighten the conditions imposed on basement development, building costs are likely to rise and planning processes may be prolonged.

For some owners, however, thousands of pounds in additional costs is a drop in the ocean. Last month, artist Damien Hirst overcame council objections to extend the basement of his home in Westminster. Once the work is complete, it could more than double the value of his historic mansion, making it worth £100 million.

More people, more houses, more dissatisfaction… Are we ready for higher-density living in the UK?

Posted on by

abstract windows in flats (Unsplash)

By Morwen Johnson

We shape our dwellings, and afterwards our dwellings shape us (Winston Churchill)

It’s estimated that we need 240,000 to 245,000 additional homes each year in order to meet housing demand and need in England. Statistics show that we are consistently failing to meet this level of housebuilding but how we change this situation is a matter of debate. The UK Government’s recent Productivity Plan included proposals to make development on brownfield land easier as well as freeing up public sector land assets and supporting higher density housing around commuter transport hubs. Others are recommending more controversial solutions, such as increasing building within the green belt (for example see reports from London First and the Adam Smith Institute).

It seems inevitable that the future requires housing at greater density but, particularly in London, alarm is now being sounded about superdensity and potential hyperdensity developments, which have become the norm in many global cities.

What is high density development?

From a planning point of view, density is intrinsically linked with creating viable communities which have a population to make amenities and infrastructure sustainable and cost-effective. Higher density designs (in urban environments) also increase the amount of street activity and thus, the perceived safety and attractiveness of a place.

Appropriate density is of course relative to context, and guidance such as the London Plan density matrix reflects this. Although there is no hard and fast definition, within urban areas a general density of around 70 to 100 dwellings per hectare (dph) level is common. In terms of new developments in major city centres like London, superdensity has been used to describe densities over 150 dph (or 450-500 habitable rooms). Hyperdensity can mean 350 dph or more.

Higher-density living does not necessarily mean high rise buildings though – careful design can increase neighbourhood density via mixed-tenure mid-rise developments. A group of four London-based architectural practices recently published a report Superdensity which aimed to provide positive guidance on how to ‘combine ambitious densities with popular and familiar urban forms’.

Space as a luxury or a necessity

While this may at first sight appear to be a debate about the planning system, it actually raises more fundamental questions about the aspirations and expectations we have for how we live.

There is a legacy in Britain of thinking that high-density housing means tower blocks in undesirable areas. Much urban regeneration in recent years has focused on replacing high-rise buildings. Lower-rise developments can also be high-density, if well designed, so the issue is actually often about housing quality rather than increased density, and whether the housebuilding industry is delivering the types of housing that people want.

RIBA’s Future Homes Commission highlighted that a focus on number of bedrooms ignores the potential of rooms as functional spaces. Floor space in the UK for new build housing is the smallest in Europe. And research in 2012 suggested that people value natural light, space for storage and flexible spaces which allow for socialisation. There is also a general hierarchy of desirable housing which it is still often assumed that people will move through during their lifecourse, especially as they start families – i.e. starter flat, 2 bed flat, terraced house or maisonette, semi-detached house, detached house with garden – as well as a move from rented property to owner-occupier.

For many people however these aspirations are impossible. Drawing on 2001 Census data, research has shown that although social housing tenants make up only 21% of families with children, they make up 79% of those families living on the fifth floor of a building or above. In London, nearly one third (31%) of all families with children living in social housing were found to reside on the second floor or above.

Smaller dwelling sizes can also affect our health. Many people living in flats or tenements have to dry laundry inside, which has been shown in studies by the Mackintosh Environmental Architecture Research Unit and the University of Manchester to have health risks. Lack of outdoor space for children to play (whether communal or private garden space) also has negative impacts. It seems that many people have to downsize both their living space aspirations and their quality of life.

It’s hip to be dense

The fact that we pay a premium for space, just as people who can afford it can choose to pay more for housing near transport connections or in particular school catchment areas, is nothing new. But as the discussion on high-density housing and the quality of new housing shows, it can be argued that the trends of the housing market are disadvantaging a large proportion of the population, and also younger generations. Access to housing (and increasingly housing space) is becoming a highly political issue.

Public suspicion of high-density housing is being overcome through subtle rebranding – terms such as the ‘compact city’, ‘pocket housing’ and ‘micro-housing’ have a cool edge which try to appeal to young urban-living professionals. And many award-winning high-density schemes also now have a strong focus on communal gardens or space, providing elements that traditionally would be delivered in private space.

Regardless of the marketing (or policy impetus), the truth however is in the living. Do people feel they are compromising in their housing choices or is there a wider shift in aspirations? And more importantly, as space becomes a scarcer commodity, are we just introducing another marker of inequality into the mix?

Follow us on Twitter to see what developments in public and social policy are interesting our research team.

We’ve made some of our member briefings freely available. View a selection of our housing publications on our website.