A hot food takeaway appeal in Stoke-on-Trent has been dismissed because a nearby public park brought the proposal within the August 2026 National Planning Policy Framework’s restrictions on outlets close to places used by children. Inspector N Bromley issued the decision on 5 November 2026. The Inspector was told that the nearest school was more than 800 metres away, but that was not enough to save the application.
The proposal was to change a commercial unit on Werrington Road, Bucknall, into a takeaway with extraction ducting. Stuart Anderson, of Pattys Bucknall, appealed against Stoke-on-Trent City Council’s refusal of application 26/FUL/00389. Hulton Abbey Park, behind a supermarket opposite the unit, became the decisive location.
The hot food takeaway appeal matters beyond Bucknall because it tests the Framework’s new Policy HC5 and its definition of reasonable walking distance. It also provides a striking comparison with a recent Romford decision, where the Inspector allowed a takeaway near a school because the premises were in a designated local centre.
Why the hot food takeaway appeal failed
The commercial unit sits along a busy mixed-use road, surrounded by housing, a supermarket and other businesses. The Inspector recorded that no relevant development plan policy was cited in the council’s reason for refusal. The Inspector therefore assessed the appeal against the applicable national planning policies rather than treating an unspecified local policy as the controlling test.
Policy HC5 of the revised National Planning Policy Framework says proposals for hot food takeaways should be refused within reasonable walking distance of schools and other places where young people congregate, unless the location is within a designated town centre. The Bucknall unit is not within such a centre, and the case therefore turned on the walking route to an existing public space.
The applicant said the nearest school was more than 800 metres away. Yet Policy HC5 is not limited to schools, and the Inspector did not regard that fact as settling the question. The entrance to Hulton Abbey Park could be reached through a public pedestrian walkway off Werrington Road, near the supermarket opposite the proposed business.
Hulton Abbey Park contains open grassland, a fishing pool, a children’s playground, basketball hoops and sports courts. The playground itself is roughly 500 metres from the premises. Crucially, however, the Inspector found that grassy areas and the vicinity of the fishing pool, both places where children might gather, lay within 400 metres along the accessible route.
For that reason, the Inspector considered the takeaway within a reasonable walking distance
of a place used by children and young people. The hot food takeaway appeal was dismissed notwithstanding the greater distance to the nearest school and the fact that the playground lay further away than the 400-metre benchmark.
What the Framework says about 400 metres
The official Framework Policy HC5 contains a location-based restriction as well as a separate provision addressing harmful concentrations of takeaways. Its Annex B glossary treats reasonable walking distance for this policy as around 400 metres or about five minutes where physical barriers, the available walking routes or local topography affect access.
This is a walking-distance concept, not a universal circle drawn around every school. Applicants need to establish usable pedestrian routes, the actual entrances to public places and which parts of a larger park are accessible. A playground located outside the benchmark will not necessarily rescue an application if children congregate in another accessible part of the park closer to the premises.
The hot food takeaway appeal also demonstrates why descriptions of nearby facilities matter. A public park may contain several destinations, each with a different walking distance. Measuring only to a school’s gate or to the middle of a park would risk missing the part of the planning policy which the Inspector actually applied.
For use-class purposes, a new hot food takeaway is generally a sui generis use, distinct from many ordinary Class E shops and cafés. Planning Geek’s sui generis planning guide explains that distinction, and our change of use guide explains why a change in business activity may require a fresh planning permission.
Why business benefits did not outweigh the policy
The Inspector accepted that bringing an existing unit into use could provide jobs, local services and other economic benefits. The applicant also offered a healthier menu, particularly for children. Those matters counted in favour of the proposal, but the Inspector gave the benefits only modest weight because of the small scale of the business.
Noise, odour, residential amenity, highways, air quality, flooding and contamination had not produced objections capable of justifying refusal. Nor was a sequential-test objection pursued. It would be wrong, however, to describe those points as positive permission in their own right. The Inspector treated them as essentially neutral or of limited positive value.
The Framework’s wider presumption in favour of sustainable development did not reverse the outcome. The Inspector considered Policies S3 and S4 and explained that a proposal failing a national decision-making policy which expressly indicates refusal may not receive the ordinary benefit of that presumption. The Inspector concluded that, because the proposal conflicted with Policy HC5, it should be refused and the presumption in favour of sustainable development did not apply.
A hot food takeaway appeal involving an established building cannot therefore assume that reusing premises or offering healthier items will outweigh the location rule. Operators should test proximity to schools, parks and other gathering places at the earliest site-selection stage, before committing to extraction equipment or a business lease.
How this differs from the Romford takeaway appeal
The Stoke decision is an instructive contrast with Planning Geek’s Romford takeaway appeal report of 28 October 2026. The Romford premises were within 400 metres of an infant school, yet an Inspector allowed the use because the site formed part of a designated local centre. The explicit exception in Policy HC5 was important to that result.
In Bucknall, the Inspector found no designated town-centre location, so the exception did not assist the applicant. The underlying policy did not change between the cases. The relevant local designation, the route from the premises and the places where children congregate produced different outcomes.
For prospective operators, Planning Geek’s town centre sequential test guide offers wider context on centre designations and out-of-centre proposals. The HC5 town-centre exception is a distinct test, however, and it should not be confused with demonstrating compliance with the sequential approach.
What the decision means for applicants
The practical lesson of the hot food takeaway appeal is to map real walking routes, rather than rely on a brief statement that the nearest school is beyond a particular radius. Identify parks, playing courts, playgrounds and other accessible spaces as well as education premises, then explain any genuine route barriers and any relevant town-centre designation.
Councils should also be precise when drafting refusal reasons. Stoke-on-Trent’s reason did not identify a local policy, but the Inspector was able to resolve this case by applying the national Framework directly. A properly evidenced map of nearby facilities can be more persuasive than a general claim that another takeaway would be unhealthy.
The result is not a finding that every takeaway near a park must be refused in every circumstance. Policy HC5 contains its own definitions and exceptions, and each case depends on the route, location and available evidence. Here, the key combination was an out-of-centre commercial unit, an accessible park and gathering areas within reasonable walking distance.
Decision and sources
Inspector N Bromley dismissed appeal 6016507 on 5 November 2026. The application was Stoke-on-Trent reference 26/FUL/00389 at Werrington Road, Bucknall. The appeal decision is also available on AppealBase.
0 Comments