A protest is due to be held this evening (Tuesday 21 April) by neighbours campaigning against plans for a 24/7 McDonald’s drive-thru in Hove.
The proposal is for a fast-food diner and takeaway in Old Shoreham Road, Hove, next to the Majestic Wine shop.
One of the organisers said: “We are holding another protest rally at 6pm … With a hearing expected soon, we feel it’s important to come together again and make our concerns heard.”
Hove Against McDonald’s said on the group’s website: “It is important that this application is rejected.
“McDonald’s and their agents seem to be doing the bare minimum legally to comply with the planning application process.
“There was no consultation with the community prior to the application being lodged with the council.
“There is one small easily missed A4 notice on a lamp post adjacent to the site with details of the application and nothing else.”
The group said that many people were not consulted even though their homes would be yards from the all-night and all-day drive-thru, if approved by councillors.
This was, the groups said, partly because of the regulations about consultations on planning applications and because there was one low-level building between them and the burger bar – so that they did not share a boundary.
Two businesses are currently based at the site, Pavilion Batteries and tool hire company PR Industrial, opposite the eastern end of Hove Cemetery South.
The plot, formerly a KAP used car showroom, is between Majestic Wines and the Star Property Group. The existing buildings would all be demolished.
McDonald’s said that the drive-through would include a “fast forward” lane, giving customers a third booth to go to if there were any delays – to help keep traffic flowing.
The company said in its application to Brighton and Hove City Council that it wanted to sell food and drink to be consumed on and off the premises. There would be 79 seats inside.
The application said: “The proposed development represents a multimillion-pound investment, creating jobs both during the construction and operation phases, resulting in many associated economic benefits for the local area.
“The proposed development will provide over 120 jobs for the community.”
The plans include 42 car parking spaces, including three “accessible” bays and a couple of overspill “grill” bays, with two electric vehicle charging points.
The plans also include three spaces for motorbikes and eight for bicycles as well as a couple of staff bike lockers.
One anonymous objector, whose details were redacted by the council, said: “This is on a route to school for three major secondary schools plus numerous primary schools.
“I really don’t think another place serving unhealthy fast foods will do anything other than have a negative impact on the health of children and adults when we should be educating children to eat healthier for obvious reasons.”
An anonymous comment in support said: “Great addition to the area! We’ve got to have jobs for local young people/students and for all the flats and developments we are building in Hove.
“It’s also tucked away on the industrial site so isn’t much of a change in regards to noise to what is already there.”
Another anonymous supporter said: “McDonald’s is a great fast food restaurant and we are sorely needing one in this area.
“They are one of the biggest companies in the world and we need a branch in this area as it will be wildly popular.”
To view the plans or comment on them, click here. The application number is BH2025/00019.
“McDonald’s and their agents seem to be doing the bare minimum legally to comply with the planning application process.”
…so they have complied with the planning application process. Bit of a undermining of their own argument?
And clearly that publicity was read by people otherwise these protests wouldn’t be happening!
Also protests don’t count as objections for planning purposes.
If you are for or against any application people must make a formal submission via the planning portal.
Indeed, and the quantity of the comments made is fairly irrelevant in an application, as detailed by the planning inspectorate in their appeal outcome letter regarding the Gasworks, but rather the quality of the comments and their grounding based on legal planning considerations.
The difference between not liking something, and it being lawfully unsound in planning law, is sometimes not well understood by people.
There have been many formal responses made on the planning page too
I’d be quite concerned about the traffic implications as this is a major route. The smell and litter impact nevermind the light and noise pollution could have adverse effects and legitimate grounds for refusal.
Absolutely, and those are very fair and reasonable concerns to express, and should be answered in their extended planning documentation.
Take lighting for example, there’s an light impact assessment on the planning portal that speaks to how that is managed and mitigated and is fairly comprehensive. It’s a good answer to a reasonable question. And a good foundation for constructive conversation and improvements to the design. https://planningapps.brighton-hove.gov.uk/online-applications/files/5350371FB36ABCF2A84A85959CCDE2DE/pdf/BH2025_00019-LIGHTING_IMPACT_ASSESSMENT-20787800.pdf
Clowns in charge been listening to Corporate again instead of the people they serve, they should keep that type of 24hr traffic stop to an industrial area, it is for late hrs drive through not city streets. Crossbush by Arundel is a good example of how it can be done.
Stan perhaps leave any criticism until a decision has actually been made.
And perhaps make a formal submission making your views on the scheme known so they can be considered.
It’s not even gone to planning committee yet!
True, me getting ahead of the programm.
Would have made more sense to stick a supermarket there and put the Maccy on the old home base end with entrance off the main road (essentially swapping them) but o well. It will be good for youth employment but the traffic might be a issue (as you sometimes have at shoreham)
Benjamin, I admire your confidence in a PDF solving real-world problems. I’m sure the “comprehensive” lighting report will be a great comfort at 2am when bedrooms nearby are getting a lovely glow from headlights, menu boards, and a constant stream of cars using that “fast forward” lane.
Planning documents always look neat on paper—traffic flows smoothly, lights are “mitigated,” and noise is “within acceptable limits.” Reality tends to be a bit less… theoretical.
And while you’re technically right that legal compliance is the baseline, it’s a pretty low bar to celebrate. People aren’t objecting because they didn’t read the paperwork—they’re objecting because they have to live with the outcome.
I’m glad you agree and confirmed what a planning process is. 😑
Oh, I understand perfectly what the planning process is—that’s exactly the problem. It’s a system that looks tidy in documents and presentations, then quietly shifts the burden onto the people who actually have to live with the consequences.
Your response basically boils down to “the paperwork exists, therefore the concerns don’t matter.” That’s not reassurance—it’s dismissal dressed up as procedure.
People aren’t confused about how planning works. They’re frustrated because they’ve seen how often “mitigation” and “acceptable limits” translate into very real, very constant disruption once something is built.
If your best defense is that it ticks the minimum legal boxes, don’t be surprised when people push back. That’s not misunderstanding the process—that’s understanding it all too well.
You really don’t understand James, but I don’t blame you. GPT doesn’t understand nuance and tries to filter it into binary choices like “it’s not this, it’s this,” – which is why you’re still arguing about minimums when I specifically said more than that.
Why do the build a Toby carvery restaurant then please as hove really need one now on a good bus route and a good place for a taxi as well you know its like miss now in the area
Why do the build a Toby carvery restaurant then please as hove really need one now on a good bus route and a good place for a taxis as well you know its like miss now in the area os you do have to travel far away or miles for a good meal out
Why Do the no build a Toby carvery restaurant then please as hove really need one now on a good bus route and a good place for a taxis as well you know its like miss now in the area os you do have to travel far away or miles for a good meal out
Why Do the not build a Toby carvery restaurant then please as hove really need one now on a good bus route and a good place for a taxis as well you know its like miss now in the area os you do have to travel far away or miles for a good meal out
Man REALLY wants a carvery!
Can’t beat dry gammon and cold potatoes eh, almost as good as McDonald’s cardboard burgers.
Better use of the site would be light industrial.
It’s a major route through a residential area. Drivers pulling out while stuffing a burger in their face
They’d likely point to their many outlets that are on much higher-risk roads in response to that.
What an ugly blot on the landscape. They don’t even build them in jolly colours any more. Should the council be encouraging obesity like this?
Not a council decision. But there are some considerations for the placement of fast food establishments being within walking distance of a school within the planning framework; there’s a Ward Councillor submission in there that points to it.