McDonald’s could be off the menu in Hove after officials said that councillors should turn down plans for a takeaway and drive-through.
The fast-food company has applied for planning permission to build a new branch at 268 Old Shoreham Road, Hove, next to Majestic Wines.
Neighbours have held protests – including one last week – as they try to see off the plans which are due to be decided by Brighton and Hove City Council’s Planning Committee next week.
A report to the Planning Committee said that, if successful, the application would undermine green travel, add to traffic and increase road safety risks.
It would also make fast food more readily available near schools and parks used by children while reducing the amount of employment space and the number of good-quality jobs.
Two businesses are 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 council has received 336 objections to the plans including from Aldrington Primary School, Blatchington Mill School, Cardinal Newman Catholic School, Goldstone Primary School, Hove Park School, Hove Civic Society and the Regency Society.
Two Labour councillors, Faiza Baghoth and John Hewitt, who represent Hangleton and Knoll ward, have also objected to the application, raising several concerns.
Councillor Baghoth said: “Research shows that areas of low economic income are more prone to fast food and junk food which is detrimental to their health at the cost of the NHS which is already struggling.
“Hangleton and Knoll is the third most deprived area in our vicinity so this risk will be increased with a McDonald’s on their doorstep, so to speak.”
Councillor Hewitt said: “The entrance and exit to the proposed drive-through are directly on to the Old Shoreham Road which is a busy dual carriageway.
“Vehicles accessing or exiting the drive-through and turning either west or east will cause a build up of traffic.
“Hove Fire Station, which is situated near by, and the junction of Holmes Avenue will both be impacted.”
Labour councillor Jacob Allen was the council’s cabinet member for adult social care, public health and service transformation when he objected to the proposal.
Councillor Allen said: “The NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework) explicitly states that local planning authorities should refuse applications for hot-food takeaways and fast-food outlets within walking distance of schools and other places where children and young people congregate.”
The NPPF said that town centre locations were more suitable but discouraged the approval of plans for fast-food restaurants where there was evidence of a concentration of them and that it was having an adverse effect on local health, pollution or anti-social behaviour.
Councillor Allen said: “I feel this site is outside of the scope allowable under planning policy and it therefore should not be considered acceptable.”
The council’s public health, sustainable transport, food policy and planning policy teams have also objected to the McDonald’s application.
The council has received 111 comments in support of the scheme.
One anonymous supporter, whose details were redacted by the council, said: “I would welcome this McDonald’s drive-thru in the neighbourhood.
“I drive to Shoreham once a month to buy a McPlant before going through the car wash and it will be significantly more convenient to do it here and at the Shell garage.”
Another anonymous supporter, whose details were also redacted, said: “I approve of this development.
“The additional jobs this will create will be of a net benefit and, in my opinion, this outweighs the potential noise disruption which are unproven and can be easily mitigated.”
McDonald’s said that it had addressed planners’ concerns about employment in a statement submitted to the council through the company’s agent, Planware, last year.
The fast-food giant said: “The current site supports limited employment which, even when previously occupied by the car showroom, was not comparable with the employment generation associated with the proposed development, which is significantly higher.
“As identified within the commercial report, the existing buildings have had no direct interest for any industrial or office use and do not have any future for commercial occupation given their poor existing condition.”
McDonald’s also said that there was no agreed definition of an appropriate walking distance from a school to a fast-food outlet although Public Health England said that 400m would be a reasonable walking distance.
The nearest school is more than 800m away on foot.
The council’s Planning Committee is due to meet at Hove Town Hall at 2pm on Wednesday 6 May. The meeting is scheduled to be webcast.
Hopefully the Council will side with their officials and reject this development on the grounds of traffic safety.
Nothing good ever happens in the vicinity of the big gold M
Why not a Toby carvery then please then now its the best you know
Or have a mcdonald’s with no car parking online order only
Or click and and deliver to a home or flat or a office and a park bench then for order only then
Why not let westside only placehaven have a mcdonald’s then now please
Would make a lot more sense to put on down in blatchingtom road area. Can you imagine the gridlock having it on old Shoreham road would have lol
So you believe that putting this drive-through on a single lane road, would reduce congestion in comparison to putting it on a dual carriageway?
You have clearly mastered critical thinking – well done.
love your name
The same reasons for stopping the development apply equally to Burger King, Bankers Hangleton, Uncle Sams, Co-op, ALDI, LIDL, and Sainsbury’s. All of these sell “unhealthy food”, are within walking distance of schools, and cause increased traffic. It just needs to be planned for.
What would these NIMBY objectors prefer the unused site being used for?
A hostel for asylum seekers 😁
You advance a brave thesis. Please elaborate.
Why “brave”? Just pointing out that there are other locations in the area that supply “unhealthy” food to children, and that any “traffic” concerns can be addressed with suitable planning 😊
Why add to those unhealthy outlets then?!
The spot should be used for a barbershop, a charity shop and a vape store. We need more of those.
Ever since the opening of the Brighton Marina one the surrounding streets are littered with McDonald’s wrappers.
No they’re not. Brighton Marina is typically kept very clean.
What nonsense – Having a fast food outlet brings litter – It’s true near any of the outlets around the city.
The marina does have a lot of Mc’Ds litter around, but people are employed to clean it.
“Brighton Marina is typically kept very clean.” – Yes, after it’s been cleaned. The litter is still a problem.
You’re always argumentative, but never have anything of substance to say.
If the litter is being cleaned, then it’s not a problem, and the original statement is proven false. Thanks for agreeing with me, I guess?
If only the cleaning services were extended to the beach and the surrounding streets.
I approve of this application, so well done to all who have spoken out against unproven and frankly ridiculous statements. If it’s turned down I hope McDonald’s appeals as they probably will.
I can understand that they have to take traffic concerns seriously but I disagree with rejecting it based on the food it serves. Following those guidelines and refusing “applications for hot-food takeaways and fast-food outlets within walking distance of schools and other places where children and young people congregate.” would stop fast-food outlets from opening *anywhere* in the city (the centre has a primary school).
One of the schools that objected here is Cardinal Newman Catholic School, which is a 30+ minute walk away. It would take the same time for Cardinal Newman pupils to walk to the Western Road McDonald’s!
I believe the guidelines state that town centres are specifically exempted in the wording?
I dont see what the issue is. No one forcing anyone to eat here.
I see if they deny it, it would be overturned on appeal, meaning council would have to pay McDonald’s costs and their ownw
The council would certainly have to pay their own costs but it’s not automatic that they have to pay the McDonalds costs of any appeal – the planning inspector would do that and costs are only in exceptional circumstances.
It’s always an important consideration; you make a good point. And it is also a stick to ensure that the planning decisions are made correctly.