Plans for a drive-through McDonald’s in Hove were turned down by councillors this afternoon (Wednesday 6 May).
They refused planning permission after people living near the Old Shoreham Road site held another protest – this time outside Hove Town Hall where councillors discussed the proposal.
Inside the town hall, Brighton and Hove City Council’s Planning Committee spent almost two hours dealing with the application as members asked questions and debated the burger chain’s plans.
The key concerns were about road safety and traffic, including extra pollution, as well as public health and the potential loss of a protected light industrial workspace.
McDonald’s applied to demolish two buildings – occupied by Pavilion Batteries and tool hire company PR Industrial – between Majestic Wine and the Star Property Group and opposite the eastern end of Hove Cemetery South.
The plot, 267 Old Shoreham Road, used to house a KAP used car showroom.
Nine members of the Planning Committee voted to refuse the plans and one member abstained.
Hangleton and Knoll resident Emma Russell said that more than 3,000 children passed through the area on their way to and from school – and the National Planning Policy Framework discouraged fast-food outlets near schools.
Dr Russell said: “We have concerns that this is targeting young people – and we live in an area with increased rates of deprivation and health inequality.
“We really care about the wellbeing of our children. We feel that we have strategies in the city to protect young people with regards to sexual health, health and wellbeing and mental health. And this is no different and for this reason it shouldn’t be allowed.”
Officials told councillors that Brighton and Hove had the second-highest density of fast-food outlets in the south east.
Labour councillor John Hewitt, who represents Hangleton and Knoll ward, spoke against the application, saying that the small industrial estate was sympathetic to the residential area.
Councillor Hewitt said: “Introducing a drive-through restaurant would fundamentally change the character of this area.
“This model relies heavily on car use and would increase traffic in the area, especially when entering and exiting the site, as well as encouraging delivery drivers using cars and motorbikes.”
He said that more than 300 people in the community had objected to the application, as well as five nearby schools.
Planning consultant Mike Spurgeon, for McDonald’s, said that the site was at least a half a mile walk away from the nearest school, Hove Park.
And a similar drive-through fast-food outlet – a branch of Burger King – had been granted planning permission to open less than 500 yards from the school in the Goldstone Retail Park.
Mr Spurgeon also said that “extensive external modelling” based on up-to-date traffic and queue surveys suggested that the scheme would not significantly add cause jams or parking problems.
He said: “We’re confident that the impacts have been fully addressed and there will be no adverse effects.”
The plans included 39 car parking spaces but council policy indicated that the maximum number should be 10.
Transport consultant Catherine Chapman, for McDonald’s, said that parking standards had been tested at a planning appeal in Norwich, with the inspector finding in McDonald’s favour.
She said: “The space allows for an articulated lorry to make deliveries to the proposed store while still allowing for customer parking.
“The highways authority has asked us to rigorously test the traffic impact and so we have assessed the traffic based on surveys of McDonald’s at Shoreham and Brighton Marina which have 28 and 43 parking spaces.
“The parking provision that we’re proposing is not only in line with other existing McDonald’s, it’s sufficient to accommodate the demand.”
Labour councillor Paul Nann raised concerns about the link between fast-food outlets and health inequalities.
Councillor Nann said: “One thing to be mindful of is that Hangleton would qualify by most metrics as a food desert.
“To introduce a fast-food restaurant into this environment would have a negative impact on the already quite ferocious health inequalities that exist in that area.”
Conservative councillor Carol Theobald abstained from the vote, saying that healthy eating was not a planning matter although Labour councillor Julie Cattell said that it was a consideration.
Councillor Theobald said: “The 39 parking spaces I thought was quite sensible. I just wondered if 10 probably might not be enough.
“It says in the report that this is not the city centre but where would you put a drive-through in our city centre. You don’t like cars in there at all.”
Green councillor Kerry Pickett noted concerns about the loss of the light industrial site which is protected by the council’s strategic planning blueprint, known as the City Plan.
Councillor Pickett said: “In terms of public health and road safety issues, this application may make things worse.
“Also, I think that we need to safeguard the protected industrial site for the use that it currently is used for, not change it.”
A report to the committee recommended refusing the application and councillors backed officials, voting 9-0 to reject McDonald’s proposal.
Labour could give out free breakfast here?
I read one of the Ward Councillor’s submissions, their NPPF argument was solid.
Disappointed that Hangleton consumers are being denied choice. Refusing McDonald’s doesn’t improve any resident’s access to so-called ‘healthy’ food.
You speak for Hangleton *and* question healthy food..? This must keep you busy.
Utter nonsense, there is an uncle Sam’s at the grenadier. It’s way better than crapDonald’s
They should have looked at a location like bounrdy road or batchington road and stop the obsession with having a drive through. Those high streets are actually desperate for something like that.
No Dave, they’re not desperate for a McDonald’s.
Healthy food and home cooking would be beneficial to most families, do they still teach domestic science in schools ???
Home economics, I believe so, yes!
Build a Toby carvery then please as a toby carvery driver though then or a kfc
You need to get Toby to buy the site and then put in a planning application!
really we have a no harvester now in brighton near the sea life centre now you know
Harvester in the Marina!
I know but its like £45 around trip in a taxi you know from the other end of hove you i am not paying for it in a taxi you know
I am no fan of McDonalds but BHCC have left themselves wide open to a successful appeal on the grounds that virtually none of the arguments against this development were based on material planning objections.
Having emotive opinions about kids’ health and what they should or should not eat is not a material planning objection. McDonalds also sell salad, supposing we take this as a valid line of argument for a planning decision. Goodness knows what Cllr Parrott is doing on that committee as she didn’t even seem to know how to ask a question or anything about planning. She got her deprived areas wrong too. Plus they had decided the outcome before the debate even started which is surely predetermination. I am no fan of McDonalds but the council seem to have shot themselves in the foot with sloppy arguments on this one. The Chair was better than many, but the level of debate showed an alarming level of ignorance on planning matters, which could well cost the council a lot of money in this case.
Incorrect. The NPPF has some material planning considerations against this development.
I hate to say it but I predict this decision will be successfully appealed because the Council demonstrated clear bias and did not bother to employ a Planning Barrister to close all holes in their legal arguments, leaving it to an emotive appeal from a local resident and amateur argument from Councillors and Officers. Resident victory may therefore be temporary.
Completely disagree. No bias has been demonstrated, employing random lawyers isn’t a requirement, and there are clear material considerations in the NPPF, and the land usage is incompatible with this kind of business. Reading the article in full would have given you all these answers, Tracy.
Employing a barrister to go through every planning report would add significant extra costs and delays to the entire system for little benefit and still not guarentee councillors would approve the recommendation – and that’s what planning officers do – make recommendations
Should the applicant appeal then one will be brought in at the approriate time.
But the decision to reject wasn’t made because of bias but for good reasons such as the loss of a industrial site.
Now those reasons may not be expressed using legal language and cite policies but that doesn’t invalidate them and should it be necessary planning officers can soon do that.
Incorrect Tracy as usual.
Loss of industrial site and traffic problems are legitimate
Spoons maccies or JD would work for people with more money in their pockets now
why not have a new Morriston store then now here
Wot about a hotel then in hove then please
Wot about a hotel then in hove then please for people then say in then
Wot about a hotel then in hove then please for people then say in then not a mcdonald’s