# 23 Manchester Street, Luton (shop to takeaway)

- **Decision:** dismissed, 7 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: F Leung
- **Authority:** Luton (East of England)
- **Appeal reference:** 6009647
- **Application reference:** 26/00073/FUL
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Change of use of vacant ground-floor shop (Class E) to hot food takeaway (sui generis), replacement shopfront and rear flue
- **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area, listed-building-setting
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** HC5(1)(a), HC5(1)(b)
- **Development plan policies:** Luton Local Plan 2011-2031 (2017) LLP22, LLP21, LLP3, LLP1, LLP25
- **Main issues:** town centre vitality and viability, health and wellbeing
- **Tags:** hot-food-takeaway, hc5-town-centre-exception, frontage-policy, over-concentration, no-consultation-on-2026-framework

## Summary
A proposed takeaway in a vacant shop on a Luton town-centre secondary frontage. It passed HC5 on both limbs: the designated town centre is an express exception to limb (a), and there was no location-specific evidence of health harm for limb (b). It was dismissed under the local frontage policy, because non-retail units would reach two-thirds of the frontage.

## Issues and findings
- **Transition.** "The changes made to the Framework, insofar as they relate to the substantive matters in this appeal, do not fundamentally alter the relevant policy position" (DL ¶3).
- **HC5(1)(a): town centre exception.** "I acknowledge that children and young people may reasonably be expected to congregate at and around St George's Square. Nevertheless, the town centre location is a relevant exception under Policy HC5 of the Framework" (DL ¶17). The inspector footnoted the Annex B "reasonable walking distance" for HC5: around 400 m or five minutes' walk (fn 1).
- **HC5(1)(b): concentration evidence.** The public-health material "does not adequately demonstrate that this particular location at Manchester Street has such a concentration of hot food takeaways that it is causing an adverse impact on local health" (DL ¶18). "there is limited planning control over the precise food choices" (DL ¶19).
- **Frontage policy: CONFLICT.** "The proposal would increase the number of non-retail units to six out of nine units … would significantly exceed the 50% threshold set out in Policy LLP22" (DL ¶8). The inspector noted the change to the Use Classes Order (DL ¶7) but did not reduce the policy's weight.

## Planning balance
Plan-led. The frontage conflict and harm to vitality and viability outweighed limited shopfront benefits (DL ¶28-29). No S4 or TC2 analysis.

## What made the difference
The frontage percentage and the lack of marketing evidence. On HC5, the case shows the town-centre exception doing its work, and that limb (b) needs site-specific evidence of harm from concentration. Compare Ruislip (PINS-6011516): there Annex A para 2 was used to cut the weight of a pre-Class E frontage policy, but it was not raised here, and a 50% non-A1 cap was applied in full.

## Transferable points
- HC5(1)(a) does not apply within a designated town centre, even where young people congregate nearby (DL ¶17).
- HC5(1)(b) needs evidence that a concentration at the specific location is harming health. General public-health strategies are not enough (DL ¶18-19).
- Reasonable walking distance for HC5 is around 400 m (Annex B) (fn 1).
- Pre-2020 frontage caps may still be applied in full where Annex A para 2 is not argued. Compare PINS-6011516.

## Policy findings
- **HC5(1)(a): pass.** opposite the central library, where young people congregate, but within a designated town centre, which is an express exception; school not within the 400 m Annex B distance (DL 16-17)
- **HC5(1)(b): pass.** public-health strategies did not show that a concentration at this location is harming local health; outlets offer varied food (DL 18-21)
- **LLP22 (Luton LP): conflict.** non-retail units would rise to 6 of 9 in the secondary frontage, against a 50% cap; applied in full despite pre-dating Class E; no marketing evidence (DL 6-9, 14)
- **TC2: not-engaged.** not cited; vitality and viability assessed under local policy only

## Key facts
- Secondary shopping frontage facing St George's Square, Luton town centre; former grocery store, vacant
- Nine units on the frontage, five already non-retail food outlets
- Opposite Luton Central Library; Dallow Primary School beyond reasonable walking distance
- Parties not re-consulted; changes "do not fundamentally alter the relevant policy position" (DL 3)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009647
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/af4e37ed-d6cd-4fcd-865c-3990bdd0baba

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009647.html

A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.