259 Wick Road, Hackney, London E9 (takeaway and delivery-only food premises)

Decision

dismissed, 1 October 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: Martin Andrews

Authority

Hackney (London)

Appeal reference

6010033

Application reference

2026/0268

Procedure

written representations

Development

Change of use of the ground floor from a barber shop (Class E) to a sui generis takeaway and delivery-only food premises, open 10:00 to 20:00

Site context

inside settlement

Green Belt

No

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

HC5, TR6(4)

Development plan policies

Hackney Local Plan 2033 (2020) LP32, LP39, LP43, London Plan 2021 E9, T6

Main issues

child obesity and health inequalities; highway safety

Summary

A takeaway and delivery-only food use in a former barber shop in Hackney was dismissed. The premises are about 315 m from a school and outside any designated centre, contrary to the local 400 m exclusion policy and to Framework policy HC5. Activity from delivery riders and walk-in customers on a narrow pavement beside a Red Route would also have an unacceptable impact on highway safety under TR6(4).

Issues and findings

• HC5: CONFLICT. "if permission were to be granted for a sui generis use it would not be possible to control by condition or any other means the proportion of walk-in orders, including from children, compared with deliveries" (DL ¶6). The scheme would be "in harmful conflict with Local Plan Policy LP39; London Plan Policy E9 and with Government policy in Policy HC5 of the recently revised National Planning Policy Framework August 2026" (DL ¶7).
• TR6(4): FAIL. "the comings and goings from cycles, motorbikes and cars associated with premises on a site with a narrow pavement, very limited parking and fronting onto a Red Route highway would be such as to result in an increase in hazards and overall have an unacceptable impact on highway safety" (DL ¶11).

Planning balance

None is run. Each issue is a conflict with the plan and with a Framework policy that says development should be refused, and "the appeal fails" (DL ¶12). S4 is not mentioned.

What made the difference

The use class. Permission would be for a sui generis takeaway, and no condition could hold the operator to deliveries only or to a particular menu. The delivery-led business model therefore did not answer either the school-proximity policy or the Red Route parking problem.

Transferable points

• HC5 is applied alongside a local 400 m school exclusion zone; a site about 315 m from a school and outside a designated centre conflicts with both (DL ¶3–4, ¶7).
• A delivery-only or healthier-food business model carries little weight where the permission could not control walk-in sales or the food sold (DL ¶6).
• TR6(4) "unacceptable impact on highway safety" can arise from delivery and customer activity at premises with no lawful stopping place (DL ¶8–11).

Policy findings

Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.

Key facts

• Local Plan LP39 and London Plan E9 bar hot food takeaways within 400 m of schools outside designated centres (DL 3)
• Appellant argued a delivery-led model with prices beyond schoolchildren and healthier Caribbean meals, supported by a Health Impact Assessment (DL 5)
• Residents reported pavement parking and obstruction of the rear mews from other premises (DL 9)
• Council criticised the lack of delivery trip data; the inspector thought this could not be forecast accurately (DL 10)
• No switch paragraph; the Framework is cited as "the recently revised National Planning Policy Framework August 2026" (DL 7)

Sources

• Appeal on the Planning Inspectorate appeals service
• Decision letter (Planning Inspectorate)

This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.