# 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
- **Tags:** hot-food-takeaway, tr6-highway-safety, conditions-unenforceable

## 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
- **HC5: conflict.** about 315 m from Ickburgh School and within 400 m of two youth and community facilities, outside any designated centre; walk-in sales and the food sold could not be controlled by condition; limb not cited (DL 3-7)
- **TR6(4): fail.** narrow pavement, very limited parking and a Red Route frontage; comings and goings by cycles, motorbikes and cars would have an unacceptable impact on highway safety; letter says "paragraph 4 of Policy TR6" (DL 8-11)

## 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
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010033
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/3181fc05-4258-4146-8b63-f6ebe2be90aa

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010033.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. Source and data: https://github.com/planningdistilled/research.