Understanding health-focussed planning policy clusters: The case of takeaway food outlet regulation in the Northeast

The updated National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF ) in England since 2024 has stated explicitly that local planning authorities should refuse applications for hot food takeaway (HFT) outlets within walking distance of schools, places where young people congregate, and locations where there is evidence that their concentration is having an adverse impact on local health, pollution or anti-social behaviour. Such policies have been evidenced to be widespread across England with Local Government Areas (LGAs) using a combination of health or obesity-focused policy criteria, alongside amenity and town centre vitality criteria to restrict HFTs . Growing numbers of HFT outlets has raised concerns about their impact on diet, obesity and subsequent public health outcomes.
The most common health-focused approach defines exclusion zones or ‘takeaway management zones’ (TMZs) around places for children and families which seek to restrict new consents for HFTs using formally adopted planning policies within Local Plans, or supplementary planning documents (SPDs).
While these policies align with the current NPPF, many were adopted while earlier iterations of the NPPF were in force, which by contrast only suggested that planning should aim to enable and support healthy lifestyles, for example through access to healthier food. In essence, restricting HFTs was not mandatory, and the adoption of planning policies for HFT regulation was at local discretion, and therefore did not happen across all of England.

Using the case of HFT regulation, this study examines TMZ policies as a case of voluntary policy transfer.
It identifies 8 key themes that in this case influenced the ability for health-focused planning policies to transfer between LGAs.
It discusses how subsequent ongoing reforms to the planning system may impact future policy transfer between LGAs.

Royal Town Planning Institute Early Career Research Grant