Bid for new Jarrow food shop serving up sandwiches, pastries and pizzas thrown out over obesity fears

The national Planning Inspectorate, in a decision published this month, has dismissed an appeal against a previous council planning ruling for 18 Bede Burn Road in the Jarrow area.

Back in November, 2024, South Tyneside Council’s planning department refused an application for the site following obesity concerns and road safety fears.

Applicants had applied for permission to convert the building from its former dental laboratory use to a mixed use, namely a “commercial catering unit under a mixed use selling both hot and cold food and hot and cold drinks”.

The application from “Lifestyle Express Store” said the proposal would offer hot and cold sandwiches, pastries, pizzas, wedges and other hot and cold food.

During a council consultation exercise on the plan however, 26 letters of objection were lodged raising a range of concerns, including odour and noise, reduced privacy, anti-social behaviour, parking pressures, highway safety and more.

An objection was also submitted by the council’s public health department on health grounds, citing the importance of reducing obesity under the council’s strategic priority of “healthier people”.

South Tyneside Council’s planning department refused the planning application on November 14, 2024 and ruled the plans would be “harmful to health and well-being, and related strategies to tackle unhealthy lifestyles and obesity”.

Go beyond the story - sign up for our Shields Gazette newsletters

This was because the plans fell within an area (Monkton ward) where year six obesity levels, under the national child measurement programme, “significantly exceeded” the 10 per cent threshold set out in council planning guidance focused on “hot food takeaways and health”.

The second refusal reason included highway safety, with council planners stating that “providing no dedicated parking provision and servicing alongside existing parking restrictions on the highway, would result in a severe impact on the highway network”.

It was argued that the plans would result in an “unacceptable increase in vehicles being parked indiscriminately and illegally on the public highway, impacting on the free flow of vehicular traffic on a carriageway within a one-way gyratory system […] and where the premises are in close proximity to a bend within the highway and junction”.

Council planning officers also acknowledged the food business plans were for a mixed use but raised concerns about the hot food takeaway proportion of the business increasing above 50 per cent and even “evolving into a use where the hot food takeaway element becomes the sole use.”

The applicant later lodged an appeal against the council refusal and a planning inspector was appointed by the Secretary of State to rule on the matter.

A decision published on March 7, 2025, has confirmed that the planning inspector has upheld the council’s original refusal decision and dismissed the appeal.

The planning inspector, in an appeal decision report, concluded the proposal would “increase young people’s access to purchase unhealthy foods” and would be “harmful to health and well-being of residents” and “harmful to highway safety”.

Although it was noted that there was a “fallback position” where the site could serve food and drink where consumption of that food and drink is “mostly undertaken on the premises”, the planning inspector said plans for the building did not show any seated areas and noted the unit was “too small to accommodate tables and chairs”.

In this context, the planning inspector said that “the consumption of food and drink is unlikely to be mostly undertaken on the premises” and that this fallback position would be given “limited weight” in the determination of the appeal.

It was also noted that the site was “located on a main thoroughfare linking Jarrow School to the surrounding residential areas” and that there would be a “strong likelihood that the appeal scheme would be a destination for young people”.

Get the latest updates - follow us on our Facebook page

On highway safety matters, the planning inspector noted the proposal did “not include any parking provision, nor […] any information about servicing, or what arrangements would be in place for any element of a delivery service for customers”.

It was noted that “despite the small scale of the proposed operations, the short-term nature of visits associated with the proposed use could generate a high turnover, and therefore a large volume of customers”.

The appeal decision report added: “The appeal site is within walking distance of various dwellings and so there is a strong likelihood that some customers would walk to the premises.

“Nevertheless, it is also the case that some customers would drive,which given the short-term nature of visits, has the potential to give rise to indiscriminate parking directly outside the premises.

“It has not been shown where delivery vehicles would park while orders are being collected, however taking account of the restricted parking in the vicinity of the appeal site, delivery drivers would also be likely to park in this way.

“This indiscriminate parking would take place in an area with a high probability of pedestrian and vehicle conflict with customers accessing the premises on foot, pedestrians making use of the footway and cars approaching the junction at a time when they will be concentrating on which lane they require.

“Furthermore, at times, there would also be vehicles, potentially including vans, at the premises for servicing purposes.

“The nature and scale of vehicle trips, parking and servicing arrangements associated with any existing open commercial use at the site have not been set out in evidence and is not something I can comment on further.

“Overall, the proposal would increase the potential for indiscriminate parking directly in front of the premises.

“Given the highway controls in the area, this is likely to compromise the free flow of traffic and cause an unacceptable conflict between vehicles and pedestrians.”

While acknowledging that the proposal would “support a local business and bring a vacant unit back into use”, the planning inspector said that the “adverse impacts of granting planning permission would outweigh the benefits.”

For more information on the planning application, visit South Tyneside Council’s planning portal website and search reference: ST/0568/24/FUL