Jarrow's Tino's Café can expand takeaway service despite fears over childhood obesity, smells and noise
and on Freeview 262 or Freely 565
The decision from the national Planning Inspectorate in January, 2025, is linked to previously refused plans for Tino’s Café, which sits off Calf Close Lane in the Fellgate and Hedworth ward.
South Tyneside Council’s Planning Committee, at a meeting on May 20, 2024, voted to reject a planning application for the Jarrow site, a decision backed by a majority of councillors on the panel.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide Ad

The plans included a bid to change the use of the site from a ‘lawful café/restaurant with ancillary takeaway use’ to a ‘mixed use of restaurant/café with hot food takeaway’ but council planners wanted the bid rejected over high year six obesity figures. Latest figures showed as many as one in four were considered to be “very overweight”, according to the inspector.
Council planners clarified that restaurant/cafés (under a ‘Class E’ planning use) can offer an element of takeaway as long as food and drink is consumed “mostly on the premises”.
According to a report published by council planning officers last year, Tino’s Café made the planning application as it wanted to “allow a more even split of approximately 50/50 between eat-in and takeaway sales or a higher level of takeaway sales above 50 per cent of the total turnover”.
During a council consultation exercise on the plans, there were 16 letters of objection and 34 representations in support.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdCouncillors were told concerns included impacts on residential amenity and increased odour and litter, as well as the impact of deliveries and concerns about health impacts and childhood obesity.
The plans also saw an objection from South Tyneside Council’s public health department due to concerns about childhood obesity figures in the Fellgate and Hedworth ward.
Council planning officers confirmed that the business was operating within its current lawful use but was looking to extend the amount of hot food takeaway it offered from the site.
South Tyneside Council’s planning department ultimately recommended the application for refusal as year six obesity figures “significantly exceeded the 10 per cent threshold” set out in local planning guidance around “hot food takeaways and health”.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdCouncil planners argued that the “proposed mixed use, by virtue of allowing for a greater level of hot food takeaway sales from the premises over and above what would be permitted […] would be harmful to health and well-being, and related strategies to tackle unhealthy lifestyles and obesity”.
An appeal was later lodged against South Tyneside Council’s decision to refuse the plans, and a planning inspector was appointed by the Secretary of State to rule on the matter.
It has since been confirmed that the planning inspector has allowed the appeal, meaning planning permission is granted and the development can move forward.
The reasoning for the decision is set out in a report which was published on the Planning Inspectorate’s website on January 23, 2025.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdThe planning inspector acknowledged the council relied on its “hot food takeaways and health” supplementary planning document (SPD) to refuse the plan and that this had “some weight in the determination of the appeal”.
However, the planning inspector said the SPD did not have the same weight as an adopted council local plan policy and instead represented “guidance and advice rather than actually providing additional policies upon which planning applications can be refused”.
The planning inspector’s report said: “In coming to my decision, I have had full regard to the conflict of the proposal with HFT1 of the SPD, and this carries some weight in the determination of the appeal.
“However, the absence of conflict with any identified development plan policy, the location and the existing use of the appeal premises as a restaurant/café leads me to conclude that the appeal should be allowed subject to the conditions set out in the attached schedule.”
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdThe planning inspector noted that the development was within the Fellgate and Hedworth ward where the “most recent data shows that 24.7 per cent of children in school year six are considered to be very overweight”.
However, it was argued that “many factors are likely to have a bearing on obesity levels, and the link between this and the existing provision of hot food takeaways in the borough has not been convincingly demonstrated given the rise in obesity levels in the borough since the SPD was adopted.”
The planning inspector’s report added: “Based on the evidence presented to me, I am not convinced that the proposal to increase takeaway sales from an already existing fast-food premises would compound existing problems, encourage unhealthy eating or that it would be directly attributable to any material decline in the health of local residents, particularly children.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide Ad“The appeal premises is not close to either a primary or secondary school.
“Children travelling to and from primary schools are likely to be under the supervision of an adult and it would be expected that parents or guardians would have a child’s health in mind when selecting their food options.
“Children of a secondary school age are more likely to be unaccompanied at lunchtimes and after school.
“However, the considerable distance of the appeal premises from the nearest secondary school means that it is unlikely to be an attractive option for lunch and post-school visits compared to existing shops and services which are closer by and more accessible for students.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide Ad“As such there would be no conflict with paragraph 97 of the framework as it is not within walking distance of a school, and I have not been made aware that it is close to another place where young people congregate. It is also not within a concentration of similar premises which is contributing towards an adverse impact on local health.
“I nevertheless acknowledge that the appeal site is within a residential area where young people are likely to live.
“However, I am also mindful that the premises already has permission to operate as a restaurant/café where an element of the sales are for takeaway consumption and the food served is the same whether eaten on the premises or purchased as a takeaway.
“The proposal would, however, allow an increased proportion of sales from the premises to be for takeaway consumption.”
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdThe planning inspector also said there was “no compelling evidence that the proposal […] would give rise to additional odour, noise, cause antisocial behaviour or lead to indiscriminate parking in the area to such an extent that would warrant dismissal of the appeal.”
Dr Anton Lang, the planning agent for the successful Tino’s Café appeal, welcomed the planning inspector’s ruling.
The planning consultant added: “I’m very happy that the planning inspector took on board the cogent arguments presented in the appeal statement, which helped garner a positive and pragmatic planning decision which will assist a small independent business, create economic activity and jobs, and help serve the local community; many of whom supported the proposals at Planning Committee and at appeal.”
For more information on the planning application and appeal decision, visit South Tyneside Council’s planning portal website and search reference: ST/0729/23/FUL
Comment Guidelines
National World encourages reader discussion on our stories. User feedback, insights and back-and-forth exchanges add a rich layer of context to reporting. Please review our Community Guidelines before commenting.